EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 144
CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 28, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIZ WARDEN
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FARMERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL SLEEP AWARENESS WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RADIO NORD
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMONWEALTH JEWISH COUNCIL AND TRUST AWARD
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEW INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WILNO, ONTARIO
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1405
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE NISGA'A LAND CLAIM AGREEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEDICARE
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JOURNÉES QUÉBÉCOISES DE LA SOLIDARITÉ INTERNATIONALE
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1410
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DIABETES RESEARCH
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC SHEEP INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN STEEL, CHINESE GRIT
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1415
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1430
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1435
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HARMONIZATION OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENIUM SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCRAPIE
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1445
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1450
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL POLICIES
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1455
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE BREAKING IN PORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1500
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice and Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1510
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-450. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-451. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1515
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abortion
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Watercraft
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Unity
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Kosovo
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Pension Plan
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1520
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Cruelty to Animals
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abortion
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1525
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-57. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
1530
1535
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1550
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1605
1610
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1635
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1640
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1645
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
1650
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1705
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1710
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1725
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1730
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAX ON FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1735
1740
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1815
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1820
![V](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1825
1830
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 144
![](/web/20061116191113im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October 28, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
LIZ WARDEN
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to stand in this House today to congratulate Liz
Warden who swam a personal best and won a silver medal in the 400
metre individual medley at the 16th Commonwealth Games in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, in September.
As originally a member of the Scarborough swim club and
presently with the University of Toronto, Liz represented Canada
with pride and accomplished a great feat.
She is now training to go to the World Cup in Edmonton on
November 28 as a member of the Canadian swim team. Liz was
telling my daughter and I that she practices six hours a day.
I congratulate Liz. She is a role model for what dedication,
hard work and perseverance can achieve. Canada is proud of her.
I wish her luck in her next event.
* * *
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, many
farmers across this country, especially in western Canada, are
facing an income crisis. This is through no fault of their own.
The Asian economic situation is part of the cause, but government
inaction, unreasonable user fees and tax increases over the past
five years are the unforgivable causes.
Unreasonable fees have been charged through so-called cost
recovery programs. Tax increases on fuel and other inputs have
squeezed farmers too hard.
Farmers do not want handouts. All they want is fair treatment.
That is why back in the 1993 election campaign and during
discussion on the elimination of the Crow subsidy Reform MPs
called for the government to put at least part of the value of
the Crow into its trade distribution adjustment program. This
fund would, as I speak, be paying money to farmers to help
compensate for low prices caused by unfair trade practices in
other countries.
But did this government listen? No. This government abandoned
Canadian farmers. Now what is this government going to do?
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL SLEEP AWARENESS WEEK
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the week of
October 19 to 25 has been designated National Sleep Awareness
Week.
[English]
This week, which coincides with the changing of the clocks,
reminds us how important sleep is to our everyday lives. Over
two million Canadians suffer from sleep disorders such as
insomnia and sleep apnea during which breathing actually stops.
Sleep disorders affect the quality of life by decreasing
alertness and performance.
Sleep/Wake Disorders Canada, a national voluntary health
organization with chapters across the country, recruits and
trains volunteer leaders who help people suffering from sleep
disorders to improve the quality of their lives.
Please join me in supporting the work of Sleep/Wake Disorders
Canada and in wishing them a successful national sleep awareness
week.
I would also like to take this opportunity to inform the House
that today my granddaughters and my grandson, Findlay, Tillie and
Max—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
* * *
[Translation]
RADIO NORD
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Radio Nord has asked the federal labour minister to give
mediator Jacques Lessard the power to decide the 85 employees'
future terms and conditions of employment. What Radio Nord is
asking for represents an abuse of power. The minister is not
authorized under the Canada Labour Code to impose terms and
conditions of employment on the employees of Radio Nord.
In fact, according to the union, it is contrary to the spirit of
the code, because section 107 provides at most that the minister
may do such things as to him seem likely to maintain or secure
industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to the
settlement of industrial differences.
Radio Nord is basically asking that the right to free collective
bargaining and, where legitimate, to go on strike to advance
their demands be taken away from the employees. In addition, the
employer abolished a dozen or so positions during the
conciliation process.
The union believes that a negotiated solution is the preferred
option for the employees and for the people of
Abitibi-Témiscamingue, who complain about the fact that Radio
Nord has been cutting back services for several years.
* * *
[English]
COMMONWEALTH JEWISH COUNCIL AND TRUST AWARD
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to pay tribute to this year's recipient of the Commonwealth
Jewish Council and Trust Award.
He is one of the finest public servants this country has ever
known. For over 30 years before and after his election to
parliament he has consistently been a champion of justice, an
advocate of fairness, a visionary and a compassionate friend of
the people.
The Commonwealth Jewish Council and Trust Award is given to
those who have gone beyond the call of duty to help their fellow
human beings and whose contribution has been truly outstanding.
Other Canadians who have received the awards are Judge Maxwell
Cohen and Mrs. Dorothy Reitman.
I join all my colleagues and all Canadians in congratulating our
Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. member for Windsor West, on this
latest addition to his many achievements.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week Judge Tom Goodson, an aboriginal member of the provincial
court of Alberta, was appointed to conduct a fatality inquiry
into the shooting of Connie and Ty Jacobs.
I hope that Judge Goodson will follow in the footsteps of Judge
Reilly and investigate this case as broadly as possible. He
would be doing all aboriginals a great service if he were to
investigate the social conditions, accountability of band leaders
and financial mismanagement on this reserve.
I would hope he would consider looking into why Connie was
living in a condemned house and why there is a chronic housing
shortage on a reserve that received over $20 million last year,
or why these people in August took over deserted army barracks on
the reserve in the hope of better housing.
Why do these people continue to live in poverty and ill health,
plagued by violence and unemployment despite the billions of
dollars of public money reserves receive each year?
This inquiry cannot assign blame, but Judge Goodson can make
many recommendations on how to prevent such an incident from
happening again and subsequently change the quality of life for
all aboriginals across Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
NEW INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday, the Canadian government announced $10.5 million in
comprehensive financial assistance to implement approximately 20
projects related to new information technologies and new media
in the greater Montreal area.
A first financial contribution was made to Behaviour
Communications Inc. This $9 million contribution will generate
investments totaling $30 million and the creation of 200 new
jobs.
Eighteen businesses sponsored by the multimedia consortium CESAM
were granted $1.5 million out of the multimedia experimentation
fund.
This government support is provided as seed money for new
businesses.
It goes without saying that governments and their private sector
partners must work together to create conditions conducive to
attracting highly skilled labour to Montreal and curbing the
drain of talents and skilled resources.
The Canadian government encourages Quebec initiatives and
ensures that our businesses can assume their rightful place.
* * *
[English]
WILNO, ONTARIO
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if hon. members don't know, they and all of Canada
will know about Wilno when they watch On The Road Again
tonight on CBC television.
1405
Host Wayne Rostad visited Wilno, the oldest Polish settlement in
Canada, which is yet another incredible attraction in the great
riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
Mr. Rostad said “I have been aware of a very special quality
that this region holds for people. There is a real spirit of
neighbourliness. There is a sense of community. There is magic
in the hills of Wilno.”
Mr. Rostad visited the famous Wilno Tavern on Tuesday blues
night where he met many of the local musicians, artists and
colourful characters who make Wilno and area such an incredibly
diverse community. One of those artists is marionette maker Alex
Sztasko whose lifelike puppets reflect the character of this
region.
Mr. Rostad added: “Alex is a person who is perfect for our
show because we bring Canadians to Canadians.”
Now, Mr. Speaker, you know about Wilno.
* * *
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October is child abuse prevention month.
In 1997, children's aid societies in Ontario conducted 96,039
investigations into suspected cases of child abuse and neglect.
This includes 634 cases investigated by the Children's Aid
Society of the Region of Peel. It is one of a number of child
welfare agencies holding purple ribbon campaigns in October to
educate, advocate and generally raise awareness about child
abuse. Up to 12,000 ribbons will be distributed in the Peel
region.
While child abuse prevention month and the purple ribbon
campaign end this Saturday, I wish to remind Canadians that every
person who has reason to suspect that a child is being abused or
may have suffered from abuse must report that suspicion to a
Children's Aid Society.
* * *
THE NISGA'A LAND CLAIM AGREEMENT
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on August 4
the Liberal government initialled the Nisga'a Land Claim
Agreement with much fanfare and hype.
The provincial NDP government, also a signatory to the
agreement, is now spending millions of taxpayers' dollars in a
paid campaign reminiscent of the Charlottetown accord.
Once again all of the talking heads who told us why
Charlottetown was the only hope for Canada are trotted out to
tell us why we must have the Nisga'a agreement.
The parallels are striking. An agreement is crafted behind
closed doors by an elite group of politicians and intellectuals.
The public is told in no uncertain terms that the agreement
cannot be changed and must be accepted to save the country. The
intelligentsia lauds the agreement in glowing terms without
hesitation or reservation and those who express concern or
opposition are labelled the “enemies of Canada” in the case of
the Charlottetown accord or the “forces of darkness” in the
case of the Nisga'a agreement.
These are all clear indications of governments which are morally
adrift, intellectually bankrupt and distrusting of their public.
When governments make major changes to the social contract they
must never do so—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
* * *
MEDICARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
tonight the Canadian Medical Association will induct Tommy
Douglas into its hall of fame. Tommy would be pleased to see how
much things have changed since the doctors' strike in
Saskatchewan, how the medical community itself appreciates the
virtues of publicly funded health insurance and how they are,
along with others, trying to save it from death by underfunding.
But Tommy would also want us to note that medicare still has its
enemies, both seen and unseen: seen in the form of the Reform
Party which openly advocates an American two-tier system, and
unseen, or at least hiding, in the form of the federal Liberal
government which has knowingly created the conditions that may
allow the enemies of medicare to succeed.
Tommy's warning in his final years about medicare was “Don't
let them take it away.” The NDP urges all Canadians to heed his
warning and keep an eye on the Reformers and the Liberals.
* * *
[Translation]
JOURNÉES QUÉBÉCOISES DE LA SOLIDARITÉ INTERNATIONALE
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
celebrating this week the Journées québécoises de la solidarité
internationale.
This is an opportunity to reiterate our commitment to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Everyone in Montreal,
Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City and in the Outaouais,
Abitibi, Lanaudière, Bois-Francs and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean regions
is invited to take part in the numerous activities organized in
co-operation with the Quebec Ministry of International Relations,
to discover the Quebec way of showing solidarity with the rest
of the world.
For example, the Quebec government provided financial assistance
to the victims of a hurricane in the Dominican Republic and, on
November 20, a collective mural on human rights will be unveiled
in the national assembly.
1410
The reason Quebeckers are increasingly involved on the
international scene is not only to assert their identity, but
also to show their solidarity towards the other nations of the
world.
* * *
[English]
DIABETES RESEARCH
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
Ayden Byle arrived today on Parliament Hill he was greeted by
supporters for his gruelling efforts to run across Canada to
raise funds by way of sponsorship and public donations for
research into a cure for diabetes.
Ayden started his journey on June 1 in Stanley Park and will be
ending his trek this December 1 in Halifax. Although Ayden has
been an active athlete throughout his life, at 24 he is insulin
dependent and requires five injections a day.
He hopes his run will generate a greater public awareness of
diabetes and truly wishes to become a recognized role model for
young children struggling with the physical and psychological
aspects of this disease.
I encourage all my hon. colleagues to join me in wishing Ayden
our best wishes for his success on his journey across Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC SHEEP INDUSTRY
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the sheep
producers are on Parliament Hill.
They are demonstrating against the arrogant attitude of the
Liberal government, which has only mediocre solutions to offer.
While the Minister of Agriculture claims to be concerned about
the financial and emotional burden of producers, his government
limits its support to a compensatory measure penalizing all the
sheep producers who complied from the start with the orders from
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Today, the producers are demonstrating outside the House of
Commons to send a cry for help, to ask the government to save
the Quebec sheep industry.
The Minister of Agriculture is very clearly showing that he is
completely out of touch with the dramatic situation experienced
by our sheep producers.
The problem for Quebec sheep producers is not scrapie, but the
slaughter ordered by the federal government, with no real basis
to justify that decision.
* * *
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
two years ago Canada Post proposed that every resident living in
rural New Brunswick change their address. They argued that
general delivery had to go and what everyone needed was a unique
number and street address.
They sold this idea by promising that the province would
implement a 911 emergency system in rural areas, so everyone
agreed.
Now two years later we are learning the truth. This new
addressing is being paid for by Canada Post customers. Canada
Post is telling its customers that if they want to receive mail
they must first pay a $34 change of address fee. Businesses and
non-profit organizations such as the Volunteer Family Services
Food Bank must pay an exorbitant $150 fee because Canada Post
unilaterally changed their address.
This is outrageous. It is also wrong to ask seniors on a fixed
income to pay this fee.
I call on the minister to extend the waiver period on these fees
until rural customers have time to notify everyone of their new
address.
* * *
CANADIAN STEEL, CHINESE GRIT
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to announce the parliamentary premier of the
film Canadian Steel, Chinese Grit on November 4. The
documentary is a China-Canada joint production recognizing the
role of Chinese workers in building the CPR.
The film reveals the lives of those courageous Chinese pioneers.
It shows that their contribution to Canadian political and
economic development has left a legacy that deserves a special
place in Canadian history.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, an agricultural economic crisis is sweeping the
prairies, but this lawyer-infested government is oblivious to it.
The United States and the European Union value and protect their
farmers, but the Canadian agriculture minister has yet to
acknowledge the existence of a crisis here. So far his only
strategy to save producers from bankruptcy is to point to NISA,
even though the average NISA account would not even pay for a
farmer's fertilizer and chemical bills, let alone fuel, taxes,
freight and so on.
1415
I urge the minister to take his head out of the sand and listen
carefully on November 4 when he meets with farm leaders and his
provincial counterparts. I am sure he will get an earful.
Perhaps then he will be persuaded to take the farm crisis
seriously.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, section 66 of the Employment Insurance Act safeguards
moneys paid by workers and employers into the fund. It is to be
used to make insurance payments to unemployed persons and for no
other purpose. Despite this law the Prime Minister wants to grab
the surplus from this fund and spend it on other things.
Does the Prime Minister intend to break the law, or does he
intend to change the law to permit him to raid the employment
insurance fund?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I understand correctly, yesterday the Minister of
Finance quoted the program of the Reform Party which was
advocating that we should use the surplus of the EI fund to
reduce the debt. It is not what we have done.
Every year since we have been in government we have reduced the
premium, which was supposed to be $3.30 on January 1, 1994. We
have reduced it to $2.70 in the last budget.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister quoted from a 1995 document when
the deficit was $38 billion. I remind the Prime Minister this is
1998.
The average worker is paying $350 too much per year into the
insurance fund. The average small business is paying $500 per
worker too much into the fund, but any surplus still belongs to
the people who paid it.
Will the Prime Minister come clean and make his position clear?
Does he acknowledge that these funds belong to the workers and
the employers? Yes or no.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1995 when the Reform Party was asking us to use the
surplus to reduce the debt we were using the surplus to reduce
premiums.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister claimed the other day he wanted an
open debate on this issue, but he has failed to bring an
amendment before the House for debate to change the EI fund.
Instead he is sending his finance minister to meet with the
employment insurance commission to try to change the rules behind
closed doors.
Will the Prime Minister commit to a debate and a vote in the
House on an amendment to the Employment Insurance Act, or will he
try to change it behind closed doors through regulations and
orders in council?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everybody should know that to change the law we have to
come to the House of Commons. If we decide to change the law, we
cannot change the law by the back door; we have to come to the
House of Commons. I learned that in April 1963 when I became a
member of parliament.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1963 he did not have the APEC problem either. This on his
fingers right now.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, it is evident now that
the solicitor general, the chairman of the commission and the
RCMP are all saying that they think the RCMP may have gone too
far in APEC. Who will decide if the Prime Minister went too far?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was a very good situation in 1963. We did not have
the Reform Party in Canada.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: We have learned too that when
there is an inquiry under a law of parliament we let the inquiry
do its job. The inquiry will look at all aspects.
I am not worried at all, but I am worried about the opposition
being so inept in opposing the government.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
guess it takes inept to know inept.
This commission is not even operating right now and the Prime
Minister knows that. Even if it is called back into procedure,
the government and the Prime Minister know that they only have
the option of checking into behaviour and actions of the RCMP and
not of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister knows that it will not subpoena him or the
documents that his people are deliberately hiding. When will we
get a full judicial inquiry into this matter?
The Speaker: We are impugning motive. I would like hon.
member to withdraw the word deliberately.
Miss Deborah Grey: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I will
withdraw that word.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everybody knows that at that time my task was to chair a
meeting of 17 leaders of the world, the President of the United
States, the President of China, the Prime Minister of Japan and
so on, and that it was in the midst of a financial crisis in the
Pacific area.
At that time I did not have time to discuss anything with the
police. Anybody with common sense would know that.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister told us he was prepared to consider
changes to the Constitution if the Quebec government behaved and
if all provinces reached a consensus.
There are examples of strong consensus that we can give this
consensus-seeking gentleman: in Saskatoon, last summer, all the
premiers agreed that there should be a provision to opt out of
any new federal program with full compensation.
Since there is consensus on the social union, what is the Prime
Minister waiting for to take action?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the discussions now being held on this topic are the result of
an initiative I myself took at the first ministers' meeting last
December, together with the premier of Saskatchewan.
We said that everyone had to work together to develop a social
union program in Canada that would respect everyone's
jurisdictions. We received the provincial governments'
proposals a few months ago and the Minister of Justice, who is
leading the negotiations, met with her colleagues a few weeks
ago.
We are not responding to a request on which all provinces agree.
It was an initiative—
The Speaker: The Leader of the Bloc Quebecois has the floor.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
unfortunate that you cut the Prime Minister off because what he
actually told the premiers was that, if they wanted to run
Canada, all they had to do was get themselves elected Prime
Minister. Such arrogance!
After statements such as this, how can we believe that the Prime
Minister wants to sort anything out? Why does he bother to
string people along before referendums are held, if all he
intends to do later is sit back and do the exact opposite? That
is what he has always done.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today the Premier of Quebec decided to call an election and I
can see that it is making the Bloc Quebecois very nervous.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister says he needs a consensus to act.
In Saskatoon, the premiers agreed that the federal government
should refund the $6.3 billion in cuts to the social transfers.
My question is for the Prime Minister. If he is serious, why
does he not act?
1425
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in order to eliminate the $42 billion deficit,
Canadians had to make sacrifices, and the government watched to
make sure these sacrifices were fair.
For example, we did not touch the equalization payments. George
Matthews, an economist who has worked very closely with the
Bloc, has calculated that an additional $4.5 billion still goes
into the Quebec government's coffers year in and year out. This
is what Canadian solidarity is all about.
* * *
HEALTH
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister says he needs a consensus before he will take action.
All of Canada is asking him to take a portion of the budget
surpluses and return it to the provinces for use in the health
sector, because that is the priority everywhere.
If he is serious, why is he doing nothing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the day before yesterday in Toronto I gave a speech in which I
again repeated that the government's priority in the next budget
would be the health sector.
Obviously, however, the Bloc Quebecois is not interested in the
real world. But, if any major consensus has come out of Quebec
in the last two referendums, it is that Quebeckers want to
remain in Canada.
* * *
[English]
POVERTY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at a
conference this morning the human resources minister told a story
about a panhandler reluctant to accept money from a young father
in case his child needed the money tomorrow. Pitting the needs
of a desperate, poor man against the needs of children is moral
bankruptcy. That is precisely what the minister's story
illustrates.
Can the minister not understand that this approach will never
solve the problem of growing poverty in the country?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the leader of the
NDP was wrongly briefed about an anecdote I used this morning at
a very important conference on children.
I was expressing that in Canada and in the government Canadians
want their children to come first. Indeed an assistant of mine
rolled a stroller by a hotel and a panhandler seeing the child
said “I don't want that money because it would be better used on
the child”.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 500,000
more children have been driven into poverty by the government and
this minister is proud of that record.
The Liberals' child tax benefit program excludes many of the
poorest children in the country. He knows that because he
designed it that way.
What would it take to persuade the minister to fix the program
so that all poor children benefit?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the national child tax
benefit, in which the government will invest $1.7 billion every
year as of next year, was designed by this government and the
governments of the provinces including the two NDP governments of
the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan.
This national child tax benefit will help parents to get off
welfare and go out into the labour market without penalizing
their children, which is the problem now in Canada. That is how
we can help children.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker,
apparently the RCMP recommended that charges be laid against 11
officers with respect to their actions against protesters at last
year's APEC summit.
If the RCMP felt that charges should be laid against their
officers, who instructed the crown not to proceed? If the crown
can instruct charges to be laid when accusations are groundless
like Airbus, why were charges not laid here?
The plot thickens. Will the solicitor general tell us what he
is going to do?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the decision as to whether to lay charges was a decision
of the attorney general's department of British Columbia.
1430
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, there is evidence of political interference at the
highest levels of this government. First Airbus, then Somalia,
and now APEC. To what ends will this government go to prevent the
truth from coming out?
Canadians want a government that is honest and accountable, not
a Prime Minister obsessed with getting his own way to protect his
partisan interests.
I ask the Prime Minister to display courage and integrity and
stop this charade. Will he put the APEC affair into the hands of
an independent judicial inquiry or is he afraid of what might be
uncovered?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, parliament has already decided how Canadians should deal
with complaints against the RCMP. It is the public complaints
commission. It was established in 1988. It has a good record.
It is internationally respected and it is on the job now. It is
master of its own proceedings. This government respects this
parliament's decision to establish that commission.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he needs a consensus
to act.
There was a national consensus on employment insurance. All the
provinces, all the opposition parties, everyone is asking him
not to touch the employment insurance surplus.
If he is serious, why does he not act?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government's attitude toward
this country's public finances has always been extremely
responsible.
We have also behaved responsibly with the employment insurance
fund, managing it a little more interestingly than was done
before we took office.
We have a surplus, where the employment insurance fund used to
have a deficit. The opposition should rise and congratulate us
for this surplus, which stabilizes our finances.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister says that a consensus must be achieved before he can
act.
Everyone in Canada is asking him to lower EI premiums and to use
the EI surpluses to improve protection for the unemployed.
If he is serious about this, why is he not acting?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we took office, the EI rate
was going up to $3.30. We have lowered it every year since. Just
last year, we lowered it another 20 cents, to $2.70. This goes
to show that we are committed to a steady reduction, which is an
excellent thing.
In addition, we have developed, for those who were not covered
by the employment insurance system, a youth employment strategy
designed to help young people enter the labour market.
We have put $300 million into the transitional jobs fund while
reducing—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Skeena.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, many
grassroots aboriginals on reserve are demanding forensic audits
as tens of millions of dollars in band funds have gone
unaccounted for.
According to information obtained under access to information by
the Reform Party, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development refuses to conduct investigations unless it is
requested to by the band's leadership. This is a ridiculous
conflict of interest.
Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
acknowledge that it is preposterous to believe that any chief or
council would ever ask to have themselves investigated?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my view what the hon.
member is clarifying is the relationship that the Reform Party
would build with First Nations in this country if it had a
chance. What the Reform Party would do is make sure it took $1
billion out of services and programs that go directly to First
Nations. The Reform Party would ensure that the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development used nothing but policing
mechanisms like forensic audits.
We have learned that we have to go beyond that controlling
relationship and build a partnership with First Nations.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
quote from these access to information documents: “Forensic
audits are extremely expensive and time consuming, and a request
from a few upset band members would not be enough to warrant
one”.
1435
Surely an urban Liberal like the minister of Indian affairs can
understand that people who are freezing and starving in tarpaper
shacks are not—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Skeena.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister can
understand that people who are freezing and starving in tarpaper
shacks are not being frivolous when they ask for these forensic
audits.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify that I am a
farm girl. Like all farmers and indeed all Canadians, we
understand that in order to be effective all governments must be
accountable and transparent. The First Nations understand that
as well.
That is why in partnership with this government we are working
on a program to review the management practices of every First
Nation in Canada. We are doing that at the local level. At the
regional level, chiefs like the chiefs of Alberta are coming
together to set minimum standards for accountability practices in
their work with their communities. At the national level—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find
the minister's answers to be ridiculous. I have been visiting
the reserves in my riding and in Alberta for five years. People
are living in old broken down buses. They are sitting on apple
crates. Nothing is happening because this minister refuses to
talk to the people. When will she talk to the grassroots, find
out what the problems are and come up with some solutions?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member is
visiting First Nations communities. With that experience maybe
he can talk to his leader and his party and explain to them why
cutting $1 billion out of the programs and services, which
include houses and schools, to First Nations would be absolutely
ridiculous.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you
bet I would cut $1 billion and it would come from the minister's
bureaucracy—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, after we saved the $1
billion by getting rid of the bureaucracy, we would give it to
the people who need it the most.
Jerry Fontaine is the chief of the Sagkeeng reserve. His
reserve is $11 million in debt. It has ordered a $12 million
school although it does not have any money. It spends over half
a million dollars a year on wages for chiefs and council. Why
does this minister not order a forensic audit for that reserve?
It deserves it.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let us be clear that
90% of funding that comes through my department goes to First
Nations for programs and services. Beyond that let us understand
what the Reform Party is saying. It wants to cut money, it wants
forensic audits, it wants to pit members in one community against
each other. I will have none of it, none of it.
* * *
[Translation]
HARMONIZATION OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister says he needs a consensus before he will budge.
In St. Andrew's, all the premiers asked him to review his GST
harmonization program, which unjustly deprives Quebec of
$2 billion in compensation. Even Jean Charest thinks that Quebec
was had.
If the Prime Minister is serious, why does he refuse to budge?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
circumstances such as those described, the government provides
compensation when there has been a loss. In Quebec's case,
there was no loss. We compensated the provinces that suffered
losses, but if there was no loss, there was no compensation.
* * *
1440
MILLENIUM SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister said a consensus had to be achieved before he could
act. In Quebec, there is a strong consensus against the
millennium scholarships. Quebec wants to be able to opt out with
full compensation.
If the Prime Minister is serous, what is he waiting for to act?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the broadest consensus in Quebec is about not having
another referendum.
On May 14, 1998, the national assembly unanimously passed a
motion proposing an approach, and the Prime Minister has
responded to premier Bouchard, saying that the foundation has
every flexibility and power necessary to enter into specific
agreements with the Government of Quebec, and this, in the
spirit of the May 14 motion, which the premier's government
itself approved. That is what the consensus is about.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have had reports of children living in poverty, reports of band
accounting irregularities and reports of band leaders living
jet-set lifestyles. We have been calling for forensic audits on
reserves from the start.
I want to quote what one person from the Waterhen reserve in
Saskatchewan said: “We will not ignore this continued problem
in mismanagement at the expense of our children and for our
future generations”. It is over a year since those words were
said.
When will the minister quit ignoring the problem, take the
matter seriously and announce a forensic audit?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take the challenges facing
aboriginal people in Canada very, very seriously.
I can say that the solutions being recommended by the opposition
will not work. They are the solutions we have been trying to
apply for the last 100 years and we still have real challenges.
Rather, this government understands that if we are going to
build sustainable solutions that will make the lives of
aboriginal people in Canada better, we have to do it together. We
have to do it with a planned approach. We have to change the
relationship we have had in the past by building human capacity
and develop our communities as entities in and of themselves.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have seen nothing but problems on this minister's watch. We are
calling for a forensic audit of all of this. On the Waterhen
reserve in Saskatchewan they have uncovered accounting
irregularities that date over a year and there has not even been
a response.
When will the minister look at her partnership with the
leadership and develop a partnership with the people, the rank
and file natives who are asking for a forensic audit?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me give an example of
how this partnership is working.
They have called for a forensic audit which we know will not
help in the sustainable development—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. minister of Indian affairs.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, if we look at the Sahtu
First Nation for example, there are real challenges there. What
has happened is the chief and council are working with their
community members. They have established a commission of inquiry
that has made reports to the chief and council—not by the chief
and council—with a number of recommendations that are now being
worked on by the grassroots aboriginal people and their leaders
to make sustainable development changes for that community.
* * *
[Translation]
SCRAPIE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
of agriculture has just established a program recognizing that
sheep producers struggling with scrapie could lose $600 a head.
Now that the minister recognizes the amount of the loss, why is
he not being fair with all producers by permitting compensation
to be retroactive, which is possible under an ad hoc program, as
he did for the western grain producers in crisis.
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I pointed out to the hon. member before
that retroactivity is illegal according to Canadian law. We do
not wish to participate in that for that very reason.
1445
What we have done is pay $2 million over the last two or three
years to sheep producers who have been unfortunately affected.
We doubled the cap for animals yesterday for compensation.
I remind the hon. member again that the retroactivity is illegal
under the existing law. We are also putting $1 million into
animal identification in Canada. We are putting close to
$400,000 into research to work on the disease that is affecting
sheep in Canada.
The Farm Credit Corporation has put a 24 month loan deferral
program in place. In the last three or four years we have given
over $200 million to the province of Quebec on an equitable basis
to assist its farmers in unfortunate farm income situations like
this.
* * *
NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The National Arts Centre is a very important Canadian cultural
institution. In light of the recent changes at the National Arts
Centre, could the minister tell the House how she intends to
ensure the continued success of the NAC?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and members opposite who
have raised questions about the recent changes at the NAC.
I underscore how much the National Arts Centre is important not
only for the Hull-Ottawa region but also as a cultural centre for
the whole of Canada. I am confident that if we respect the arm's
length autonomy of the board and we respect the principle that
the government should not be manipulating behind the scenes we
will see the resurgence of the National Arts Centre as a centre
where all Canadians can see our culture on Canada and the world
stage.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we need
to stop interrupting question period for these Liberal
commercials.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, all questions in this House
have equal value. The hon. member for Lethbridge.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I will get right to my
question. It has been almost a year since this government came
back from Kyoto with its climate change position. We have a week
to go to Buenos Aires and the minister claims to be ready.
However, the commissioner for the environment says different. He
says that Canadians have not seen a written agreement with other
levels of government. They have not seen an implementation plan
and they have seen very little leadership from this government on
this issue. So why go to Buenos Aires? Where is the plan or is
just another holiday in the sun?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is acting with all
partners across this country, the provinces and the territories.
The Minister of Natural Resources and I met with our energy and
environment counterparts in Halifax a couple of weeks ago. We are
working together with 450 experts across the country to put in
place an implementation strategy. At the same time we announced
in Halifax new measures to engage the public at the grassroots
level because we know Canadians are concerned about this issue
and they want to set their own targets for reductions of
greenhouse gases so that we as a nation can meet our target.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what my colleague asked was what is the plan going to Buenos
Aires. Next week 160 countries are meeting to go over the Kyoto
protocol at the negotiating table.
However, according to foreign affairs and environment Canada
officials testifying before committee, Canada does not have a
plan. We still do not have a plan.
1450
We are going to negotiations next week. Will the minister state
now what is Canada's plan going to those negotiations in Buenos
Aires next week?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year in Kyoto Canada set a very
important target for itself along with other members of the
developed world.
When we go to Buenos Aires next week we will be discussing how
we can put in place a plan of action internationally. We want to
make sure we have an internationally acceptable definition for
emissions trading, clean development mechanism, joint
implementation and sinks. We are going to work very actively in
showing leadership in getting consensus on these timetables.
* * *
SOCIAL POLICIES
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Last week it was reported the number of middle class Canadians
has dropped by 16% in the last two decades. The wealthiest 10%
of families now make 314 times more than the poorest 10%. This
is not a surprise.
Since taking office this government has cut social programs,
broken its promise on child care and gutted unemployment
insurance.
When will this government stop pursuing policies that continue
to widen the gap between the rich and the poor?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the figures on the widening gap between the rich and the
poor are obviously a concern in every industrial country.
Canada suffered a very deep and profound recession in the period
1989 to 1992 which certainly traumatized a series of Canadian
families. That is what we are in the process of seeing. That is
why when this government took office not only did it proceed to
eliminate the deficit but it brought in the national child tax
benefit and put another $1.8 billion into it.
That is why we put a series of measures into helping mothers go
back to school. That is why we put in a series of measures
helping the working poor. It is why we dealt with education. It
is in fact—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dartmouth.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do not
think the minister understands the gravity of the situation.
Children are sleeping in overcrowded shelters, on hot air grates
and in abandoned cars and it is starting to get cold. Today the
city of Toronto passed a motion by a vote of 53 to 1 calling on
the federal government to declare homelessness a national
disaster.
Will the federal government take emergency action and use its
resources now and open armouries and surplus office space to give
shelter to the 200,000 homeless across Canada before winter sets
in?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1997 for the first time in over 15 years the standard
of living of Canadians began to increase. For the previous 15
years it had been decreasing.
That is a very important. It is only by an increasing standard
of living, by putting more Canadians back to work, over a million
since we took office, it is only by giving Canadians skills, only
by understanding that the purpose of government is not simply to
help the rich, which the Reform Party would focus on, but the
least fortunate, that we will be able to deal with our very real
and serious problems.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
agriculture is in crisis.
Producers are selling at a loss. Income is down 55%. This is a
$20 billion industry and the minister is fiddling while farmers
are going down in flames.
The U.S. just announced an additional $6 billion for its support
programs. The Liberal government has actually cut farm income
support by 60% since it took office and rates second to last by
the OECD.
The time for meetings is over. The time for action is now. What
is the minister's plan and how much?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern
but I have a question to ask him.
Why in the Conservative platform in the 1997 election did he say
his government would continue to expand the practice of cost
recovery in areas of food inspection and regulatory oversight,
speed up the elimination of subsidies and take more than $600
million out of the agriculture and agri-food industry?
1455
I am meeting with the industries to work with the producers and
the provincial governments to address this serious situation. I
am not taking the approach the member would.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister by that answer is obviously not aware that there is
a serious farm crisis right now. This minister keeps hiding
behind NISA but NISA is not enough. Perhaps this minister should
take some lessons from the minister of fisheries. He seems to
find money for his industry.
When it comes to agriculture their pockets are empty. Is this
because there is no political will from the minister of
agriculture?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we are showing political will,
which is not cutting. We have one of the strongest safety net
systems in the world. We are reviewing that at the present time
in co-operation with all the players in the industry. We will
continue to do that in order to continue strengthening our
agri-food industry which I will agree is in a serious situation.
I look forward to the member's constructive offers of help in
addressing this on behalf of Canadian farmers.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Aleksander Nikitin, a nuclear engineer and former captain in the
Russian navy, is now facing execution. His crime is using
information to focus full attention on deplorable environmental
hazards posed by the aging fleet of Russian nuclear submarines.
What steps has the Government of Canada taken to work toward the
exoneration of this Russian environmentalist?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we certainly share the member's concern. In the
past the Prime Minister has raised the matter directly with his
counterpart. I have asked our embassy officials to be in
attendance at the trial because there is a clear question of due
process and an application of laws. In about two weeks I intend
to be meeting with the foreign minister of Russia and I will
attempt to take it up directly with him at that time.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
are concerned about the humanitarian crisis occurring in Kosovo.
Canadians are also concerned about the possibility of hostages
being taken, particularly when they are being sent unarmed. We
all remember what happened in Bosnia. We had a total of 55
Canadians taken hostage. Will any of us forget Patrick Riechner
chained to a post as a human shield? Canadians do not want that
repeated.
Why is the minister sending unarmed Canadians into this war
zone?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, last week at the OSCE
we had discussions with Ambassador Walker who is heading up the
verification team. There are several things in place.
First, the UN security council has passed a resolution that
authorizes emergency protection for the verification team.
Second, NATO has maintained its activation orders so it is on
standby to respond. Third, there has been an agreement worked out
with the Milosevic government. Fourth, we are in a position where
we are seeing the adherence to the guidelines that set by NATO.
Under these circumstances we think it is important for Canada to
contribute to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE BREAKING IN PORTS
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The problem of ice breaking in eastern ports is not one of costs
and percentages, but of sharing the cost among regions. That is
the real problem.
Does the minister think it reasonable for 80% of ice breaking
costs to be imposed on users of Quebec ports that use only 50%
of these services in all of eastern Canada?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the rate scale, the scale was established by a
committee of 10 people. Seven were from the Laurentians region,
that is, Ontario and Quebec.
If the member really thinks this is not fair to ships using the
ports in the maritime region, it is surprising that the
committee members from this region set up such a scale.
* * *
1500
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in January
the minister of aboriginal affairs released the Gathering
Strength document but it does not deal with food security in the
north.
In September a Manitoba report made recommendations to deal with
the outrageous costs of food in first nation communities.
Third world status, poverty and hunger should not be a way of
life for aboriginal families and aboriginal children. I am sure
the minister wants to move heaven and earth to feed these
families. How is she going to make sure they eat well this
winter?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member points
out, it is a challenge to ensure that peoples in the north have
access to good quality food.
The cost of transportation of perishable goods to the north is
extraordinary. That is why it is important for us as a
government and for territorial governments to work together to
ensure that fresh vegetables and perishable goods are made
available to communities in the north.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, between 25 to 30 Canadians die each year because of CJD,
otherwise known as mad cow disease.
Three years ago the Canadian Red Cross ordered the single
largest recall of blood products in the history of the country
because of CJD contamination.
Will the minister now do what the British have done and what
Bayer Inc. has done and ban the use of British plasma? The clock
is ticking. The minister has a chance to do something. Will he
act now?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I told the member last week, or perhaps the week before, we
have received the Bayer report. We are looking at it.
We have in place not only the scientists at Health Canada but
also the Blood Safety Council which is there to advise us as an
independent body. We will take advice and we will do the right
thing.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights entitled “Victims Rights—A Voice, not a
Veto”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) your committee proceeded to
consider the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The
committee and its predecessor committee held hearings and a two
day national forum at which appeared witnesses and participants
who were broadly representative of those affected by, interested
in and involved with the criminal justice system.
On behalf of all my colleagues on the committee I want to thank
the minister and her staff as well as the justice department.
What is more important is that we want to thank committee staff,
including three clerks over two parliaments, Richard Dupuis, Luc
Fortin and Roger Préfontaine.
Most important, we want to thank the outstanding work of our
senior policy analyst, Philip Rosen and research associate,
Marilyn Pilon. We are indebted to them for their diligence, for
their professionalism and for their commitment to excellence.
There is unprecedented public and private agreement among
members of this committee and among all parties in this report.
Memories of this kind of co-operation will serve us well as we
weather future storms, and there always are storms on our
committee. I am very proud to table this report.
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured to table, in both official languages, the report of
the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
dealing with the quality of life of our personnel in the Canadian
forces.
This report is entitled “Moving Forward: A Strategic Plan for
Quality of Life Improvements in the Canadian Forces”.
I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to all the
members of our committee for their hard work and co-operation
throughout this long and intensive study.
To the committee clerk, researchers and various staff who
contributed directly or indirectly to this report, may I as chair
on behalf of the whole committee and all my colleagues express
our sincere thanks.
Our committee looks forward eagerly to the earliest possible
implementation of our recommendations so that we can indeed
improve the quality of life of our Canadian forces personnel and
their families.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, further to this
report, I wish to point out to the House, and I hope that the
committee's chair will have no objection, that a portion of the
text approved yesterday was missing from recommendation 75.
Since we did not have time to go back to committee to approve
the final report, I would like to be sure that the missing
portion will appear in the official document.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Unfortunately the
report must come from the official opposition.
Mr. Bob Speller; Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I was wondering if I could get unanimous consent of the House to
revert to reports from interparliamentary delegations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there consent to
revert to reports from interparliamentary delegations?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1510
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 34 I have the honour to present to the House a report from
the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
concerning the CPA-U.K. branch parliamentary visit which took
place May 6 to 22, 1998; the 23rd conference of the Caribbean and
the Americas, the Atlantic region, held in Kingston, Jamaica,
July 20 to 25, 1998; and the 37th conference of the Canadian
region held in Toronto July 18 to 24, 1998.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-450, an act to amend the Criminal Code (bail in
cases of assault with weapon or criminal harassment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are well aware that a number
of individuals who have been arrested for serious violent crimes
have been released on bail and have recommitted their crimes.
I am pleased to introduce this private member's bill which would
prevent a person accused of sexual assault with a weapon,
aggravated sexual assault or criminal harassment who has been
identified by the victim or by a witness to the offence, from
being released on bail.
The result would be that the accused would not be released until
the charge was withdrawn or the accused had been acquitted at a
trial.
Subsection 515.(2) which presently allows a judge of a court of
superior criminal jurisdiction the discretion to allow bail for
these very serious offences would be repealed.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-451, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada
Act and the Canada Elections Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private
member's bill, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and
the Canada Elections Act. The bill will provide for fixed
election dates to be held on the third Monday of October every
four years.
Reform MPs are champions of democratic accountability and the
bill seeks to advance the cause of improved democratic procedures
by putting an end to the games of politics and patronage which
are traditionally played with election dates.
I urge all members of the House to support my bill in the
interest of improving the democratic election process in Canada
through fixed election dates.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, Bill
C-303 shall be listed in the name of Mr. Bellemare, rather than
Mr. Bélanger; Bill C-408 shall be listed in the name of Ms.
Jennings, rather than Mr. Dromisky; Bill C-409 shall be listed on
the Order Paper in the name of Ms. Redman, rather than Ms.
Torsney; Bill C-417 shall be listed on the Order Paper in the
name of Mr. Coderre, rather than Mr. Alcock; and Bills C-254,
C-282, C-368, C-376 and Motions M-324 and M-325 shall be deemed to have been
withdrawn.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent of the House
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1515
PETITIONS
ABORTION
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions that I would like to present to the House. The
first petition asks the government to bring in legislation in
accordance with the provisions of the Referendum Act, 1992, which
would require a binding national referendum to be held at the
time of the next election to ask voters whether or not they are
in favour of government funding for medically unnecessary
abortions.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition asks that the Government of Canada amend section
7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to (a) recognize
the fundamental rights of individuals to pursue family life free
from undue interference of the state and (b) to recognize the
fundamental right, responsibility and liberty of parents to
direct the upbringing of their children, and that we urge the
legislative assemblies of the provinces to do likewise.
WATERCRAFT
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(1), I have the honour to present a
petition on behalf of my constituents from the beautiful towns of
Owen Sound, Sauble Beach, Mar and Wiarton.
The petitioners ask that the government regulate the use of
watercraft. Georgian Bay is a beautiful tourist region and
excessive speed and noise are creating problems and the
petitioners would like watercraft to be regulated.
JUSTICE
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition to present on the defence of provocation. The
signatories express concern about the defence mitigating a murder
charge down to manslaughter on the basis of an insult or a
perceived insult, not on the basis of the actions of the person
who was killed.
This is probably just in time because the Minister of Justice
has released a discussion paper on this very topic and I hope the
minister will take the petition into account.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of
Canadians, including Canadians from my own riding of Mississauga
South. It has to do with human rights.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that this is the year marking the 50th anniversary of the
universal declaration of human rights, that Canada is an
internationally recognized leader in promoting human rights
around the world and that human rights abuses tragically continue
in many countries around the world, including countries such as
Indonesia.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament and Canada to
appeal for action to be taken by leaders of countries where human
rights are not being protected and to seek to bring to justice
those responsible for the violation of internationally recognized
human rights.
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in this House today as the humble servant of Edmonton East
and Canada to proudly present a petition.
Newfoundland enjoined Confederation in 1949 after a proud
partnership with Canada and England in the two world wars. Today
Newfoundlanders and Quebecers ask as one in this petition for the
Prime Minister and the Parliament of Canada to declare that
Canada is indivisible and that this is a state alterable only by
all citizens of Canada and this federal government.
I am pleased that the Supreme Court of Canada recently
concurred.
[Translation]
BILL C-68
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present two petitions,
one from Normand Bélanger of Matagami, and one from Pierre
Lessard of Val-d'Or, concerning Bill C-68 on firearms.
[English]
CRTC
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have one petition to present today which calls upon parliament
to review the mandate of the CRTC and direct the CRTC to
administer a new policy which will encourage the licensing of
single faith broadcasters.
KOSOVO
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today under Standing Order 36 to present a certified
petition that was handed to me at the 53rd Serbian Day held in my
riding of Niagara Falls.
The petitioners, a large number from Niagara Falls, are calling
upon this House to consider very carefully the situation that is
developing presently in Kosovo.
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a large number of
constituents from the Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys
constituency who are concerned about the increased premiums we
are going to see in the Canada Pension Plan and the impact that
is going to have, in particular on those who are operating small
businesses and those who are self-employed.
These are crucial times economically and the petitioners feel
that these extra costs could be extremely problematic.
1520
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, petitioners from central British Columbia
are concerned about the penalties handed out to those people who
are cruel toward animals. They feel that judges are not handing
out appropriate sentences and that there ought to be some kind of
education program for judges so that people who are cruel to
animals are treated in a more appropriate fashion.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, petitioners from central British Columbia
are concerned that the government has not given up on the MAI and
its implications and that it will pursue it at the WTO. They are
asking that parliament impose a moratorium on any ratification of
the MAI or of the clauses contained therein at whatever forum,
whether it be at the WTO or another forum.
ABORTION
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have three petitions to present today. The first petition
requests that parliament support a motion introduced by the
member for Yorkton—Melville. The motion would require a binding
national referendum to be held at the time of the next election
to ask voters whether or not they are in favour of government
funding for medically unnecessary abortions.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition asks parliament to support a motion
introduced by the member for Yorkton—Melville which asks that we
recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family
life free from undue interference by the state and the
fundamental right, responsibility and liberty of parents to
direct the upbringing of their children, and that we urge the
legislative assemblies of the provinces to do likewise.
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the final petition refers to the appeal of the July 29, 1998
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision granting equal pay for
work of equal value. The petitioners ask that parliament
intervene to have the government withdraw its appeal to the
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision and to intervene to have
the government implement the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
decision without further delay.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
many Canadian citizens who have signed this petition are lobbying
the government to recognize that the Islamic republic of Iran is
witnessing a worsening in human rights practices, and yet the
Government of Canada considers it a safe country and still
deports people to Iran. The people who have signed this petition
feel strongly that Iran should lose its status as a safe country
and that the Government of Canada should not be deporting people
to that country.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question
No. 129 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 129—Mr. Lee Morrison:
How much money was collected in each province and territory as a
result of federal fuel taxes for each fiscal year from 1993-94 to
the present?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Federal taxes are levied at the manufacturing level.
The distribution of petroleum products to various provinces and
territories occurs after the excise taxes have been levied.
Consequently, no figures are available showing excise taxes
collected in each province and territory. Moreover, excise tax
licensees may report the excise taxes as a consolidated amount
for all their Canadian production instead of by province of
manufacture or production site. Therefore, Revenue Canada
neither requests nor captures excise fuel taxes data by province.
We have, however, included the total excise fuel taxes collected
for the fiscal years 1993-94 to 1997-98, broken down by revenue
type: petroleum and gas revenue tax; excise tax on motive fuel
and gasoline; and excise tax on aviation gas and diesel fuel.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on March 11, 1998 I placed Question No. Q-84 on the
Order Paper, asking how many violent crimes had been investigated
by the RCMP and how many had involved the use of registered and
unregistered firearms. In accordance with Standing Order 39, I
asked for a written answer within 45 days. My constituents have
been waiting 231 days.
It is interesting that the commissioner of the RCMP wrote me a
letter on July 6 referring to his answer to Question No. Q-84.
The RCMP gave its response to the government 114 days ago. When
is the government going to give my constituents the RCMP's answer
to this important question? Why has this government been sitting
on this answer for 114 days?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I note the member's concern
about Question No. Q-84. Our record in responding to questions
is very good. We have already responded to a very high
percentage. I assure the member that I will look into the
whereabouts of the response to Question No. Q-84.
I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1525
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NUNAVUT ACT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Justice)
moved that Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with
respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other acts
in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to be able to introduce the debate on the
motion for second reading of Bill C-57, an act to amend the
Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut court of justice and to
amend other acts in consequence.
Today we stand at the crossroads of a very important time in
Canadian history. On April 1, 1999, which is less than six
months from now, the new territory of Nunavut will come into
existence. The creation of the new territory in the eastern
Arctic is a realization of a long held dream of Inuit people.
The realization of this dream is one to which we look forward to
with great anticipation.
As people of Nunavut we will have our own government and, as a
result of Bill C-57, we will have our own unique court system.
I want to emphasize that a new court structure will only become
a reality for Nunavut if Bill C-57 is passed by the House by
April 1, 1999. I therefore hope that members will give this bill
their utmost and urgent attention.
The original Nunavut bill, passed in 1993, contemplated a
two-level trial court structure. Members will recall that
earlier this spring Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act
and the Constitution Act, 1867, included a number of amendments
to clarify the operation of the two-level trial court system in
Nunavut. This two-level trial court structure is the default
option if Bill C-57 is not passed before April 1, 1999.
When Bill C-39 was introduced the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development indicated that a subsequent bill would be
introduced later in the year to deal with court structure issues.
Bill C-57 is the bill in question. It is the last major piece of
legislative structuring which the federal government has
undertaken with regard to Nunavut.
Bill C-57 proposes changes to the Nunavut Act and other federal
statues, including the Criminal Code, the Judges Act and the
Young Offenders Act. Amendments to the Nunavut Act are proposed
to ensure that a single level trial court structure established
at the superior court level is in place and that transitional
cases are adequately dealt with.
The Department of Justice worked closely with government
officials in the Northwest Territories, as well as with Nunavut
representatives to ensure that the appropriate territorial
legislation will be passed before April 1, 1999 to provide for
the operation of a single level trial court system in Nunavut.
The Criminal Code amendments make the changes needed to
accommodate a single level trial court structure within a
criminal justice framework which is premised on two levels of
trial court.
Members may ask themselves what precisely is a single level
trial court. Let me answer that question as follows. The single
level trial court will combine into one court all of the duties,
powers and functions performed elsewhere in Canada by two levels
of court. For constitutional reasons, the Nunavut court of
justice will be established at the superior court level. Its
judges will be appointed by the federal government.
1530
For the people of Nunavut it will mean that all criminal, civil
and family law matters will be dealt with by one court. That
court will be called the Nunavut court of justice.
In addition to creating a new and innovative court system for
Nunavut, Bill C-57 is also significant from another perspective.
It represents another successful example of co-operative
federalism. The development of the legislation in Bill C-57
represents a high degree of co-operation between the federal
government, the territorial government of the Northwest
Territories and political leaders representing Nunavut. The
interim commissioner of Nunavut and the parties to the Nunavut
political accord formally asked the Minister of Justice to
develop a single level trial court system for Nunavut. Bill C-57
is the result of those efforts.
I am very pleased to say that throughout the process of
developing the legislation, officials from the justice department
worked very closely with northern leaders and the members of the
northern legal community to ensure that the legislation was
responsive to the needs of the Nunavut people.
I think it would be helpful for me to indicate some of the
particular difficulties with the delivery of justice services
identified by the residents of eastern Arctic as a prelude to
explaining how the single level court structure is expected to
bring improvements.
Those members familiar with the delivery of justice in the
eastern Arctic will know that with the exception of Iqaluit,
court parties must fly into various communities of the eastern
Arctic in order to deal with trial matters.
Currently there are two separate circuits, one for the
territorial court and one for the supreme court. Neither of
these two courts will hear all matters arising in a particular
community.
On average each of the courts visits a particular community only
three or four times a year. As a result there can be significant
delays between the laying of a charge and the final determination
of guilt or innocence, or in family law matters, resolution of
custody issues for example. This can have a devastating effect on
the parties and can lead to division within the community until
the matter is resolved. I can give some examples of what we have
to go through with these court procedures.
Currently a court party will fly into a community. The lawyer
arrives on the same plane with the court party. In some cases
the accused spends 15 minutes with the lawyer before the case is
heard, because the lawyer has just arrived in that community. The
accused has 15 minutes to talk with the lawyer. The future of the
accused is to be determined in that little time.
There are also suicides directly related to people waiting for
the dates of their court cases. I personally know of a young
family where the husband took his life, leaving a wife and two
children, because of the stress involved with waiting for a court
case to come around.
The long waits between cases is just not healthy for anyone. All
the communities are small and the accused and the victim have to
live in the same community. Consequently they have to see each
other in the store and the community hall. They are forced to
live near each other which is very stressful for both.
There is also a strong desire in the north for more matters to
be diverted from the formal justice system, or in criminal
matters if charges are laid, to have the court cases heard by
local justices of the peace. Having matters dealt with in the
community rather than by the circuit court enhances access to
justice by removing time and distance barriers between the
parties involved and the decision maker. This would help address
those situations which I just gave examples of.
1535
The single level trial court structure has been designed with
the expectation that with proper training a local justice of the
peace will be able to conduct uncomplicated preliminary inquiries
and summary conviction trials.
I would like to give another example. The people of Nunavut are
already preparing for this. I recently attended a justice
retreat in Rankin Inlet that identified priorities to be pursued.
Training of justices of the peace was a very crucial priority.
They are capable and will be more capable after the training they
receive.
I would now like to describe in more detail some of the main
features of the single level trial court. They are expected to
enhance both the accessibility and efficiency of the justice
system in the eastern Arctic.
Bill C-57 makes changes to the Nunavut Act which will establish
one trial court for Nunavut at the superior court level. Whereas
superior court judges currently fly in to the eastern Arctic from
the western Arctic, changes to the Judges Act will provide for up
to three full time superior court judge residents in Nunavut.
The Nunavut Act and the Criminal Code will clearly provide that
judges of the Nunavut court of justice will be superior court
judges in all respects and will have all the inherent and
statutory powers of the superior court judges.
The Criminal Code will expressly give the judges of the Nunavut
court of justice all the powers to deal with all criminal
matters, even those normally performed elsewhere in Canada by
officials or judges who are not superior court judges. Amendments
to the Criminal Code will make clear, however, that when judges
perform these duties or functions, they do not lose their status
as superior court judges.
The practical benefit of this measure to the people of Nunavut
will be that a single judge of the Nunavut court of justice will
be able to deal with all matters on the court docket when he or
she holds court in a particular community. It is anticipated that
delay in the resolution of matters will be reduced and
improvements in the efficiency of the court system will be
achieved.
Justices of the peace will continue to do most of the pretrial
matters. With the appropriate training they are expected to
gradually assume more responsibility for conducting some
preliminary inquiries and minor criminal trials.
At the present time the Alberta Court of Appeal serves as the
core of the court of appeal for the Northwest Territories. This
arrangement has worked very well. I am grateful that the judges
of the Alberta Court of Appeal have agreed to continue their
excellent work and their dedicated efforts in Nunavut.
Because of the need to assess the workload of the court of
appeal in Nunavut sometime after the territory is established, we
have decided that the Alberta Court of Appeal will act as the
core of the court of appeal for Nunavut. I expect that it will
be assisted in its workload by resident northern superior court
judges sitting as judges of the court of appeal. When the Nunavut
government is in a position to do so, it may wish to consider
other models for its court of appeal.
The amendments in Bill C-57 relating to the summary conviction
appeals reflect the fact that the trial function performed by two
levels of court elsewhere in Canada will be combined into one
court in Nunavut. In order to retain substantially equivalent
rights of appeal, it was necessary to create an intermediate
level of appeal.
Where the Nunavut court of justice conducts a trial in respect
of a summary conviction matter, an appeal will lie to a single
judge of the court of appeal of Nunavut on the same grounds that
apply in all summary conviction matters elsewhere in Canada.
Appeals in respect of indictable matters will remain unchanged.
1540
The policy behind the appeal structure regarding summary
conviction appeals is to provide parties in Nunavut with
substantive and procedural rights equivalent to those available
to other parties elsewhere in Canada. It might be argued that
this approach undermines the status of judges of the Nunavut
court of justice as superior court judges. I think it is more
important to characterize this feature as a necessary choice
resulting from a desire to protect the rights of parties before
the court within a Criminal Code structure that is designed for a
two level rather than a single level trial court.
Just as in the case of all other jurisdictions in Canada, a
secondary level of appeal on much more restricted grounds will be
available to a three person panel of the court of appeal.
Bill C-57 will provide that decisions in summary conviction
trials conducted in the community before a justice of the peace
can be appealed to a judge of the Nunavut court of justice and
then on further appeal to a three person panel of the court of
appeal.
In addition to appeal rights, a statutory review measure has
been designed to serve as a faster, interim, error correcting
mechanism with respect to key decisions which may be made by
judges of the Nunavut court of justice. I must again emphasize
that in formulating this statutory form of review, our goal has
been to provide substantially the same kind of relief that is
available to parties to criminal proceedings elsewhere in Canada
through prerogative writ review.
Bill C-57 will provide a new form of statutory review that is
limited in scope to key decision points in the criminal justice
process where an expeditious form of review is essential. The
review will lie to a single judge of the court of appeal of
Nunavut.
Prerogative writ review as embodied in the Criminal Code and in
the common law will continue to apply to the decisions of
justices of the peace and other inferior officials in Nunavut.
Changes to the Young Offenders Act made in Bill C-57 are not of
a policy nature but are restricted to those which are necessary
to accommodate the operation of a single level trial court in
Nunavut.
For example, Bill C-57 makes changes to the Young Offenders Act
to provide an appeal scheme which parallels that available for
adults in Nunavut. This is in respect of the summary conviction
matters heard by the Nunavut court of justice sitting as a youth
court. As in the adult system, these appeals will be heard by a
single judge of the court of appeal for Nunavut with a secondary
right of appeal on more restricted grounds to a three person
panel of the court of appeal for Nunavut.
Bill C-57 also adapts the elections provisions in the Young
Offenders Act to reflect the fact that for murder trials held in
youth court in Nunavut, the choice for youth will be the Nunavut
court of justice sitting as a youth court either alone or with a
jury.
Amendments to the Judges Act will provide for three superior
court judges on the Nunavut court of justice all of whom will be
resident in Nunavut. Bill C-57 will also amend the Judges Act to
provide for full membership in the Canadian Judicial Council for
the senior judge of each of the three territories.
At this point I should add that Bill C-57 also makes various
consequential amendments to three other federal statutes to
ensure that they accommodate a single level trial court structure
in Nunavut. In many instances these changes amount to simply
changing the name of the relevant court or judge in definition
sections of the act.
I am very pleased to be able to say that the amendments in Bill
C-57 to establish a single level trial court structure for
Nunavut are entirely consistent with the recommendations of the
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Establishing the Nunavut
court of justice reflects the longstanding desire of the people
and leaders of Nunavut to create a new institution which is more
suited to our unique traditions, culture and needs.
1545
This court reform reflects the desire of the Nunavut people to
have an accessible and integrated justice system.
The Nunavut court of justice will have the authority to hear all
criminal, civil and family matters. It is expected to work in
harmony with justices of the peace who will have an important and
perhaps growing role in providing speedy and culturally sensitive
responses to crime.
The government's response to the recommendations of the royal
commission on aboriginal people called for a new partnership with
aboriginal people. The consultative manner in which the single
level trial court structure was designed is an example of such a
partnership.
I am confident that the future direction in justice reform in
Nunavut will evolve in the continued spirit of this equal
partnership and will become increasingly responsive to the unique
needs of this new territory.
I call on all members in the House to support Bill C-57 to
establish this very innovative court structure for the new
territory of Nunavut. It would also help if the justice committee
could have the hearings in my riding so it can hear directly from
the people and see the beautiful riding of Nunavut.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member for
Nunavut. I know the comments about the beauty of the riding are
very accurate, as I have been there.
The member started off by saying the bill must be passed by
April 1, 1999. I can assure the member that we are not going to
do much on this side of the House to speed up any dates but the
member's government brings in closure so often it will make sure
it gets whatever it wants by that date.
This takes me back to when this legislation first came to this
House in 1993 at the end of the time of the previous Tory
government. The member for Edmonton North will recall it very
well because she was in the House at that time, a lone Reformer,
and tried to stop the bill at that time because she wanted to
have a look at it.
The bill was nearly 300 pages and parliamentarians had one week
to look at the bill. The member for Edmonton North who was back
in the corner kept yelling no to unanimous consent but was
ignored by the Chair and was told later on she was not a party so
it did not matter anyway. That bill was railroaded through the
House. I think it was a sad day for democracy in the way it was
handled by that government in 1993.
I was reminded of this when the member talked about having this
bill by April 1 of next year. The member does not have to worry
because her government will do what it has to do to get this
legislation through.
I congratulate also the local officials in Nunavut. They have
done a great job in getting this government to put up a lot of
money. I look at this bill and three superior court judges for
the Nunavut court of justice. As the member says, it creates a
single level trial court system.
Why is this different from the rest of Canada? The rest of
Canada has a different system. Why are we giving a part of our
country a different system of justice?
People might say it is the Northwest Territories. It is a big
area. It is widespread. I remind people that other provinces,
Quebec and British Columbia to name just two, have asked for
changes to our constitution. These provinces do not get these
changes.
What this government is doing with this legislation is creating
another province. It is still called a territory but this
government has given it all the powers of a province. This
government knows it could not have passed it if it tried to get
it through as a province because it needs the agreement of seven
provinces.
What really disturbs me is when we have special treatment for
one area of Canada, an area with 26,000 people, a long way from
Ottawa. We have a lot of people in British Columbia a long way
from Ottawa and a long way from parts of civilization.
1550
The bill talks about 26,000 people and 350,000 square
kilometres. That is a large area. I wonder how many people in
the House know that the four northern ridings in British Columbia
are double that size, 700,000 square kilometres. The Skeena
riding is 244,569 square kilometres itself. It is two-thirds the
size. The Prince George—Peace River riding is 217,188 square
kilometres. Caribou—Chilcotin is 120,000 square kilometres.
Prince George—Bulkley Valley is 100,000 square kilometres. Those
people would like the same things that are happening there.
Go to the north of British Columbia. People have to go all the
way to Vancouver to go to court. There are the same concerns
that member had. “I saw my lawyer only for a few minutes. I
need more time”. Why are we allowing this area of the country
to get special treatment? We should use the same law system we
have for the rest of Canada. There should be not difference just
because it is in the far north of Canada.
The federally appointed judges are going to make $180,000 a
year. The releases from the government showed a much lower
figure but did not include the raises these judges are going to
get. It also includes expenses which I will go into in a minute.
They are all appointed at the federal level. That is a scary
thought in itself. There is no input at the local level.
Do we need this kind of expensive court? There will be three
judges at $180,000 a year plus their expenses. They will get up
to $300,000 or $400,000 each to operate. It will be well over a
$1 million. There will be three expensive supreme court judges
who will sit on cases like dog-napping. That is not what we need
in this country. It is not good legislation.
There are many questions we want to ask about those areas when
we get into committee. I am looking forward to getting this bill
into committee so we can some answers as to why the government
made some of these decisions.
The legislation calls for one senior judge and two other judges.
As I said earlier, the salaries are very misleading. They do not
take into case the new salary increases and also further
increases. They will also receive an unaccountable yearly
allowance of $6,000. They also get their regular expenses. The
senior judge from the court of the Yukon territory, the senior
judge from the court of the Northwest Territories and the senior
judge from the Nunavut court of justice will each receive an
additional $5,000 per year. That is $11,000 per year in
unaccountable expenses. That brings the cost of the senior judge
to close to $200,000. It seems that is an awful lot of money to
have a judge for a territory that has 26,000 people and will have
a workload that is nowhere near the workload we have in large
cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. I know the workload
those judges have.
I know in the north they have to travel. But we also have that
in the rest of Canada. We cannot get to Atlin, B.C. from British
Columbia. We have to fly in from Yukon or Alaska. They are not
alone in the Northwest Territories or Nunavut in having these
problems. We have them in British Columbia. We have them other
parts of Canada like northern Quebec. Yet we have not made
special cases and set up a separate law system to satisfy those
needs let alone given these provinces what they have asked for in
changes to the Constitution. That seems rather strange to me.
Quebec and British Columbia have had a lot of complaints about
how the federal government runs things. We represent a major
portion of Canada yet we have not been able to convince this
government to do any where near what it is doing for a territory
with 26,000 people.
I am sure my constituents have some sympathy for the fact that
areas in the north have big territories. But they would wonder
why we have one member of parliament from Nunavut representing
26,000 people. Four members of parliament from British Columbia
represent an area of 700,000 square kilometres. There are four
million people in British Columbia. It is not fair. This is not
one person equal representation. We have gone out of our way to
set things aside.
I understand that some of the things are fair. They need to
happen because of where it is.
1555
This is going a little overboard setting up a separate and very
expensive justice system and an unneeded justice system. There
are probably better ways of doing this. In New Zealand, for
instance, appointed people work at the local level with not only
the victims but with the criminals for the good of the community
concerning small and non-violent crimes.
We certainly do not need three $200,000 a year judges to be
looking into this type of thing in Canada.
The budget for this is going to come out of the yearly allocated
budget for Nunavut's implementation which is $32 million. This is
not a small amount of money. This account is to run until the
year 2008, at a total estimated operating cost of $520 million.
That is roughly $20,000 for every man, woman and child there.
I wonder who has made those decisions. Were those decisions
thought out back in 1993 when this bill was railroaded through
this House?
There is another account for advising on the creation of Nunavut
to the Nunavut implementation commission. This account is set at
$2.3 million for 1997-98 up from $1.9 million last year. I
wonder how high that is going to go up every year. When do all
these costs stop? When does somebody stand on his or her own two
feet and continue operating on without taking from the rest of
Canada?
Land claims are one thing but creating a new province or
territory is another. When this legislation was presented they
should have gone all the way and said that if they were going to
do it they should make it a province, as we should make the
Northwest Territories and Yukon a province. Let it go before the
people of Canada, according to our Constitution, where all the
provinces get a vote on it, and let us solve the issue once and
for all instead of going through these expensive processes which
also create problems in other parts of Canada.
I am sure the member from that area likes what has happened. I
am sure I also would if I were their member of parliament also.
However, it gets more difficult to explain to other Canadians who
are paying the tax bills when they see the cost per person of
doing what we are doing and the continuing costs and where they
are going to end.
I also suspect, and it is so obvious because we see it happen so
often in this House, that when one bill comes in one has to
wonder how many bills are down the road because the first bill
was not done properly.
If this bill had been thought out properly in 1993 we would not
have it now being rushed through the House, being given one week
to look at a major change to our country and then to have closure
brought in. They now call it time allocation but I was around
when they did not use that term. Just the word closure meant
something. Only if debates were taking a really long time, maybe
a month or two, would the government bring in closure. Today
this government brings it in regularly to run the House of
Commons.
I can go back and quote many times when the government House
leader on the other side yelled and screamed in this House when
he was in opposition and the Tory government was bringing in
closure. They are the ones who changed this rule. It was a sad
day for Canada when they did it. Debates used to take place in
the House of Commons, every member had an opportunity to speak on
every bill and the speeches were longer. Some people might have
thought it was a waste of time but democracy is not a waste of
time. It may be inconvenient to the government of the day but it
is not a waste of time.
That is why this bill is not one that we can say it is just a
very simple thing adding on to a major bill that passed in this
House. We accept the fact that it passed. The one member from
the Reform Party who was here at that time voted against it. We
can tell it was wrong when it was done because now we have this
legislation coming along. The government even says there might
be even more bills coming out of the enabling variety which will
be very expensive to the people of Canada. That is what concerns
my party and that is why we cannot support this bill in its
present stage.
When this bill gets to committee we will have a lot of questions
that we know the people of Canada would like answered. We hope
the government will be prepared to answer those questions at
committee. We hope government members will be able to tell us
why they can do that in this part of Canada when they cannot do
things in other parts of Canada. I am sure a lot of my colleagues
over the next few days in this debate will be asking those
questions.
1600
When we get into the part of the debate where members can ask
questions, we will have some questions for the government
members. We hope that they will have some good answers to those
questions. We will work with them in committee to make the
changes that are necessary so the people of Canada can better
understand why one part of Canada has an act in the justice
system that is not an act in any other part of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a
member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to
rise today and speak to Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut
Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend
other Acts in consequence.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code so that
it reflects the realities of the new territory of Nunavut and to
make it possible to establish an operational government before
April 1, 1999, the territory's official launch date.
Bill C-57 is part of the process that began in 1992 with the
territorial land agreement setting out the legal and political
framework of the new territory of Nunavut. Approved in June
1993, the creation of Nunavut is a result of passage of Bill
C-39, which we debated in the House last year and which provides
for the holding of a legislative election, while facilitating
the transition and legitimizing the process.
The bill before us this afternoon is part of this ongoing
process. It is the last building block, as it were, in the
political and legal structure that will allow the inhabitants of
this territory to at last be ready for April 1999 and the
challenges then to follow.
I can only express my satisfaction that legislation is being
introduced in order to give the inhabitants of Nunavut all the
political, and more particularly in the case before us today,
all the legislative instruments they will need.
This will enable them to have a court that meets their needs and
that is closer to them. We know that the establishment of
institutions of law is vital to government autonomy. Bill C-57
will permit this to happen.
Everything indicates that the creation of Nunavut set for April
1, 1999 is well on its way. I recall that Bill C-39 on Nunavut
and the Constitution Act of 1867 passed at third reading in
June, changes the map of Canada's north with the creation of
this immense territory.
Since Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, Canada's
borders have not been changed. This indicates clearly just what
a historic moment the creation of Nunavut represents and also
explains the importance of its creation to the people living
there.
The Northwest Territories will therefore, with the creation of
this territory, be divided into two separate entities. Nunavut
includes the lands in the centre and east of the Northwest
Territories, above the 60th parallel. It therefore covers some
2 million square kilometres, one fifth of Canada's land mass.
1605
This immense territory is divided into three regions and
includes 28 communities. The most southeasterly point of
Nunavut meets northern Labrador. Nunavut is also bordered by
water. Its most northerly part touches the shores of the Arctic
Ocean. On the east, Baffin Bay divides Nunavut. In the south,
Nunavut joins the waters of Hudson's Bay and Ungava Bay.
Eighty per cent of the population of Nunavut is Inuit, that is,
some 17,500 persons of the 22,000 total population. So the
Inuit are in the majority. In fact, the word Nunavut means our
land in Inuktitut, the language of the Inuit.
Before I go any further, I want to say that the Bloc Quebecois
is in favour of the principle of Bill C-57, which takes
thousands of aboriginal people one step closer to strong, viable
self-government. To put this bill into perspective, let me
outline a number of element of Bill C-39 passed last year.
Bill C-39 enables the Inuit in the Nunavut to administer 1,9
million kilometres of their land through a legislative assembly
elected by universal suffrage. It amends the Nunavut Act passed
by Parliament in 1993. It provides for a transition period and
for the powers of the federal and territorial governments to be
devolved to the Nunavut territorial government.
This legislation provides, by amending the Constitutional Act,
1867, that the people of this territory will be represented in
the House of Commons and the Senate.
The primary purpose of Bill C-39 was to allow elections to be
held so that the Nunavut Legislative Assembly would be
established before April 1, 1999, so that representatives of the
Inuit of Nunavut could to serve their constituents in an
operational legislature when their territory was officially
created.
In addition, Bill C-39 amends the Constitutional Act, 1867, to
ensure Nunavut is represented in the House of Commons and the
Senate, as are the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. It also
authorises the transfer of governmental services from the
Northwest Territories and Ottawa to Nunavut during the
transition period.
The transfer of services and programs in culture, health and
public housing should be completed by the year 2009. As members
can imagine, much work has to be done by April 1, 1999.
That is why I am pleased to notice that Bill C-57 is the final
element in the legal and administrative component of the
establishment of the Inuit territory of Nunavut.
A brief reminder before getting into Bill C-57: the Bloc
Quebecois did not oppose Bill C-39. In fact, we voted for this
bill, which was the outcome of years of negotiations in which
the organization representing the Inuit of Canada, Inuit
Tapirisat of Canada, took part. This organization has been
involved in the negotiation process since the 1970s.
1610
I would point out that it took two referendums—in 1982 and in
1992—to establish the boundaries of the territory and for all
to agree on them. The Bloc Quebecois did not oppose legislation
that gives substance to over 25 years of negotiation and that
permits the Inuit, one of Canada's great peoples, to assume its
rightful place on this continent and to take its destiny in
hand. In becoming masters of their own house, the Inuit will
have all the political, economic and legal tools they need to
grow and govern themselves.
In June, my colleague, the Bloc Quebecois critic on native
affairs said in this House “Thanks to Bill C-39, the Inuit will
be in control and they will have all the necessary economic,
political, social and cultural levers to look after their
development and government on their own. This way, they will be
able to act in their own best interest, for the good of their
community, ensuring the harmonious development of their
territory”. I support and share these remarks.
We did however raise a cautionary note in June, that of Nunavut
representation in the Senate. The Bloc Quebecois has nothing
against that fact that the Inuit want representation. However,
in the preceding parliament, we in the Bloc took steps to
abolish this outdated and ineffective institution known as the
Senate. It is needlessly costly to Quebeckers and Canadians.
It is archaic. The Senate functions thanks to political
paybacks. Political appointments take away all the credibility
and objectivity need in the processes of legislating and
sanctioning legislation.
This objectivity is vital. However, despite these reservations,
we proposed no amendment, unlike the Reformers, who tried to get
a Senate reform through an amendment to this bill.
I might mention another point we raised last year, which
continues to concern me. It involves the coastal islands in
James Bay, at the southern end of Hudson's Bay and north of
Nunavik, Quebec. Since 1977, the James Bay Cree and the Nunavik
Inuit have been wanting to negotiate with Indian and Northern
Affairs Canada the recognition of their rights over the waters,
the surrounding ice and resources.
Negotiations were broken off in 1977. It appears this was
because of a dispute concerning compensation and the status of
the regions.
With the creation of Nunavut in the works, the Crees and Inuit
of northern Quebec would like to resume their dialogue with the
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
The September 24 announcement by the Department of Indian and
Northern Affairs that a chief federal negotiator had been
appointed to deal with the offshore claims of the Grand Council
of the Crees of Quebec is a good sign. Let us hope that
negotiations will indeed resume and that, this time, they will
lead to constructive decisions.
Representatives of the Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec
appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development last spring, during consideration of the
Nunavut bill. They expressed their concerns regarding this
bill, as it affected their own claims.
Although they say they support the creation of Nunavut, they
would like the Indian Affairs minister to demonstrate a serious
commitment to the resumption of negotiations designed to
recognize their rights within the boundaries of the new
territory.
1615
I therefore hope that this appointment represents a clear
undertaking by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development and her officials to negotiate with the Crees of
Quebec.
Let us now return more specifically to Bill C-57. In order to be
ready by April 1999, Nunavut must have at its disposal all the
necessary legislative instruments now. This is what Bill C-57
is all about.
The transfer of certain jurisdictions of territorial and federal
governments to Nunavut is not a simple matter. This transfer is
nonetheless vital and responds to the needs of the far north.
Indeed, Bill C-57 responds to a request made to the Minister of
Justice by those who worked to ensure self-government, with the
support of Inuit organizations in Nunavut. The bill establishes
a single-level trial court system for the territory of Nunavut.
This tribunal, to be known as the Nunavut Court of Justice, is
created to provide an efficient and accessible court structure
capable of responding to the unique needs of Nunavut while, at
the same time, maintaining rights equivalent to those enjoyed
elsewhere in Canada.
So, we will have the Nunavut Court of Justice in the new Nunavut
territory. This tribunal will replace the existing Supreme Court
of the Northwest Territories as the superior court, and the
territorial court as the lower court.
Bill C-57 amends once again the Nunavut Act, which was passed in
1993, under the Progressive Conservative government.
The bill also amends the Judges Act to provide for three
superior court judges on the Nunavut Court of Justice and also
to provide for full membership in the Canadian Judicial Council
for the senior judge of each of the territories.
Indeed, given the expanded jurisdiction of that tribunal, it is
important to make sure that the judges will be competent to hear
cases from the lower and superior courts, with the exception of
those cases that come under the jurisdiction of specialized and
administrative tribunals.
The bill also amends the Criminal Code to provide for new
structures and procedures for the Nunavut Court of Justice in
the following areas: jurisdiction of the judges; summary
conviction appeals; a new statutory form of review; judicial
interim release; and elections as to mode of trial.
Bill C-57 also amends the Young Offenders Act to ensure adequate
structures and procedures for a single-level trial court,
consistent with those in the Criminal Code and with various
other federal statutes.
The creation of this court of justice will ensure a flexible and
efficient legal process for the whole territory of Nunavut. By
making the court competent to hear any case, whether it involves
a minor wrongdoing or a serious criminal offence, we give the
people of the territory access to a service that is more
consistent with its reality.
From now on, when a judge travels to some small community in
Nunavut, he will have broader powers.
It must be understood that the multiplicity of jurisdictions, in
other words a multi-faceted court system, useful in high density
urban centres, is not necessarily useful in the proper
administration of justice in a territory such as Nunavut.
1620
This is why legislation must be passed on this issue and to
permit the necessary changes to be made to the various laws
that, up to now, have granted various jurisdictions authority to
hear various cases. Bill C-57 provides the changes needed for
the establishment and operation of this court of justice.
The structure of the court reflects the peculiarities of the
eastern Arctic. The judges of the Nunavut Court of Justice will
therefore be able to hear all criminal, family and civil cases.
In other words, this new court structure is simpler and better
suits the needs of the people of the new territory.
In closing, I would like to add that we will, in the coming
weeks, study in greater depth this bill, which appeared suddenly
on the legislative menu. A meeting with the officials of the
Department of Justice would be most appreciated once we have
started the process of examining the bill. It would enable us
to better target the issues in this legislation and the many
implications for existing legislation.
We would be further enlightened by meetings with the principle
stakeholders.
The law establishing Nunavut and subsequent legislation
permitting good political, administrative and legal management
of the territory, are the product of 25 years of effort and
struggle by the Inuit to regain control over their land.
We can only praise these efforts, and like my colleague who is
the Bloc Quebecois critic in this area, I wish them success in
meeting the challenges that they will face.
In conclusion, I repeat that we support this bill and that we
will continue to support the principle of action that, like Bill
C-57, enables peoples to acquire what they need to enable their
identity to grow to its fullest.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the first
thing I saw about Bill C-57 was the newspaper headline “Nunavut
gets unique court system, single level of justice seen as ideal
for the vast territories”.
This is important because it is true and it sets an incredibly
high standard for the north. The Yukon Territory and the
Northwest Territories are going to want to match this standard of
justice. Where Nunavut goes, the others are sure to follow.
In speaking of the high standard, Nunavut is really to be
envied. It is a territory that is able to start from scratch. It
is creating a justice system that is going to suit the people,
that is going to be accountable to them, that is going to respond
to them. Because Nunavut has an official language, a First
Nations language, the court will now have to respond to people in
their own language.
Justice is an expression of our sovereignty. Even though there
are only 26,000 people in Nunavut, only so many people in the
Northwest Territories and only so many people in Yukon, does that
mean they are not entitled to justice? Does it mean that because
it costs too much we cannot have justice? Does it mean we can
only have a court once a year because we are just too far away,
or do we just scoop everyone up and send them somewhere else to
have justice administered to them?
This bill is important because it is very clear in the
parameters of what our country is and should be. Even if a
person lives in some nook, cranny or frozen place, justice
belongs to them as it does to everyone else in this country.
1625
In the north, justice is often like a big woolly mammoth that
has come trundling into town trampling all over everything. It
leaves behind this big mess and a community in disarray. People
from that community are sent off to a federal penitentiary
thousands of miles away. If they have to serve anything more
than two years less a day, they are out of their territory.
There is no community support. It is absolutely devastating to
try to reintegrate back into the community after that time. The
Judges Act will deal in part with some of those issues because it
would bring justice closer to the people of the north.
I recently held a town hall in the north on justice issues and
the discussion paper the justice minister put out on the defences
of provocation, self-defence and defence of property. People did
not necessarily want to talk about just those issues. They
wanted to discuss the broader topic of justice and how people
felt so alienated from it, that justice did not belong to them.
The legal system really has nothing to do with anybody. This
justice system and the single level of court will allow people to
feel a part of a justice system.
People in the north have always been pushing for change to make
a more accountable system, something that does not just put
people away without any recourse. In fact they have been
pioneers in community justice in developing circle sentencing. I
sat in on one of the first circle sentencings and others in
subsequent years.
Circle sentencing is not an easy or a light process. It demands
an incredible amount of dedication from the communities involved.
We can compare it to putting someone in custody where usually two
or three shifts of people, including cooks and cleaners, look
after those in custody. In circle sentencing, if one person
agrees to look after someone who has been sentenced, it means
they have only the resources of themselves and the community to
keep an eye on and to help encourage and push that person toward
a better way of life. It is a huge undertaking. Any community or
individual that is willing to go through circle sentencing
deserves a lot of recognition for the work they do.
When it comes to justice for First Nations people, and there are
a lot of First Nations people in the north, everyone knows they
are poor. They live in third world conditions. They fill most
of the prisons across this country and are overrepresented. Their
cultures are not taken into account. Their social condition is
reprehensible. It is not right to send everybody off to federal
penitentiaries.
Jumping to the meat and bones of the bill, it creates a single
level court system for the territory. It will maintain the
substantive and procedural rights equivalent to those enjoyed
elsewhere in Canada.
A single level court system may not have too much meaning for
those who have not been involved in justice in the territories.
Generally there is the federal level. A crown prosecutor is
appointed and an accused may go in front of this judge or may
wait until a particular level of court is available to hear the
accused. The federal appointment comes from Ottawa. Therefore,
it is not necessary that they respond to the community they serve
because it is not their boss by any stretch of the imagination.
This certainly makes them less responsive to community demands.
The single level trial system will have regular and more
frequent resolution of cases. This is critical in small northern
communities as the isolation can be quite unbearable.
The bill amends the Criminal Code to provide for new structures
and procedures for the Nunavut court of justice in the following
areas: the jurisdiction of judges; the summary conviction
appeals; a new statutory form of review; judicial interim
release; and elections as to mode of trial. Again one of the
official languages is First Nations and so the court will have to
respond to that as well. The legislation has some unique parts. I
will read amended subsection 35(1) of the Nunavut Act:
A judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice has and may exercise and
perform, anywhere in Canada, all the powers, duties and functions
of the Court with respect to any criminal offence committed or
charged to have been committed in Nunavut.
1630
I have one main reservation with this bill which concerns the
appointment of judges. There is no screening process in
parliament for federal judge appointments. Candidates do not
come before the parliamentary committees for justice or
aboriginal affairs. We cannot expect the same level of
responsiveness and accountability that would be there if the
territory itself were nominating and screening the judges they
want for their courts. That is a big concern because it echoes
what is going on here already. That is one thing we should not
carry forward in creating the new system.
The NDP will be supporting this bill, with some reservations. I
look forward to considering it in committee.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I found
that statement extremely interesting. It had a lot of
compassion. I certainly support it. The need for justice to be
delivered in Canada or anywhere else is very important. I
appreciate very much the hon. member's plea to have justice given
to these people. I could not agree more. There should be just
sentencing that should take into account all of the things that
matter. It should be as close to the people as possible. It
should be swift. Those are all extremely useful kinds of
situations.
I also share the member's reservations about the appointment of
judges.
However, why would we support a different kind of justice
structure? I support the principles the hon. member supports,
but why would we have a different system? Why would she support
a different system for one part of Canada, a system that does not
exist in other parts of Canada? Is there a particular reason
that justice in the Nunavut territory should be administered
differently than it is administered in other parts of Canada? I
fail to see it. It seems that by definition justice has some
kind of standard component. Justice, after all, is justice. We
want to be treated fairly and equally before the law. Why should
we have a different system in one part of Canada than we have in
another?
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, according to my way of
thinking, justice is responsive to those who it serves. That
does not mean the laws change, it just means that the way we
handle the situation changes. Because the justice system is not
working in the rest of Canada does not mean that Nunavut should
not take the step to make its justice system work for it by
having the courts there more regularly.
Those who live in a large centre have a court. They know they
will be able to access that court, but that is not the case for
people living in the north. They have to wait until the circuit
comes to them. This sort of nomadic court system is a strain on
those people who always have to be travelling, but they are
willing to undertake that to make sure justice is swift and
accessible—
Mr. Werner Schmidt: But that is not what we are talking
about. We are taking about a single level of courts here.
Ms. Louise Hardy: That is important. That is a good
change. That is what they need, that is what they want and that
is what they have defined.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Why should they do that? That is the
question.
Ms. Louise Hardy: One reason is that there will be less
cost because there will only be one level of judges to pay.
Nunavut will not be paying at the federal and territorial levels,
but only at one level. There will only be one circuit, not two
or three. It will go to the same community, but will deal with
different issues.
I believe justice should be able to move forward and change.
Laws should be alive. They should not be dead issues. If they
were we would have a very hard time when a decision came out the
other end because it would be so upsetting and we would not know
how it happened. If we as citizens were involved with our
justice system, then we would not be shocked at discrepancies in
sentencing.
Who is this judge coming to my community? They have no idea who
they are.
1635
This bring justice closer to the people. It is a good and
important change.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comment of my hon. colleague, saying that she
feels justice should be responsive. I certainly agree with that.
What we are trying to get at is the question of equality, not
only equality before the law, but equality of access to services
right across the country.
Would my colleague be in favour of us taking a look at this kind
of system working in the vast territories of northern B.C. where
there are huge areas that are even larger than Nunavut? The same
kinds of problems and the same kinds of concerns are faced by
people in northern B.C. as in Nunavut about getting access to the
legal system and having to travel long distances.
Sometimes concerns are generated by the people of northern B.C.
native communities who have to go all the way to Vancouver for
trials and that sort of thing. Would the member be open to
seeing something like this work in northern B.C.?
Ms. Louise Hardy: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. It should be
extended. For example Atlin, B.C. is barely 100 miles from
Whitehorse, Yukon. It would make sense for those people to be
able to access a justice system very close to them because that
is where they travel to buy their groceries.
We could look at a whole system for remote areas of the country.
Bill C-57 could set the precedent. If people in Nunavut have
it, do not other people in Canada deserve as much?
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Yukon and my colleague
in that people living in remote areas should be as close to the
justice system as possible. I believe that we owe that to the
people in the remote areas of Canada.
But I have a concern. Was the hon. member thinking that maybe
decisions by the judges would be different in remote areas than
they would be if the committing of a crime was 200 miles south?
Is there a difference in the interpretation and in the punitive
measures? Is that what the member meant? If not, then just
count me wrong on that, but I kind of got that impression from
what she was saying.
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, no, that is not what I
meant. The laws of Canada are the laws of the territories. It
is just the method of making the courts and justice accessible.
A lot of work is being done in the areas of circle sentencing
and community justice initiatives. That outcome might be
different and I would hope we would move to more changes that
way.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is something that gives me great concern. Perhaps
the hon. member, being from the territory, might have the answer
because there are more horrors coming out of this bill every time
I take a quick look at it.
Right now in any province if a person commits a relatively minor
offence they are convicted and if they appeal the decision it
will go to the provincial appeals court. In the Northwest
Territories right now it is appealed to the provincial appeals
court of Alberta. However, under this proposed legislation
persons will be convicted by a federal court judge.
I would like to know what the appeal process is for that.
Because a person has been convicted by a federal court judge,
will that person be required to appeal it to the Supreme Court of
Canada? If that is so, the cost would be horrendous and I would
suggest that the Supreme Court of Canada would refuse to hear
appeals on dog-napping and relatively minor offences, as well it
should. But that means that the people of Nunavut will lose
their right of appeal.
They are not going to have the same access to justice as someone
from the Northwest Territories, from Yukon or from the provinces
of Canada.
1640
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, I share the member's
concern. It will have to be addressed at committee. The whole
area of the judges being federal judges is of great concern
because they are not going to be accountable to the people of
Nunavut.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-57, an act to amend the
Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut court of justice and to
amend other acts in consequence.
I would like to state that I will be sharing my time today with
the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
This bill amends the judicial system and the appointment of
judges in the new territory of Nunavut which will be created on
April 1, 1999.
This new territory is being created as part of the Nunavut land
claim agreement, originally signed by the Progressive
Conservative government in 1993.
I will repeat this for the benefit of everyone in the House
because I have heard several people state the size of the new
territory and no one has been right yet. For the record, the new
territory will be 2,242,000 square kilometres, which is
approximately one-fifth the size of Canada and 69% of the
existing Northwest Territories.
It is important to ensure that a smooth transition occurs in
April when Nunavut comes into effect. Obviously it is imperative
to have a judicial system in place and to have the necessary
people appointed and in place to begin work on April 1, 1999.
The amendments put forward by this legislation are going to
establish a unique court system in Canada. Currently all
Canadian jurisdictions operate with a two-court system where a
provincial or a territorial court works in conjunction with a
higher court, either a Queen's bench or a supreme court,
depending on the terminology used. This legislation will
implement a one-court system unique to the eastern Arctic.
This legislation to amend the Nunavut Act is necessary because
under the original act a two-level court system would be
implemented in the new territory. By amending the act the Inuit
of Nunavut hope the judicial system will more accurately reflect
their traditions. Whether this will be the result remains
questionable.
One of the concerns of the Inuit is the location of prisons.
Currently there is no federal facility in the north, so anyone
serving a sentence of more than two years must go to a facility
in the south. The only other option is an exchange agreement
whereby a regional facility would agree to house the inmate.
This issue, however, while important to the Inuit, is separate
from the judicial system and not addressed by this legislation.
With these amendments there will be three judges appointed to
travel to the various outlying communities in the new territory
of Nunavut. These three judges will preside over civil, criminal
and family cases. Currently the judge who presides over all of
the cases in the eastern Arctic also follows this system for most
civil and criminal cases. She is based in Iqaluit and travels to
the remote communities as required. Cases dealing with issues
such as divorce and adoption, however, are referred to the
supreme court based in Yellowknife.
Under this legislation the three judges appointed to hear cases
in Nunavut will have the same power and authority to hear all
cases without the need to refer to a higher court level. At the
same time, a court of appeal, about which I have heard a number
of questions asked, will still exist should appeals be made,
namely the Nunavut court of appeal.
This legislation will allow a one-level court system to be
introduced to the eastern Arctic. The western region of the
Northwest Territories, as well as the rest of Canada will closely
watch this experimental system. Should it be successful, I
understand that the western region is considering adopting a
similar approach for its own judicial system.
I have had the opportunity on a few occasions to travel to the
western and eastern Arctic and I am looking forward to the
creation of Nunavut on April 1. Last year I had the opportunity
to speak to other amendments to the Nunavut Act that will help to
ensure that programs and procedures are in place and operational
on April 1, 1999.
This legislation will also provide additional seats in this
House, which will allow representation for both territories which
are currently the Northwest Territories.
1645
The PC Party was instrumental in establishing the basis for this
new territory. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work
on this piece of legislation, one that will ensure everything is
in place and ready to go next April. This will be an historic
time for Canada and it provides an excellent opportunity to
introduce a one court system.
Whether the court system meets the high expectations of the
Inuit remains to be seen, but it will be an opportunity to see
how the justice system can be adapted to unique circumstances.
While a one court system has been discussed on different
occasions as an alternative to the two court system, it has never
been implemented. Given the conditions existing in the eastern
Arctic, it is an excellent opportunity to introduce such a
system.
It is assumed that the one court system will have the advantage
of being both cheaper to operate and more efficient with only one
level of court to travel to the various communities instead of
two. This should reduce the operating costs, particularly since
it is necessary to fly to the outlying communities.
This is especially relevant when one considers that the new
territory of Nunavut consists of 26 communities with a total
population of approximately 26,000 people. This system may also
improve efficiency since each judge will be able to preside over
the various types of cases and it should reduce the scheduling
program problems that the two court levels would entail.
On the other hand, this means only one system is available for
different types of offences combining territorial and federal
issues and jurisdictions. This may raise concerns about the
fairness of a system that hears cases from all levels.
At the same time, while there may be some adjustments to the new
system and some minor hurdles to overcome, the system will be
unique to the new territory and closely monitored by the
Government of Canada, particularly the western portion of the
current Northwest Territories.
The legislation is necessary to establish the judicial system as
a one court system, another step in ensuring a smooth transition
to the new territory on April 1, 1999.
The Progressive Conservative Party has always supported the
creation of Nunavut and the land claims settlement that set out
the establishment of the new territory. I am looking forward to
the creation of Nunavut next year and will continue to support
legislation that assists in this endeavour.
I welcome the opportunity to study the legislation at committee.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the hon. member for South Shore speak
about the issue of incarceration. I guess it will not have much
effect in terms of incarceration.
I would interested in probing the member further on that subject
given that it is obviously part of the justice system. There
will have to be agreements in place to house the inmates who are
convicted for more than two years, hopefully as close as possible
to their homes so that it will enhance the prospects for
rehabilitation.
The Conservative Party certainly has a long history of building
prisons. The one that comes to mind right away is the one that
the former Conservative prime minister from Quebec built in his
riding. I think it was the Port Cartier prison.
Does the hon. member have any other thoughts with respect to how
incarceration issues will be dealt with? He seems to have
displayed some expertise on the subject given his comments this
afternoon.
I do not know if the hon. member has the information available,
but I would like to know the number of inmates we might be
talking about that are generated from the actions of the court
system. If he could provide some information on that it would be
helpful.
The member also mentioned that if these amendments were
successful in terms of the application of the one court system to
the eastern Arctic the people in the western Arctic would be
looking with interest at the experiment, if that is what we want
to call it.
Does the hon. member have any information with respect to what
sort of political pressure is currently being exerted by the
people in the western Arctic with respect to how quickly they
would want such a system implemented?
1650
I would appreciate if the hon. member for South Shore could
enlighten the House with respect to those issues.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the first issue is that
prisons and museums tend to be the same in relation to the act
before us and some of the justice applications the hon. member is
discussing.
I am not a legal professional. Nor do I profess to be. My
party has looked at this issue and will be studying it in great
detail in committee. As the hon. member is aware, we have a
golden opportunity to look at a trial case of implementing a one
court system in northern Canada where there are huge amounts of
territory, a duplication of task and an overlapping of
jurisdiction. If we can solve the problem with the one court
system then we are in favour of it.
On the question of whether or not incarceration will take place
in the north there is an agreement in place. The details of that
agreement after a two year sentence are unclear. We will be
looking at that in committee. A number of questions with respect
to the legislation have not yet been answered. It is important to
remember that it is a trial case. We have a perfect opportunity
to introduce a one court system, to look at it and to study it
further.
On the third question of the western Arctic and the Yukon
territory, they have been looking very closely at this system. It
is something they would be very interested in. They also have
the opportunity to wait and see. For them there is a benefit to
be derived from that.
In the eastern Arctic there are 2.242 million square kilometres
of territory and 26 villages. It is a very difficult to wait and
see if they need the single court system now.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-57, an act to amend the
Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to
amend other acts in consequence.
I reiterate the remarks of my colleague from South Shore who has
been a strong and vigorous spokesperson not only on behalf of his
riding but on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of
Canada in the Indian and northern affairs portfolio.
I also commend the efforts of the hon. member for Nunavut.
Although we do not share the same political affiliation, I know
the member is deeply committed to achieving progress for her
constituents as they enter the 21st century as residents of
Canada's newest territory.
It was unfortunate to witness the Leader of the Official
Opposition cynically using the debate of the Nunavut Act in
parliament earlier to promote his own partisan agenda with
respect to Senate reform. The Leader of the Official
Opposition's lengthy diatribe against of the upper chamber, which
at one time included his father, proved once again that while he
can play opposition politics with the best of politicians he does
not have the qualities to lead the country. The people of
Nunavut deserve better.
Fortunately Canada had a leader with the foresight and vision to
pursue an aggressive activist agenda. Canadians had the Right
Hon. Brian Mulroney who set the wheels in motion to establish the
Nunavut territory by signing the Nunavut land claim agreement in
1992.
The creation of Nunavut is one more reason why Mr. Mulroney was
named a Companion of the Order of Canada. Furthermore, under the
previous Conservative government and the former constitutional
affairs minister Joe Clark, who is re-emerging on the national
scene, aboriginal people were full participants at formal
constitutional negotiations for the first time in Canadian
history.
Brian Mulroney remains a convenient scapegoat who the Liberals
are happy to blame and denigrate in compensation for their
shortcomings.
1655
Nonetheless it cannot be stressed enough that the previous
Progressive Conservative government gave aboriginal peoples a
voice at the constitutional table, a voice through the royal
commission, a voice in the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act, and a voice for Inuit people by signing the Nunavut land
claim agreement.
Today we are debating yet another piece of legislation
introduced by the government that is a proud legacy of the former
Progressive Conservative government. I am not concerned,
however, with what will happen when the Liberals run out of the
policies stolen from the previous government. Canadians will
simply turn to the Progressive Conservatives to achieve
meaningful progressive change to improve the country. Although
our party's ambitious policies were unpopular at the time,
history once again has shown that by and large Progressive
Conservative policies are for the betterment of all Canadians.
Bill C-57 deals with providing the best possible court system
for Nunavut. There may be those who object to granting the
people of Nunavut a single court system. They may object on the
basis of jurisdictional concerns that the bill would create an
intrusive precedent. They may object on the basis that the bill
somehow violates the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
I do not share these objections. Bill C-57 appears to recognize
the unique circumstances in which the people of Nunavut live.
First and foremost in this unique environment is that the Inuit
people will also form a strong majority of Nunavut's population:
17,000 of the 22,000 residents or 77%. Nunavut's territory also
represents approximately one-fifth of Canada's size. Yet its
total population is only 22,000 or less than one-quarter of 1% of
the population of the country.
Let us compare Nunavut's size and population with other
jurisdictions. Nunavut's 1.9 million square kilometres fall just
under the figure for Greenland. Nunavut is five times the size
of Germany, four times the size of Sweden, and one-fifth the size
of China.
Then we factor in population distribution. Nunavut has only
one-hundredth of one person for every square kilometre of
physical territory. Canada as a whole has nearly three people
per square kilometre. Ontario has 11 people per square
kilometre. China has 120 people per square kilometre while
Germany has 220 people for every square kilometre.
Nunavut's main human and territorial characteristics are not
only unique to Canada. They are unique to the world. For
example, Nunavut has only 20 kilometres of highway. Moreover,
there is a disparity between communities. The largest community
is its future capital, Iqaluit. More than 3,000 people call
Iqaluit home. The community is located approximately 2,000
kilometres from Ottawa. Its average temperatures range from
-30°C in January to 15°C in July. Iqaluit residents experience
24 hours of daylight per day in June but find no more than six
hours of daily sunlight in December.
On the other hand, Grise Ford is Nunavut's most northern
community, a full 2,700 kilometres from Ottawa. Its population
numbers around 130 people who experience an average temperature
of -35° in January and 10° in July. These hearty souls also live
in 24 hours of daylight in June and around the clock darkness in
December.
The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has experienced
numerous challenges practising law in the rural area he comes
from. He told me it was difficult for home to conceive how court
proceedings, be they related to criminal civil or family law,
would occur effectively and efficiently in such a broad
jurisdiction with such a small population, with such a diversity
of communities.
As has been already mentioned, Bill C-57 amends several existing
federal statutes. It amends the Nunavut Act to establish a
single level trial court at the superior court level to be known
as the Nunavut Court of Justice.
It amends the Judges Act to provide for three superior court
judges on the Nunavut Court of Justice and to provide for full
membership in the Canadian Judicial Council for the senior judge
of each of the territories.
It amends the Criminal Code to provide the new structures and
procedures for the Nunavut court of justice in the following
areas: jurisdiction of the judges, summary conviction appeals, a
mew statutory form of release, judicial interim release, and
elections as to a mode of trial.
1700
Finally, Bill C-57 amends the Young Offenders Act to ensure that
structures and procedures for single level trial court are
consistent with the new structures and procedures in the Criminal
Code.
I therefore welcome Bill C-57 as a positive measure that
recognizes the unique conditions of the people of Nunavut. I
look forward to working with my caucus colleagues from South
Shore, Nunavut and other members and, most important, the people
of Nunavut to critically examine this legislation at the justice
committee.
We need to ensure that Bill C-57 accurately reflects both the
needs of Nunavut and the obligation of the Government of Canada
to protect the new course of justice. Let us continue to build
on the legacy for Inuit self-government left by the former
Progressive Conservative government.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member's comments with great interest. It
is interesting to know that he is a lawyer and perhaps brings a
different perspective to this legislation than some of us who are
not from the legal profession.
My question in terms of this new system to be applied to Nunavut
is whether there will be flexibility within the system in terms
of responding to the needs of aboriginal communities. One of the
things we have learned in this country is that there are some
very different traditions as far as justice and the application
of justice.
Coming in this morning I heard on CBC radio the whole issue of
adapting sentencing circles to southern communities like regional
municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. I am interested in knowing
whether there is flexibility within the system, if the hon.
member knows or has this information at his disposal. I would
like to know whether there is enough flexibility in the system to
allow for those sorts of options in the north with this new
legislation.
Clearly some of the mechanisms we have in terms of the British
tradition of justice differ greatly from the aboriginal system.
I ask the hon. member if he has any information on that and
whether we will be seeing more creative types of justice applied
to northern communities that adapt more to the needs and the
traditions of the people who live in those communities.
Mr. Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
In Canada we have many provinces and territories. We have
provincial and federal laws. I am sure this new act will help
the people of the north. I assure the hon. member that what he
just asked will be studied in committee in the near future.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member. He
made a reference to the Senate and how the Reform Party has been
too negative about the other place and all the wonderful senators
and so on.
I notice in the most recent polling that a growing number of
people just want to abolish the Senate. An Angus Reid poll a few
months ago said 41% want to abolish it, 43% want to reform it.
There was a Pollara poll in December of last year that said 34%
want to abolish it and 33% want to reform it.
I wonder if he would join a drive that has been spearheaded by
the hon. member for Sarnia and me to abolish the Senate as a
project for the new millennium in terms of increasing democracy
in this country. It appears to be the wishes of the Canadian
people.
I know the Conservative Party has a very democratic leadership
selection process in terms of being a grassroots party.
1705
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
remind members we are discussing Bill C-57, an act to amend the
Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut court of justice and to
amend other acts in consequence. Did we change? Did I miss
something?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No, although there
has been in debate the notion of changed representation and the
question of the other place.
Mr. Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
from the NDP for his question.
What I made reference to was that when we had such a debate in
the House of Commons the Leader of the Opposition did not talk
about that at the time. He was more interesting in talking about
the Senate. That is what I was relating to.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I begin by
acknowledging clearly the contribution those people who live
north of 60 make to Canada and the contribution they have made in
the past. Let me acknowledge for example that their presence has
been extremely important for the maintenance of Canadian
sovereignty in the high Arctic in the past.
These people live in an area of Canada that experiences a harsh
climate. It is a difficult lifestyle. It is a difficult place
to earn a living.
As a member of parliament who represents a northern riding in
British Columbia with many small and remote communities, I have
some understanding of what it would be like to live north of 60,
although obviously I do not understand it completely.
Let us examine what this bill is about and ask ourselves some
very serious questions with regard to where we are headed. To
listen to some of the members in this place today we would think
the people who currently live north of 60 do not have a justice
system and have no access to justice.
We know that is not right. We know these people have had access
to justice since the inception of Canadian sovereignty in 1867.
What we have come to understand, certainly from the Reform
Party's point of view, is that this is another piece of
legislation that is a furtherance to the whole concept of
Nunavut. Nunavut from the perspective of many people in the
Reform Party is a very badly flawed and fiscally irresponsible
idea which is bereft of intellectual discipline.
Acknowledging that people who live north of 60 live in a harsh
climate and difficult circumstances does not mean that it is
somehow a good idea to adopt the notion of Nunavut and then spend
$300 million of taxpayer money just to implement it.
For the 25,000 or so people who live in this area to be covered
under Nunavut, equivalent to a medium size town in rural Canada,
these people are to receive an expenditure per capita of about
$12,000. Let us not forget that about half these people are
children below the age of majority. It is not a very large
population at all but it is a huge expenditure.
In order to implement Nunavut the government now has to set up a
judicial system, to set up a legislature, to set up a senate and
all these trappings that go along with the concept of the
territory of Nunavut.
Nunavut in the opinion of many, including some constitutional
experts, people who were around the table in 1980-1981 when
former Prime Minister Trudeau was in the process attempting to
patriate the Constitution to Canada, is actually the creation of
a province through the back door.
1710
In strict terms, if the Government of Canada and the provinces
were in agreement that a new province should be created there is
a process that must be followed in order to effect the
constitutional change required to see that come about.
However, the Government of Canada arbitrarily and in isolation
has decided to create this new territory called Nunavut and it is
a province in everything but name.
I suggest there will come a time when somebody, some province or
some group will challenge the constitutionality of the
legislation which brings Nunavut to life. I suggest there is a
good likelihood the challenge will succeed.
For the expenditure proposed, and the $300 million
implementation cost is only a small part of the overall cost, we
can only wonder what could have been achieved for the people who
live north of 60 and what they are getting. What they are
getting is a huge bureaucracy. Along with that the idea that
large bureaucracies somehow increase people's standard of living
and create wealth is being reinforced. We know they do not.
We know that for many decades now both Liberal and Conservative
administrations in Ottawa have attempted to practise this faulty
fiscal policy and it has nearly bankrupted the country. We now
have, even among Liberals which is something I never thought I
would see in my lifetime, the acknowledgement that we have to
look at ways of increasing people's living standards and
improving their lifestyles other than through government
intervention.
What is being proposed for Nunavut is a massive infusion of
federal dollars to implement and on an ongoing basis maintain,
which is somehow supposed to improve the standard of living of
people in that area. I suggest this is not about wealth creation
but about an ongoing transfer of wealth from the rest of Canada
to a very large geographical area, very sparsely populated. I
believe the thinking behind Nunavut is faulty.
There are a number of questions that come to my mind when I look
at the bill before us. What is missing? How much will this
piece of legislation cost? How much is it going to cost to
implement and maintain? Who is going to pay that?
I do not think 25,000 people in the high Arctic will be able to
underwrite the cost of this on an ongoing basis through their tax
base. I just do not see that.
What we are saying in effect is that the Canadian government,
i.e. Canadian taxpayers from coast to coast, is going to
underwrite the costs of this new justice system in perpetuity. I
say there is something fundamentally wrong with that. A justice
system can be made available to people who live north of 60 and
all the other departments of government available to most
Canadians can be made available on a much more cost effective
basis which would be much more fair to the taxpayers in the rest
of Canada.
Again I say this is the result of an intellectual process which
is at best faulty and which is at worst bankrupt.
1715
The people who came up with this brainchild and passed it
through the House of Commons in form of legislation continue to
support it and to enact further legislation to effect the
implementation of Nunavut. They have not been honest with
themselves or with the people north of 60 whom the legislation is
supposed to benefit. Nor have they been honest with the rest of
Canada.
There are many parallels. I know this is not a land treaty or a
land claim agreement, but in the great deal of the thinking
behind Nunavut and what has gone into supporting it is the notion
that people north of 60, who are predominantly of aboriginal
extraction, Inuit, should have a greater degree of say and
control over their own lives.
I do not think anyone in the House would disagree. I do not
think anyone wants to say that these people should be dictated to
from Ottawa. Lord knows that as a British Columbian growing up
during the sixties and seventies I certainly got a bellyful of
Ottawa dictating to British Columbia and to me as a citizen of
British Columbia how I should live.
An hon. member: They still do.
Mr. Mike Scott: Yes, they still want to dictate to us.
That is why Reform is here. That is why it is important that we
do not abolish the Senate. That is why it is important that we
have an effective Senate, an elected Senate. It is one way of
assuring the regions of Canada, including the north of Canada,
that there will be an opportunity for balancing the very strong
representation by population that we have in the House of
Commons. This is the fallacy in the thinking of my friend who
raised the issue a few minutes ago.
On the surface it is immediately attractive but in the long run
it will not serve the regions of Canada. As a matter of fact it
closes the door forever for them to have an opportunity of equal
and effective representation based on a regional model rather
than representation by population.
If we abandon the idea of a triple E Senate we forever resign
ourselves to having central Canada dictate to the rest of Canada
and the regions how we will live our lives. That lets down our
constituents, particularly those of us who come from rural parts
of Canada.
I see many parallels in the thinking that has gone into Nunavut,
the institutions that are being created including the justice
system, and the thinking that has gone into and is currently
going into the treaty process in British Columbia.
For example, in the Nisga'a agreement in British Columbia, the
first land claim agreement to be resolved or supposedly to be
resolved—it is not resolved yet—the government intends to
create a separate justice system, exactly as it is attempting to
do with the legislation on Nunavut. This somehow leaves the
impression that these people do not have access to justice at the
present time, are being left out or being hard done by. I simply
argue that this is not the case.
I do not understand the justification for telling a group of
people, whether it is on an ethnic basis as in the case of
Nisga'a or on a geographical basis as in the case of Nunavut,
that they are entitled to a separate justice system which will
cost an extraordinary amount of money for the number of people it
is designed to serve.
Members on this side of the House have a great deal of
difficulty with the lack of responsiveness in the justice system
at the present time and the feeling that it is not achieving what
it ought to achieve. However it is still there for all
Canadians. I do not see how members opposite can make a
legitimate argument that somehow people are slipping through the
cracks and need their own justice system to be better off. I
just do not understand that thinking at all.
1720
The intellectual justification for the $300 million cost of
Nunavut does not stand up to the light of day. The legislation
is in furtherance to that whole bad idea. This is meant as no
disrespect whatsoever to the people who live in the high Arctic
but is simply a recognition of fact.
Therefore I cannot support what is being proposed. As much as I
would like to recognize the contribution of people who live in
the high Arctic, I will have to vote against the legislation when
it comes before the House.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my hon. colleague for the erudite and learned manner in which he
exposed what happened in Nunavut, in the establishment of
Nunavut, and with the legislation that came from the south. He
exposed some of the errors and shortsighted thinking that went
into the initial legislation and recognized the contribution of
these people.
I pay tribute to my colleague from Yukon who compassionately
indicated how necessary it was to provide justice for the people
of that part of Canada. My hon. colleague said that we all want
justice, and I think we all want it.
Would my colleague subscribe to the notion that if there is to
be justice it should be equal justice for all people in Canada?
One element of an equal justice system is a system that is more
or less parallel. We have a situation where apparently justice
is the issue. Equality of citizens before and under the law is
another issue and the object of a thorough and fair justice
system.
How will there be equality of justice in establishing a totally
different kind of conceptually directed justice system in one
part of Canada, in this case in Nunavut, as compared to the other
provinces? Why should there be a separate system in this part of
Canada?
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
excellent question. He has put his finger on a big part of the
problem.
According to the notions that were inculcated in me as I grew
up, Canada was founded and based on the notion of civic
nationalism. That means our participation in this democracy does
not depend on our gender, our colour, our language or our
religion. It does not depend on any identifying or
distinguishing characteristic. It depends on the fact that we
are of the age of majority and we have one person, one vote. We
all have the rights and freedoms afforded to us under the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. Before that rights were extended to us
under the British North America Act.
The legislation is another indicator that we have to be on guard
against a danger. Canada is in danger of breaking away from the
notion of civic nationalism into what I would consider to be a
regressive and less attractive notion of ethnic nationalism. We
see this expressed in many areas. We even see it expressed in
the House. I say that with the greatest of respect, because I do
not want to unfairly or without warrant attack any other members
of the House.
Let us consider the section of the Constitution that guarantees
and spells out our rights and freedoms. The next paragraph
states that notwithstanding that we have these rights and
freedoms, the government has the right to abrogate them when it
feels it is in the best interest of the nation. I do not see how
any right thinking person could ever accept that somebody's
rights would be taken away for any reason whatsoever.
Those rights should be immutable. They should be there as a
pillar or a cornerstone never to be affected by any action that
government may take.
1725
What is being proposed under the whole concept of Nunavut gets
dangerously close to breaking away from the notion of the
equality of all Canadians before the law and the right of all
Canadians to equal access to the institutions of government,
including the institution of justice. It falls perilously close
to the notion of ethnic nationalism, which is something I could
never support and I believe a majority of Canadians would never
support.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask a question regarding the judges
system in the new territory.
In 14 months we will be into a new millennium. With the type of
justice system the bill will bring in, what hope do these people
have to have enshrined later on in the history of the new
territory the same type of justice system the rest of Canadians
enjoy?
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I fully
understood the member's question, but I am reluctant to believe
that the people who will be looking to justice under the bill we
are debating will have the same access and the same disengaged
treatment other Canadians expect from the system.
It is vitally important in a civilized nation such as Canada
that all citizens fundamentally believe that the justice system
is unbiased, disengaged and will render justice in an even-handed
manner which takes into account no factors other than the facts
of law any justice system should recognize.
When I look at and contemplate the thinking behind the bill it
causes me some concern. It does not cause me as much concern as
the whole concept of Nunavut in the first place, but I am
certainly not embracing the notion that some Canadians by dint of
their geographical location or other distinguishing reasons ought
to have access to a different justice system with different rules
and regulations and different protocols than the rest of Canada
has access to.
I do not know if I have answered the member's question
succinctly enough. I hope I have. It is the best I can do for
the member.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
amendment to the Nunavut Act gives rise to the question of
whether or not it was properly thought out in the first place by
the government. It is talking about a different system of
justice, something separate from what the rest of Canadians
enjoy. Certainly, then, there would have been room to go ahead
with a different system for selecting people in the Senate. They
will have to make a new seat for this territory.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I will make it short because
I know you will not let me have it any other way.
Obviously the government is cherry picking, to answer the
member's question. The government says “Heads I win, tails you
lose”. It will not allow any notion of Senate reform when it
comes to Nunavut but it will embrace changes to the justice
system if it deems that is what it would like to see happen.
1730
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
TAX ON FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show
leadership and enact a tax on financial transactions in concert
with all OECD countries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with all parties and I
understand there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
I move:
That the motion be amended by removing the words “all OECD
countries” and replacing them with the following: “the
international community”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Debate is on the
motion as amended.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for
the unanimous consent to make that change which reflects a
broader consensus in the country and in the House.
The purpose for this private member's motion today, which is one
of the few votable motions in the House, is to start a debate on
a new idea which in many ways is an old idea. It was first
suggested by James Tobin, an economist who won the Nobel prize in
1992. He suggested in 1981 that in order to bring some
regulation or order to the international financial marketplace in
currency transactions there be enacted a very small foreign
currency transaction tax. This has to be done in concert with
the world community. One country by itself cannot do it. This
would bring some semblance of order to what we are seeing in the
world today.
The secondary purpose of the motion would be to use the funds to
establish in part an international development fund which would
be useful for many projects around the world. I will get into
that a little later on.
The time has come when we have to start looking at new ideas as
to how we work toward the common good not just in this country
but around the world. Dr. Tobin made the suggestion a number of
years ago. The idea is to impose a very small tax on foreign
currency transactions. The idea being talked about now by most
people around the world is a tax of .1%. In other words, one
dollar on every thousand dollars of foreign currency
transactions. If we buy a condo for $100,000 that would be a
$100 transaction tax.
I want to give the House some idea of the magnitude of what we
are talking about. In the 1970s the daily trading in the world
in foreign currency was about $17 billion. Today it is about $1.3
trillion. It is a figure so large it is impossible to even
imagine.
To give a comparison the trade in goods and services around the
world annually, 365 days of the year, of all countries is $4.3
trillion and the currency exchange is $1.3 trillion a day. That
is a lot of money.
1735
The consequences of this is that there is a feeling among a lot
of people that nation states have given up a lot of sovereignty
to what we sometimes call the boys in red suspenders as they
speculate on currency around the world.
Talking about this at this time is really appropriate because
much of the world is in recession and many people are predicting
a worldwide depression. We have seen the tremendous effect on
currency around the world and the effect on Canadian currency. We
have seen the problems in southeast Asia, in places like Thailand
and which have spread to other countries in that part of the
world, to Japan and Russia, which is now basically without a
government and in total chaos. The problem is spreading into
Brazil and parts of Latin America.
A large part of it is because of the rapid movement of short
term capital seeking a place to maximize its return. This is
being done at the flick of a computer key when billions are
moved, as I said $1.3 trillion every day.
Are we as a country powerless or do we want to assert our
sovereignty and try with our fellow people around the world to
come up with a method of bringing some order to the turmoil that
exists today in terms of international currency markets? I think
the answer is yes.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada was before the finance
committee last night. We have had the Minister of Finance before
the finance committee last night. They both talked about trying
to bring some order to the currency markets around the world.
This is one idea I think we should be looking at in terms of
trying to bring some of that order.
One of the consequences of technological change and of
globalization as we see it today has been the demise in the power
of the nation state. I do not thing there is any denying that.
But that opens up new opportunities in terms of how we govern
ourselves as the human race. I believe that many of the things
we used to do nationally as nation states and country by country
we will have to in the future start doing internationally as the
borders become more and more erased right around the world.
When we look at the attack on social programs around the world,
the environmental problems around the world, the lack of real
sovereignty in terms of monetary policy country by country, I
think we realize we have to do something about these in common
cause with other people around the world. That opens up an
exciting vision of the world of tomorrow, a new vision where
people regardless of the colour of their skin, regardless of
where they live, work together toward a common cause and a common
good.
One way of doing it is for the first time to have a small tax on
financial transactions applicable around the world. That is one
thing we should look at. Private members' hour is the time to do
this where we can all vote freely of our party whips and party
discipline to say yes or no to the idea. This motion does not
bind the government. It says that in the opinion of this House,
the government should show leadership and enact a tax on
financial transactions in concert with the international
community.
The Minister of Finance has made public statements where he is
interested in principle in the concept of a Tobin tax. He looked
at this very seriously in 1995 at the G-7 conference in Halifax.
He had papers commissioned on the Tobin tax at that time.
One of the reasons the Minister of Finance became rather
pessimistic on this in the last year or so was that he did not
think it would fly because of the government position in Britain
and the government in Germany, two big countries in Europe.
In the last year there has been a change in government in both
those places. In Britain it is now Tony Blair and the Labour
Party and as of three weeks ago in Germany there was the election
of Mr. Schroeder and the Social Democrats. In both cases they are
governments open to examining the possibility of the Tobin tax to
see whether we can work out some method of making this a feasible
part of a new world order and new world vision.
1740
It could be an exciting time for our country and our parliament.
We should ask the Minister of Finance to take the lead on this
very important issue for the world of tomorrow.
As I said, this has been debated before. It began with Mr.
Tobin, the economist who won the Nobel prize. It was talked
about in October 1987 during the stock market crash around the
world. It was also debated in 1984 when the peso in Mexico
collapsed, causing a tremendous exodus of capital from that
country. The result of that exodus of capital was a tremendous
amount of hardship and poverty for the ordinary Mexican person.
The excess capital around the world seeking a safe haven and
seeking to make money, although much of that money is going to
the United States, has once again precipitated a debate. This is
another reason we should be looking at it.
I want to give three examples of the so-called Tobin tax. First,
I say to some of my friends who are concerned about tax issues
that it is a very small tax; .1% is what is being talked about,
maybe even less than that. This would have virtually no impact
whatsoever on long term investment in the world, long term
investment that is needed in developing and developed countries
alike. It would be so small that it would not affect long term
investment.
On the other hand, it would deter short term speculation, money
that moves into a market for a few minutes, a few hours or a few
days and moves out of that market after it makes a short term
amount of money on a small margin. This money is sort of
slushing back and forth around the world and is operating on very
small margins. The effect of this is that it creates great
distortions in national economies like Mexico, Brazil or what is
happening in Russia today. It even affects us where our dollar
is weaker than it should be because a lot of dollars are going to
the United States to seek refuge.
It would not have an impact on long term investment but it would
bring some semblance of order to the world community and to the
boys in red suspenders who are trading currency back and forth
like a gigantic casino around the world that affects working
people in every country.
It would bring more stability for exporters, importers,
investors and the government in terms of planning budgets, public
policies and monetary policies of nation states right around the
world. It would bring more stability because that great
volatility of the casino economy would be tempered to a certain
degree.
Finally, as I said, it would reduce the power of the speculators
and increase the power of national governments to do more things
in their countries and to be able to share increased power
through international bodies and organizations. That is the main
reason for the so-called Tobin tax, the tax on international
transactions.
The second reason for the motion is to raise revenue for worthy
projects around the world. This is the secondary objective but
it is still a very important objective. Many times we have world
disasters and there is a great deal of difficulty trying to raise
money for those world disasters. The United States is now in a
great debate in terms of what the Americans should pay in terms
of a stipend to the United Nations to keep it going, a debate
between the Republicans and the Democrats, between the office of
the president and Congress.
I remember the disaster in Chernobyl, the great disaster with
the reactor in Ukraine and the time it took to get funding and
money to help the victims and do the clean-up. There are many
purposes the money could be used for in terms of development
around the world.
I think of the whole issue of jobs, the economy and the millions
of people being thrown out of work now because of what is
happening in many parts of the world.
Some money could be used for employment and jobs. Some money
could be used for peacekeeping, for the mines issue, for medical
research and for environmental research and funding. There are
many uses for this money.
1745
I will give a few examples. If there were a 0.1% Tobin tax on
foreign currency transactions, that would raise, in 1995 dollars,
$176 billion U.S. That is a lot of money. A Tobin tax of 0.003%
would be enough money to fund United Nations peacekeeping around
the world. It could fund the project initiated in large part by
our Minister of Foreign Affairs on land mines. There are many
worthy causes around the world.
One of the consequences would be the establishment of a global
village which would have a common good amongst all nations of the
world. There would be a strengthening of international
organizations. The United Nations would become a meaningful
world government and would share things with national governments
around the world. There could be permanent international
peacekeeping forces. There are many things that could be done.
How would this be implemented? There are a number of ways of
doing it. The International Monetary Fund could be reformed to
do it or the World Bank could be reformed to do it. My
preference would be a new international financial agency to
administer the Tobin tax.
Who would collect the tax? National governments would collect
the tax around the world.
The time has come for this country to consider taking leadership
in a new idea, in a new vision that seeks to bring some order to
the chaos we see around us every day. This cuts across political
lines. I differ from time to time with colleagues in other
parties, the Reform Party or the government. However, I know
from talking to people in the Reform Party, the Liberal Party the
Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservative Party that there
is a great deal of concern in all of our constituencies.
People feel helpless and hopeless by what they see happening in
the stock market today and by what they see happening to our
dollar. People were scared last August when the dollar started
to plummet and the bank rate went up twice. People are concerned
about what is happening in Brazil. Thailand was one of the most
successful countries in the world a year or so ago. The Asian
tigers were held up as an example of how to run an economy. They
were virtually running it on very small debts. All of a sudden
it started to tumble down like a deck of cards.
An hon. member: It brought down some of my stocks.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: It probably brought down some of the
member's stocks. I am sure the member for Souris—Moose Mountain
will be a very enthusiastic supporter of this motion.
This motion would empower people. It would give back some
sovereignty to people through their national governments and
through world agencies. Rather than just the law of the jungle
with a few people on computers trading on the futures market, the
currency markets and the stock markets around the world, it would
have a great impact on the lives of so many people.
I want to ask the House to take this motion seriously. It does
not say that we should do this by ourselves. Of course we cannot
do this by ourselves. It does not say that we should do it along
with Zimbabwe and Peru and five or six small countries. It says
that we should do it in concert with the international community.
To make it work the United States has to be there, the Republic
of Germany has to be there, France has to be there, Britain and
many of the bigger countries in the world that form the OECD or
the G-7 have to be there.
Change only comes if we pursue an idea. Canada is a highly
respected country in the world. Canada could start talking about
this idea with the new governments in Europe and France. In
France there has been a new government in the last year, led by
Lionel Jospin of le Parti socialiste français. There are new
governments in France, Germany and Britain.
With new governments around the world, perhaps we can make some
headway. If we do not do this we are going to continue becoming
more and more impotent in terms of exercising the power and the
sovereignty that people around the world should have.
1750
I look forward to listening to the debate. We should put aside
party differences and get behind an idea whose time I think has
come.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that we
share the hon. member's concern over the volatility that often
occurs in financial markets and it is actually for this reason
that we can support the motion put forward by the hon. member.
Certainly financial instability is a threat to global prosperity
and I think it is incumbent on governments to examine all of the
options to address the problem. A Tobin tax is one such option.
But let us be clear. Canada is already exercising international
leadership as part of a broad strategy to attack the underlying
causes of financial market volatility and we are enjoying
considerable success in working with our partners on practical
ways of improving the functioning of international markets and
preventing and managing crises.
We would all prefer a world where markets always get things
right, a world where exchange rates always behave in a way that
we could clearly understand in the context of our economic
circumstances and policies, a world where exchange rate movements
were always helpful in promoting solid growth and job creation
for our citizens. But financial markets are not perfect
institutions. Clearly they do not always get it right. They
travel in herds. They run on rumour. They sometimes ignore
fundamentals and all too often they overshoot.
Exchange rates can sometimes move erratically and these erratic
movements can cause economic problems, affecting competitiveness
or requiring authorities to take some actions to defend the
currency that they might otherwise prefer not to do.
The challenge that we face is to find the best way of dealing
with these problems which economists call market imperfections.
Proponents of the Tobin tax argue that such a tax would put sand
in the wheels of international finance by imposing a very small
percentage tax on all foreign exchange trades. So the argument
goes that this would discourage speculation and stabilize
financial markets without interfering unduly with longer term
trade or investment.
Others are attracted by the tax revenue that they believe the
tax could raise and which they believe could finance many
worthwhile programs.
The arguments surrounding the merits of the Tobin tax are
certainly interesting and have been debated for quite some time
by economists and others. I am sure that they will be debated
for some time to come.
But the more important question from our perspective is not the
theoretical benefits that might result from introducing such a
tax, but the very practical question of whether this would be
feasible. Here it seems very unlikely that a Tobin tax could be
imposed on a scale that would actually give rise to the benefits
its supporters claim without penalizing some countries severely.
The reason for this is that for the tax to be at all effective
in stabilizing markets or raising revenue it would need to be
applied globally, and given today's advanced communications and
computing technology, transactions can be conducted anywhere in
the world and can shift from one location to another in the blink
of an eye. If a Tobin tax were not universal in its coverage,
transactions and the incomes and the employment they generate
would simply shift to any jurisdiction that did not impose the
tax.
Canada in fact explored the idea during the Halifax summit, at
which time it became apparent that a number of G-7 countries were
adamantly opposed to this idea. Their positions have not
changed, despite, as the hon. member has mentioned, some change
in governments.
But even agreements among the G-7 or all of the industrial
countries would not be sufficient for the proposal to work. All
countries would have to agree. There would always be an
incentive for some group of countries to opt out, thereby
establishing themselves as an off-shore financial centre. I do
not believe any member of the House would support a policy that
merely encourages the growth of off-shore banking centres.
There are other practical problems. Enforcement of a Tobin tax
would involve a constant cat and mouse game of closing loopholes
discovered by market players.
So it is for these reasons that the Tobin tax has not attracted
widespread support from other countries.
I am not here today to tell the House that nothing can be done
to address the question of volatility in international financial
markets. In fact, a great deal is being done on this front and
Canada is exercising considerable leadership in these efforts.
1755
Our aim, working with our international partners, is to address
the underlying causes of international crises such as the Asian
crisis and to develop mechanisms to help manage them when they
occur.
Although the crisis in Asia had complex roots, it is clear the
governments in the region contributed to the problem by allowing,
and sometimes even encouraging, imprudent lending on the part of
local financial institutions.
Moreover, the promise of fixed exchange rates, a promise that
ultimately proved hollow, encouraged local banks and companies to
borrow huge amounts of foreign currency. Financial turmoil was
the inevitable result of these inappropriate policies and
practices.
Canada has provided leadership to the international community on
reforms that would address the underlying cause of financial
crises and not just symptoms.
At the spring meeting of the IMF and the World Bank our finance
minister proposed measures to strengthen supervision and
regulation of financial sectors including peer review. Simply
put, peer review would allow experts from Canada and other
countries to share their expertise with their counterparts in
emerging markets and ensure that best practices are being
followed.
I am pleased to inform the House that our Canadian proposal was
endorsed by the G-7 and the IMF at the annual meetings in
Washington. The IMF will begin to use peer review as a way of
strengthening financial sector supervision and regulation
starting next year.
Canada has also proposed a mechanism to ensure that private
sector investors such as banks will be involved in the resolution
of international financial crises in a much more integrated way
than has previously been the case.
Standard operating procedure today is for the IMF, the World
Bank and national governments to put up money first. The private
sector gets involved only at the end, if at all. Quite clearly
that is not an equitable way to share the burden. More to the
point, it is no longer on.
Our finance minister proposed a mechanism that would allow for
payment standstills during financial crises. This would give
hard-pressed countries the time needed to put economic reforms in
place much as solvent but illiquid companies can be shielded from
their creditors.
A great deal has been accomplished on these concrete measures to
address the volatility in international financial markets.
Obviously there is still work that needs to be done on this
subject.
Canada is determined to carry on its efforts toward leading the
international community in its efforts to develop a more stable
and prosperous world economy. It is in this context that Canada
could accept the imposition of a Tobin tax if the problems that
we have outlined were resolved and if all—and I need to be very
clear on this—other jurisdictions agreed. Unfortunately those
are very big ifs.
Our finance minister, the government and in fact the country,
rather than sit back and wait for a Tobin tax or for some other
option, acted in a way showing leadership. We put forward a six
point plan to attack the underlying causes of financial market
volatility. By putting forward that six point plan we have the
support of the IMF and the support of the G-7 countries.
We have countries around the world looking to Canada for
leadership on this issue. The finance minister has demonstrated
that leadership. We will continue to do so as we continue to
explore this issue with other major countries. We will continue
to show leadership on a much broader strategy to attack the
underlying causes of financial market volatility.
I commend the hon. member for bringing the motion forward and
for allowing the House an opportunity to debate an issue which
has been debated for some time now and will continue to be
debated. It is an honourable thing to do, but there are flaws in
this tax from the perspective that the one underlying principle
which must be adhered to is that all countries must participate
in a Tobin tax. They must all do it at the same time so we do
not create any offshore financial centres. We can support this
motion in principle.
1800
However, I caution the House and the hon. member that there are
many obstacles in the way to seeing this tax come to fruition.
In the meantime, we will continue to show leadership as a
country. Our finance minister will continue to show leadership
at the IMF by adopting a strategy for addressing the broader
underlying causes of the crises that are faced by the world.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to put it directly, I oppose the Tobin
tax because I care about the poor and I care about the average
Canadian who might wind up paying the bill in the long run.
Today we are really having a discussion about socialist myths.
It is fine to have an academic debate for intellectual discourse
but heaven help us if we ever allowed the world to slide into
such a state where today's proposal would actually be realized.
It would really hurt millions of people if the tax were ever
large enough that it actually worked to its policy objectives.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is urging the government to
introduce a financial transaction tax, or the Tobin tax as it is
known in the academic and university circles. In plain terms a
financial transaction tax can be any tax. It can be any tax, fee
or duty imposed by a government upon the sale, purchase, transfer
or registration of a financial instrument. It can be broadly
based or it can exempt a variety of instruments. It can be
levied against transactions by Canadians or it can be levied
against transactions in Canada, or both, cutting various ways
across borders.
I think that I speak on behalf of Canadians when I say that
taxes discourage positive activity, especially excessive taxes
and disincentive penalty taxes. A financial transaction tax
would ultimately discourage financial transactions. This would
not be good for our economy. This idea responds to the symptoms
rather than the causes of financial disorder.
Several weeks ago representatives from all opposition parties
got together and in unison voiced a concern to decrease the
premiums placed on employment insurance. All opposition parties
wanted a reduction in a specific tax. What each party wanted to
do with the surplus was rather different, but every party was at
least against the increased levy because it hurt the employment
rates we desire in Canada.
It is obvious the financial transaction tax is not viewed in
quite the same way as the employment insurance tax. However my
illustration was simply to show that people hate taxes, period,
and in general they are hurtful if they are usurious.
Why was it that Canadians were so opposed to the GST even though
some prices on consumer goods were reduced as a result? It is
simply that new taxes are hard to sell to the public and they
almost always create distortions in the market.
The NDP and socialists around the world want this tax to be
implemented. They see it as a way to raise money for social
issues but often without practical political accountability. One
of the areas Professor James Tobin uses in selling his proposed
tax to various countries around the world is that revenues could
be used to finance the United Nations, or as others have
suggested, to aid in various worldwide campaigns like that on
land mines. A nice result to help the medicine go down.
To the uninformed or the resentful the idea may sound good on
paper but we need to examine it closely to see how the revenue is
handled. The main purpose of taxing something is for the revenue
it brings. The NDP can say what it wants about how this tax
would straighten out the world markets, which it certainly would
not, but the bottom line is its secondary agenda.
In 1995 a group of environmental NGOs got together to form the
Halifax initiative. Spearheaded by the Sierra Club of Canada the
group urged for Canada to be a leader and initiate a financial
transaction tax during the Halifax meeting of the G-7 leaders.
One of the briefs put forward by the Halifax initiative stated:
“There are two key political issues involved with putting such a
tax in place. First, it would be necessary to forge agreement
amongst the major countries to implement a uniform tax, and
second, there would have to be agreement on the collection and
distribution of the revenue”. Perhaps it should have added a
third issue, for all countries to simply agree there also is a
Santa Claus.
I could say that collection might theoretically be done but even
that is the easier part. The hard part is where does the money
go? If the proceeds are returned to various governments, what
rules would determine which country gets what amount? Whose
money is it anyway?
1805
Would redistribution favour countries that have important
financial centres? Would redistribution favour countries based
on their voting shares, say in the International Monetary Fund?
What about assigning revenues to global causes? How could any
international organization possibly get all the countries to
agree? The power struggle that would occur would be disastrous.
Proponents of the tax are suggesting that all countries in the
G-7 get together to create this tax. Perhaps these same
proponents should look at what is happening with other countries
that have had some experience with such types of disincentive
taxes and how they hurt people.
Japan has a financial transaction tax in a form and has had some
considerable difficulty with it as the tax has had negative
effects on the Japanese market. The story is similar in the
United Kingdom. It has raised some money but there is concern
that much more could be achieved without the tax. The U.K. is
considering getting rid of the tax. Sweden has also had bad
experiences with the tax. Germany has decided that the costs and
the problems of the tax far outweigh any benefits when we get
into that kind of revenue generation.
To get all countries onside appears to be an insurmountable
task. According to Tobin, “a transaction tax on purchases and
sales of foreign exchange would have to be universal and uniform,
would have to apply to all jurisdictions, and the rate would have
to be equalized across all markets”. That is his criteria.
Obviously that would be absolutely impossible to achieve.
There are other reasons to oppose the financial transaction tax,
one being to shift to other jurisdictions. It is impossible that
all jurisdictions will subscribe to the methods of the Tobin tax.
Therefore, members of the financial community will simply use
offshore tax havens in order to evade the tax. Complicated
schemes will be developed to get around the tax. There is no end
to it.
In 1995 the IMF wrote a paper on financial transaction taxes. It
spoke clearly about substitutions. It is stated in the paper,
“If transaction taxes applied to transactions only in domestic
markets, investors could substitute foreign trading as a means to
avoid the tax. Shifting the location of trade in financial
assets is relatively easy, with trade shifting to other countries
or to locations with established financial markets. For instance,
a considerable amount of trading in the equities of the United
States takes place in London”.
The stated goal of the tax is to slow the velocity of foreign
exchange markets. But once the tax was established, pressure
would be there to continue to raise the tax until it actually
began to work. It would then become a very difficult
disincentive for the overall world economy.
The bottom line is that there are insurmountable loopholes
through this idealistic scheme. Financial markets contain
numerous products that are close substitutes to other products. A
government bond is a close substitute to a high quality corporate
bond. Bank deposits are substitutes for money market funds. If
we tax one product, any investor is going to search out for a
replacement.
I think my NDP friends would agree that even in a perfect world
not every country would sign up to such a tax treaty as they are
proposing. Therefore, if a country refused to institute a
financial transaction tax, it would essentially become a magnet
for foreign exchange trading operations of major banks worldwide.
This would be disastrous for countries that went ahead and
implemented the tax. It would be a disincentive for them. It
would be a competitive advantage for those countries that stayed
out of the scheme.
The volatility of foreign exchange markets is a fact of life in
the global economy. My recommendation is for governments to
pursue credible fiscal policy and encourage strong transparent
financial sectors instead of punishing currency traders. Money
moves when there is a failure to perform. Accomplishments in a
working market are rewarded. Those who do not perform wither.
Often the volatility of money in the world has to do with seeking
higher performance. That is the best kind of discipline wherein
we all may be better off.
On paper the theory may be convincing to some, however in
reality it simply would not work. Therefore, I directly oppose
the idea of a Tobin tax.
Within our purview, the government has much more pressing
matters to deal with with respect to its financial house and
getting our finances in order. It is my hope the government will
begin to diligently work at reducing the employment insurance
premiums for example in order to rebuild the deteriorating
confidence Canadians have shown in respect of our domestic
financial markets.
We need lower taxes. For markets to work better, rather than
have a bureaucrat deal with money, it is better to leave the
money in the hands of a taxpayer, a consumer or an investor.
1810
Money markets worldwide are volatile. Eventually it is revealed
that the underlying fundamentals of these—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but the
time for the hon. member has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle on his great
idea of presenting Motion M-239, as amended to read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show
leadership and enact a tax on financial transactions in concert
with the international community.
My colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and I generally support in
principle motions as presented. And my colleague from
Lac-Saint-Jean clearly demonstrated this.
Wholesale unregulated globalization is a little scary.
So, as far as we are concerned, some regulating of international
financial transactions, of shameless speculation, is good.
Members will see why later in my remarks.
The meaning of “financial transactions” in general ought to be
specified. This may be a simplistic example, but let us say I
have $100 Canadian changed for American money because I will be
travelling to the U.S. tomorrow morning. Is this kind of
financial transaction likely to affect the Canadian or American
dollar? I think not. Should there be a tax on this simple
transaction? Again, I think not.
To sum up, yes, speculation should be taxed or regulated.
Perhaps the meaning of the word “transaction” should be further
defined, as we will see later.
Listening to the Reform member who spoke before me, it is clear
that the Tobin tax can be interpreted any number of ways. People
see what they want in it and it is blamed for many things.
When James Tobin—I want to make it clear that the premier of
Newfoundland and former minister on the other side is not the
one who came up with the idea of imposing such a tax, but rather
an American economist named James Tobin—won the Nobel Prize in
1972, I am sure no member of the Reform Party sat on the jury,
otherwise he would probably never have received this well
deserved award.
Just because an idea is difficult to implement does not mean it
should automatically be rejected. When my Reform Party
colleague says it cannot be implemented and is unfeasible, and
that a third issue could even be to consider reinventing Santa
Claus, I think he is going a bit far.
When he says it is impossible to get all countries to agree to
go along with a decision that would place legal limits on
international financial speculation, he is perhaps forgetting
that today, in 1998, we have the WTO, to which the very great
majority of, if not all, countries belong. Only a few are
missing.
Nonetheless, after several years of talks and
negotiations—starting with the GATT, and moving on—we now have
harmonized customs tariffs. Ten years before the first GATT
rounds and before the WTO, various parliaments perhaps had
debates in which they said that it would be impossible and
unthinkably utopian to consider harmonizing customs tariffs
internationally.
But this is what we have today. Why? Because countries
realized that, if countries who engage in this sort of
international trade wished to evolve in a constructive and
secure manner, it would be a benefit to rich countries and poor
countries alike to have a legal framework, a consensual
framework for trade and tariffs, in order to increase
international trade and revenues in countries that can benefit
from such trade.
1815
But there is a framework. How does it work? Who decides where
meetings are held? The first ministerial meeting was held in
Singapore, the second in Geneva, not too long ago, and
amendments and improvements are being made. International
institutions are capable of working in harmony. Why do people
say that, if it is complicated, they will give up, abdicate
their responsibilities and go home. I disagree completely.
The motion calls on us to move forward and give the matter more
thought, in light of the new reality. Some will say that the
idea was first put forward 20 years ago and that it has been
discussed for just as long, but that it is not feasible.
Twenty years ago, Mexico had yet to go through a money crisis.
Twenty years ago, Asia had yet to go through the crisis it is
now facing. Twenty years ago, nobody had heard of George Soros
who, with $10 billion, was able in only one day to make the
pound sterling drop and make a billion dollars in profit.
The economic situation has evolved, why can our vision and our
policies not do the same? Why stick to the idea—and I hope it is
not shared by the majority—put forward by the Reform Party, that
says “If it is too complicated, we give up and we will vote
against it”.
We also have to use our head and say we sincerely do not believe
that, with this tax, we want to tax everything. If I were to
invest $1,000 on the stock market or put $1,000 in a mutual
fund, I do not believe I would be a dangerous speculator with a
lot of influence on the peso or the U.S. dollar.
However, people are playing Russian roulette with foreign
currencies. People in Thailand and Mexico know full well that
sometimes, and more often than not, it has a direct impact on
their currency and hence on their national economy.
Let me give you an example. In the last edition of L'Actualité,
we can read that Bill Gates, whose assets total $51 billion,
could in one day restore the Russian economy. In today's
economy, there are some people, some consortiums, some
investment groups who can at any time use their money to
influence and destroy whole national economies, and this will
then trickle down to the regions.
This can have an impact at the international level. A few months
or a few years down the road, unfortunately, Canada will be
affected.
In today's new economy, do we have to ask ourselves that
question?
I was listening to the parliamentary secretary and I was
somewhat surprised. He also talked about the difficulties
related to the implementation of such a tax. He made reference
to the May 1995 report of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs entitled “From Bretton Woods to Halifax”. If I may, I
will quote from page 57 of that report. It says:
At this point, the Committee's view is that the feasibility of
the concept has yet to be proved but that an attitude of
openness is warranted. The objectives of a tax on currency
speculation at least have sufficient merit and promise to
deserve serious longer term examination within a G-7 context. We
are aware of some research that has already been done, including
within the Canada's Department of Finance.
However, ideas of this sort are still only in the very
preliminary stages of investigation, much less deliberation. As
even supporters of the concept willingly acknowledge:
That was written in 1995, three years ago, nearly four years
ago. “An in-depth feasibility study is needed”. What did the
government do with those recommendations? What did the
government do since May 1995 with this idea of a study
committee? We never saw such a committee.
In closing, I want to propose an amendment to Motion M-239. I
move:
That the motion be
amended by removing the words “enact a tax on financial
transactions” and replacing them with the following:
This amendment to Motion M-239 would stress the notion of
transaction, as I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, and
would make the motion consistent with the Tobin tax.
1820
I hope all members of the House will support the amendment and
then Motion M-239 as amended.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair was
advised earlier of the amendment and it is in order.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
commend my colleague in the New Democratic Party for having
brought forward this issue to the House of Commons.
When James Tobin introduced the concept of a Tobin tax 20 years
ago it did not make much of a ripple, which were his words. In
fact, it sank like a rock. Periodically we hear about a Tobin
tax and the idea flares up again typically during times of
economic turmoil.
In the current context, with $1.3 trillion traded daily in
global capital markets, it has raised its head again similar to
the Loch Ness monster. Periodically this monster pops up. Some
people see it, typically during periods of
turmoil.
I think the hon. member has done us a service by bringing the
issue forward so that we can debate and discuss the Tobin tax in
the House. I have significant concerns about the Tobin tax. Not
that I do not recognize the importance of developing market
controls or developing some way to effect the prevention of the
types of financial disasters we have seen in Southeast Asia,
prior to that in Mexico and with the Barings Bank and some of the
spinoffs of that debacle, or BCNI. These types of disasters have
been very damaging to economies not only within the sovereign
borders of those states where they emanated from but in a global
sense.
I do disagree with the concept of a Tobin tax. I feel there is
a certain amount of economic naivety that ignores some of the
unintended consequences of this type of tax. One of the
important things we must seek to protect in a global knowledge
based society is the efficiencies of our capital markets. Those
efficiencies can benefit in many ways as opposed to hurt.
In recent weeks and months we have seen the Asian crisis and the
resulting difficulties. We should not be asking whether Tobin
taxes could have prevented the Asian crisis because arguably they
could have or other arguments say they could not have, but we
should be asking why currency speculators found an opportunity to
begin with in those Asian countries. The fact is governments in
southeast Asia were operating fiscal policies inconsistent with
their monetary policies.
By global speculators seeing this inconsistency, finding an
opportunity to make money and investing as such they corrected an
inherent wrong in those economies much more quickly than would
have occurred if we had a Tobin tax.
It is kind of like would we prefer as a country with structural
deficiencies in our economy either fiscal or monetary to sit on
the curb bleeding to death or get hit by a bus and be taken to
the hospital. The fact is that currency speculators, and arguably
they are like a bus, draw very quickly global attention on some
of these hemorrhaging economies and cause us to fix them a lot
faster with the types of tenable, long term, sustainable, market
driven solutions which ultimately will prove to be the best.
1825
Mr. Tobin referred to the tax initially as throwing sand in the
wheels of international finance. I suggest those people who
believe we can through something like the Tobin tax throw sand in
the wheels of international finance may have their heads in the
sand. It is a huge global enterprise that Canadians can
participate in and one that Canadians can succeed in if we create
the appropriate incentives and structural elements in the
Canadian economy and efficiencies to do so. The Tobin tax would
work against us.
The idea of imposing a tax on foreign exchange transactions
sounds fairly innocent, making speculation more costly and in
proposals supporters claim that would inhibit speculation. The
question we have to ask ourselves is if speculation can cause
corrections which ultimately eliminate government ability to make
the wrong decisions and to create or to pursue fiscally
profligate policies that are in the long term unsustainable,
whether we really want to stop that. The idea of financial tax to
rebuff financial markets pops up periodically and most economists
reckon that a Tobin tax would not work nor would it be desirable.
The main problem is enforceability.
Even if we had each OECD country sign on, which would be a big
step, trading would simply move off shore to Singapore or other
countries such as the Cayman Islands or somewhere else which
would see a tremendous opportunity. The tax would have to cover
a whole range of financial transactions, not just foreign
exchange trading.
One of the most difficult financial transactions to actually
track and one that would be almost impossible for a Tobin tax to
effect would be derivatives. Derivatives and other increasingly
complex financial instruments are becoming increasingly prevalent
in the global markets and the Tobin tax would not be able to
effect change.
I could spend 20 minutes describing the Tobin tax and my
difficulties with it. The UN describes the Tobin tax as a sort
of Luddite proposal in terms of its intention to reverse the
general decline in the cost of international financial
transactions. We should be looking at some of the things that we
could do and I am glad this debate has come to the House. Some
of the things we should do is work with the IMF to improve
reporting such that we see more quickly situations developing in
countries. We can improve the reporting of governments. We can improve
openness and transparency of government policies, directly
inconsistent with what this government has done.
If we look at the dollar debacle of this summer when this
government was blaming currency speculators, the Prime Minister
was behaving similar to President Suharto. He was blaming
currency speculators for the weakness in Canadian currency when
the structural impediments to Canadian productivity in this
economy are the real culprits. It is not the currency
speculators. It is governments that pursue economic policies
that are unrealistic and governments that do not maintain the
type of transparency and openness with the international markets
to make them aware of the types of things they are doing that
reduce their credibility and ultimately lead to issues like the
systemic decline in the Canadian dollar or in issues in southeast
Asia where monetary policy was inconsistent with the fiscal
policy.
1830
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the order paper.
It being 6.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m. )