The House met at 10 a.m.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-16, an act to
amend the Criminal Code and the Interpretation Act (powers to
arrest and enter dwelling), as reported (with amendment) from
the committee.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.
Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6 will be grouped for debate. A vote on
Motion No. 2 applies to Motions Nos. 4 and 6.
Motions Nos. 3 and 5 will be grouped for debate. A vote on
Motion No. 3 applies to Motion No. 5.
I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this amendment with
some regret that we are in this situation. We are facing a
problem within the Department of Justice when important
amendments are being made to the Criminal Code that for all
intents and purposes are being ramrodded through at the committee
level and through the House.
As a result of the supreme court decision in the Queen v Feeney,
the Department of Justice was faced with a situation in which it
had to fill a gap that had been left by the supreme court when it
struck down sections of the Criminal Code that pertained to the
powers of arrest.
What has happened here is akin to the trampling on the right of
Parliament to actively and in a substantive way participate in
the debate and the process to make recommendations as they
pertain to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Time was certainly of the essence.
The supreme court, by virtue of a stay that was entered back in
July of 1997, gave Parliament the time to react to fill the gap
left by the decision handed down in the Queen v Feeney.
The problem that I have with this is that five and a half months
have past. The justice department was given ample opportunity to
react, to make the appropriate amendments to address this
situation. By the time it reached committee stage, members of
Parliament, the elected officials of this House, were given less
than five days to consider it. To be precise, they were given
approximately eight hours to discuss, in the presence of
witnesses and among each other, these very important amendments
which affect the powers of arrest for all police throughout the
land.
The committee did have the benefit of hearing a number of very
important witnesses. The witnesses included the Canadian Police
Association and the Canadian Chiefs of Police. We heard from a
victims' advocate group, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims
of Crime.
We also had the benefit of hearing from a very distinguished
criminal lawyer, a gentleman by the name of Irwin Koziebrocki.
Mr. Koziebrocki is the treasurer of the Criminal Lawyers
Association of Canada. Of all the witnesses, he made a statement
which I found quite startling. He deemed one of the proposed
amendments to be unconstitutional. He said that it would not
withstand a charter of rights challenge.
That is not to say that his opinion could not be wrong. However,
when an experienced trial and appeal court lawyer makes this
pronouncement before a committee, hours before the amendments are
tabled and given third reading, that should give the department
and all members of the committee reason to pause and to ponder
whether we want to have this legislation pushed through in a
flawed form, leaving it open to the possibility that within
months, weeks or days we could be faced with another court
challenge which may strike down, in the worst case scenario,
these amendments.
The first amendment which I have put before the House pertains
to the authorization of telewarrants in Canada. This amendment
came about after some consultation with the Quebec bar
association, which did not appear before the committee but which
submitted a brief.
The amendment speaks to the evolution of new technology in
communications which should be made available to all peace
officers in the country.
The reality of Canada, of this vast land, is that we are not all
centred in large metropolitan areas like Calgary, Toronto or
Halifax. A great part of this country is spread out in rural
areas. Police officers are often working out of one or two
person detachments. They need to have access to justices of the
peace. They need to be able to get authorization to act quickly
and in a very decisive way.
Telewarrants, this new form of technology that we have with fax
machines, with telephones and with cell phones, increase the
possibility that a police officer can do something when faced
with exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances is a newly
coined phrase that came out of the decision of the Queen v
Feeney. Exigent circumstances often exist in the daily lives of
police officers that are faced with very serious situations.
Telewarrants permit police officers to contact justices of the
peace, but that is all for naught if the resources are not
allocated to make justices of the peace available. It is easy to
pick up a phone or to dial a fax number, but if no one is on the
other end of the line to receive the information and authorize
the warrant, a real problem exists.
I would suggest that this amendment goes further than the
present amendment as proposed by the government in enabling peace
officers in broader circumstances to avail themselves of the
ability to have a warrant granted.
I want to add to that the necessity of the resources. The
resources have to go cheek and jowl with the ability to get these
warrants. We need to ensure that there are going to be more
justices of the peace available, particularly in rural parts of
the country.
I would emphasize the remarks I made at the outset. It is with
some regret I find myself in this situation where we have to
debate this further on the floor of the House of Commons. The
committee level, had it been conducted in a more professional and
timely way, would have avoided this necessity.
This amendment is one that all members of the House should
consider and support. It goes to increasing the security for all
Canadians and aids the police in their very important role in
enforcing the criminal law within the country. As members of this
House, particularly members of the justice committee, we have to
be very strident in our attempts to oversee what is happening
with the amendments to the Criminal Code.
The Minister of Justice, the chief executive officer for
administering law in this country, can and should have at least
contemplated the necessity of rising from her seat, walking down
Wellington Street, knocking on the door of the Supreme Court of
Canada and ask for an extension. It would have avoided the
necessity of pushing this through at the eleventh hour. It would
have allowed us to have proper debate at the committee level and
if necessary on the floor of the House of Commons.
I speak in favour of this amendment. I would be very interested
to hear the remarks of the hon. members present today.
I would also add that in my view sufficient time has been
allowed, both in the House and in committee, for opposition motions
to be brought. Unfortunately, only one was received in committee.
There was no discussion by the opposition on these motions.
This is really stretching a point, because there was ample time
available Wednesday evening for discussion and the opposition
brought no amendments.
I would like to point out that we feel that, yes, the deadline
is a little short. The deadline was imposed on us by the supreme
court. It was not a deadline that we imposed on this House.
Second, there was ample time. The committee members on the
government side were more than willing to spend more time
discussing any motion brought forward by any member of the
opposition. None of these motions was brought forward. There was
discussion but none of the motions was brought forward to be
discussed at the committee level. The opposition members decided
to bring them forward in the House.
Fearmongering from the opposition by saying this will be
unconstitutional is presumptive on the part of the opposition. We
do not know whether this will be declared unconstitutional. We
had no constitutional experts that came before the committee to
to testify except a lawyer. I think that is an assumption that
should not have been made.
The government is not able to support motion No. 1. This affects
the very notion of practicability. The rule with respect to
telewarrants is that the police are not in a position to meet a
justice of the peace in person. This rule has been on the books
for approximately 10 years. It is nothing new and it is seen as
necessary to defend the constitutionality of the entire
telewarrant scheme in the Criminal Code.
Motions 2, 4 and 6 all relate to the use of the singular to
refer to dwelling house in the bill. Some have argued that in
order to allow for warrants to apply to more than one dwelling
house we need to refer to dwelling house in the plural. That is
why we have the Interpretation Act.
The Interpretation Act already provides that the singular
includes the plural. All federal legislation, and this
legislation in particular, Bill C-16, has been drafted with that
rule in mind.
This amendment seems to undermine the way all federal
legislation is drafted and would be a bad precedent in my
opinion. It would make the interpretation of other statutes more
difficult and uncertain in the future.
We are not able to support this motion as it is inconsistent
with other provisions of the Criminal Code.
On Motion No 3, we are not able to support this motion either.
The reason is that the motion addresses form 7 because it is a
warrant for arrest. This warrant has been known to law for over
100 years and requires that the person be identified. If we
cannot identify a person we should not be seeking a warrant for
an arrest. That implies a person has been charged with a crime.
However, the government would be amenable for supporting Motion
No. 5, and I will speak to that motion.
This amendment relates to form 7.1 and section 529.1 of the
Criminal Code. The amendment would make it clear in the form
what is already permitted by section 529.1. That section makes it
possible to obtain a warrant for entry in order to arrest someone
who is identifiable as opposed to identified.
I believe that if this form were amended as proposed by the hon.
member we would be improving on the language in the bill by
making it perfectly clear on the form itself that this is
possible.
I know that it is following a decision by the Supreme Court of
Canada in the Feeney case that the government was required so to speak
to amend the provisions if it wanted to correct the situation.
The ruling was made on May 22, 1997, in the middle of the electoral
campaign. However, as I openly said in committee—and there is no reason
to hide this—officials wisely held consultations across Canada and
Quebec.
My concern in all this is that there were no consultations before
the political side of this issue was addressed, that it was only on
Friday of last week that Bill C-16, which is in fact very important, was
tabled in this House, which has been sitting for eight weeks. It may not
be the fault of the Liberal members, but it is surely the fault of the
federal government's cumbersome bureaucracy and procedures if we have to
accelerate the review process as we are doing.
However, after consulting with people who have an interest in
seeing this bill improve the Criminal Code, I believe that this bill is
generally acceptable. We do not support it without reservations, but
considering the time we have to review it, I believe that as a first
step, it is something we can live with.
I will deal with the amendments in each group. I will speak very
briefly on the first group, which includes Motion No. 1. I think that
the wording of Section 529.5 in Bill C-16 reflects in fact what is found
in other provisions, other laws. I don't think we should amend this
section as proposed by the member of the Conservative Party. I think
that the wording in the section on telewarrants meets requirements that
have already been established in this area.
I want to read it to you because I think it clearly indicates that
such warrants may only be issued in exceptional circumstances.
The rule is that the peace officer must appear personally before
the judge to make an application for a warrant, but it can happen in
exceptional circumstances that it would be impracticable, to use the
words in the section, or impossible for the police officer to appear
before a judge. It can also be an emergency situation—and there is a
section that deals with these—, and the police officer cannot appear
before a judge.
I think that the wording reflects the purpose of this section, and
to keep our laws in general as simple as possible, I believe that we
should not amend this section because it is similar to all other
sections dealing with telewarrants. That is why we will oppose Motion
No. 1 as presented.
I regret very much the situation that the House finds itself in
at the moment from a number of points of view. I thought there
had been an understanding to dispose of this matter by today. Now
it appears that technically speaking that was not the case. There
was only an agreement, technically speaking, to begin the debate
today and this will now carry over, I presume. It also means
that some of us, having taken the agreement a little more
seriously than others, find ourselves in a bit of difficulty.
Fundamentally I think the government has to take some
responsibility for this because I see a pattern emerging here. I
think this is the third time in this Parliament when we have been
presented with something that has to be dealt with by a certain
date. There is always truth in that claim but the truth comes
from the fact that the government has left it until the 11th
hour, so to speak.
The opposition in some cases has been co-operative and in some
cases not. The government made a similar argument with respect,
for instance, to the CPP, that it had to have this through by a
particular time because it had an agreement with the provinces
and were prepared to move closure on that.
In respect of this particular bill, we thought that the
government's argument had more merit but was not entirely
meritorious in the sense that this is something the government
has known about since July. It is also something Parliament
could have been dealing with when we first got back. If the
government had done its work between the time it was elected and
the time that Parliament came back we would not be in the
situation we are in this week where we only had one week to deal
with these particular amendments.
I do not know why these amendments could not have been moved in
committee but I assume there must have been some good reason why
the hon. member moved them now at report stage. Perhaps he tried
and the government prevented it in some way. However, it is
surely the case that the amendments we have now before us mean
that this will be carried over until after the break unless there
is some procedural way of dealing with this that I do not know
about at the moment.
Obviously the NDP has supported the government along with all
the other parties in dealing with this situation that the supreme
court has put back in the hands of Parliament by virtue of its
decision in the Feeney case.
We will be considering very carefully the amendments put forward
by the hon. member and will render a judgment in due course.
(Motion No. 1 negatived)
He said: Madam Speaker, I am proposing in this amendment a very
practical common sense solution that would go a long way in
assisting police officers when encountering a situation where
they are looking for an escaped criminal, breach of parole
individual, or looking for a person wanted by the police for a
serious or indictable offence.
In its present form this amendment speaks of the naming of a
single dwelling house. I know the government's response may
include the Interpretation Act wherein the singular includes the
plural. One of the purposes of parliament should be to create
new, wordy and mellifluous sounding legislation and to simplify
for the police, and as I said in the House yesterday for the
purpose of the general public, understanding of the legislation
that directly applies to them.
This amendment is quite simple in its drafting. It includes
dwelling houses rather than dwelling house. It would allow a
police officer faced with a situation where he had to seek a
warrant to go and speak to the justice of the peace and explain.
It also allows him to name specifically the areas where he is
looking.
For example, if a criminal was believed to be harboured in the
home of a friend, at a clubhouse or at a residence that he was
known to frequent, the police could quite simply place on the
warrant a number of dwelling houses or house in which they were
searching for him. It gives the police more flexibility in their
ability to investigate. It is a very straightforward amendment.
I would be surprised if the government were not quick to embrace
it.
I also want to address a question posed by my hon. friend from
the NDP with respect to why this is the forum in which to make
these amendments.
As I indicated earlier, what occurred in committee was a simple
ramrod railroad approach to clause by clause discussion of these
amendments. There was no opportunity to discuss or to put these
amendments forward. It was done in the blink of an eye without
any ability to put the amendments forward in any substantive way,
to the point where we were so rushed in the compromise of this
committee that we did not even have the opportunity to speak of
the ground rules that would govern the committee itself. This
was done after the fact.
We brought this piece of legislation to the committee level
without having set the rules to govern the committee that was
going to be making decisions on the amendments. This causes me
great concern.
I do not blame the parliamentary secretary.
I have empathy for her and the chairman of the justice committee
who found themselves in this position and were doing the
government's bidding in a very uncomfortable situation.
I put this amendment forward in all god faith and in all
seriousness. I encourage hon. members of the House to look at
it. I have tried to explain it in a very straightforward way. It
is one which would assist police in their very necessary and very
public duty to carry out and exercise arrests throughout the
country.
Once again I encourage members to support this amendment and I
thank the House for its indulgence.
I am not looking for sympathy from the opposition members. As
other members have said, there was agreement of all parties to
expedite passage of the legislation through the House.
Again I repeat that we have an obligation to the Supreme Court
of Canada to meet its deadline. I would appreciate co-operation,
but I am certainly not looking for sympathy from opposition
members.
The government made the point that it has an obligation to pass
the legislation as quickly as possible. The Liberals had six
months. They knew it was coming but they have left it to the 11th
hour. We have seen time and time again in the last four years
that they ram things through at the last moment. I want to
register my objection to the process here.
We did not have the opportunity at committee to introduce a lot
of these amendments. I support the amendments that are being
made. I think they are being put forth in good faith. They are
proper amendments.
The government is dismissing them at hand because they come from
the opposition. I do not think that is acceptable. I would like
to register my objection to these kinds of things happening in
the House.
For democracy to function properly we need time to look at
legislation, to examine it properly and to make sure it is the
best legislation we can have. We have seen too much legislation
being passed with time allocation, being rammed through at the
last minute. Then we come back and realize that we did not get
it right, that we made some grave errors. It is happening again
and again.
We could have done this months ago. This could have been
introduced at the beginning of this Parliament but it was not.
That ought to be on the record to show that we do not like what
is happening in the House.
I would say first off that I oppose these motions and I will
tell you why briefly. As we know, an arrest warrant, a warrant to
enter a dwelling house or other similar warrants already
contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is
somewhat similar, in fact, to what happened in the arrest in the
Feeney case.
I believe the amendment proposed by the hon. member broadening
the scope of arrest or entry warrants to apply to dwelling houses
contravenes the charter. It is too broad and too vague. I think
we are leaving ourselves open once again to criticism, and
certainly to having these amendments to Bill C-16, or more
specifically, clause 529.6, rejected by the courts as in the Feeney
case. This is our only reason for opposing these three motions.
Motions Nos. 3 and 5 will be grouped for debate.
Second, while I sit at the other end of the chamber, it was obvious
to me that the nays were louder than the yeas. I wonder if there has not
been a misunderstanding here. If so, perhaps you could consider taking
the vote over, specifying this time that the vote will be on Motions
Nos. 2, 4 and 6.
I will now deal with the point of order raised by the other hon.
member.
The decision has been taken. On the other hand, if the House
wishes to give me other instructions, I am prepared to listen.
Also, we would like to voice our objection to the ruling of the
Chair.
I agree that it was not mentioned that Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6
were going to be grouped together and that we were going to vote
on a package.
If we could move on to debate the next group of motions then we
might be able to conclude the business which the House wishes to
conclude today.
I bring to your attention Standing Order 10. I ask that it be
applied to this case and that we not have any further discussion
of whether rulings are appealable. Let us get on with it. I
think that Standing Order 10 is very clear as to how things
should be conducted in the House.
I happen to share the view that you heard differently than I
heard. But it is up to the Chair to judge what the Chair hears
and to make that judgment. It puts the House in a rather
difficult position, because certainly had you ruled the other way
with respect to yeas and nays, opposition members would have had
a chance to decide whether they wanted a recorded vote on this.
Perhaps they would have risen anyway. The irony is that the
government was forced by virtue of your ruling to cause a
recorded vote on the very thing that it did not want a recorded
vote on.
I am sure the government regards that as unfortunate but whether
it is reversible or not is another matter.
In circumstances where the exact name of the individual sought
is unknown to police officers, rather than put in the actual
written name of that individual, they could put in a physical
description, thus increasing their ability in investigations
where the name of the person sought by police for whatever reason
could be pencilled in. Obviously this will be at the discretion
of the justice of the peace. It is something that will be
monitored. It is not an arbitrary or frivolous change to the
form that would be included in the warrant.
I would strenuously suggest that this is something to which the
government should give due consideration in its adaptation of
both amendments with respect to clause 3 in the bill, as they
pertain to Form 7 and Form 7.1.
For those reasons I would again solicit the support of the House,
including the government, with respect to this amendment.
1055
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
without belabouring the point, we had asked the hon. member if he
would be willing to separate motion No. 3 from motion No. 5. I
take it to mean that he is not going to agree to separate motion
No. 3 from motion No. 5?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I have no difficulty
whatsoever with having these two amendments split and discussed
separately, that is amendment 3 and amendment 5. I am certainly
prepared to agree to that suggestion by the parliamentary
secretary.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the House agree to have a
debate and to hold two separate votes on Motions Nos. 3 and 5?
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, again members are challenging your ruling. I think there
are some things going on this morning that are unacceptable.
Look at what has happened during discussion of the previous
motion. You made a ruling and the government, rather than
letting the legislation proceed, challenged the vote. It is so
intent on blocking these amendments that it would rather delay
the bill than let us proceed and approve the amendment. The
government forced a vote and challenged the ruling. Now it is
challenging it again.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
do not want to take up too much time of the House. It is already
a relatively short day.
Understand clearly there has been a tremendous amount of
co-operation by all parties on an issue of significance which has
been presented to the legislature in not what people would
recognize as ideal conditions, both from the opposition and the
government side. We have arrived at this juncture, at report
stage and third reading, and clearly and emphatically the
government has no intention, never had or ever would question or
appeal the ruling of a chair. We give utmost respect to the
authority of the Chair.
For what it is worth to the new members, I had the privilege and
honour of sitting in that chair for three years. I hold it the
highest esteem, as all my colleagues do on both sides of the
House.
The question at this time is whether, in the ruling that was
made the Speaker and respecting that ruling, there would be
unanimous consent. We know from time to time only by way of
unanimous consent can this Chamber go beyond some of those
rulings.
In this instance the government is in a situation, quite
frankly, where conceivably it would like to support one of the
amendments and perhaps not the other. If they were separated we
would have the opportunity to address that specific individual
amendment. We are asking the consent of the House, if it would
allow the debate to continue with those two items separated and
dealt with individually.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House in
agreement with the suggestions from the whip of the government?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1100
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 11 a.m., we will
now proceed to statements by members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
COAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
having lost one battle when the U.K. switched to natural gas, the
coal industry now brings its fear mongering to Canada. They
invoke the idea of global cooling to throw the climate change
debate off course. But informed scientists conclude that global
warming is a problem and that we must act.
Burning coal is highly damaging to the environment and human
health. The remedies proposed by the coal association are
inspired by profound ignorance of the links between coal burning
and damage to water, agriculture, forests, fish spawning grounds
and human health.
To reach the goal of stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions
by 2005, and 20% reductions by 2010, the answer lies not with
coal but with improved energy efficiency and conservation, with
technology that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and
with greater use of natural gas.
* * *
EKREM KOLAY
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, as I speak, Ekrem Kolay is wasting away outside Canada
Place in Edmonton. He has been on a hunger strike for 15 days to
bring this government's attention to the imprisonment of Leyla
Zana, a mother of two and a celebrated former member of the
Turkish parliament.
Leyla Zana was imprisoned for standing up for the wishes of her
constituents, for speaking out against human rights violations in
Turkey when very few others had the courage to do so.
Amnesty International, British parliamentarians, members of the
U.S. Congress, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Alberta
Federation of Labour, members of the provincial and federal NDP,
and local Edmonton churches and businesses have all joined Ekrem
Kolay in his campaign to free Leyla Zana.
Ekrem Kolay is waiting for just one more person to join his
struggle before he promises to eat his first meal. The Minister
of Foreign Affairs is now the only man who can decide whether my
constituent eats or continues to slowly starve.
* * *
HAVELOCK, ONTARIO
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
speak today about one village in Canada, the village of Havelock,
Ontario, home to 1,300 people.
This is a community which has faced up to difficult times with
great success. This summer the village held its first “Rock `n
Rail” festival to celebrate its heritage as a mining and
railroad town. This event attracted thousands of visitors,
including 4,000 who took the special train rides through eastern
Peterborough county.
A few weeks later this same tiny community again hosted
thousands, this time for the annual Havelock country music
festival jamboree and trade show, which I described previously in
this House. The jamboree is now one of the major celebrations of
country music in eastern Canada.
The citizens of Havelock are an example to us all. Our thanks
to them, especially those who worked so hard on these two events.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like once again to draw the attention of the President of the Treasury
Board to the dissatisfaction of federal public servants regarding the
settlement of the pay equity issue.
Revenue Canada has a major taxation centre in Jonquière. The
employees of the centre have asked me to stress that they are upset
about the government's delay in solving the issue. The Liberals were
definitely more vocal when they formed the opposition.
I am asking the President of the Treasury Board to read each of the
some 620 letters which I received and which I will send to him at the
earliest opportunity.
All these employees question the $10 billion deficit reduction that
the finance minister is bragging about.
I join them in asking that the issue of pay equity be settled. It is
high time these employees get their due.
* * *
[English]
CANADA CAREER WEEK
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to add my voice of praise and support for Canada Career
Week 1997. This annual event is a reminder to young people and
their parents of the importance of preparing today for the
careers of tomorrow.
1105
Both the challenges and opportunities posed by the new knowledge
based economy demand that extra efforts are made to equip
Canadian youth with the skills and knowledge that they will need
to succeed.
A top priority of the Government of Canada is to provide young
people with the information and assistance they require to make
informed career choices. The programs and projects sponsored
under the government's youth employment strategy are helping
hundreds of thousands of young Canadians achieve their employment
goals.
This year during Canada Career Week, the Government of Canada in
co-operation with community partners participated in a series of
activities, from career fairs in communities across the country
to the production of new career information products. These
activities will help Canada's teenagers and young adults make a
successful transition from school to work.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Miramichi.
* * *
COLONEL FRED MOAR
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is Veterans Week. Veterans in comparing our Canadian veterans
program to those of other countries report that we have one of
the best programs in the world.
In my constituency office, a veteran of World War II, Fred Moar,
counsels and advises veterans and their families. He has worked
on a volunteer basis with three members of Parliament, Bud
Jardine, Maurice Dionne and myself.
Fred Moar has served his country and our community well, first
as a cadet; then as a militiaman, he went overseas with the North
Shore regiment as a company sergeant major at the age of 21.
Promoted as a young officer, he landed with A company on D-Day at
St. Aubin sur Mer. Five days later he was the only surviving
officer in the company. That August he was promoted to company
commander. Later he was wounded in Holland and returned to his
unit some three weeks later. He returned to Canada with the
North Shore regiment in 1946.
Since then Colonel Moar has served as company commander, officer
commanding—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
* * *
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on Tuesday, November 11 Canadians will mark a minute of silence
for those who gave their lives for the freedom, democracy and
peace we enjoy in this country today.
My father was one of those men. He was a navigator in the RCAF
and never returned from the second world war. As a result, I
grew up with only a photograph and the stories and memories
passed on by my mother to tell me what a wonderful man my father
was.
Many of us can only imagine what it was like for those men like
my father. Their sacrifice was so great and so meaningful we
must never forget the contributions made during the wars. No
words can convey that to anyone.
Therefore as the House will not be sitting on Remembrance Day, I
ask that we remember November 11 is not a holiday. It is a day
to remember those who fought and died for this wonderful country.
* * *
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, next Tuesday Canadians across the nation will honour the
brave men and women who have given their lives in the world wars,
the Korean war and in international peacekeeping efforts.
They are our heroes and have left us a legacy we can be proud
of. So it is right that we bow our heads on the 11th hour of the
11th day of the 11th month to commemorate this ultimate
sacrifice.
All across Canada we stop, we remember. In my riding of
Vaughan—King—Aurora there will be parades, wreath laying
ceremonies and a moment of silence.
I know that I will use that moment to reflect on the progress we
have made as a nation and as a society.
Freedom and democracy, this is what Canadians fought for, died
for and that is what we must never forget.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, global climate change presents one of the most
significant challenges the world has ever faced. Reducing
greenhouse gases will take a concerted and co-operative effort by
the world's nations when they meet next month in Kyoto, Japan to
reach an agreement to solve this problem.
Our government is consulting with many stakeholders in advance
of the Kyoto summit so that Canada makes a solid, balanced and
positive contribution through realistic and attainable goals on
greenhouse gas emissions.
While the issue of global climate change is a challenging one,
it also presents a number of important opportunities for Canadian
companies and know-how.
Canada has long been a leader in the development and export of
environmentally sound technology. The worldwide effort to reduce
greenhouse gases will result in a growing foreign market for
Canadian expertise abroad and the creation of jobs at home.
As chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Natural Resources and Government Operations, I look forward to
studying ways of assisting Canadian companies and workers to
benefit fully from the opportunity this challenge presents.
1110
Canada will be a full and co-operative participant in the
worldwide drive to control the emission of greenhouse gases.
Future generations deserve our best efforts.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR BOURASSA
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
sadness and bitterness that I take the floor today, following
yesterday's comment by the member for Bourassa who, in a stement worthy
of Howard Stern, said that 49.4% of Quebeckers were “colonized
separatists acting like colonials”.
Unfortunately, this is not the first unfortunate slip of the tongue
by the member for Bourassa. In 1995, he said he felt like restoring the
deportation act and sending back to their country those who spit on the
Canadian flag.
I respect respectable people. The Elvis Grattons who talk about the
best country in the world and who tell separatists to go live in Cuba if
they are not happy may be funny on television, but not in this House,
particularly when they say “blessed are Quebeckers for they receive more
than their share of UI benefits from the federal government”.
Pierre Falardeau may have created Elvis Gratton, but I sometimes
think the Prime Minister recruited him in his party.
* * *
[English]
WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
recently reviewed a copy of the Bank of Montreal study on the
economic power of women-led firms in Canada entitled “Myths and
Realities”. There is tremendous progress being made by women in
our Canadian business community. Here are some of the facts.
Women now own or operate over 700,000 firms, a number which
represents over 30% of all firms in Canada. The number of
women-led firms is increasing at twice the national average. They
are creating jobs at four times the national average. These firms
employ 1.7 million Canadians and provide 200,000 more jobs than
the largest 100 Canadian companies combined.
Women-led firms are having a significant impact upon our
economy. I congratulate these entrepreneurs. I also congratulate
the Minister for International Trade who will shortly be leading
a delegation of female business people to Washington.
* * *
HUMAN LIFE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the events of
the last few days have given me occasion to once again evaluate
at a very deep level the value of human life.
You see, Mr. Speaker, my sister Marian was born with cerebral
palsy, injured at birth because of errors made by medical staff.
My parents accepted their responsibility for her and she became a
very important part of our family. She has never learned to
speak and has required total care all her life. But she laughs
and sometimes she cries. She loves to sing along when my mother
or I play hymns on the piano, although her only words are “da,
da, da”.
Marian has added so much to our family, helping us not to become
consumed with secular pursuits and keeping our focus on that
which is truly important in life. Some would say that her life is
not worthwhile, but I profoundly disagree.
Thank you, my dear sister for loving us and accepting our love
for the last 52 years.
* * *
TAX AVOIDANCE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to draw the attention of the house to Project
Loophole. Choices, a Winnipeg based coalition for social
justice, is challenging in the Federal Court of Canada in Toronto
the $2.2 billion family trust tax manoeuvre identified and
criticized by the Auditor General of Canada. The case is to be
heard later this month.
Choices is to be commended for pursuing this issue. Tax
avoidance is one of the far too hidden dimensions of why the
government finds itself without the revenues it needs. Yet this
same government not only does not cite tax avoidance as a factor
in its fiscal situation that needs to be dealt with, instead it
actively encourages tax avoidance by sending departmental
officials to act as resource persons at privately sponsored tax
avoidance workshops on tax shelters, offshore havens, et cetera.
It is no surprise really. When we see the kinds of prices the
Liberals are able to charge for their fund-raising dinners, we
know that their real friends are folks with lots of taxes to be
avoided.
The ordinary Canadian will be getting his or her CPP reduced and
their public services—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
* * *
MANITOBA FARM WOMEN
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today with great pride to recognize the week of
November 3 to 9 as Manitoba Farm Women's Week.
Manitoba farm women are essential to the life and the economic
stability of the farm, family and community.
1115
I would like to especially mention that the 1997 Manitoba Farm
Women's Conference was held this week in my city of Brandon,
Manitoba. The conference entitled “Neighbours en route to
2000” featured sessions ranging from child care in rural
Manitoba to getting online on the world wide web. There also
were presentations on equality, career planning and money
management, to mention a few.
It is time that we as Canadians recognize the monumental
contribution women have made to our agricultural industry and
applaud them.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
night 1,500 people paid $500 each to attend the prime minister's
exclusive fund-raising dinner. I do not suppose many of them
spend much time worrying about minor things like the Canada
pension plan or unemployment.
However, for ordinary Canadians things just got a little
rougher. The national unemployment rate climbed back up to 9.1%.
There were 104,000 fewer Canadians working in October than in the
month before that, which means 104,000 families are facing
serious trouble.
Canadians see the golf clubs, the caviar and the champagne so
where are the job, jobs, jobs?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are disappointed that employment fell slightly in
October but it followed seven consecutive months of solid job
growth. Since the beginning of the year 268,000 new jobs have
been created, which is nearly double the number of jobs created
over the same period in 1996.
Unemployment is down nearly a full point from where it was a
year ago. Therefore I am confident in saying that if we continue
to work to create more jobs we will be accomplishing this with
the policies that have worked well so far.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
suppose hope springs eternal in the heart of a Liberal, but he
probably wrote that answer some time last night between cocktails
and caviar.
We do not think there is an excuse for these numbers. Our
number one trading partner and competitor, the United States,
just reported that its unemployment rate is now 4.7%, just half
of what ours is. Across the border they are enjoying the lowest
unemployment rate in 24 years.
Has it come to this? Is looking outside the country the only
place that unemployed Canadians can expect to find work?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's
question, let us talk about the headlines in the paper just this
morning: “Dust off those resumés, the job market is heating
up”.
Let us talk about the fact that Statistics Canada recently
stated that the jobs are here and that the help wanted index has
hit its highest level in almost seven years. The help wanted
index is an indication of where those jobs and the employment
level will be in the future.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
suppose that kind of answer sold pretty well last night at the
prime minister's shindig. I bet it sounded good somewhere right
around the Dom Perignon.
Ordinary Canadians, the kind of people the government seems to
forget about, are now in the 85th consecutive month of high
unemployment, seven solid years of unemployment above 9%. Is
this the best the Liberals can offer unemployed people? Are
Canadians really sentenced to 9% unemployment forever or just
until the government is replaced?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me repeat for the hon.
member that 268,000 new jobs have been created since the
beginning of this year, nearly doubling the number of jobs
created over the same period.
In case the hon. member did not understand me the first time,
the help wanted index is an indicator of where the employment
numbers will be in the future. They have hit the highest level
in seven years.
The prospects look very positive for the employment numbers. We
will continue as a government to pursue the policies to ensure
that employment is first and foremost in the numbers.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the finance minister told the House “there
will not be an increase in CPP premiums beyond 9.9%”. On the
very same day the chief actuary of the Canada pension plan told
the finance committee that there was no guarantee premiums would
not rise beyond 9.9%.
Who are Canadians to believe, the finance minister or his chief
actuary?
1120
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government and the provinces have used
prudent assumptions in arriving at a 9.9% premium. We have every
confidence this rate will be stable, but we build in reviews
every three years to carefully monitor the Canada pension plan.
If further action is necessary it will be taken.
We want to protect future generations. We want to make sure
they have a safe and secure pension at reasonable cost. This is
our commitment and we will achieve it.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the chief actuary reminded the finance committee
yesterday that assumptions can “easily be off track” and
acknowledged that projections “have been wrong in the past”.
Just yesterday we saw that within two months there was a change
in projections of $41 billion in what would be in the CPP fund.
Why does the government not admit to Canadians that it does not
have a clue how much its broken CPP pyramid scheme will cost us
in the future?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why does the Reform Party not admit that its alternative
to the Canada pension plan is to submit present and future
generations to the vagaries of the market?
Canadians do not want the Reform Bre-X alternative to the safe
and secure Canada pension plan?
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD SUPPORT
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
We learn in this morning's issue of Le Soleil that an
agreement between Ottawa and Quebec with respect to the proposed
agreement between France and Quebec regarding the collection of
support payments is apparently impossible. Quebec, however, is
still ready to negotiate and has even shown its willingness to
discuss the terms of the agreement that is bothering Ottawa.
With Quebec still prepared to negotiate with the federal
government, will the minister admit that the statements from
anonymous sources within his government may well derail the
negotiation process?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no question of commenting on the so-called
anonymous sources, but it is very good news that the Government of
Quebec is ready to negotiate, because so are we.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister assure us that his government has not used this issue,
which is too important for the 200 women and their children waiting
for support payments, for its own political ends, and that it will
not do so in future?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a question the hon. member would do better to ask
her own party.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
After a first announcement in the budget speech and another
during the election campaign, the government ought to soon be
making an official announcement on the EI contribution rate that
will be in effect next year.
Everyone now acknowledges that a substantial drop in the
employment insurance contribution rate would stimulate job
creation. For once, does the government intend—
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each year since we have been in
government, we have regularly, taking into consideration the
overall problem of public finances, tried to reduce the employment
insurance contribution, and we have indeed reduced it regularly.
And it is clearly the intention of the government to look at it,
each time it is financially feasible.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
over the past four years the government has managed to wrest $19
billion from the unemployed and the employed, by pocketing the
annual surpluses from the fund in order to improve the deficit
figures.
When will the minister put an end to this scandalous
misappropriation of public funds?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not share the opinions of my
hon. colleague in the opposition.
It is very clear, where employment insurance is concerned,
that we have carried out an in depth reform in order to help those
people in this country who are looking for work. Looking at the
results over the years, one can say that the outcome has been
satisfactory, even though we would like to see a marked
improvement.
It is therefore very clear that, as soon as we can do so, we
will decrease contributions still further.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
24,000 more Canadians are out of work since September.
Twenty-four thousand more families are wondering how they will
pay for their groceries, how they will pay their rent and how
they will get through Christmas.
1125
When will the government admit that it is not getting things
right, that unemployment is a continuing problem which its
policies are not addressing, and that it needs to do something
different? Will the government please explain why we have had a
continuous 9% rate of unemployment for 85 months now?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I point out that
268,000 new jobs have been created.
There is no doubt that it is true employment fell slightly in
October, but this followed seven consecutive months of solid job
growth.
Month to month fluctuations in employment estimates are not
unusual. We have to look at the long term trend in employment
over longer periods.
In fact the policies of the government have been very effective
in ensuring that those employment numbers have gone up. We will
continue to ensure that the employment numbers improve. The
government is committed to that.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would call 85 months a long term trend. The long term
trend is that unemployment has been at 9% for 85 months. What we
get from the government is: “Manana, manana,
manana. Good days are coming. Just let these policies
work”.
These policies have been in place and they are not working. When
will the government change its mind and stop taking advice from
the C.D. Howe Institute?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada recently
reported that the jobs are here. The help wanted index is going
up. It is the highest it has been in seven years.
The help wanted index is the indicator of where the employment
numbers will be in the future. The numbers will improve in the
future. The help wanted index is up. It is up because of the
policies of the government. We will continue to follow those
policies and we will ensure that Canadians who want to work will
have the opportunity to work because of the policies of the
government.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the government which is in denial on
unemployment. It continues to spout numbers.
I do not think unemployed families today who are listening to
this question period will be very impressed by the statistics.
Rather, I would like to know why the government is not listening
to the business community which repeatedly asks the government to
reduce employment insurance premium rates so that we can create
more jobs. Why does it not act on this basic, simple
recommendation which would allow more Canadians to get back into
the labour market?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question of the leader of the Conservative Party is
amazing since the unemployment insurance rates reached record
highs when he was in government. Furthermore, we have been
steadily bringing down those rates since the record highs of the
Conservative government. It is our intention to continue to do
so.
Speaking of the private sector, the Bank of Montreal said that
this year's job growth, which is expected to total 376,000 by
year end, will continue through 1998, with a further—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, with
all due respect, the Deputy Prime Minister's answer is exactly
what is wrong with the government.
When will the government grow up and stop blaming others for the
unemployment situation? When will it stop saying that the dog
ate its homework? When will it stop gouging Canadians by
increasing EI premiums, as well as by increasing premiums for
CPP? When will it give Canadians a break and put the money back
into their pockets and allow jobs to be created in this economy?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party should not use
question period to give Canadians watching on TV a totally
inaccurate impression of the facts.
We have not been raising unemployment insurance premiums. We
have been reducing them. It was the Conservative government of
which he was a part that let them go to record levels. I have to
admire his nerve to try to change the reality and facts of what
happened.
We have been bringing them down. We will continue to do so. We
have been creating jobs. We will continue to do so. We will be
repairing the mess made of the economy by the leader of the
Conservative Party and his government. No wonder they were
destroyed.
* * *
1130
KREVER INQUIRY
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on November 21
Judge Krever will finally make his report to the Canadian public
on the tainted blood scandal and we will finally know the depth
of the bungling that went on with the federal government.
My question for the government today is will it follow every
single recommendation that Judge Krever presents for Canadians?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is looking
forward to the report of Judge Krever.
We have recognized that this is a piece of work that has been
expansive, that will direct us with a very important initiative.
I know the Minister of Health will welcome that report and act on
it as he can.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, those are
very reassuring words.
Judy C., a patient who was infected with hepatitis C when she
had a simple tooth extraction, wrote to me and said this
government blocked Krever in court, withheld very important
documents. She is not encourage at all with the record of this
government on Krever.
Her question is why would anybody trust the government on this
issue when it looks like it is just trying to dress up an old
skeleton with new clothes in its brand new interim policy on
blood?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is presuming
response.
What I have indicated and what the hon. Minister of Health has
continued to indicate is that he is welcoming the report from
Justice Krever, that we will review it in its entirety and we
will make an appropriate response when we receive the report.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
There is an agreement between the federal government and the
Government of Quebec that permits Quebec to provide most services
to immigrants newly arrived in Quebec.
How does the minister explain the fact that charges Quebec
immigrants have to pay are the same as in other provinces?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve must surely know that, despite the
agreement with Quebec, which is responsible for selecting its
immigrants, the Government of Canada remains responsible for
their admissibility and must therefore ensure they are healthy
and represent no threat. So it incurs costs in the admission of
immigrants going to Quebec too.
That said, should my colleague propose that we review the
matter in the context of the Canada-Quebec agreement, I am prepared
to do so.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
when does the minister intend to adjust the charges to reflect only
the services provided by her department and nothing else?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to be requesting the reopening of the
Canada-Quebec agreement so we could consider the matter. I am
quite prepared to do so.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
countdown to Kyoto is on. The Liberals are going to Japan in
about 23 days and we still do not even know what the Canadian
position will be.
What is so incredible here is the Liberal government has agreed
to bind us to a contract, yet Canadians do not know the terms of
the contract or what the impact will be.
Why does Canada have the only government that is going to Kyoto
without a plan and without knowing how much it is going to cost
us?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Reform has been
exhibiting a severe weather fluctuation in this House. On the one
hand it is demanding that we consult with the provinces and
stakeholders, and on the other hand it is demanding that we stop
this consultation.
The minister and her hon. colleague, the Minister of Natural
Resources, are going to be meeting with their provincial
counterparts and they will be discussing this very important
issue, just as Reform has suggested.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there seems to be some confusion. What the Reform Party is
demanding is what Canadians are demanding.
I have received in my office literally hundreds of signatures on
petitions demanding the Liberal government not sign a legally
binding treaty in Kyoto until the public has been given a chance
to review the costs and impacts of such a deal.
Instead of respecting the wishes of ordinary Canadians this
government is forcing a top down agenda.
Canadians want real solutions to the environment, not new taxes.
1135
Will this government publicly put forward solid solutions before
signing secret contracts in Kyoto?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only one who has
been talking about taxes is the Reform environment critic and he
has been jailed for a week in the Reform bingo hall.
* * *
[Translation]
DAIRY INDUSTRY
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The World Trade Organization hearings on the Canada—United States
dispute on the pricing of export milk are scheduled to open on
November 19.
Following his October 31 meeting with representatives from the
dairy industry, can the minister assure us that every effort will be
made to support the dairy industry in this major dispute?
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for the question.
I want to assure the hon. member that we, as a federal
government, will respect all our trade obligations. We think our
dairy pricing policy and the tariff rate quotas for fluid milk do
comply with all our trade obligations.
I assure the hon. member we will defend our policies before any
trade panel.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary concerns the importation of oil, butter and sugar
mixtures.
In light of the loss of income experienced by our producers and
seeing that time is of the essence, does the minister intend to do
everything he can and quickly to get his colleagues to act on this
issue?
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure the
hon. member this is a matter that concerns the federal government
and the minister of agriculture. In fact, the minister met with
dairy farmers on this very issue just last week.
It is a difficult situation but I can assure the hon. member
that when we deal with it we will take into account the various
issues involved. We are also speaking with the other departments
of government, namely revenue and finance. These departments are
also involved in this issue.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it seems that the political minister for B.C. has been funnelling
quite a bit of infrastructure money into his own riding. In
fact, the riding of Victoria has received double the per capita
allotment for approved projects.
Is the minister funnelling money into his own riding to buy
votes or is he punishing the rest of the region for voting
Reform?
The Speaker: The question is out of order. The second
question.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has approved bike paths and buses in his
riding and is denying basic—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Grant McNally: How many Liberal organizers does a
region need in order to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Longueuil.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The Bloc Quebecois is pleased to learn that the minister has
finally decided to go back to the negotiating table with the Public
Service Alliance of Canada, to settle the issue of pay equity.
Can the minister tell this House whether the Minister of Finance
gave him the necessary leeway to finally bring this issue to its
conclusion?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois
member should not interpret the facts so loosely, because the Treasury
Board has always been willing to negotiate.
In April, we indicated that we were prepared to put $1 billion on
the table. We added $300 million in mid-August to arrive at an amount
that must be discussed or negotiated with the union.
The hon. member should use her influence on the unions and ask them
to negotiate now.
* * *
[English]
SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue.
While the entrepreneurial spirit is alive an well in my own
riding of Nepean—Carleton, there is often frustration among
small business owners about the complexity of information
provided by the government.
1140
I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue what steps
are being taken by his department to provide comprehensive,
easily understood information for small business.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for
Nepean—Carleton who has expressed tremendous interest in small
business.
This morning I introduced a new guide for Canadian small
business to make sure that the information it gets is focused and
clear.
I also congratulate the small business advisory committee which
helped Revenue Canada put this together.
I assure Canadians that small business is very important. We
all know it is small businesses that are generating the jobs in
this economy. This, once again, is our program to create more
jobs and help small business. We are committed to small
business, to ensuring that we help—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
* * *
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for three years CIDA has asked the government to establish an aid
effectiveness advisory committee, a watchdog to monitor Canada's
aid programs.
In response to my question last week, the government cites other
priorities, including Liberal budget cuts to CIDA, as reasons not
to establish a watchdog to hunt down questionable CIDA spending.
Why is the minister responsible for CIDA trying to hide behind
the so-called other priorities? What is the government afraid
of, the watchdog—
The Speaker: The hon. secretary of state.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, CIDA has a very transparent open bidding
system to award contracts.
If the hon. member has other information, we invite him to come
forward. The CIDA open bidding system has been transparent and
is well accepted by the business community.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. secretary does not know that. The fact is the committee
has not yet been established so that the government may continue
taking political advantage of CIDA.
CIDA has about 130 auditors from 49 countries trained by
Canadian taxpayer dollars. CIDA has never used them except once.
Guess what, the aid money was not used for the intended purpose.
CIDA's accountability, transparency, reputation and credibility
are in question.
Why does the minister refuse to use those auditors who are
trained in Canada?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, CIDA's budget has annually been audited
by the auditor general. The bidding system has been open and
transparent.
This kind of reference only hurts our ability to help third
world countries.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the deputy prime minister.
Yesterday the prime minister characterized the CPP fight as
between those with a social conscience and social Darwinists, who
he said believe in the survival of the fattest.
It is ironic that the prime minister made those statements
yesterday in Toronto at a $500 a plate dinner to fat cat
Liberals.
How can the government pretend to believe in a social conscience
when the brunt of the premium hikes and the cutback in benefits
under CPP will fall hardest on those with low income, elderly
women and those with disabilities? How can he say that?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we reject the premise of the hon. member's question.
Our reforms of the Canada pension plan, which have been worked
out in co-operation with eight of the provinces, are designed to
help middle and lower income Canadians. They are designed to
respect the needs of women and people with families.
We want to have a safe and secure pension plan for all Canadians
and especially those of lower and medium income. We reject the
approach of the Reform Party which wants to destroy that system.
It is about time the NDP joins with us in what we are trying to
do to help ordinary Canadians.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, give
me a break. The Deputy Prime Minister has gone to too many of
those fat cat $500 dinners.
The only time the government's changes look good is in
comparison to the Reform Party, which wants to abolish the CPP.
Why has this government not done an impact study on those
changes and the effect of those changes on the income of future
seniors, particularly women? No impact study has every been
done. Why has it not been done and why will it not be done now
and tabled before this house?
1145
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the reforms to the Canada pension plan arose not only through
consultations with the provinces, but consultations with all
sorts of stakeholder groups. Therefore, the concerns of my hon.
friend have been taken into account. These are matters that could
be considered further in parliamentary hearings and parliamentary
debate.
However, the issues raised by my hon. friend are very much on
the mind of the government. We believe they have been taken into
account. The reforms we are putting forward to the Canada
pension plan are to ensure the safety of the pensions for all
Canadians, particularly lower and middle income Canadians and
groups such as women, handicapped and needy people across the
country.
Why will the NDP not realize this and join with us to make sure
that these reforms go through to protect the plan for future
generations?
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, this week
the Prime Minister destroyed the last remaining Canadian land mine,
but a similar problem still exists in my riding of Shefford.
For a number of years now, pieces of shells and rockets from
World War II appear when the snow melts. Over a year ago, an
active pyrotechnic device was discovered, but for reasons unknown,
there was no cleanup and the issue has still not been resolved.
Can we hope that the Prime Minister will attach the same
importance to ridding Canada of such devices as he does to
mineclearing in the rest of the world?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that, yes,
areas of Canada that have been used for testing or training
purposes are of concern. There are quite a number of defence
sites across the country that need cleaning up, not only of
explosives and lethal devices, but also for environmental
reasons. The government has a major program under way to do that.
There is, of course, concern that this clean-up will involve
substantial amounts of time as well as money. But on behalf of
the Minister of National Defence, I would be delighted to examine
the particular case in the member's riding.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to hear that the government is committed to looking at this
problem, but I think more than that is required.
Before the Ottawa treaty is signed in December, should we not
bring in legislation to eliminate devices left over from World War
II by our army and its subcontractors? If we do not do it for the
environment, could we not do it for the safety of our children,
before there is a serious accident?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the sentiment of
the hon. member. It is a little difficult, however, to legislate
simply by a decision of this Parliament to somehow make good a
problem that has existed since the second world war and is a
physical problem in or on the surface of the ground.
I can promise the member that the concern she has expressed,
which is particularly important in areas where children may get
through a fence or wall into an area where there is such a
dangerous situation, is a major concern. I am sure the opinions
expressed by the hon. member are shared by every member of the
House.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has placed important and appropriate emphasis on
renewing Canada's infrastructure.
Could the President of the Treasury Board tell us today how he
has allowed Canadian municipalities to fund progressive
infrastructure to benefit Canadians equitably?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to announce that the federal government is providing
funding for nine metro Toronto daycare facilities under the
Canada-Ontario infrastructure program.
In collaboration with our partners in this program, we will be
providing a $1 million contribution which will help to respond to
the needs of all the stakeholders. The federal government is
meeting its commitment to metro Toronto and to Canada's children.
* * *
SENATE
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians believe in making our political institutions
more democratic. Albertans have led the way by electing their
first senator in 1989.
With all provincial parties in favour of electing a senator from
Alberta, will the Prime Minister listen to the people of Alberta
and their request for Senate elections?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we certainly are sensitive to the views of the people of
Alberta, as well as those of every part of the country. But we
have to respect the Constitution as it is, which says that
senators are appointed by the Government of Canada.
Certainly we intend to respect the law while taking into account
the views of people of every part of this country.
* * *
1150
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the
Minister of Labour.
In his reform of the Canada Labour Code, the minister insists on
maintaining the possibility of using strike breakers.
Why is the minister so intend on allowing this, since he knows full
well, as the Quebec experience has demonstrated, that prohibiting scabs
tends to make labour relations more civilized?
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 was tabled yesterday
in the House of Commons. I would like to quote today Canadian
Labour Congress vice-president Nancy Riche. “CLC gives thumbs
up to Bill C-19”.
We are going to address many problems in this bill.
* * *
CRISIS CENTRES
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice.
Every 17 minutes a sexual assault is committed somewhere in
Canada. One in four women will be sexually abused at some point
in her life. There is a need like never before for safe houses,
shelters and rape crisis centres. Why then is the government
quibbling over a million dollar expenditure for such centres?
Will the government assure Canadian women today that, as a very
minimum, the million dollars a year for five years for crisis
centres as promised by the former Minister of Justice will be
allocated immediately?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Treasury Board is now overlooking the funding for the
government's family violence initiative.
The CASAC proposal which is I think is the proposal to which the
hon. member is referring requires more than two-thirds of the
funds that the department expects to receive from Treasury Board.
At the moment, we have 20 proposals for $1.2 million, including
one from the group of aboriginal women who want to establish a
program to build life skills of women. We are in the process of
studying these proposals.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, Nova
Scotia farmers have been devastated twice this year: first by
the worst drought in 100 years resulting in a loss of up to 50%
of forage and grain crops and second, by the callousness of the
minister of agriculture toward this critical event. Farmers are
seeking emergency relief.
Will the Prime Minister intervene now and save farming in Nova
Scotia?
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the hon. member for the question.
I will take his question as notice and when I have my first
opportunity to speak to the minister, I will apprise him of his
concern. I am sure he will get an answer back from the minister
of agriculture.
* * *
[Translation]
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the last election, the government promised to increase funding to
the Council for Assistance to Industrial Research sponsored by the
National Research Council.
Could the Secretary of State for Science and Technology outline the
reasons for such a commitment, which I personally consider positive and
necessary?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development) (Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this industrial research assistance program, which is managed by the
National Research Council, is an excellent government program, and
everyone agrees with that. Every year in Canada, it creates up to 10,000
full time, high quality jobs.
This program provides assistance to 10,000 businesses. Our
consultants, the people who provide this information, come from every
region in the country. They come from 140 organizations across Canada.
This program is especially designed for young people.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Justice stated that the House of
Commons is not the place to discuss issues such as euthanasia and
mercy killings.
Canadians were pretty shocked by that comment. If this is not
the place to debate issues such as euthanasia and mercy killing,
then where is the place to discuss such issues?
1155
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
did not see the quote to which the member referred, but there are
issues before this House on mercy killing, on euthanasia, and
they will be debated, as is being done with the private members'
motion.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in light
of the response we have just got from the President of Treasury
Board on pay equity, I will have another try at it.
Can the minister be more serious and tell me whether, yes or
no, his colleague in finance has given him more than $1.3 billion
to negotiate with?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government considers pay equity an extremely important problem, and
we wish to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.
We have already allocated $1.3 billion for settlement of this
question. We have indicated that we want a response as quickly as
possible, and I would again encourage my hon. colleague to put
pressure on the union so that it will finally find a response that
suits the requirements of our employees.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Deputy Prime Minister. He will be aware that in the
late thirties hundreds of Canadians volunteered to go to Spain to
fight against fascism prior to the second world war.
The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that there is only a
handful of survivors of the Mackenzie-Papineau brigade living
today. He will also know that of 54 countries, 52 have
recognized them as veterans and they are receiving the benefits
of veterans.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister indicate today whether the
government, on the eve of Remembrance Day, is at least
considering recognizing this handful of veterans from the Spanish
civil war who are still alive today and offering them veteran
status?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I would be
happy to take the matter under advisement, together with my
colleague, the Minister of Veteran's Affairs, and get back to my
hon. friend when I have further information on this important
suggestion.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
divestiture of the Nova Scotia salmon hatcheries has been stated
by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as being for the
betterment of the public fishery in Nova Scotia.
Does the minister feel there will be a public fishery in 1998 on
previously stocked rivers in Nova Scotia? If not, does this
change the impetus of the divestiture process?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
It allows me to point out that this summer the Atlantic salmon
returns were possibly one-third of what was expected. This was
the result of at-sea conditions. The escapement from the rivers,
the escapement from hatcheries, were as good for this year as in
previous years from the fish that returned.
However at-sea conditions resulted in a very substantial
reduction. It is a major matter of concern for the government.
However, there are many factors involved, not simply hatcheries,
and I will be happy to discuss them with the member more fully
when I have more than 35 seconds, which is what the Speaker
allows me at question period.
* * *
LAND CLAIMS
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the past few weeks there have been important land
claims negotiations between the federal government, the Labrador
Inuit Association and the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Could the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
please update the House on the status of these negotiations?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member points
out, over the last two weeks senior officials from the Labrador
Inuit Association, from the province of Newfoundland and from the
federal government have completed pressure cooker negotiations.
These have resulted in the initialling of a framework that has
been accepted by the principals. I trust they will lead us to an
agreement in principle on this very important land claim and
self-government agreement.
I congratulate all the parties involved because it was
difficult. I commit the government to a quick return to the table
to finish that agreement in principle as soon as possible.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
an appearance before the finance committee a very credible
witness said: “Continuing cuts to health care across the
country have been dramatic and Canadians are paying the price.
The medicare patchwork is becoming threadbare”. Canadians
queuing up for operations and laid off nurses agree with her.
1200
If the government will not listen to waiting patients, if it
will not listen to laid-off nurses, if it will not listen to the
Reform Party, will it at least listen to one of its own, the wife
of a deputy prime minister, and move quickly to restore much
needed health transfer payments?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as part of the election
platform presented by what is now this government, we identified
the important need to modernize health care. We identified the
need for home care and pharmacare. We have identified a number
of strategies to which the hon. Minister of Health is responding.
It is my clear partnership with him to identify that the biggest
input was to restore funding to $12.5 billion as was requested by
the National Forum on Health.
The Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. government
whip, or, excuse me, Reform whip.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: One day, perhaps, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
MEMBER FOR DEWDNEY—ALOUETTE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order regarding what happened in question
period today, specifically during the questions by the member for
Dewdney—Alouette.
You ruled his initial question out of order, I assume because
you felt it was not within the jurisdiction of the minister to
which the question was directed. However, in the supplementary
when the member started to talk about the infrastructure program
and some of the problems with the infrastructure program in
British Columbia, before he had directed his question in this
case to the minister in charge of that infrastructure program you
rose and cut him off and ruled it out of order again.
It is interesting that the member for Burlington also asked a
question about infrastructure. Why is it okay—
The Speaker: During the course of question period
usually when certain words are used I do not know where the
member is going a lot of the time. It seemed to me he was going
down the same path as the other so I made my decision and my
decision stands.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order
in Council appointments made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
QUEBEC SCHOOL SYSTEM
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the Report of the
Special Joint Committee to amend Section 93 of the Constitution Act,
1867, concerning the Quebec School System.
As the member for Brome—Missisquoi, I simply want to say that the
linguistic school boards Quebec is seeking to establish are similar to
what we have had for about 15 years in my riding of Brome-Missisquoi,
and I must say that the two linguistic communities in my riding live in
perfect harmony.
We heard many stakeholders, and our joint committee conducted a
high level debate. As a Quebecker, I am proud to note that the Quebec
government just took an important step by requesting this amendment in
compliance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982.
1205
I would like to thank the co-chair of the committee, Senator Lucie
Pépin, as well as all the hon. members and senators who sat on the joint
committee and the staff that worked hard to prepare this report.
In conclusion, I would like to read the conclusion of the joint
committee's report:
We recommend that the two houses of Parliament adopt the
resolution to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as
tabled in the House of Commons on October 1, 1997, and in the
Senate on October 9, 1997.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to say at the outset that the caucus of the Reform Party strongly
believes that education is exclusively under provincial jurisdiction and
that it is essential that this be fully respected.
However, we might add that the proposed amendment does not address
minority language educational rights or the establishment of linguistic
school boards. What is at stake here is the denominational rights
protected by section 93 of the Constitution.
Amendments to the Constitution should never be passed without due
consideration or in haste. We believe that before any constitutional
amendment is passed, Parliament must make sure there is democratic
consent, that the amendment respects the rule of law and that it is in
the national interest.
If it adversely affects enshrined minority rights, Parliament must
be especially careful that the democratic consent includes indisputable
agreement on the part of the minority. We have come to the conclusion
that the motion does not meet these requirements.
First, the Reform Party would rather see a provincial referendum
before Parliament considers any amendment under section 93. This
referendum should be on a clear question and the rules of the process
should be fair. Such a referendun would have shown us how extensive
public support is.
Second, we believe it is essential that the people of Canada,
ordinary citizens, be consulted when major changes are contemplated, but
the Quebec government has chosen not to hold any referendum on this
issue. There have been neither public hearings on this proposed
amendment to section 93 nor a free vote in the National Assembly.
Third, this committee should ensure that what it proposes meets the
second requirement: respecting the rule of law. Is the appropriate
amending formula being used? Some have questioned the appropriateness of
the bilateral process. The proposal was sanctioned by the Government of
Canada and by legal experts. Most witnesses we have heard therefore took
it for granted.
In fact, we should not expect this committee to settle the issue in
haste—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt, but
the hon. member for Malpeque has the floor, on a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. Is the member reading the report or tabling the
report? I think he is taking too long to table the report. He
seems to be reading it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon.
parliamentary secretary is correct. By custom the response
should not be any longer than the initial tabling.
The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has requested
unanimous consent of the House to speak to the tabling of this
report with a few short words. Does the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve have the unanimous consent of the House to
speak to this report?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleagues for their consent. I also thank the
government, the member for Brome—Missisquoi, and our Senate
colleague, who made it possible for us to work in a calm atmosphere
culminating in almost complete unanimity. I wish to emphasize that
the Bloc Quebecois is very much in favour of and very pleased with
the contents of the report tabled.
1210
We hope to be able to follow up as quickly as possible on the
vote to be held in the House. Once again, we have the feeling we
are favourably representing the will of the National Assembly and
think that this is a very positive occasion for all
parliamentarians.
[English]
BILL C-11
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on
Industry.
In accordance with its order of reference of October 24, 1997,
the committee has considered Bill C-11, an act respecting the
imposition of duties and customs.
[Translation]
BILL C-10
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the second report of the Standing Committee on Industry.
In accordance with its order of reference of October 29, 1997
the committee has considered Bill C-10, an act to implement a
convention between Canada and Sweden, a convention between Canada
and various other countries.
The purpose of this bill is to avoid double taxation and to
prevent fiscal evasion with respect to income tax. We have agreed
to report it without amendment.
[English]
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 10th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 10th report later this day.
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the first report
of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food relating
to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-277, an act to declare a referendum on the
restoration of the death penalty as a sentencing option and to
amend the Referendum Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to introduce a bill
calling for a binding national referendum on the reinstatement of
capital punishment as a sentencing option for those convicted of
first degree murder.
In doing so I thank my colleague, the member for
Dewdney—Alouette, for seconding the bill and all other members
who have jointly seconded the bill. The bill represents Reform
Party policy on the issue and allows Canadians to decide this
matter for themselves. Indeed for too long, in fact forever,
Canadians have been shut out of this debate.
Critics will try to misrepresent this initiative by saying the
bill is about reinstatement of the death penalty when it is
clearly not. The bill is about having a referendum on the matter
and it is from that perspective I hope members of the House will
engage in debate on the matter.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-278, an act to provide for the expiry
of gun control legislation that has not proven effective within
five years of coming into force.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing my firearms law
sunset act. I would like to thank the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for seconding the bill.
1215
The Minister of Justice tabled 62 pages of firearms regulations
last week and they suffer the same problem as the bill that
authorized them. No one knows if this bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo
and hundreds of millions of tax dollars will improve public
safety, reduce the criminal use of firearms or save lives. Nor
can anyone in this government tell law-abiding gun owners or
taxpayers what it will do if it does not improve public safety.
The firearms law sunset act solves this uncertainty for gun
owners and—
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order, I believe the standing orders say that members
introducing private members' bills describe the bill. They do
not give a speech about it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon.
parliamentary secretary is quite correct. The introduction of a
private member's bill may not enter into the realm of debate.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I will describe the
bill.
My sunset law would require the automatic repeal of any gun
control measure five years after it is implemented, unless it can
pass a public safety test administered by the Auditor General of
Canada which proves that the measure is cost effective and
achieves its stated objective.
I believe all laws in this House must be cost effective and
achieve their stated goal.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
OBSERVANCE OF TWO MINUTES OF SILENCE ON REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-279, an act to promote the observance of two
minutes of silence on Remembrance Day.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill which is designed
to formalize a custom which unfortunately is on the wane in
Canada. It would invite the people of Canada to observe two
minutes of silence on Remembrance Day in their places of work, in
schools, in any possible way.
It is a bill that is designed on a similar piece of legislation
which was recently passed in the Ontario legislature and designed
on a motion that passed the Westminister parliament a couple of
years ago.
It would not require anything of the Canadian people but simply
to call their attention to the importance respecting this
longstanding tradition of observing these moments of silence in
respect of our war dead.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 10th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to
the House earlier this day be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the following member be
added to the list of associate members of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs: Don Boudria.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1220
PETITIONS
PUBLIC NUDITY
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition on behalf
of the constituents of Prince Edward Island who are concerned
about the explicit nudity in public places which is becoming
quite frequent. There are laws in Canada to protect children
against this form of nudity in all media, but currently there are
no laws protecting children in public places.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to amend the Criminal Code, specifically sections 173
and 174, the indecent act and public nudity provisions, to
clearly state that a woman exposing her breasts in a public place
is an indecent act.
HERBAL SUPPLEMENTS
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House calling
for the elimination of Bill C-8 and any other offending
legislation that unduly regulates the use of herbal supplements.
Conservative estimates show that over six million Canadians rely
on herbal supplements. These people do not want their health care
choices limited and they do not want to see the cost of these
products increase as the result of unnecessary costly government
regulations.
I applaud the Minister of Health on his recent decision to seek
advice from a committee for amendments to the Food and Drugs Act
that would affect these products.
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three brief petitions to present today.
The first one has to do with the family. The petitioners would
like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the
family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to our
society. They also point out that the Income Tax Act does not
take into account the cost of raising children in its provisions.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate this discrimination against
families who choose to provide direct care in the home to
preschool children.
LABELLING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition has to do with alcohol misuse.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems and particularly that fetal alcohol syndrome and other
alcohol related birth defects are 100% preventable by avoiding
consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
mandate the labelling of alcoholic products to warn expectant
mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol
consumption.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION FUND
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the final petition has to do with our everyday heroes on the
front line, police officers and firefighters.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that our police officers and firefighters are required to place
their lives at risk on a daily basis and that the public mourns
the loss when one of them loses their life in the line of duty.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the
benefit of families of police officers, firefighters and other
public safety officers who lose their lives in the line of duty.
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the citizens of Kamloops, I want to associate our views with that
of the member for Mississauga South who has just presented three
petitions. We would certainly go on record as endorsing those
three petitions. Perhaps I can ask the same of my hon. friend.
The first petition I wish to present refers to the GST being
applied to books. These few hundred petitioners from throughout
British Columbia are urging the government to demonstrate support
of education and literacy by eliminating the sales tax on reading
materials. They also ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines
and newspapers under the GST. Also they say that as the provinces
and Ottawa consider harmonizing their sales taxes, reading
materials must be zero rated under the provincial sales taxes as
well as the GST.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is a large one. This brings to a total of nearly 15,000
names from the greater Kamloops area that are on record as asking
the government to remove section 745 of the Criminal Code which
they say allows murderers to apply for a reduction in the number
of years of imprisonment notwithstanding having been tried,
convicted and sentenced in a court of law.
I agree with their sentiment. They are asking Parliament to
simply eliminate section 745.
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on another
matter, petitioners from Kamloops and Clearwater, British
Columbia outline a large list of reasons why the present tax
system needs to be changed. I will not go into the reasons
because they are already clear on the public record. They are
simply calling upon the Government of Canada to consider
introducing major tax reform and re-examining the recommendations
made, I believe it was in the sixties, by the Carter commission
on tax reform.
1225
ASSISTED SUICIDE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, finally on
the matter of euthanasia, the petitioners primarily under the
leadership of Ursula Bond from Clearwater, British Columbia are
simply asking Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of
the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously, and that Parliament make no change in the
law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
YASMINE REDDY
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour and privilege to rise in the House today to
present a petition on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and
other regions of British Columbia.
The petition concerns Yasmine Reddy, a Canadian citizen who was
abducted from Canada by her mother, Nadia Reddy, on February 16,
1997 and remains a hostage trapped in Amman, Jordan.
This petition is signed by 83 persons and calls on the federal
government to act to have Yasmine Reddy safely and promptly
returned to Canada and to ask the King of Jordan to issue a royal
decree to repatriate Yasmine Asha Christine Reddy back to Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-16, an act to amend
the Criminal Code and the Interpretation Act (powers to arrest
and enter dwellings), as reported (with amendment) from the
committee; and of Motions Nos. 3 and 5.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent
to revert to Motion No. 2.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On a point of order,
the hon. chief government, the whip of the official opposition.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all
the speakers are having trouble with that today. It is
prophetic.
I feel this matter can be given unanimous consent, but I want to
rise to address it on two points.
The reason we are reverting to deal with this motion is that the
government's process on how it has handled this whole bill and
the amendments surrounding this bill along with the amendments to
the bill itself has been so seriously flawed that, as it is
trying to rush it through this House, mistakes were made earlier
this day by people forcing a vote on this amendment. The
government does not want an amendment because it wants it pushed
through today and today it must go through. None of us on this
side of the House want to hold that up.
However, what has happened is another example of what happens in
this place when legislation is brought in at the last minute,
when it is rushed through committee where there is no chance of
bringing in amendments like this, when there is no chance to
bring expert opinion to bear on amendments, when there is not an
opportunity to hear all sides of it. That is what happens when
this stuff is pushed through.
I said as much in committee. I want to repeat it here again
today. This is a problem with the flawed process of last minute,
last ditch, knife at your throat, let us get this thing passed or
else attitude that the government brings on this legislation. It
is wrong, wrong, wrong. I just want to point out that we are
reverting to this motion because the process is so flawed.
I also want to caution the Speaker in accepting this motion.
There have been discussions with all parties and we are in
agreement to revert to this motion to deal with it.
However earlier today, five members at least stood in their
place and demanded a recorded vote on this motion. The caution I
have on that is what if those five members have now left the
Chamber to do other duties and are not here to deal with the
unanimous consent?
I just want to go on record to say that this cannot be construed
as a precedent setting incident. It is only because the
government House leader assures me that the members who stood on
his side of the House and asked for this vote are in agreement
with this and will not be coming back on the House and accusing
anyone in here of somehow doing something inappropriate in the
democratic process.
1230
Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that it is absolutely clear
that at any time in the future when five members stand to force a
vote we do not reconsider that vote unless there is agreement by
all parties and agreement by the five members who stood.
I hope on those two counts the government is paying attention,
that the department is paying attention and that we will not be
dealing with this sort of sausage making factory when we should
be dealing with legislative debate in a serious manner.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say briefly that the point made by the Reform
Party whip is a good one. I too very much regret that we have to
do what we are doing.
This would be a bad precedent if it in any way were to be
understood as a precedent. I think this needs to be understood
as an aberration. I think the point is well made that one could
certainly imagine a future circumstance in which the leadership
of all parties, in fact all parties, might conspire to overturn
the will of five members who might not have been acting in
concert with their parties, causing a vote to be taken by
standing and forcing a recorded division.
This should in no way be seen as a precedent in respect of any
future circumstance. In the future we would have to have
guarantees, as we have today, that the members who caused the
vote to be taken were in agreement with the procedure we are now
following.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm to the House
that this is not considered by the government as being a
precedent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we take the
vote on unanimous consent, the Chair takes this very seriously
and has duly noted all the comments made by all the members on
both sides of the Chamber concerning this bill.
The Chair also recognizes that a precedent is not set when
unanimous consent is requested. Any member of the House may deny
unanimous consent and therefore a precedent is not set.
With regard to this bill, the House did give unanimous consent
earlier to exceptionally deal with this legislation, to pass it
at report and third reading stages today. Therefore the House has
already expressed its desire to see this legislation proceed.
The Chair very clearly states that this is not and will not be
considered as a precedent. The concerns of the hon. whip of the
official opposition are noted.
Accordingly, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Carried.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
An hon. member: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion—
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is important for the
House to know whether you are seeking consent to put the motion
on whether to revert to the previous clause or whether you are
adopting Motion No. 2 itself.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is a very wise
clarification. It is to revert to the motion as put by the whip.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): So that we are
absolutely clear, we are now dealing with Motion No. 2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair is not
certain what the Chair heard, so the Chair will repeat the
request.
1235
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 2 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
defeated on division. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 4 and 6
defeated.
Debate is on Motion No. 3. Resuming debate, the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
will be very brief. I will deal with Motions Nos. 3 and 5, and I do
realize that they have been separated. You separated Motion No. 3 from
Motion No. 5, with unanimous consent. There will be a separate vote on
these motions.
Motions Nos. 3 and 5 are similar, but Motion No. 3 deals with the
warrant for arrest. I realize that the member wants more flexibility and
would like police officers to have more powers to serve a warrant for
arrest. However, it should be remembered that with respect to the
warrant for arrest itself, which is outlined on page 6 of the bill
starting at line five, the police officers already know who the person
involved is.
This warrant for arrest applies to a known individual. We know his age,
his address, his date of birth, his social insurance number, etc.
Therefore with respect to the warrant for arrest that the member of the
Conservative Party would like to broaden somewhat, I wish to say here
that this is not necessary, since the police officers already have the
information. So it is not necessary to give all those details. We will
vote against Motion No. 3.
As for Motion No. 5, and I will speak to it now so that I will not
have to rise later, on the warrant to enter a dwelling-house, we agree
with this and we will vote for this amendment because in this case, this
is useful and it gives police officers more powers to obtain a warrant
to enter a dwelling-house without necessarily knowing the name of the
individual who is there, as long as they have a description. For
example, he is tall, he is dressed in a blue suit, he has brown hair, he
has brown eyes, he belongs to the Bloc perhaps.
In this way we have more information and we can enter a dwelling-house
without necessarily having the name of the individual, his date of birth
and other similar information.
Therefore, for these reasons, we will vote against Motion No. 3 but
we will vote for Motion No. 5.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 3.
1240
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 3 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
defeated on division.
Resuming debate on Motion No. 5.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Please
correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the rules of the
debate were that the vote on Motion No. 3 was to apply to Motion
No. 5, unless that has been rescinded while I was not paying
attention.
An hon. member: It was.
Mr. Ken Epp: It was? Thank you. I withdraw my question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There was consent to
split the vote and the point of order is therefore withdrawn.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise again with respect to this amendment as it
pertains to a revision or an adaptation to an amendment contained
in Bill C-16. This refers specifically to form 7.1 as it exists
currently in the Criminal Code. The amendment is aimed
specifically at allowing a police officer in the form of the
warrant to include a description as it pertains to a person the
police are seeking.
That person may be found within a dwelling House and may be
unknown in terms of the actual name of the person sought by the
police. The acceptance of this amendment and including this in
the form would allow the police to give a description to a
justice of the peace that is acceptable to the justice of the
peace to the extent that they might then fill out the warrant.
The police could therefore go to the dwelling house named in the
warrant and make proper arrest.
There is still judicial discretion. The justice of the peace
will always have the discretion to refuse the police if that
description is unnecessary. So there are sufficient safeguards
in place.
I do not want to speak at length. The proposed amendment is
very straightforward. Mr. Speaker, I believe you will unanimous
consent with respect to this amendment.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to put on the record, as was stated earlier, that we do
support this amendment. We believe the amendment as stated is
already permitted under section 529.1, but the hon. member's
motion would provide more clarification.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1245
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair, not
hearing any nays, declares the motion carried.
(Motion No. 5 agreed to)
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved that the bill, as amended, be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When shall the bill
be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Debate.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
clarification. Are we presently engaging in debate on third
reading?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This bill may not go
down in the annals of history as one to be used as a case history
on how to handle a bill. It may, as a matter of fact, go down in
history as how not to handle a bill.
I believe, with unanimous consent, if anybody wishes to revert
to the bill it is possible, but the bill has been carried at
third reading.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you might find
unanimous consent to see the clock as being 1.30. Possibly, to
assist the member or members who might be participating in
private members' hour, the House would adjourn to the call of the
Chair. I think we should begin by seeing consent to see the
clock as being 1.30 p.m.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, we just want to make sure that
we were voting on the motion for third reading.
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: We were. Very well.
1250
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent to see the clock as 1.30 p.m. so we may proceed with
Private Members' Business?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being l.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]
DISTINCT SOCIETY
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support
equality among the provinces and Canadians in general by ensuring
that no province be recognized as a distinct society within the
Constitution of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to begin debate on the
private member's motion before the House.
In light of the recent Calgary declaration the merit of the
motion should be self-evident to all Canadians. Given the desire
of traditional parties to cling to the concept of distinct
society, I am under no illusions about the criticism they will
offer today.
To start, there will be those who will criticize the initiative
before us as being anti-Quebec. To those who feel this way I
respond in advance that like the Calgary declaration the motion
is not anti-anything. It is in essence pro Canadian. It is
crafted with the desire to create a new Canada where everyone is
proud to be a Canadian.
I say this with a great deal of confidence. The motion before
us is pro Canadian in the sense that it recognizes a fundamental
principle held in the hearts of all Canadians, namely that we are
all equal.
The motion before us is about advancing the principle of
equality among all Canadians and entrenching the paramount
importance of individual rights. The protection of individual
rights is also significant. One of the major faults in the Meech
and Charlottetown accords was that they sought to
constitutionally entrench a collective right. In doing so, there
would have existed within the Canadian constitution the potential
that individual rights could be made subservient to the
collective right of a distinct society.
This argument was based on the widely held and correct
perception among Canadians that recognition of Quebec as a
distinct society would confer some collective right on the
peoples of that province not conferred on the others. Therein
lay the problem and the dilemma faced by constitutional framers
and politicians, the same people who tried on numerous occasions
to ram distinct society through with little or no regard for the
real feelings of Canadians.
What was the response from the traditional party leaders at the
federal and provincial levels? They resorted to labelling anyone
who opposed the distinct society initiative as unpatriotic. They
also played on the fears of Canadians by saying that the country
would fall apart without such an amendment to the constitution.
The country is still here.
1255
Worse still, there was a deliberate attempt to mislead Canadians
about what distinct society really meant. At the time we had the
former prime minister of the last place party telling Canadians
outside Quebec that distinct society was nothing more than a
symbolic recognition of that province's place in Confederation.
I want to briefly touch on that symbolic recognition. This is
what distinguishes the Calgary declaration from Meech and
Charlottetown. Meech and Charlottetown attempted to entrench
distinct society as an interpretive clause which would give
additional powers to Quebec. The Calgary declaration does
nothing more than recognize what is a historical fact accepted by
Reformers and Canadians in general, principally that the language
and culture of Quebec make it unique but, and here is the key,
this fact in no way takes away from the equality of Canadians or
confers additional powers to Quebec.
That was the problem with Meech and Charlottetown. Both
initiatives tried to craft this historical recognition into a
constitutional power afforded only to Quebec.
All the while and within Quebec the former prime minister and
the late Premier Bourassa were saying just that. To hear them
tell it, the clause would be used to enhance that province's
powers within federation.
The federal doublespeak and actions on distinct society would be
quite funny if they were not so terribly sad for the future of
the country.
I also want to deal with what I see is the potential harm in the
collective right of distinct society ever becoming entrenched.
Granted this will be speculative because thankfully the clause is
not in the Constitution. That has more to do with the wisdom of
Canadians than it does the foresight of traditional politicians
who even now think entrenchment of distinct society will solve
the unity problem.
In any event, the arguments concerning the potential harm of
entrenching distinct society are speculative but they are not
without a historical precedent to back them up.
I want to briefly discuss the precedent. The lessons and
arguments in that instance will serve to highlight what I feel
are the pitfalls where distinct society is concerned. Patriation
of the Canadian Constitution was achieved to some degree because
the federal government was able to secure an agreement with nine
of the ten provinces. The federal government had acted
unilaterally but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that some
provincial support was needed.
The impact of that court decision would figure prominently in
the effort to settle on a text for the Constitution, but in the
finished document that became the Constitution Act, 1982, there
also was a clause known as the notwithstanding clause. This
clause was part of the price the federal government had to pay
for getting an agreement on the Constitution.
The rationale behind the notwithstanding clause was to place
some kind of a constitutional check on the powers of the federal
government. At the time some premiers believed this was needed
to in part prevent legislation or new spending initiatives which
might cross into areas of provincial jurisdiction. It was also
believed that this clause would help in securing Quebec's
signature on the Constitution.
Aside from the rationale and intentions behind the
notwithstanding clause, good, bad or otherwise, there were those
who saw the potential danger in having a constitution which could
allow a province to disregard federal legislation or a ruling by
the supreme court concerning the constitutionality of a
provincial law.
This potential danger is significant because the arguments used
to downplay the consequences at that time are the same ones used
now with respect to distinct society. In this regard it is no
small wonder then that Canadians feel successive governments have
learned nothing from past constitutional experiences. They have
little or no faith in the sincerity of politicians to do what is
best or in their ability to deal with the national unity problem.
This is truly tragic.
And as someone whose name escapes me at the moment once said,
“Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are
destined to repeat them.”
1300
What were those dire consequences that some predicted would
befall the notwithstanding clause? Canadians with enough
foresight saw that a province might use the clause to override
the charter of rights and that in so doing, the rights of
individuals in that province could be damaged. That is exactly
what did happen.
But we need not concern ourselves with the circumstances under
which the use of that clause came about. We will visit that in
due course. What is now relevant were the arguments used at that
time to allay fears that the notwithstanding clause would ever be
used by any province.
I think we remember them well. They are hauntingly familiar to
those used by former and present governments seeking to mollify
Canadians about the constitutional impact of the distinct society
provision.
As I said, in response to a well-founded fear that some province
might use the notwithstanding clause, the government of the day
sought to minimize the chance of this ever happening. The
political media and to a lesser extent, the academic elites, said
“Oh, this will never happen. No province would ever use the
notwithstanding clause. The political price of using it would be
too great for any province. The court of public opinion in that
province would stop a government from invoking the clause” and
on and on it went.
Basically, the predictions were ignored and political leaders
felt secure in their belief that the override provision would
never, ever be used. But of course they were wrong.
Let us fast forward from 1982 to 1989 when the Government of
Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause. The province did this
in response to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling which found
Quebec's language law, bill 178, to be unconstitutional and
violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I am not so much interested in why the notwithstanding clause
was used. It is far more revealing to delve into parallels
between the potential dangers it posed and those which by
extension are inherent in the distinct society clause.
The politicians of the day had not been completely wrong about
the effect of public opinion surrounding Quebec's use of the
notwithstanding clause. The problem was that the court of public
opinion did not change a thing and its full impact reaction was
well after the fact.
Still, some negative fallout was incurred by the Quebec
government on the issue. For as constitutional as their use of
the notwithstanding clause had been, it did not sit well with
people inside and outside of Quebec who expressed concern that
the provincial government had effectively trampled on the rights
of English speaking Quebeckers.
What was needed then was an amendment to the Canadian
Constitution, one that would allow Quebec to side step the
charter of rights in matters such as language and not put the
province in the awkward position of having to use the
notwithstanding clause in order to do it. Such an amendment must
allow the province of Quebec to make laws similar to bill 178.
However, it must also ensure that such laws could not be
challenged as unconstitutional.
In short, the Canadian Constitution would have to be interpreted
in such a way as to recognize the province's rights to make such
laws.
From the very beginning of that notion is born the idea of
distinct society, in effect, an amendment which would allow
Quebec to override the Constitution by giving it the power to
take whatever steps were necessary to preserve and promote Quebec
as a distinct society.
Let us now examine the predictions and the potential dangers of
how a distinct society clause might truly impact on the
Constitution. Indeed, the alarm bells that went unheeded with
respect to the notwithstanding clause are the same ones ringing
again over distinct society today.
1305
If, as governments in Quebec have demanded, the Canadian
Constitution and charter of rights must be interpreted in a
fashion that recognizes Quebec as a distinct society, what
happens in a situation where individual rights, such as freedom
of expression, conflict with this collective right based on
culture and language?
Actually the question is rhetorical because we all know the
answer. It is just that there are those who are loathe to admit
it, or refuse to accept it, or do not want the rest of the
country to really understand it.
Using the situation surrounding the supreme court's
consideration of Quebec's bill 178, a distinct society clause
would have allowed the supreme court to come back and say bill
178 was constitutional. The highest court in the land would have
been able to say this. “The law must be considered in light of a
clause which states that the Constitution shall be interpreted in
a manner consistent with the recognition that Quebec constitutes
a distinct society”.
That is right. No messy or unpalatable use of a notwithstanding
clause. No federal government interference because the federal
government would say that it cannot do a thing, the supreme court
has ruled and that decision must be respected.
This sounds familiar. It is what every traditional politician
likes to do when there is a controversy. Toss it to the court if
possible. At least then voters will not be able to blame
government for the consequences of its inactions.
In order that all MPs will be given a say in this matter, I ask
for the unanimous consent of members present to make this motion
votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the member for
Nanaimo—Cowichan have unanimous consent to have this motion made
votable.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Unanimous consent is
denied.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to respond on behalf of the government to the motion tabled by
the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
This motion highlights the differing viewpoints between the
government and the hon. member with respect to national unity.
As was clearly indicated in the Speech from the Throne, the
government has made this issue its top priority for its current
mandate. We want to proceed with national reconciliation. We
believe the Calgary declaration is an important step in that
direction.
The nine premiers would not support the spirit of the hon.
member's motion either. Even though the results of the
consultations they will be holding with their respective
populations are not yet in, it already appears that the majority
of Canadians support the major principles of the Calgary
declaration.
[Translation]
The first part of the motion the member is asking us to
consider concerns equality among provinces and Canadians in
general. I would reassure my colleague that equality is a
principle shared by all Canadians and supported fully by the our
government. The first two clauses of the Calgary declaration are
devoted to it.
The principle of equality is at the heart of our identity. It
is a bulwark of our culture and our identity as Canadians. It is
the very essence of our democratic system. The Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms clearly recognizes it in section 15, which
guarantees equality of Canadians before the law.
In this regard, clause 1 of the Calgary declaration provides that
all Canadians are equal and that their rights are protected by law.
[English]
We are also in agreement with respect to the equality status of
the provinces. There are not two or three types of status for
provinces. In the Canadian federation, provinces have equal
status. All provinces can exercise the same powers. I would
remind my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan of what clause 2 of
the Calgary declaration has to say on the matter. “ All
provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equal
status”.
Nevertheless some provinces may show more of a desire than
others to exercise some of these powers. In fact, over the
years, some provinces have used certain powers while others have
chosen not to do so. For example, all provinces have the power
to administer the collection of individual income tax, but only
Quebec does so and has the necessary personnel and
infrastructure.
In 1965 all provinces had the right to opt out of certain
national established programs and receive appropriate
compensation, including tax points.
Only Quebec chose to do so, which is why the federal tax rate is
lower in Quebec than in the other provinces.
1310
Only Quebec has exercised its constitutional right to set up its
own pension plan. The other provinces are covered by the Canada
pension plan.
Those powers that Quebec has exercised have always been
available to the other provinces. That the Government of Quebec
has exercised them while others have chosen not to does not
confer special status on the province. That is why clause 6 of
the Calgary declaration stipulates that if any future
constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, those
powers would have to be available to all provinces. Thus equality
does not mean uniformity, nor does equality of treatment mean
uniformity of treatment.
Let us consider an example that concerns the province of the
hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. When the government works
with the Government of British Columbia to support Pacific salmon
fishers, that does not give the province an additional right in
comparison with other provinces. Rather, it means that only
British Columbia has a Pacific salmon fishery.
That same flexible approach also applies to tax breaks for
Alberta for oil sands development, and yet these two examples do
not make our fellow citizens in Alberta or British Columbia
Canadians plus.
[Translation]
Neither case involves special privileges, but rather different
contexts. Governments must recognize that all provinces and all
citizens are equal, but must also respond to a variety of needs and
circumstances. The flexibility of the Canadian federation is thus
expressed, by accommodating differences without compromising the
principle of equality.
I would even add that each province can occupy all of its
space within the federation in its full specificity and Canada is
the richer for it.
[English]
Equalization is another example. Under that program the federal
government makes payments to some provinces but not to others.
That does not mean that inequalities are being created among the
provinces. Rather it means that all citizens have access to
comparable services, no matter what region they live in.
The essential difference between our party's view and my
colleague's motion is that for him equality seems to mean
uniformity, whereas we believe that these two concepts do not
necessarily mean the same thing. To impose uniformity of
treatment in a country such as ours is to deny one of its
greatest treasures, its diversity. That will never be the policy
of the Liberal Party of Canada.
My colleague maintains that recognizing the specificity of a
province in the Constitution would run counter to the principle
of equality of provinces and citizens. As I have already stated,
we all agree with the principle of equality among citizens and
provinces. The government, however, rejects the one size fits
all approach. That is why we support recognizing the unique
character of Quebec as proposed in the declaration of the nine
premiers.
The Calgary declaration defines the unique character of Quebec
society in terms of its French speaking majority, its culture and
its tradition of civil law. That definition reminds us that
Quebec is different from the other provinces in many ways, one
characteristic being that it contains within its territory the
only French speaking majority on the North American continent.
I would remind my colleague that although the expression
“unique character” has only recently entered the political
vocabulary, all of our constitutional laws have contained
implicit recognition of the distinct character of Quebec's
identity from the Quebec Act of 1774 to the Constitution Act of
1982, including the Constitutional Act of 1791 and the
Constitution Act of 1867.
In fact the Constitution Act of 1867 recognized Quebec's special
legal system and even then contained provisions regarding
bilingualism and the appointment of supreme court justices.
1315
I would add that the constitutional recognition of the unique
character of Quebec would merely formalize an existing practice
in the courts, an opinion that is shared by the former chief
justice of the supreme court, the Right Hon. Brian Dickson.
The unique character of Quebec society is an obvious observation
which is taken into account in current practice. So how would
recognizing it jeopardize the equality of citizens and provinces?
Simply put, in no way.
The Calgary declaration is not a constitutional amendment. It
is a statement of principles. However if recognition of the
unique character of Quebec society were to be entrenched in the
Constitution, that recognition would be framed as an interpretive
clause like the current section 27 of the charter of rights which
recognizes the multicultural character of Canada's heritage.
Fifteen years after the charter was adopted, can any Canadian say
that his or her rights have been threatened by that clause?
[Translation]
In addition to honouring the universal principle of equality,
such recognition will serve the unity of the country well. As I
have already said, our government made national unity its top
priority in this term of office. And whatever helps the cause will
receive our support.
This is why we support the Calgary declaration. We recognize
that it is a positive step by proposing a framework for discussions
that reflect Canadian realities and values.
[English]
I would like to finish with a quote that Canadians believe, as
Alberta's premier Ralph Klein has said, in a Canada where all
provinces have equal status, but a Canada that allows Quebec to
protect those things that make it such a unique part of our
national character, a tolerant and diverse nation where we are
all equal as Canadians no matter where we live but where the word
equality is not used as a blanket to smother diversity. I believe
that is what Canadians believe.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is unfortunate to see such misunderstanding of Quebec and a
constant, and thinly veiled, attack on the Quebec people by English
Canada.
A reading of motion M-26, which we have before us at this
time, leads us to that conclusion. All Quebeckers reading it and
listening to the debate would reach the same conclusion.
This is an extremely important subject for us in Quebec and I
would need far more than ten minutes to explain our point of view
concerning it. I will, however, make an attempt to explain it to
you, and to convince the hon. members of this Parliament, solely on
historical grounds, briefly of course. Solely on historical
grounds,
I trust that they will understand that provincial equality, as seen
by the hon. Reform member, and even by the government members, does
not in any way correspond to the historical demands of the Quebec
people.
Speaking of history, I believe we cannot help but conclude
that the creation of Canada was based on a historic
misunderstanding. In 1867, when Lower Canada and Upper Canada
decided to unite, it was common knowledge that francophones were a
minority everywhere in North America with the exception of Lower
Canada. The people of Lower Canada had agreed to a federal system
knowing that this would at least give them the power and democratic
control of a member state within the federation.
As for Upper Canada, what it wanted was a very strong Canada,
a unitary regime.
The signing did take place, however. The Fathers of Confederation
did sign an agreement, believing one thing, but the facts prove
that they reached a devious agreement to get around the system they
had used to sell Lower Canada on signing. Since 1867, therefore,
quietly but inexorably, areas under Quebec's jurisdiction have been
nibbled away at, along with those of the other provinces. Quebec,
however, is most vocal in its demands. The area of jurisdiction
found under section 92 of the Canadian Constitution is being
nibbled away at.
1320
Little by little, in an indirect by nevertheless real way, through
Supreme Court judgments—and the list is long—the federal
government is taking powers away from Quebec.
The most recent example, hot off the press so to speak, is Bill C-14
on water management. If there is one area that comes under Quebec
jurisdiction this is it. If there is one thing that is dear to the
hearts of Quebeckers it is water. The federal government in its wisdom
figured it should interfere in that area in the name of peace, order and
good government or using the rule of federal precedence.
As far as the Constitution is concerned, the Quiet Revolution
stirred Quebec to go from passively defending vested powers to actively
claiming new powers.
This is nothing new. Since the 1960s, successive Quebec premiers have
constantly been asking that Quebec be given more powers. Why? Because
they found it necessary for the political, social, economic and cultural
development of Quebec society.
However, capitalizing on the failure of the 1980 referendum, a
Prime Minister named Pierre Elliott Trudeau, together with nine English
speaking provinces, repatriated the Constitution and imposed it on
Quebec. It should be noted that the Constitution of 1982 was never
ratified by Quebec. It was never approved by any of the Quebec premiers.
Since 1982, we have had premiers in Quebec who were federalists and even
Liberals. As a big brother, or small brother perhaps, of the Liberal
government across the way, Robert Bourassa himself refused to sign this
Constitution.
In 1982, for the first time since 1867, the Constitution was
amended without Quebec's consent. That was the end of an old dream of
Quebeckers, who had viewed the federation as a pact between two founding
nations, which could therefore only be changed with their mutual
consent.
What Motion M-26 shows is that the concept of distinct society has
lost a lot of ground in a very short time. A previous speaker mentioned
the Meech Lake and Charlottetown agreements and the Calgary declaration.
Closer scrutiny invariably reveals that every time there is an agreement
in English Canada, Quebec ends up not with more but with fewer powers.
In the Meech Lake Accord, the Bourassa government, a federalist
government I might add, set out the five conditions to be met before
Quebec could approve the Constitution Act of 1982.
What were the five conditions?
First, recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, which would be
meaningful and would be used by the courts as an interpretation formula
to grant more powers when considering Quebec's traditional demands.
Second, guaranteeing a more prominent role regarding immigration.
Third, allowing Quebec to participate in the appointment of supreme
court justices.
Fourth, limiting the federal government's spending power. It is
through this power that, increasingly, the federal government has been
taking over powers that belong to Quebec, powers that are recognized as
ours under section 92 of the Constitution. With its spending power,
Ottawa is putting money in areas that are not under federal
jurisdiction.
Fifth, recognizing Quebec's veto on the reform of federal
institutions and the creation of new provinces.
These were the five conditions seen as a minimum by a federalist
Quebec premier, Robert Bourassa.
We know what happened to the Meech Lake accord. English Canada felt
Quebec was getting way too much. Following this episode and some
arm-twisting, the Charlottetown accord was struck. What happened then to the
notion of distinct society, which was the minimum for Quebec to join the
Canadian confederation?
1325
They tried to dilute it even further, with a sort of Canada
clause in which everyone was equal, in which the principle of
equality of all the provinces appeared for the first time in an
accord concluded with English Canada.
What became of the Charlottetown accord? It was defeated. It
was defeated in the west because it gave too much power to Quebec,
and it was defeated in Quebec because it gave too little power to
Quebec.
Then there was the Calgary accord. The focus shifted to
unique character. Distinct society was no longer of interest. And
here we saw a premier who was at least honest, the premier of
Ontario, who said that unique character was meaningless because
everything in Canada was unique, from Pacific salmon to the tar
sands of Alberta.
It was all unique.
In addition, as if that were not enough, points 2 to 6 of the
Calgary declaration set out clearly the equality of the provinces.
Never will a premier of Quebec, whether it be Maurice
Duplessis, Lesage, Johnson, Sauvé, Bertrand, Barrette, Bourassa,
Parizeau, the last Johnson, Daniel, or the present incumbent,
Lucien Bouchard, allow Quebec to be put on an equal footing with
all the other provinces because we are one of the two founding
peoples. This historic fact must be recognized. There must be
recognition of the fact that Quebec forms a people. And in this
regard they must know their history, they must look at the historic
demands of Quebec and reach the conclusion that a motion such as
the one before us asking the House to recognize that all the
provinces are equal and that none can be recognized as distinct
under the Constitution of Canada is unthinkable. No, no and no.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
congratulate the citizens of my region for having chosen to send me to
represent them here in the Canadian Parliament.
I come from a proud region that has always asserted its
nationalism. It is a region where nationalism has also developed in a
rather sustained manner because we have always had to fight to be
recognized by both the major levels of government, the one in Quebec and
the one in Ottawa.
On every issue, whether it be large infrastructures, social matters
or regional development plans, I can tell you that great effort is
always necessary to be recognized and to be able to have a fair share of
the benefits to which we are entitled.
As for the resolution by my colleague from the Reform Party, I know
that it is an issue where it is quite easy to slip into inflated
rhetoric.
I will try to avoid this, knowing that you are a member of that party,
although I think that you are capable of showing understanding and
objectivity in an issue that is of interest in fact to the whole country
and that can at some point involve the security of the population.
Speaking of the Reform Party, I must admit that the perception I
had from the exterior when that party was first created was that it was
perfect in all areas, from social issues to fiscal matters. Gradually,
however, I realized that this is not exactly the case.
When moving a party leader into a house costs the population $115,000,
I must say that since these figures were published in the public
accounts, in my region and through all my colleagues, I can assure you
that the party has lost a lot of credibility in its consideration of
both fiscal matters and constitutional matters.
We also remember its campaign, especially during the last two weeks
when conciliatory advances were made to us after we had been excluded as
Quebeckers during two full weeks, after the door had been shut
completely on us as partners who are acceptable, who can make a rather
comprehensive contribution to the future of our country.
1330
In short, I think the Reform Party has a long hill to climb to
return to its pristine state of old. They are realizing that as
they wear out it is hard to put forward proposals for national
reconciliation. This seems blatantly obvious to me.
Let us take a normal family, an ordinary family. Clearly we
are all equal, but we are not all identical. What is true for a
family is true for a country like ours. Certain collective rights
must be defended.
Our language, culture and legal system are collectively different
from those of the rest of Canada. It is in the interest of
Canadians to do everything possible to promote the protection and
development of this unique, distinct culture and of this people,
which should be allowed to continue as co-owner of Canada.
We are not asking for privileges. We are co-owners of this
country. We will do everything to remain so.
I was listening to my colleague from the government. The
problem in this case is that grandstanding is so easy that
irresponsible politicians in this country have succeeded in
spoiling the social climate.
Mr. Speaker, you are a reasonable man. Do you remember the
Meech Lake accord in 1990? Our government was in power and Mr.
Mulroney was the Prime Minister.
God knows he cannot be blamed for working toward reconciliation.
At that time, 90% of Canadians were in favour of the accord.
What was the result of interventions by certain former Liberal
prime ministers and premiers, Clyde Wells and two or three others?
A deterioration in our social climate, and a party like the Reform
accentuates that negativity.
What has led to the degeneration of our social climate in this
country is the irresponsibility of certain politicians and certain
political parties; instead of working constructively, working in
the best interest of all Canadians and the best interest of all
Quebecers, they have preferred to stoop to partisan politics. I
believe this is the situation in which we find ourselves at the
moment.
It is such a bad situation that, should a committee be struck, I am
not sure politicians should sit on it. Like everyone else in this House,
I talk to ordinary people who must work every day to earn a living. I
talk to cab drivers. I talk to my barber. I think these people, who are
people like us outside the House of Commons, would very quickly find a
solution.
What divides and separates us is very minor. A solution could be
found very quickly. Unfortunately, when politicians decide to deal with
this issue, they do so for partisan motives and I am convinced this is
the problem in the constitutional debate.
Yesterday, I talked to people from the education community. They
told me “Mr. Harvey, will they ever leave us alone?
Will some people take their responsibilities and find a reasonable
solution in a country where everyone deserves a chance to have his or
her place in the sun”?
Over the last 30 years, considerable effort and money has been
spent on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced—and you and I have
discussed this on a few occasions—that we should not try to take
advantage of a situation and not always think in terms of regional
interests.
I ask Reformers to adopt a more comprehensive view of things. It is
not true that their plan would succeed garner support from the 20
million people in eastern Canada, if it does not recognize the
collective rights demanded by all Quebeckers and by the vast majority of
Canadians. This issue deserves to be settled.
1335
Our fellow citizens are asking politicians across the country to
cool down and deal with real problems by using the right words. The
worst enemies of the kind of partnership everyone wants are the
extremists. The people in my riding in Quebec and elsewhere come to us
with real issues, economic issues, social issues; they talk about roads.
They want their politicians to improve their quality of live in a real,
concrete way, without arguing endlessly about minor details.
It is not true that, as I heard someone say earlier, Quebeckers
believe all Canadians are against them. It is not true that Manitoba
farmers wake up at night thinking about their counterparts in
Lac-Saint-Jean because they hate them so much. I do not believe that.
This is a highly emotional debate fuelled by irresponsible
politicians with regional interests. This is the great challenge
facing Canada.
I repeat, if a committee were formed to help us, as Canadians,
get back on track, I wonder whether members of Parliament would be
the best candidates. I would rather see it composed of ordinary
folks, people familiar with the real needs of Canadians. They
would find a quick solution to this problem.
It has been my pleasure, on this Friday afternoon, to make my
humble contribution to this debate about an issue of concern to the
whole country.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today to private members Motion No. 26. It is
important to recognize that the province of Quebec occupies a
unique place in Canada and that all Canadians should reach out,
whether they be Quebeckers or other Canadians, to preserve our
wonderful country.
When we line up all the reasons for keeping our country united,
we can manage without difficulty to celebrate and recognize
Quebec, the only majority French speaking society in North
America, as a fundamental characteristic in Canada. We can
manage to say as did the Manitoba constitutional task force in
1991:
It is time to reach out formally to the people of Quebec and
recognize in the Constitution their special identity which has
contributed so significantly to the building of Canada.
Talk Constitution, why not? All democracies make constitutional
changes from time to time. Usually they do so by proceeding one
step at a time, one issue at a time.
It is obvious that Canada deserves to survive and can be
improved even without constitutional change. It is just as
obvious that Quebec has everything to gain by staying in a united
Canada, whether or not the Constitution is amended. Federal
Liberals have reiterated that truth unceasingly in Quebec and
right across Canada. At the same time a better affirmed
recognition of Quebec in our Constitution would be a good thing
in and of itself, a remarkable expression of Canadian values.
Let us do a little what if experiment together. What if the
people of Saskatchewan were in the situation that Quebeckers are
in today? What if they lived in the only anglophone province
surrounded by nine francophone provinces in Canada and French was
the language of the United States, the international language of
economics, finance, science, the Internet, movies, the latest pop
music, and the language of immigrants from Asia or elsewhere? Why
then would they not ask their fellow citizens in the other
provinces to recognize this special situation they have found
themselves in? We might not call it distinct society but then
again we just might.
This desire to affirm cultural and regional identities is seen
around the world. At the end of this century, as populations mix
together, as identities become uncertain and as the number of
languages is decreasing rather than increasing for the first time
in the history of humanity, people are affirming their language,
their culture and their identity.
The vast majority of Quebeckers feel Canadian and want to stay
Canadian.
They are as proud to be Quebeckers as British Columbians are
proud of their province and Nova Scotians are proud of theirs.
1340
[Translation]
I am proud to come from Ontario.
[English]
We need to find a way to express the obvious link between
constitutional recognition of Quebec and the great Canadian value
of respect for diversity. We could easily harmonize that
recognition with our ideal of the equality of citizens which the
Canadian charter legally entrenches. We can harmonize it easily
with the equality of status of the provinces.
Equality of status must not be confused with uniform treatment.
As members of the House can easily understand an example, parents
love their children equally and give them the same attention, but
they treat each child according to his or individual needs.
It is the ability to combine equality and diversity that has so
contributed to the country's success and reputation in the world.
It is precisely in that perspective that we should recognize the
place of our only majority francophone province within Canada.
In so doing, we would for all practical purposes merely be
formalizing a principle already admitted by our courts, a
principle that leads them to take account of the context of each
province in order to make just decisions, including the specific
context of Quebec.
It is the eminent Saskatchewanian, former Supreme Court Chief
Justice Brian Dickson, who said:
As a practical matter entrenching formal recognition of Quebec's
distinctive character in the Constitution would not involve a
significant departure from the existing practice of our courts.
We cannot actually amend our Constitution to express the
character of Canada and the unique place of Quebec so long as a
secessionist government is in office in Quebec, but we can seek
the way to express what we all believe.
When the premiers of the nine provinces and the territorial
leaders next meet, I hope they will continue down that road
started in St. Andrews and continued in Calgary.
Yes, we are ready to engage in a positive way to secure the
future of Canada. Yes, our Canada will include Quebec for
ourselves and for future generations, an authentic Quebec that is
part of Canada, that is part of all of us.
As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has demonstrated
time and again, if it is explained that we can reconcile the
diversity of Canada including Quebec's uniqueness with the
principles of equality of citizens and the equal status of
provinces, support for recognizing Quebec is even higher.
Let us look at the popular support for the principles of the
Calgary declaration. An Angus Reid poll shows that 73% of
Canadians, including no less than 70% of British Columbians,
think the premiers national unity initiative is a positive step
in the right direction.
A new Environics poll shows that around 70% of Canadians,
including interestingly enough 68% of British Columbians and 68%
of Quebeckers, support recognizing the unique character of Quebec
in the Constitution as long as any advantage this may give to
Quebec is made available to the other provinces.
Because Canadians judge that the principle of equality and
diversity is good in and of itself they support the Calgary
declaration. It is in this spirit that I urge citizens to
participate in the consultation process that the provincial
premiers have launched to discuss the Calgary declaration.
This is an initiative that will help keep Canada together so
that as Quebeckers, as British Columbians and as Ontarian
residents we can all continue to share in this marvellous
country.
I hope I have demonstrated that the recognition of the
specificity of Quebec does not imply a special status for that
province and that it is in the interest of all Canadians that
this show of good will be realized.
Further, I remind all hon. members that Canada is currently
undergoing an intense period of social and political change. We
have not become a tolerant country by accident. Our country has
an enviable reputation in that regard because since the beginning
of our history anglophones and francophones have been called on
to journey together.
That spirit of openness has allowed Canadians to welcome to our
country new citizens from all corners of the international
community, including my family. Our diversity is a strength and
a defining characteristic of our country.
We all know that Canada is a remarkable human success. We all
must work hard each and every day to keep it united. Every one
of us can play a role in that regard.
1345
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are five
minutes remaining for Private Members' Business and it has been
the convention of the House that the member moving the motion be
given that five minutes to wrap up. If the hon. member would
like to have the floor, it is the hon. member's privilege.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with honour that I speak for the first time in the
36th Parliament. As with my first speech in the 35th Parliament,
I want to take this opportunity, in my second maiden speech, to
thank the constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London for electing
me in June of 1997. It was a great honour to be re-elected.
Being elected the first time was a tremendous honour, but to have
it reaffirmed is certainly one of the greatest moments in my
life.
Let me now turn to the issue at hand, Quebec and its uniqueness.
The starting point for me in understanding this issue was when I
visited French-speaking communities in Quebec and talked to the
French-speaking people of Quebec. They have a much different
take on this than we do.
People need to understand that at a very fundamental level they
feel threatened by living in what they see as an anglophone
Canada, an anglophone North America and, in may respects, with
the age of Internet, mass communications and satellites, what may
turn into an anglophone world. What they want is some
recognition in the rest of the country of their Frenchness. They
want some understanding that they can have a minimum of
protection in the Constitution. In certain respects it is an
emotional thing, but they feel that their culture, their heritage
and particularly their language are under great threat.
I explained this to people in St. Thomas. When we see a Pizza
Hut open up or a Blockbuster video on the main street of St.
Thomas it is not a cultural issue. When my children play on the
Internet, that is not a cultural issue. If I go to an American
movie, again, it is not a cultural issue. If I am bombarded with
Much Music on television when my kids are watching it, it
is not a big issue for me as an English-speaking person.
However, those types of things in a French-speaking community may
be taken far differently. They may be taken as just another sign
of the dominance of English in our culture today.
It is at that level that they feel they need some protection.
They want it to be recognized by the rest of the country. They want
some acknowledgement. The greatest acknowledgement they can have
is a simple line in the Constitution which states that they are
unique and that they can enact laws to protect that uniqueness,
within the parameters of the charter of rights and freedoms which
ensures that all Canadians are equal. I think it is quite
reasonable that it be within the parameters of the notion that
all provinces are equal.
If we go to a French community today we may find no one who
speaks English or very few who speak English. They actually
believe that 30, 40 or 50 years down the road their children and
their grandchildren, because of all these outside pressures, will
be speaking English. When we start to understand the issue at
that emotional level, I think we can understand what they are
after.
They are after recognition, which the Calgary declaration does
an adequate job of providing. It recognizes Quebec as being
unique. We can debate whether we should use the word distinct,
unique or some other word. For me, it is really about semantics.
It really does not matter. The main point is that the majority
of Quebeckers are French speaking and they want to protect their
culture.
Once they get the recognition, they also want to have a veto
over changes to the Constitution. That will basically give them
the two anchors of any constitutional change. They need
recognition and they also need a regional veto.
1350
If we open our minds to this we can see the possibility as can
people in my own community of Elgin. One person compared it to
ethnic clubs. He said that he could care less when the German
people get together and they go to the German club, the Saxsonia
Hall in Aylmer and speak German for example. He could care less
about a Hungarian club that might be in Simcoe or some other
place, or a Croatian club just outside St. Thomas. It matters not
to him that the people in Quebec want to speak French. He says
that is a perfectly legitimate thing.
I explained to him that it will not affect his right for
anything, that it will not make him any less equal, that it is
really about people protecting their language and their culture.
At its most fundamental level this is respect for the ways of
their parents and grandparents, for the traditions that have been
passed down. It is respect for the traditions they have grown up
with and a desire to see those traditions passed on to their
children and their grandchildren.
We can all understand that. We are proud of our heritage. We
are proud of what our ancestors did regardless of our ethnic
backgrounds. In Quebec they feel particularly threatened and
they want to see it protected. I think we should support that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time for Private
Members' Business is at its end. I would seek the unanimous
consent of the House to allow the mover of the motion, the hon.
member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, two minutes to wrap up. Is there
unanimous consent for the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to
have two minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to see that my motion has produced such a good debate.
I hope through it all we have learned much about each other's
opinions, our differences and our similarities. Surely that is
what part of this was all about.
I want to say especially to my hon. colleagues from the Bloc
that they should not ever see this as an attack on Quebec. It
has always been my desire to see the country stay united with a
strong Quebec with its unique culture as part of a strong Canada
where people are seen as equal and differences are tolerated.
However the hon. member should realize that many other Canadians
see the use of a phrase like distinct society as the way for a
particular majority in any province to have its way over a
minority. I would not tolerate that kind of situation in my own
province of British Columbia let alone in the province of Quebec
or in any other province of Canada.
Equality certainly does not mean uniformity. No one in his
right mind would think that. We in this country are a very
diverse people. If we are going to get along in this nation we
must not use phrases which for many people are seen as giving
anyone or any group special status over anybody else. After all
we have Canadians of aboriginal background. We have Canadians of
Ukrainian background, Canadians of Italian background and I could
go on and on.
A nation cannot survive as a bunch of separate and distinct
societies. It will never weave the kind of fabric that is needed
to keep the blanket of the country together. Sooner or later it
will unravel and there will be no country at all. Je suis
Canadien. I was born a Canadian, I will die a Canadian.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper. It being
1.54 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 17,
1997 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.54 p.m.)