36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 86
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 2, 1998
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1010
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transport
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ivan Grose |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George S. Baker |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice and Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1015
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Herbal Supplements
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-28. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1020
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1035
1040
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
1055
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1100
1105
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1120
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1125
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1140
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1215
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1250
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
1255
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on amendment deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-37
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-208
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1320
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDGES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-37. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SHIPPING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-4. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-4. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1345
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MAPLE SYRUP FESTIVAL
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POULTRY INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
1400
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THOMAS D'ARCY MCGEE
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat O'Brien |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR SHERBROOKE
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR SHERBROOKE
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1405
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JOHN DAVIDSON
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE MAXWELL COHEN
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BISHOP'S COLLEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
1410
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIGHT AGAINST CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOCKEY
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIÉTÉ SAINT-JEAN BAPTISTE
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1415
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1420
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACQUISITION OF SUBMARINES
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1425
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPTION CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1435
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SHIPBUILDING
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1445
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAY EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1450
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIREARMS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Assad |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1455
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIREARMS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1500
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE HON. JEAN J. CHAREST
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1505
1510
1515
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1520
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1525
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1530
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1535
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1540
1550
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments during Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1555
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transport
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Environment and Sustainable Development
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SHIPPING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-4. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1600
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1605
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1610
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-12. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1645
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1700
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1705
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1710
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-38. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1715
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1730
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-208. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1735
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1740
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1755
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Violence Against Women
|
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 86
![](/web/20061116190127im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 2, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 I have the honour to
present to the House in both official languages the government's
response to the report of the Subcommittee on Sustainable Human
Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade entitled “Ending Child Labour Exploitation:
A Canadian Agenda for Action on Global Challenges”.
[Translation]
On behalf of the government, in particular the Minister of
International Co-operation and the Minister of Labour, I would
like to express my appreciation for the work the standing
committee has put into producing such a detailed report and into
ensuring that abolition of the exploitation of child labour
remains a priority for us all.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
* * *
1010
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
TRANSPORT
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the third report
of the Standing Committee on Transport on Bill C-15, an Act to
amend the Canada Shipping Act and to make consequential
amendments to other Acts.
[English]
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present in both official languages the seventh report
of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The report is in
relation to the Public Accounts of Canada, 1996-97. Pursuant to
Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee
requests the government to table a comprehensive response to this
report.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all of the opposition parties, the Reform, the Bloc
Quebecois, the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic
Party, have unanimously agreed to present a dissenting opinion to
this report.
The fact that all four opposition parties agreed to this
dissenting opinion says a lot about the difference of opinion on
this issue existing between the opposition and government members
of the committee. We are all concerned with the government's
failure to follow what are standard accounting procedures. We
also feel that the government should take every step possible to
avoid receiving another qualified opinion from Parliament's
watchdog, the auditor general, on its latest budget.
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to present the second report from the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. This is a unanimous
report by all committee members. It is a tribute to the excellent
job done by MPs from all parties, as well as the clerk of the
committee, Mr. William Farrell and the research branch of the
Library of Parliament in the person of Mr. Alan Nixon. I wish to
table this report in both official languages.
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages
the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday,
February 11, 1998 your committee has considered Bill S-5, an act
to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in respect
of persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human Rights
Act in respect of persons with disabilities and other matters and
to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Your committee has agreed to report it with amendments. In doing
so I would like to thank witnesses who appeared before the
committee, my colleagues on the committee and of course our
clerical and research staff who were very helpful.
* * *
PETITIONS
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present on behalf of my constituents in and
around the Athabasca area. These petitions are two more in a
series of petitions presented by myself and other members asking
the House to reconsider the provocation defence in the Criminal
Code. The petitioners believe that the provocation defence
unjustly changes the focus of the criminal trial from the
behaviour of the accused and his or her intention to murder, to
the behaviour of the victim. Certainly I concur with the
petitioners.
CRTC
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in this Chamber as the humble servant of the constituents of
Edmonton East.
I am pleased to discharge my duties today by presenting to this
House a petition which is signed by over 700 persons.
1015
The petitioners ask for a very prudent review of the mandate of
the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
to discourage the propagation of pornography and to encourage the
broadcasting of ecclesiastical programming that supports morality
and wholesome family lifestyles.
The petitioners ask this House to heed their words and I concur.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions from the citizens of
Quesnel in the constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin.
The first petition has 50 signatures. The petitioners request
that parliament impose a moratorium on ratification of the MAI
until full public hearings on the proposed treaty are held across
the country so that all Canadians can have an opportunity to
express their opinions on it.
HERBAL SUPPLEMENTS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second two petitions are also from the citizens of
Quesnel. There are 50 signatures on each petition. The
petitioners request that parliament deny the right of any board
or group to remove or confiscate natural herbal supplements until
public hearings are held across the country.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams(Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
question No. 73 could be made an order for return, that return
would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McLelland): Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Mr. Peter MacKay:
With respect to the Canada-Nova Scotia Infrastructure Works
program: (a) what projects have been approved under this
program since June 2, 1997; (b) what was the location of
each approved project; and (c) what was the financial
contribution made by the Government of Canada for each approved
project?
Return tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. McLelland): Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
The House resumed from March 26 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax
Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada
Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property
Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the
Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax
Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the
Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the
Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain Transition
Payments Act and certain Acts related to the Income Tax Act, be
read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak again to the bill before us today, Bill C-28.
There are a number of things wrong with this bill. There are
the measures that supposedly demonstrate the government's
concern with respect to social programs and the deterioration
of health care, which it brought about itself by cutting
provincial transfer payments in the health, social services and
education sectors over the last three years.
This bill is an attempt to make us think the government has
invested in social programs, especially health. The reality is
that the government has put no new money into transfers,
particularly not for health. The $48 billion in unilateral cuts
announced have now dropped to $42 billion. We are told that the
government is investing the $6 billion difference, but in
reality no new money is being invested; the government is
cutting $6 billion less.
We are told that health is a priority. We feel it is arrogant
of the government to try to persuade the public that it is
investing heavily in social programs.
As things stand now, the provinces have been cut so many times
by the federal government, particularly in the health sector,
that they are running out of steam and are having a great deal
of trouble maintaining the existing level of health care and
keeping the whole system from falling apart. And the federal
government remains indifferent to what the provinces are going
through.
1020
Worse yet, on top of cutting transfers to the provinces, the
government is set to interfere in health, which is a provincial
jurisdiction. We are told that, instead of rushing into
restructuring, the government is investing; it is investing,
however, by cutting less than originally forecast and dropping a
little money into new programs that really fall under provincial
jurisdiction.
The government wants to enhance its visibility by giving
everyone the impression that it is good to the people; it comes
up with programs like medicare and home care, when such programs
already exist in several provinces, including Quebec.
Once again, after vowing to avoid duplication and overlap, the
federal government projects an image of itself as saviour while
it interferes in jurisdictions that are none of its business.
Management of health, social programs, education and social
assistance comes under provincial jurisdiction. Normally, the
government should transfer their share back to the provinces
instead of interfering in an area that is not under its
jurisdiction.
The government does not seem to realize that no one has waited
for it to take action. What the provinces need today is not more
talks but the financial means to implement solutions designed to
meet their needs.
In this respect, I would like to quote from the Quebec finance
minister's last budget speech, which sums up well the mess the
federal government has left the provinces, and Quebec in
particular:
Since we took power in 1994, the federal government has
unilaterally deprived us of $7 billion for health care, $3
billion for education, and $1 billion for asocial assistance.
This adds up to $11 billion. The figure does not include the $2
billion that Ottawa has refused to pay for the harmonization of
the QST and the GST, although the three Atlantic Provinces were
granted $1 billion.
Were it not for these depredations, we would already have
achieved a zero deficit and avoided many of the painful,
sweeping spending cutbacks that some observers are trying to
ascribe to our wishes alone. The health and education
departments are not located in Ottawa, but it is there and
without our input that the cutbacks have in the main been
decided.
That is how absurd the system has become... The latest budget
confirms the federal government's complete insensitivity to a
number of our needs, notably in the health sector. Ottawa
prefers to distribute cheques to the population, emblazoned with
the maple leaf. Lacking vision, Ottawa is investing in
visibility.
That is what we have to live with in Quebec and how we view the
situation.
I would also like to share another concern regarding Bill C-28.
There is an apparent conflict of interest. Through Bill C-28,
the Minister of Finance is trying to have legislation passed
that is likely to give his shipping company, Canada Steamship
Lines Inc., of which he is the sole owner, certain tax
advantages.
Clause 241 of Bill C-28 would amend section 250 of the Income
Tax Act.
In this 464-page omnibus bill, clause 241 is only two paragraphs
long and deals exclusively with international shipping;
moreover, the Minister of Finance himself is the bill's sponsor.
1025
How can the Minister of Finance sponsor a bill which includes
tax provisions that could benefit his own company, while
continuing to suggest that these measures will not apply to him
and to his shipping holding company? There is indeed an apparent
conflict of interest and, given the importance of the minister's
position and the integrity he must show while managing the
country's finances, there should not be any suspicions
whatsoever about him. However, with Bill C-28, his personal name
as a shipowner and that of his holding are directly linked to
the legislation.
Even though the minister is defending himself by saying that his
company has been held in a blind trust since he assumed his
current position, he will not be a minister all his life and he
will eventually benefit from that tax amendment.
The very first day that we questioned the Minister of Finance
about this issue, he advised us to talk to Len Farber, director
general of tax legislation at the Department of Finance. We did
meet Mr. Farber, but he could neither confirm nor deny whether
the minister might benefit from these changes, thus raising
serious doubts in our minds.
Our next step was to table five motions before the Standing
Committee on Finance, asking that various witnesses appear to
shed light on the issue. The only witness authorized to appear
before the committee was Mr. Wilson, the government's ethics
counsellor, who is paid by the government and who is accountable
only to the government.
Nevertheless, Mr. Wilson's appearance before the committee
strengthened our position, since he himself put the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Finance in an embarrassing
position.
After candidly admitting that he was not an expert on
international taxation and that he could not adequately answer a
number of our questions, Mr. Wilson also recognized that,
indeed, there could be an apparent conflict of interest in this
case, adding that had he been informed at the very beginning of
the details relating to clause 241 and its impact, things would
have been done differently.
He recognized, as we do, that there were serious problems with
the way the finance minister was doing things and that the code
of ethics the government had adopted in 1994 was not observed.
Indeed, the code of ethics clearly states that public office
holders must, as soon as they take up their duties, take
necessary steps to avoid real, potential or apparent conflict of
interest. Obviously, the code of ethics was not adhered to and
the finance minister is at fault.
After the Liberal majority on the finance committee refused to
agree to our request, the four opposition parties called a press
conference to demand that the Prime Minister order a special
committee to be struck to shed light on clause 241 of Bill C-28.
As yet our request has remained unanswered.
The government's ethic counsellor, who answers to the Prime
Minister, claims it is irrelevant to know whether or not CSL,
owned by the finance minister, may benefit from provisions in
Bill C-28.
If so, why did Mr. Wilson get in touch with CSL management, the
very first day this became an issue, and ask if it was making
use or was planning to make use of these provisions?
Moreover, Mr. Wilson admitted he was no financial planning
expert. And yet he seems to accept without questioning or
seeking an outside second opinion CSL's statement that it does
not intend to make use of Bill C-28's provisions.
For weeks now the government has been denying the finance
minister is at the very least in an apparent conflict of
interest because he is not the one who was in charge of the
shipping provisions.
1030
However, the ethics counsellor contradicted the government when
he admitted that the finance minister's sponsoring of Bill C-28
gave the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Mr. Wilson stated in this regard that procedural problems within
the finance department had put the finance minister in an
awkward situation, and that things would have been done
differently had he been contacted, as he should have been,
before Bill C-28 was introduced.
Since the ethics counsellor admits the finance minister is in an
apparent conflict of interest, how should the June 1994 federal
government code of ethics apply in this particular case?
Mr. Wilson also suggests that the finance minister was not aware
of the contents of Bill C-28 before the Bloc Quebecois raised
these issues in the House a few weeks ago. On the one hand, can
the minister responsible for the Income Tax Act so easily avoid
his responsibilities toward a bill that he is sponsoring and, on
the other hand, what must the people be thinking about a finance
minister who does not know the contents of his own bills? Is
ministerial accountability not a fundamental principle of our
parliamentary system?
In conclusion, there are many issues and these issues are
serious enough that we should take the time to address them. So
long as the government continues to ignore the requests of all
opposition parties regarding Bill C-28, we will continue to put
pressure in all possible and imaginable ways until finally, in
the interest of transparency, someone answers our questions.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased today to talk about Bill C-28. I think this bill
addresses several issues that are very important for Canadians
today, and I believe it is important to discuss them.
It deals with taxes, health care, education, social services and
social assistance. We have to say that this is a rather
complicated bill, and this is probably intentional, to ensure
that all kinds of things will go unnoticed, as my colleagues
from the Bloc Quebecois pointed out. There are certainly some
questionable clauses in this bill.
I believe that it is very important that Canadians understand
that this bill is extremely complicated, but in another way it
is also quite simple. The bottom line is that we in this country
still have problems with health care, education and employment,
and nothing in this bill will solve these problems.
It is important to talk about these issues.
On the flight to Ottawa this week, I was sitting beside a lady
from the Fredericton area and I asked her where she was going.
She was coming here to Ottawa for an eye operation. The waiting
period in Halifax was 15 months, but she could have this
operation right away in Ottawa.
I ask myself the question: What is the difference from one
province to another in terms of waiting lists? I know that, in
the Atlantic provinces, there are very serious problems with
hospital services, as well as with health care in senior homes
such as the Villa Providence in Shediac. Seniors certainly do
not have the services they need in these institutions.
1035
They are short-staffed. Their employees are totally exhausted. As
in many other seniors home, several staff members are on
extended sick leave because they are exhausted. There is just so
much a person can do between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Too much is being
asked of these workers and our relatives in these places are
suffering because of it. It is important that this be pointed
out.
We are told that money is being reinvested in health care, but
that is not true. Transfers were cut drastically and people have
to be reminded of that. That is the truth. The only thing the
government did was not cut the $1.5 billion they had said they
would cut. That is the only thing they did.
We are getting even less money than we did previously and there
is nothing in this bill to reassure the people who have to wait
four or five hours before they can see a doctor or the children
who have to wait hours before someone can take care of their
broken limbs. These are not imaginary problems; they are real
and we keep hearing about them every day. We often hear about
people who have to wait or even pay to get a cyst removed, etc.
On the television program This Hour Has 22 Minutes, there was a
very good sketch where they said that if you are diagnosed with
cancer, you will get your $100 back. That is so sad. How many
people will not get their first $100 back and will still get
cancer? Why? Because we have a government that took the word
care out of health care.
I am also saddened to hear the opposition parties say that the
United States have a better health system than we do.
We should be careful with this kind of statement, because people
in the United States do not have medicare. Health care is for
people with money only. This should be taken into consideration
when comparing health care in both countries.
Even if I do find fault with our present system, we still have a
system which NDP members are striving to preserve because it is
important and it should remain as a national system so that the
same standard of health care should be available to all
Canadians. The ability to pay should not be a consideration as
far as health care is concerned. A patient who may have cancer
should not have to pay for surgery.
It is about time we take a hard look at where we are headed in
this country, because we are in a sad situation. Many people
cannot get an appointment because doctors are overworked.
We have the same situation in hospitals. The number of beds is
down, but people still get sick. And the less health care we
have, the sicker they will get, and the more beds and the more
nurses we will need.
In the Moncton area, right now, 300 nurses work only part time.
This is a problem. We should be realistic about this situation.
First of all, people deserve a little bit of security. Bill C-28
does not deal with these issues. We have 730,000 people on
welfare, and the government is telling us it has put in the
system $1.5 billion more. It has not. It has simply cancelled
cuts that were supposed to be made. This is the important thing
to remember. The government has been cutting right and left for
a long time.
We have seen in the last few weeks that if we have 730,000
people on welfare, it is largely because of the cuts in
employment insurance. In high unemployment areas, we should be
aware that there are no jobs, and that whatever jobs there are
are part time jobs at $5.50 an hour.
1040
I meet women who have worked for 25 years in fish processing
plants and who earn $5.75 an hour. That is sad. How many of us
could live on just $5.75 an hour? Not many, I think. And yet
this is what we expect the poor in Canada to live on.
The places where there are paying jobs, like the employment
centre in Bouctouche, where at least three or four full time
employees were earning $13 or $14 an hour, they close. These
are jobs our children might have had eventually. They are also
services that are no longer available to the public. Now people
come to my office because they no longer have access to the
employment centre. Members of Parliament who want to look after
their constituents are the ones who have to deal with these
cases and settle the problems.
That is what we see.
It is sad to see them continually closing down businesses in a
region where the unemployment rate this winter was 50% and where
jobs are replaced by seasonal employment, which pays $5.50 or
$6.25 an hour. And the provincial maximum is $6.25.
These people cannot live on $5.50 an hour anymore than I can. I
cannot expect them to either. This is the sort of thing we have
to deal with.
It is no different in education. There is a problem here, too.
Sure, our young people can borrow. I have visits from young
people who are $40,000 in debt. They have been out of
university for two years and they are still looking for work.
They move. They leave. As I was saying the other day, half of
the people in Calgary are from New Brunswick. It is sad, but
that is what is happening.
So we have to look carefully at just what bills like C-28 have to
offer.
It is not very useful indeed. It may be beneficial to some
Liberal members, but it does nothing for those who suffer, for
the sick, for the growing number of children who live in poverty
because of the cuts made by the Liberals and the Conservatives
before them—sometimes we have a tendency to put all the blame
on the Liberals, but the party that was in power before them did
not do anything good either. It certainly made its share of
cuts.
Social assistance is a serious problem in our region. Sometimes
we do not want to talk about it, but in our part of the country,
it is a reality. Those who do not have jobs live on welfare.
Sometimes, when they are not eligible for welfare, they tell us
they want to kill themselves.
There is money in this country. Lots of money.
It is not true that there is no money. The problem is that
governments have decided they will no longer help the poor in
our country.
The statistics are clear: the poor are poorer than ever and the
rich are richer than ever. And the middle class is paying for
both. The middle class is beginning to disappear. I think the
rich were sick and tired of seeing middle class people sitting
next to them in the same restaurants. It was becoming a problem,
a threat.
The middle class and the small and medium size business sector
are constantly under attack. The ACOA, for instance, will lose
one third of its funding. The government is cutting social
programs in Atlantic Canada and it is also taking away the only
agency that can help small and medium size businesses.
We are beginning to wonder. Will the government totally abandon
Atlantic Canada?
A couple of us were elected and we will see to it that Atlantic
Canada is not abandoned. There is no job creation, and that is
the main problem in our country. If the government did its job
and made sure that Canadians had decent jobs with decent
salaries, we would not have the problems we are experiencing
today.
1045
People are being replaced by machines, well-paying jobs are being
destroyed, and then we wonder why there is a high level of
unemployment. Do you want to see what high unemployment is? Come
live in the Atlantic provinces, or in any rural area in the
country. Then you will see what high unemployment is all about.
It is not true that the figure is 9% for Kent county, for Albert
county, for Cap-Pelé or Port Elgin. I am sure it is the same in
many places throughout the country, in all provinces. We will
have to start by going to see how things are in the regions and
then doing some long term planning. That is what I would like
to see in this House, a government that says “OK.
We will have to go to the rural regions to find our why there is
such high unemployment. What is not being done right? What
have we done wrong? What needs to be done?”
There are factories in our region that need a five to seven year
program to ensure that people can be self-supporting. There is
no such program. Programs must be created in this country to
fit these regions, instead of waiting for us in the regions to
change to fit the programs. That is not how it is done. We are
serious about addressing the problem of lack of work in the
rural communities.
In my riding people are, again this year, having to live for
three months without any income whatsoever. And why is that?
Because they cannot draw employment insurance. This is serious.
Nobody in our region can survive for three months with no money
coming in without the danger of getting into a real bind.
There is a surplus of close to $20 billion in the employment
insurance fund, and yet these people are expected to survive
with no income. Ridiculous.
This is a great pity. All this is a real eye opener for a
newcomer to this place like myself, as we see bills appear that
can work to the advantage of certain companies in this country.
That is a sad thing.
I have met with young people and I have asked them “Is there any
tax reform that can help you?” They tell me no. I have a young
fellow working for me who is way over his head in debt. There
was nothing in the last budget, or the one before that, to help
him out. Nothing at all. In fact things are getting worse. For
10 years our students will get some assistance, but only 7% of
them, while 90% of them will be left out, and there is nothing
at all for them between now and the year 2000.
If the government does not start introducing bills and promising
to make job creation the number one priority in this country, we
will keep on having this problem of young people graduating and
unable to find work. There are people who had jobs but lost
them. Money is no longer circulating. It is a problem
It is not true that the economy is so wonderful. Come and live
in my riding for a while and you will see that things are not
that rosy. Our SMBs are trying, however. We are trying to
develop them, but we need help. They cannot simply be told that
they will have to go it alone now.
All Canadians should have the same rights, whether they are rich
or poor, men, women or children. Everyone has the right to food
on the table, a roof over their head, clothes to wear, and an
education. These are not privileges, although it is starting to
look like it.
The way governments are operating, a post-secondary education is
becoming a privilege. Imagine.
Then they have the nerve to say that companies cannot find
trained students to work for them. Something is not right.
Once again, I think it is a lack of planning. One has only to
think of how many people are on unemployment insurance, which is
now called employment insurance. They have tried to change how
we think of it, but it is not employment insurance. When people
go to an employment centre for unemployment insurance, they are
not offered a job. That is not what happens.
The government has tried to convince Canadians otherwise, but I
am sorry. And I will not call it employment insurance till
people go to employment centres with their little pink slip to
find a job there. There would go to these employment centres in
search of a job.
It is not the case at the moment. People get unemployment
insurance because there are no jobs.
1050
The name may be changed over and over again, but no one can
convince me or the people that this is employment insurance,
because this is not true. We must endeavour to put these people
back to work.
We must also be realistic. We have to recognize the impact this
reform will have in areas with a high unemployment rate. It is
sad to see the situation young people are in. There is no
planning. We need long term planning. We need financial
assistance for groups willing to invest their time developing
our natural resources, whether in fisheries or forestry.
There is potential in our region, hard working people. There are
hard working people throughout the country, in regions where the
unemployment rate is high. Professionals are supposed to be
working to help these people. Where are they? Who is listening
when we say we need these programs? I must say that we do not
hear much, because I read in the newspaper that ACOA will lose
one third of its funding. The government is cutting on both
ends.
The same thing is happening in the fisheries. We know that we
must ask ourselves some questions about the conservation of
lobster and cod. Who are the people who are making decisions
that are causing so many problems?
Obviously, the New Democratic Party opposes Bill C-28. I look
forward to having the opportunity to debate in the House
something that will help people.
Perhaps, for once, the Liberal Party will finally give priority
to the poor and the destitute and the small businesses that are
hurting in Canada.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would ask my
colleague from the NDP to elaborate on her view of the way the
federal government is treating the provinces.
She said in her speech that everybody in this great country
should be entitled to food, shelter and clothing, and I believe
she is right.
We in Quebec, while we agree, express it
differently because we believe it is more meaningful for people.
Instead of feeding them we prefer to give them the opportunity
to earn what they need to buy food and clothes, and put a roof
over their heads.
There is an old Chinese saying I believe goes like this: “Give a
man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish, you
feed him for a lifetime.”
What the federal government is doing with its subsidies and its
encroachment into fields of provincial jurisdiction is feeding
individuals and giving them something for clothing and housing.
It is helping them in every area, while provinces would rather
educate them and show them how to earn those things and become
self-sufficient.
By making the provinces poorer, the federal government can then
boast to private citizens: “Look, what the provinces are unable
to give you, we are giving to you now. We are putting food on
your table.”
But it is a lot more meaningful for people to be able to earn
their keep than to have the federal government provide for them
and make them dependent on its largesse.
Would fishermen in New Brunswick and the other Atlantic
provinces and their children not rather have the money to
improve their fishing methods than be given subsidies to be able
to put food on the table and a roof over their heads?
I would like to hear the member's point of view on this to know
if people in the Atlantic provinces and people in Quebec are on
the same wavelength.
1055
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
As I said, the problem is they are handing money out but without
any planning. Does this mean the planning should be up to the
provinces? This would be a problem in New Brunswick because the
money does not always go where it should.
Where I come from, we were always afraid to give Frank McKenna
money because all of it might be used on roads, while health
care would be left out.
This is the problem: how the money will be managed once in the
province. I feel there is not enough control and I think it is
also the case federally. That is why I say we need programs that
accommodate people, and not programs where people have to
accommodate the programs. That is why nothing is working and
there are so many bankruptcies. No one wants to listen.
Sometimes loans are denied to small businesses or organizations
looking to create year round work because they do not meet the
criteria. Look what that does. A $45,000 loan might create 25
permanent jobs but the bank has to go by the criteria. That is a
problem and it is one at every level.
That is what the expression bottom up suggests. Does it mean
that the province will be in charge of managing the money?
Will the Kent economic commission manage the whole thing?
Someone has to do it, but first we need to have programs.
We talk about prevention. People would rather earn a living than
to always take money from the government, because, at some
point, they no longer know why they should get up in the
morning. People get depressed in winter when they are out of
work. They always look forward to spring when they can resume
working.
Ever since the Liberals were elected, they have gone after
seasonal workers as if they were all lazy people. When the Prime
Minister came to my riding to get elected, he said he was going
to take care of everything. He would help the unemployed. He
came back here and said: “They all live in shacks, they are
drunk all the time and unemployed”. That is what he said.
We are the ones who elected him. But even worse, we believed
him.
I find it sad that the Prime Minister, who chose to run in a
region with the worst unemployment rate in Canada and made
promises to the voters, came back here, to Ottawa, and said, as
we found out later by reading the newspaper, that everyone was
living in shacks, drunk all the time and on the dole. What an
insult! Believe me, the next time they tried to get one of
theirs elected, voters were more wary. That era is over. The
people back home will not put up with this any longer.
I think it is time for the Liberals to start thinking about
this. Nova Scotia has sent them a message and I am sure New
Brunswick will do the same. I hope this will keep up, because we
have a problem in this country.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise and address once again Bill C-28. We are
speaking to the amendment in this case.
The first priority or perhaps at least a very important priority
of any legislator is to ensure that we do our best along with our
colleagues to create a foundation on which we can build a strong
economy in this country. I know colleagues would agree with
that.
I think we have an obligation to ensure that the legislation
that passes through this House does indeed do that and
contributes in some way to doing that. Sadly I do not believe
that Bill C-28 really does that, certainly not in the current
context. I think Canada's economic foundation is crumbling and
cracking for a number of reasons.
First of all we believe very strongly that Canada's $583.2
billion debt is just about out of control.
We know that our taxes are far too high. We also know that we
spend billions on wasteful programs and that spending is largely
unfocused. It does not go to the things that are priorities with
Canadians.
1100
Those are some of the reasons we oppose not only this
legislation but a number of the initiatives of the government. It
simply is not focusing on the things that are most important or
doing the things that will prepare a foundation upon which to
build a strong, healthy, sustainable economy.
Let me speak specifically to some of these concerns. I
mentioned a minute ago that our foundation was crumbling and
cracking. One of the reasons for that is the situation we had
with our debt of $583.2 billion.
What hon. colleagues around the House will know is that we spend
about $45 billion a year just to pay the interest on the debt. It
is an unbelievable amount of money. It is the largest cheque the
finance minister will write every year. It is a lot more than we
spend on employment insurance and old age security combined. It
is far bigger than that amount. It is a tremendous amount of
money.
I point out that for average families it means they have to pay
taxes that are $6,000 higher than they would be if they did not
have pay that interest. Average families have to pay $6,000 in
taxes just to pay their share of interest on the debt. It is an
unbelievable amount of money. If we compare that with our friends
south of the border, their debt, as huge as it is, is about 40%
less per capita than the Canadian debt.
It is a staggering amount. That is about 70% of the gross
domestic product. If we combine it with what the debt of the
provinces it is close to 100% of the gross domestic product. It
is one of the worst levels of debt in the world. It is a huge
problem.
Bill C-28 does nothing to address it. Nor did the budget which
recently came done. Not only are we saddling the present
generation and all the people who are struggling to make the
economy move with this debt but we are saddling the next
generation, the people who are yet to be born. It is wrong. It
is immoral to cast a huge burden of debt on to their shoulders
before they are even born. These people will not get a chance to
benefit from the goods and services that were purchased with that
credit. However they will be saddled with the debt. Reformers
oppose Bill C-28 for that reason. We think the lack of a plan to
deal with debt is a very serious omission.
I want to make an argument that is maybe a little less academic,
a little less abstract, a little more practical and important in
present terms with respect to the need to deal with the problem
of debt.
Not very long ago in Asia we saw a dramatic meltdown of its
economies. Some of the currencies saw a devaluation in the order
of 55%, a tremendous devaluation. There are tremendous economic
problems in Asia.
The result was that area of the world, which represents about
one-third of the entire economy of the world, saw money flee from
there to get away from the uncertain economic conditions and go
to other parts of the world. It went to the places where the
countries had strong foundations, which is precisely what we are
talking about, a strong economic foundation.
Did it come to Canada, one of the countries that should be one
of the richest in the world given our vast array of natural
resources? No, it did not. It went to the United States. That
money went to the United States, our biggest trading partner,
with the result that we saw our dollar fall relative to the
American dollar, which meant that we had to pay more for all
kinds of imports.
The way the Bank of Canada reacted to it also hurt Canadians.
The Bank of Canada, in a effort to shore up the dollar, raised
interest rates which hurt all Canadians. That is a direct impact
of high levels of debt on ordinary Canadians. When that kind of
situation exists, in a sense it is a form of taxation on
Canadians.
It means they have less money for the things they care about
doing, the things most people and families consider to be
important like buying groceries, paying the mortgage, paying the
rent, paying the car loan and setting aside some money for
retirement and putting the kids through university. However, we
were denied that to some degree because of what happened as a
direct result of having a high level of debt.
1105
Let me again say that Bill C-28 does not deal with debt or
present any plan to deal with the debt at a time when Canada is
in a very precarious situation with respect to its debt.
Therefore we oppose the bill for that reason.
Let me speak a bit more directly to the amendment moved by the
Bloc Quebecois which deals with the issue of taxes. Bill C-28 is
an omnibus bill which deals with a number of things that have to
do with the Income Tax Act. However it concerns Reformers any
time a bill amending the Income Tax Act does not do anything on
one hand to simplify taxation or on the other hand to lower the
level of taxes Canadians have to pay. Sadly Bill C-28 does not
do that.
Specifically in Bill C-28 is a clause that could potentially
confer some benefits on Canadian shipping companies. The Bloc
Quebecois has raised this amendment because it is concerned the
finance minister, who sponsored the bill and who has interests in
a shipping company, could potentially have some benefit from
clause 241 in Bill C-28.
The finance minister and some Liberal members have suggested
that although the finance minister may have sponsored the bill he
did so unwittingly and did not seek to profit from the
legislation. I accept that because I think it is correct. I do
not think he would do that on purpose.
I want to set that whole argument aside for a moment. I think
there is a more important principle at stake when we talk about a
situation where Canada's finance minister has to shelter assets
offshore because taxes in Canada are too high. It is one of the
great ironies in the country today and it is almost unremarked
upon by the media. Truly it is a great irony when the finance
minister of the Government of Canada, through completely legal
means, has done very well for himself. In order to do some of
the things he has done, he had to have his assets registered
offshore in other regimes where taxes are more favourable. He is
not alone in doing this. Many other companies do this.
Members of the House should reflect on why it is necessary for
companies in Canada to do that if they want to succeed. It
raises some questions. It raises a very important question that
is brought home to regular Canadians every day when they sit down
to do their books. Taxes are simply too high in Canada today.
They are staggering.
We have personal income taxes in Canada today that are 56%
higher than the G-7 average. It is much higher than the
Americans, the Japanese, the British, the Germans and even the
French. We have staggering levels of taxation.
What the government proposed in the recent budget did little to
help. All it did was slow down the rate of growth in taxes. When
the government brought in its budget, it brought in some measures
that introduced tax relief which it talked about in the budget.
However, it did not talk about the fact that in the last few
months it had raised taxes far more than any tax relief would
benefit Canadians through the measures in the budget. Through the
Canada pension plan premium increase we will see the largest tax
hike in Canadian history. We will see those premiums rise by
73%.
On the other hand, we know that every year a silent tax increase
occurs that not many Canadians are aware of. I refer to the
phenomenon of bracket creep, a situation where because of the
deindexation of the tax system many Canadians automatically are
pushed into higher tax brackets every year as a result of cost of
living increases that essentially leave them worse off. In fact,
bracket creep alone this year will wipe out all the benefit given
to people through any of the tax measures introduced in the
budget.
The tax measures, according to the government's own 1998-99
budget documents, will lower taxes by about $880 million, but
bracket creep alone will increase taxes by more than $1 billion.
With that measure alone Canadians are worse off.
1110
What does this do to the ordinary Canadian? I want to relate a
story. I was in my office on Friday talking with a constituent,
a man who is on disability. He is receiving Canada pension plan
disability. His name is Lawrence Weston. Mr. Weston said
“Please use my example in the House if it suits you”.
He has an income of just over $13,000. He gets a bit of money
from workers' compensation as well. He has literally thousands
of dollars in expenses because of his medical problems. He is
diabetic. He has had a number of surgical operations on his eyes
and he is slowly going blind. He cannot work. If he goes to
work, if he tries to do anything, his disability income
disappears immediately.
He is in a situation where he makes just over $13,000. He still
pays about $400 a year in personal income tax in Canada today,
even with all his medical expenses. He cannot, believe it or
not, take advantage of the disability credit in the income tax
system. One almost has to be dead to take advantage of that
credit. One probably has to be in the morgue for three days to
be able to take advantage of that credit.
I do not know how many people have come into my office, people
who are severely disabled and have tried to apply for it but
cannot get it. It is virtually impossible to get. Mr. Weston
could not get it so he is in a situation now where he has to come
up with $400 and does not know how he will do it.
If my friends across the way are truly concerned about people
who are simply not making it today, they should start to lower
taxes in a meaningful way. Not everybody can, like the finance
minister, find tax relief by moving assets offshore. It is not
something the rest of us can do.
It does not just end with people like Lawrence Weston. Many
other people are in exactly the same position. I received an
e-mail the other day from a woman who had just retired as a
nurse. It is the same sort of situation. She is complaining
about the high level of taxes that she has to pay, a staggering
level of taxes. We receive mail all the time. Often in this
place I have quoted from letters we have received from people who
are just barely making it but still paying all kinds of taxes.
Let us consider for a moment some of the businesses out there.
For example, a Canadian Tire franchisee who is trying to make it
cannot avoid taxes by all of a sudden flying a flag over the
business saying that it is now Bahamian Tire or Panamanian Tire
simply to avoid the high level of taxes in this country.
That cannot be done. People would like to do it; donut shop
owners would like to be able to do that but cannot. That is left
to a few people and luckily the finance minister was able to do
that. I do not blame him one bit. He is doing exactly what
business people will do if they have a chance to do it. They are
trying to find a way to shelter their income. They do not want
to pay taxes. Everybody does it. People take advantage of
loopholes in the tax system all the time. If we can, we use
RRSPs. If they can, they shelter income offshore.
Should we not have a tax regime that draws investment to the
country? Should we not have a tax regime that encourages people
to come and invest in Canada? My friend, the member for Peace
River, pointed out the other day that for the first time ever in
the history of Canada Canadians are investing more money outside
Canada than foreigners are investing inside Canada.
Mr. Roy Bailey: I wonder why.
Mr. Monte Solberg: “I wonder why”, says my friend in
the back. It is not a mystery to me. Staggering levels of
taxation, staggering levels of debt and spending that is
unfocused and not priorized are the reasons why.
We must get back to a situation where we shore up the foundation
that is crumbling and cracking, and we can do that in a number of
ways.
First, we start the process of priorizing our spending. We do
not waste those precious dollars given to us by taxpayers. We
dedicate that money to the things that are important to
Canadians.
1115
I can say with all honesty what people in my riding say. Mr.
Weston came in the other day and said “we don't want to spend a
whole bunch more money but let us focus on the things that are
important like health care and higher education”. The
government has failed to do that. It is quick to point out with
Bill C-28 that it will not cut as much as it initially said it
would in areas like health care and higher education. Instead of
cutting seven and a half billion dollars it will cut only six
billion dollars. I guess we should be thankful for that.
If our friends across the way are doing those things, if they
are cutting dramatically in health care, how do they justify
increasing spending on things like a television production fund?
Is that a priority for Canadians? I do not think so. How do we
justify the change of the health minister with respect to tobacco
and the hundred million dollars it will cost taxpayers? That sort
of money should be used to help people who cannot help
themselves.
We do not believe in taking the shotgun approach. We say focus
that spending where it does the most good. We think those
priorities should be things like health care, higher education,
research and development. We think we should have lower taxes.
We advocate sweeping tax relief. We believe we should take half
of all the surpluses we run after we freeze spending at the
current level of $103.5 billion and dedicate it to lowering taxes
which will help all Canadians. It will lift 1.3 million low
income Canadians right off the income tax rolls. They would not
have to pay income tax anymore. I think that is the correct
approach.
We believe there must be a program for debt repayment. The
government has no program. It says that if there is a little
money left over, it will dedicate a little money to paying down
the debt. That is not an approach or a plan, it is a whim, a
wish. We need a plan. The Reform Party has presented a plan
that would pay down the debt substantially over the next 20
years. It would take the debt to GDP ratio down from 70% to 20%
and would save $20 billion a year in interest payments. We do
have a plan. We have an approach to dealing with this situation.
Reformers believe the private sector does a tremendous amount to
produce the wealth in this country. The private sector produces
the golden eggs that we see the government scoop up in ever
increasing numbers only to turn around and have them bronzed. It
has bronzed the golden eggs. It has used them very
inefficiently. It takes that money which is better left in the
hands of taxpayers and the wealth producers and it uses that
money very inefficiently. We say leave that money in the hands
of taxpayers. They will do a far better job than politicians and
bureaucrats.
For all those reasons I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of
this amendment and also to vote against Bill C-28.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not know whether the chicken or the egg came first but in any
case I thank the hon. member for Medicine Hat. He spoke to the
integrity of the Minister of Finance. His views on this issue
speak well of the integrity the minister enjoys in this House and
among Canadians. One of his colleagues, the member for
Battlefords—Lloydminster, said: “Personally I don't believe
so. I think Mr. Martin is a man of integrity. I really do”.
The member noted in his speech that we are not doing enough
about the debt. Where has he been during the whole debate we had
on the budget? Does he not know we will be lowering the debt in
terms of the percentage of GNP and in absolute terms? Is that
not how we dealt with the deficit? We have taken measures in the
budget to address the issue of the debt. Why does he feel we
have not addressed that issue?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I advise the House
that we do not use members' names, not in a positive or a
negative sense. We do not use them at all in the House. We
refer to each other by either ministry or riding.
1120
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, it is fairly evident who
the member will be supporting in the leadership race of the
Liberal Party in the near future.
I want to say simply that my quarrel is not with the finance
minister's integrity. I do not question that at all but I think
members would acknowledge that the finance department did make a
mistake in not following the procedures, the tradition I guess,
of not putting the finance minister in a potential conflict of
interest position which is sadly what happened when this
legislation was introduced.
The member said the debt would be reduced in terms of the
percentage of GDP. While that may look good on paper, it does
nothing to help people who are paying $6,000 in taxes just for
their share of the interest on the debt. Reducing the debt as a
percentage of GDP will not lighten their tax burden.
The finance committee is dominated by the Liberal Party. The
recommendations the Liberals made on the finance committee were
to set some absolute targets in terms of debt to GDP ratios for
the government, something it failed to do when it brought down
the budget.
There needs to be a very aggressive program to start to pay down
debt. I would simply point out that in recent days the Business
Council on National Issues came forward and said it was
ridiculous, we need to have a much more aggressive plan than the
government currently has for paying down the debt.
If we do not, we leave all Canadians vulnerable in the event of
not only international shocks like the Asian crisis but also the
impact of a possible cessation crisis that we could face from
Quebec.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do not remember making reference to a member's name.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is no problem. We
passed it. We will go on to questions and comments.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I have developed a
communication tool with my constituents. I am extremely pleased
that now what seems to be happening is not only are the parents
and adults responding with comments but also young people are.
I want to share with the House and with my hon. colleague from
Medicine Hat some comments by a young man, a grade 12 student,
who attended the forum for young Canadians in Ottawa in March.
He said: “As for the millennium fund, I believe it is a good
idea but it reaches so few young Canadians. That money should be
put toward eliminating the national debt. The government should
not undertake any new major projects, the millennium fund, until
the financial situation is resolved. This means that until
Canada's debt is gone, no new major projects should be started”.
This is from a young man who is going to be faced with taxes. I
thought this was unique.
Another point was put before me by another young person, 17
years old. This person would like an answer even though they are
not of voting age: “How come the millennium scholarship fund
will only help out 6% of post-secondary students and with only
$3,000 per year?”
I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he is also experiencing
this concern by young people when they look at the debt that our
generation and the generation before us are leaving them.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question. It is something I failed to touch on during my speech.
Indeed I have heard from young people who are very concerned
about the structure of the millennium scholarship fund because it
does not treat all students equally. It does not seem to
recognize that many students will come out of school with
staggering levels of debt, some of them $25,000 a year.
We have seen debt levels go ever upward in the last several
years. I think the young man is very level headed when he says
that money should be used toward paying down debt. I think that
is an excellent suggestion, recognizing that perhaps the real
fiscal dividend will be the interest saving when we do actually
start the process of paying down debt. That is the real fiscal
dividend.
1125
One of the things the government does not address in terms of
education is that when people benefit from a program like a
millennium scholarship fund, so many of them just disappear to
the United States. We have a situation where the millennium
scholarship fund turns out to be a subsidy for companies like
Microsoft that come along and scoop up a third of the graduating
class at Waterloo University. So we have to do something about
that side of it. We need to ensure there are jobs in this
country, that they are well paying jobs and that they are ones
where taxes are not so high that they drive away the brightest
and the best.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I commend
my colleague from Medicine Hat on the excellent address he has
given on the bill.
He referred to the $45 billion we are paying each year on this
huge debt that has been amassed. When we have emergencies like
the ice storm, floods and other emergencies, of course those
people suffering should be able to turn to the rest of Canada for
the assistance that the charitable people of this country are
always ready with and standing by to give.
I want the member to respond to the latest crisis we are seeing
with regard to the many people who are sick and dying as a result
of hepatitis C. It seems we do not have funding available to
help those people when they need help while we are spending $45
billion to pay the interest on a debt. Will he relate the whole
history of the accumulation of the debt and the demand on the
revenue dollar to pay the interest to our ability to respond to
emergencies such as the hepatitis C emergency facing us today?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the hon. member for Crowfoot.
Today we have a debt of $583.2 billion and as I mentioned in my
address it is one of the largest debts in the entire world today
in terms of per capita indebtedness, second only to Italy among
industrialized countries.
The result is that we do not have the money often necessary to
put toward programs that are vitally important. A third of every
tax dollar today goes to pay just the interest on the debt.
Imagine if we did not have to pay the debt. We would be able to
lower personal income taxes by 71%. Or could dedicate the money
to things that are vitally important like helping people who,
through no fault of their own, have been victimized by a
federally regulated blood system.
We need $4 billion to help out all those people who have been
victimized. We could do that today if the government would take
the approach that the priorities are to start to pay down debt,
focus spending on things that are most important and start the
process of lowering taxes. That is the approach that will help
all Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing
Order 74 we are now in that period of the debate which is 10
minutes per intervention with no questions and comments.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-28. Nothing
would make me happier than to stand here today and announce to
the House how pleased my PC colleagues and I are with the
implementation bill. However, due to the many serious shortfalls
in Bill C-28 I am unable to do that.
The Liberal government has shown its true colours with both the
budget and Bill C-28. This is not a government concerned with
the needs and pains of all Canadians. Instead, this is a
government that believes in crisis management, big government
intervention politics and damage control.
At times it appears that the government has the delusion of
adequacy. What we know for certain is that this is a government
without a vision.
1130
I would suggest that all members of this House pick up a copy of
Bill C-28 and glance over it. Then they would ask themselves:
Is this document from a government with a plan or is this a
document of hope? Does this bill provide leadership that
Canadians so desperately crave? When we are honest with
ourselves the answer is emphatically no.
Instead we have a piecemeal reactionary bill that reflects the
desires of the Liberals' favourite collective, the collective of
special interest groups that represent only the needs of a
fraction of Canadians.
“Four more years”. This used to be the rallying cry of
parties seeking re-election, but not this Liberal government. To
the Liberals it is the time span between announcements of
proposals and their implementation. This clearly contradicts the
Liberals' 1993 promise to end the credibility-stretching
tradition of not passing tax changes until months after they are
announced, which is another broken red book commitment. One is
left to believe that the Liberals have had their gag reflexes
surgically removed.
When I rose in the House on Monday to speak to Bill C-223 I made
a point which pertains equally to Bill C-28. Canada needs a
comprehensive national tax relief plan today. If the finance
minister will table such a plan with objectives for all Canadians
it will have the support of our party.
There is no monopoly on good economic ideas. The GST needed to
be implemented and Canada has a balanced budget because of it.
The NAFTA remains an integral tool for economic growth. Just as
my party has always been willing to share its good ideas, we do
so again today. Tax relief is essential to our future prosperity
and the PC Party does not mind if the Liberals want to borrow
this plank from our platform as well.
The Minister of Finance should know that the model in Bill C-28
would never achieve sustainable growth. Meeting with lobbyists
and coming up with their pet initiatives might assist leadership
bids, but it certainly does not help the general public.
We have heard a lot about brain drain. It devastates Canada's
sustainability as a technology leader. It deprives Canadian
industries of the ability to remain competitive. Above all, and
what we can never forget, is that brain drain rips the heart and
soul out of Canada and its families.
I am well aware that on this issue the industry minister has
agreed with me, because his own departmental study entitled
“Canada in an Integrated North America” shows this to be the
case. This study points to high taxation as the major cause of
brain drain. The study goes on to say that a married taxpayer
working in Toronto with a salary of $100,000 could add over
$20,000 to after tax income, an increase of close to 40%, if he
or she were to earn the same income in New York or Chicago. It
is no wonder that our best and our brightest are leaving for the
U.S.
This same visionary leadership that Canada needs on tax relief
is also required on education. This bill has taken the same
lackadaisical approach to education that it takes to taxes.
There are four targeted education components to Bill C-28. As
with tax relief, specific targeting will not be the answer. The
approach must be one of fairness for all, greater efficiency
toward benchmark goals, and above all else it must be
comprehensive in nature.
So much of Canada's future hinges on our national education
agenda. It is time to stop paying lip service to our citizens as
Canada's greatest natural resources. Instead we must begin
backing this up with our actions.
It is very simple. It is just like the Dutch boy with his
finger in the dike. Stopgap measures might make you popular, but
you need the engineer who came up with the permanent solution.
Guess what? Where is that engineer? The engineer is in the
United States because he is getting a better tax break and,
unfortunately, making $10,000 more a year and retaining 40% more
of those wages after tax.
1135
By enacting over 15 favourable changes to the tax code for
selected groups the Minister of Finance has shown he knows there
is a problem. The hon. member for Medicine Hat mentioned that
the finance minister has found out what the problem is because he
has taken his assets and put them in a blind trust offshore. Why
did he do that? Because he pays no taxes or very little taxes.
If the finance minister wants to become Prime Minister of this
country he should realize that we have to be competitive on a tax
basis with the United Stated or we are going to continue to lose
our best and brightest to the United States.
It is time for the finance minister to go all the way by
implementing broad based tax relief for all Canadians. For
example, an increase in personal income tax exemptions to $10,000
would immediately remove two million low income Canadians from
the tax rolls and reward all hard working Canadians. Even though
it is a Progressive Conservative idea we do not mind lending it
to the minister for the good of our fellow Canadians.
In conclusion, let us undertake a national education plan which
ensures that we will produce the highest skilled individuals our
industry requires. Once we have the high skilled workforce, let
us make sure they choose to remain in Canada by reducing the
crushing tax burden. Industry will be supportive of such a move,
taxpayers will welcome this and families that do not have to
export their children to the United States will be overjoyed.
When the PC Party is presented with such an implementation bill
we will resoundingly endorse it. That day is not here. Bill
C-28 is not such a bill and the PC Party will be voting no.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-28, the
catch all bill. It is in fact a humungous volume of 464 pages
covering so many subjects that it is easy to play a game of hide
and seek with and slip in unnoticed amendments that could
benefit certain individuals or groups of individuals.
What had to happen happened. The vigilance of my colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot led to the discovery on page 414, at the end
of the volume, which everyone skips over, clause 241 amending
paragraphs 250(6)(a) and (b) of the Income Tax Act.
What does this clause concern? It concerns shipping,
exclusively.
The amendment, if passed, would permit international shipping
companies to enjoy certain tax advantages. We all know that the
Minister of Finance of Canada is sponsoring Bill C-28 and that he
is also the sole owner of Canada Steamship Lines Inc., a
shipping company.
We have the following questions. Is the Minister of Finance in
an apparent or a real conflict of interest? In the light of his
position, why is the Minister of Finance sponsoring this bill?
Why, in his own words, is he unable to speak on the matter so as
to avoid a conflict of interest?
Since February 5, 1998, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot
and colleagues from all the opposition parties have been trying
to get the facts on this bill and asking questions in this
House, without success.
The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister direct the
member and the opposition critics to the Standing Committee on
Finance. As we know, the committee is under Liberal control.
They do not want to hear the experts, witnesses who are likely
to help the committee to get to the bottom of clause of 241 of
Bill C-28, sponsored, I repeat, by the Minister of Finance.
1140
This tactic helped me understand a lot of things. Yes, the
finance minister was too busy with Bill C-28 to prepare a more
realistic budget. He was more preoccupied with the tax benefits
his company would get under this bill. Instead of indexing tax
tables, helping small and medium size businesses to create jobs,
reducing EI premiums and adjusting transfers to the provinces,
our dear minister was busy with Bill C-28. Of course, his budget
contained a proposal to promote Canadian unity, namely the
millennium scholarship fund.
I do not want people to misunderstand our position with regard
to the millennium scholarship fund.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, support the millennium scholarship
fund as long as Quebec can withdraw from that program and is
fully compensated so it can administer its own scholarship
program.
In closing, I fail to understand why this government and the
Standing Committee on Finance persist in refusing to hear
witnesses. Do they have anything to hide? What kind of tricks do
government members have up their sleeves? We want clear and
precise answers to these and a lot of other questions.
This situation must be clarified for the sake of our integrity
as members of this House, and that is why I am asking my
colleagues to join me in supporting the motion brought forward
by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to address my serious concerns regarding
Bill C-28. Just as a refresher, this bill amends at least 18
separate pieces of legislation, all pertaining to the income tax
measures announced in the February 1998 budget.
Specifically, the bill would amend provisions dealing with
charitable donations, tax shelters, registered education savings
plans, film and video production services, tax credits, the tax
status of corporations, treatment of RRIFs, family farm
corporations and many, many others.
Let me be very clear. The Reform Party opposes the use of tax
concessions as an instrument for manipulating investment
behaviour and the industrial structure. These amendments add to
the already convoluted, overly complicated and confusing tax
code, a tax code which already contradicts our commitment to a
fair and visible simple tax system.
In addition, these amendments do nothing to deal with the real
problem of excessive spending, high taxes and escalating debt.
This bill is typical of a Liberal-Tory approach to fiscal
policy. The Tories are as much to blame as the Liberals because
we have experienced tax increases under both of these regimes and
there is very little difference in the policies they have adopted
over the years. This bill offers no tax relief to cash strapped
Canadians.
As the defence critic for my party I noted with interest that
the military received a pay increase. It was well documented. A
press release issued by the government indicated that the lower
ranks would be getting somewhere in the neighbourhood of a 3.2%
increase. How does that translate into the dollars and cents
that will go into the pockets of those military personnel? There
are many who fall within the same earning range in this country.
1145
For instance, the master corporal was so elated to have a $100
pay increase. That is the gross amount. After taxes, after EI
premiums, after CPP deductions which will be the biggest hit he
will have to accommodate in that increase, this man will end up
with $53 clear a month.
The Department of National Defence decided that was not
satisfactory. It decided that it would also boost his rent by
$30 more a month. Without even taking into consideration whether
the master corporal is going to be in another tax bracket and
subject to tax bracket creep as an additional hit on his wage, he
realizes a net increase of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $23
a month. That is a crying shame.
There is no question that he has moved up from one tax bracket
into another given the fact that he had very minor increases the
previous year. Here he sits in another tax bracket and he is
going to be literally whacked. If he realizes an increase of $20
a month out of that $100 gross, he will be lucky. Many Canadians
fall into that same category. They are barely making ends meet.
This bill does nothing to help him, nothing whatsoever. In
fact, it gives him a greater burden and certainly not a sense of
security. It did not take him long to figure out that he was not
much further ahead than he was before. He will not be able to
accommodate any emergency that creeps into his home and his life
with any form of benefit from the wage increase he received. That
is one aspect.
I feel for him. I feel for many other families who are subject
to the same heavy tax burden. This government has failed to live
up to its responsibility to those people.
I also reflect back to some of the points that Reform has stated
it would like to see. Under the Liberal tax bill, that gentleman
will obviously fall into a category somewhere around $2,000 to
$3,000. If we look at our last election platform, that master
corporal and his family would only pay $520 as opposed to $2,189.
That is quite a substantial difference. It is almost $1,600
back into his pocket. I am sure he would be able to find ample
opportunity to spend that on other areas which would benefit him
and his family.
This bill does nothing to address the enormous public debt which
the government and the Tory government before it are responsible
for. Some of these social costs are nothing but staggering. The
total interest-bearing debt sits at around $600 billion. Of
that, $120 billion is held by foreign entities, non-residents.
One-third of that 25% is American held. The remainder is divided
between Europe, Asia and elsewhere. Undoubtedly it will have
some effect if the markets are as uneasy as they are in Asia.
That matter is far from settled. It could definitely have an
effect here.
Are we prepared with the massive debt and the interest payments?
We still have to go outside this country. There is not enough
money to pay and hold that debt by investors in this country. We
have to go outside to borrow the money. Why should we as an
industrialized country be in that position? It would be nice to
be independent but unfortunately that is not the case.
1150
That is one point dealing with the debt. The government also
owes $3.7 billion to the Canada pension plan and $114 billion to
the public sector pension plans. Again this further complicates
our debt picture and the burden on Canadian taxpayers.
Debt interest is $45 billion. What would it be equal to if we
had the capability of spending that $45 billion on things other
than the interest on the debt?
It would be two full years of Canada pension or Quebec pension
plan benefits. It would amount to two and a half years of GST
revenues. It would amount to 71% of all PIT revenues.
It would amount to the entire annual budgets of the four western
provinces, which is a substantial amount of money. It would
amount to the entire annual budgets of Quebec, Prince Edward
Island and Newfoundland. It would amount to the entire net debts
of all of the provinces combined, excluding B.C., Ontario and
Quebec.
This probably more than anything would be of greater impact: it
would be enough to pay for all Canadian hospitals, physicians and
drug costs for an entire year. Our health care problem could
easily be resolved if it was not for the interest that we are
paying on our massive debt.
It would be enough to cut taxes an average of $3,200 a year for
the average taxpayer. Just think of what they could do with that
money if it were in their pockets. In 1997 the average Canadian
taxpayer paid $3,285 a year in taxes just to pay the interest on
that debt. This works out to $275 a month or just over $9 each
and every day.
Reform has a much better plan. We will cut personal income taxes
by $12 billion or $2,000 per family by the year 2000.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
address once again Bill C-28, which is sponsored by the Minister
of Finance.
We could examine several provisions, since this is an omnibus
bill, but I am primarily concerned with clause 241. The reason
is that the situation is not at all clear. Before me, several
Bloc Quebecois members asked again that this issue, which leaves
the impression there may be an apparent or real conflict of
interest, be resolved, since it tarnishes somewhat the
government's credibility when it comes to finance.
It is not normal to leave the impression that the Minister of
Finance may be sponsoring a bill that could benefit a shipping
company he fully owns, namely Canada Steamship Lines.
I represent the riding of Lévis, where we have a big shipyard.
1155
As the member of Parliament for Lévis, I, like all my
constituents, want to have the largest possible number of ships
come through Lévis and the St. Lawrence Seaway. This is very
important. Why? Because the more ships go through, the greater
the chances for our shipyard to build ships. In fact, it would
only be normal if Quebec's largest shipyard could build ships.
However, one of these international shipping companies happens
to belong to the Minister of Finance. Of course, the minister
asked someone else to manage his interests, which are currently
held in trust.
However, there is cause for concern when we see that even if he
himself does not make speeches, and does not answer questions in
the House on shipping, he is sponsoring this bill, and clause
241 is part and parcel of this bill.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to have this bill referred back to
the finance standing committee so that the whole matter can be
cleared up, because our questions have not yet been given clear
answers. Of course, the ethics counsellor of the Prime Minister
has appeared before the committee, but his testimony has been
quite vague, and everything went very fast.
We heard the Prime Minister's response yesterday. He is
satisfied with answers such as this “Everything has been cleared
up, and there is no problem whatsoever since I, the Prime
Minister of Canada, have full confidence in my finance minister.
The matter is closed”. We do no think it is that simple.
That is too easy a way out. We should be hearing arguments, we
should be dealing with substance and examining all aspects of
this clause. We should check the legal implications and see who
is getting tax breaks and under what conditions.
We are dealing with companies operating in international
shipping. Canada Steamship Lines is one of these companies. Some
will say this is quite normal, since we are dealing here with
shipping and transportation. Ships do travel, just like planes
do. That reminds me of Mr. Trudeau who said that fish should be
under federal jurisdiction because they do swim from one place
to another.
So ships do in fact travel, and the problem is not international
shipping. The issue we ware raising is that the finance
minister, who owns a fleet of ships, although his assets are in
trust while his is in office, stands to benefit not only now but
once he no longer is in office. This is a very important issue,
and the people have a right to know.
I would like to touch on another aspect. I have tried repeatedly
to put shipbuilding on the government agenda again. When the
current Minister of Finance was responsible for the Federal
Office of Regional Development for Quebec, he systematically
refused to answer any question either from myself or from any
other member having anything to do with providing assistance to
the shipyard in Lévis.
His response was always that he had business interests in
shipping. So, he does admit to having interests, but argues that
they are held in trust.
The Minister of Finance is one of the most prominent ministers
in government, but he hides behind his business interests in
this area, claiming a conflict of interest, not to act in
support of the shipbuilding and shipping industries, which are
in serious difficulty today.
1200
We should have a debate on this too, but one that would be, as
suggested by the Liberals in 1993, a real summit on the future
of shipyards in Canada. We could, for instance, update the study
conducted more than ten years ago on the condition of the fleet
at the international level to take a closer look at the
financial assistance policies most nations have for their
shipyards.
Our neighbour to the south is one of the leading shipbuilding
and shipping countries in the world. The United States want
nothing to do with OECD agreements regarding subsidies to
shipyards.
In Canada, we will not consider such a policy, because it
appears we have reached an agreement with the other countries of
the OECD.
However, the other members of the OECD are not following
Canada's example and, as they see that the Americans are not
accepting this agreement to no longer subsidize shipyards, they
are going about it in other ways. Some European countries are
doing like the Americans, waiting until everybody signs the
agreement. In Canada, we are—if you will excuse the expression—the
butt end of the joke, since, because we wanted to appear
virtuous in the matter, we end up with a pretext to do nothing.
So, I will use this question to point that out, because with
every opportunity I have, as the member for Lévis and to
contribute to the future of shipping and shipbuilding, I always
advocate a real shipping policy.
I will conclude by saying that we must—and quickly so—get all
the facts on clause 241 and the consequences of it, because in
the interim the effect is to mortgage what might be done to
further advance the cause of shipping and shipbuilding in
Canada.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak at third reading of Bill C-28,
an act to amend a whole bunch of other acts with respect to tax
measures. It is a massive bill containing over 1,000 pages
including accompanying notes. I wonder how many members of
Parliament have read those 1,000 pages and know what we are
getting into. We do not need greater fiscal and social
engineering by the government in any bill but that is exactly
what we are getting.
I will give a broad perspective in my critique of this bill
and of the approach being taken. The Liberals and the Tories,
the two parties that have been responsible for managing our
economic affairs over the past several decades, have brought us
to this point. We have a legacy of massive overspending, a
legacy of 30 years of never balancing our books which has led to
a legacy of a $600 billion mortgage on our children and a legacy
of regular and unremitting tax increases. Because of all this the
federal debt is nearly 70% of GDP.
The GDP is the gross domestic product, the value of all the
goods and services produced in our country over a year. Seventy
per cent of everything we produce over a year is offset by this
massive federal debt. If we add provincial debts, that
percentage approaches 100% of GDP. In other words, we owe
everything we make in a year to our huge national debt. If we
were to apply it all to the national debt, that would just about
pay it off.
Obviously we cannot because people have to live.
1205
What it does mean for people and for the average family of four
is a share of the national debt of a whopping $77,700. Every
family has been put in the hole by past governments to the tune
of $77,000 plus. This same average family paid $6,000 this year
just to meet the interest on that debt. If there were no debt
presumably each of these families would have an extra $6,000 to
work with. Most families could feel the relief if that were the
case, but of course it is not.
Also our income tax burden as a result of this abysmal record of
fiscal mismanagement is the highest in the G-7 nations. Of the
developed nations our income tax burden is the highest. The
latest figures available show that between 1989 and 1995 the
average Canadian family suffered a decline in real income after
taxes of $2,540. One of the reasons for the decline in real
income is the incredible tax burden being placed on regular
Canadians.
I have a letter from a regular Canadian that illustrates all too
clearly the ridiculous lengths to which this tax system punishes
Canadians:
My son attended Notre Dame school in Saskatchewan on a
scholarship this past year. Last week, he received a T41A in the
mail in the amount of $9,500. The scholarship represents his
only income for the year (he does not even have a social
Insurance number). He now owes income tax in the amount of $450
(and of course, our tax burden increases because he was removed
as a dependant).
I have several questions:
1. How can the Liberals claim that they want to support youth
education when there is a tax on scholarships?;
2. Where does the government draw the line in taking money from
its citizens? If $9,500 is not below the poverty line, then what
is? $5,000, or perhaps $2,500;
3. Is not the future of our nation, its educated youth, worthy
of the same tax free allowances as MPs or MLAs?;
4. Just what kind of joke is the millennium fund going to be
given the government's penchant for having its hands in our
pockets?
My wife and I are lucky in that the tax owed by my son is
something we can afford. But, I can easily imagine families and
situations where this would not be the case. Please, if it is
possible in opposition, point out this ludicrous situation to the
Liberals and continue your efforts to remove the tax burden from
those who can least afford it—in this case our students.
This is the kind of real life tax grab that our income tax
regime imposes on regular Canadians, the youngest, the hardest
working Canadians. This bill does absolutely nothing to address
that kind of situation.
For the first time in 30 years the chief financial officer of
this corporation we call Canada has finally managed to balance
the books.
1210
Far from apologizing for the fact that this is the first year of
doing something every Canadian and every financial institution
must do routinely, we have a finance minister who acts like this
is the beginning of easy street for every Canadian. Of course,
this is nonsense. We are not out of the woods by any means as
Canadians and Canadian families.
It is important to note that this one balanced budget has been
achieved almost 70% through increased tax revenues. Here we have
a bill of over 1,000 pages that does not do one thing to reduce
that horrendous tax burden on Canadians. Yet that is what allows
the one balanced budget we have had.
An additional 16.5% of the measures that balanced our budget
were through cuts in support to key social services such as
health and education. Less than 1% was from actual decreases in
other government spending.
Government is good at piling the tax load high on everyone but
very poor at restraining its own appetite for spending those same
tax dollars.
In addition, the government has adopted some suspect accounting
policies that allowed it to manipulate budget figures with an eye
to maximizing a surplus closer to the next federal election.
This manipulation was so unusual and so blatant that, as members
know, the Auditor General of Canada felt it necessary to
challenge the government in a very pointed and public way.
It is critical that we not only refuse to put additional charges
on the Canadian credit card but that we have a solid financial
plan to start paying down the huge debit balance and make the
kind of prudent budget and lifestyle choices that will ensure our
future fiscal well-being.
Unfortunately the government has not taken that kind of big
picture approach. A detailed study this month by the chief
economist of Scotiabank says: “Aiming for balanced budgets and
relying on an unprecedented stretch of solid growth and low
interest rates to reduce the debt burden is a high risk strategy
for a debt heavy government”.
I see the time has expired and so in closing I would like to say
we cannot support this tax tinkering by the Liberals.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to Bill C-28 and, more specifically, to clause
241, which I consider warrants all our attention. Since
February 5, everything leads us to believe, as the expression
puts it so well, that there is something fishy here.
We all know very well how this matter might be of personal
interest to the Minister of Finance, who, it seems, would have
every advantage as the sole owner of Canada Steamship Lines if
the bill were passed.
How could the Minister of Finance sponsor a bill that includes
tax provisions that could benefit his own company, when he is
not entitled to speak on this matter in order to avoid a
conflict of interest? This state of affairs led to the
presentation before the Standing Committee on Finance of five
motions that would enable us to get to the bottom of this
matter.
First, we asked for testimony from the president of the CSL,
representatives of the trust company, the minister himself and
Mr. Wilson.
The five motions were important, but the most important one
called for the appearance of any other witness who might help
the committee understand clause 241. Four of the five motions
were rejected.
1215
The only witness allowed was Mr. Wilson, the government's ethics
counsellor, who is employed by the Prime Minister, paid by the
government and accountable only to the government.
Something unexpected happened in that Mr. Wilson's testimony
reinforced our argument when he admitted that the Minister of
Finance had not acted properly and that the code of ethics
adopted by the government in 1994 had not been respected.
That code of ethics clearly stipulates that public office
holders must do everything they can to prevent real, potential
or apparent conflicts of interest from arising.
On February 5, 1998, the government's ethics counsellor said on
the CBC, and I quote “Canada Steamship Lines has indicated
clearly to me that it has no intention of using this provision”.
However, twelve days later, on February 17, this same counsellor
stated before the Standing Committee on Finance, and again I
quote “Mr. Martin sponsored this bill and questions have been
raised by some members that this constitutes an apparent
conflict of interest. Had I been informed in advance, before
this bill was introduced, there would have been a discussion on
how best to handle the introduction of the bill for the Minister
of Finance, who is responsible for all tax legislation. However,
this prior consideration of our options did not take place as it
should have”.
This flagrant lack of impartiality by Mr. Wilson is appalling.
And we are not the only ones to express criticism.
The Senate is also addressing this issue. In fact, Senator
Marjory LeBreton stated in the Upper House that there is an
urgent need to establish new guidelines for the ethics
counsellor, who should be independent from the government.
This is a matter I could not overlook, and when the Liberal
majority on the Standing Committee on Finance denied our
request, the three other opposition parties saw, just as we did,
that something fishy was going on.
That is why, in a press conference held on February 19, 1998,
the four opposition parties requested that the Prime Minister
strike a special committee to shed some light on clause 241 of
Bill C-28. We are still waiting for an answer.
What is unacceptable is that the Prime Minister is still
refusing to clarify this issue for us, and is determined to put
obstacles in our path at every turn. It is obvious to us,
unfortunately, that everything is co-ordinated from the Prime
Minister's office, including the Standing Committee on Finance.
In short, the Liberal government is showing obvious bad faith,
and wants to protect its Finance Minister at all costs.
In conclusion, what is important for people to understand is
that the Minister of Finance is preparing to get a bill passed
which he himself sponsored and from which he very likely will be
able to profit. And this is unacceptable.
I also have some serious questions about how available the
self-same minister is to look after the financial interests of
Quebec when he has demonstrated without a doubt that what is
closest to his heart is to have ships plying the waters of the
world, instead of concentrating his focus on his work and on
keeping our ship with its fleur-de-lis colours afloat financially.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to rise today to speak on Bill C-28 which is
described as an omnibus bill dealing with certain technical
amendments covering a wide variety of acts relating to income
tax.
Most of the amendments are housekeeping and we will not be
focusing our remarks on them. We intend to confine our remarks
to the significant reductions in the Canada health and social
transfer that we have seen over recent years.
1220
An earlier speaker noted that the bill is very technical and
wondered how many people had read it and who had picked up a
copy. I think it is fair to say that none of the members
currently sitting in the Liberal benches have looked at the bill.
I might also say that a member might need two hands to pick up
the bill because it runs to over 400 pages. We believe it is
absolutely ridiculous that parliament or Canadians should be
expected to deal with such a complex bill which uses language
that even highly paid tax experts would have difficulty
deciphering.
We believe that Bill C-28 is anti-democratic in its format, its
language and its content. It is wrong for a government to
present legislation steeped in such isolated language and expect
Canadians to be informed or to have any idea of what their
government is doing.
There is a story making the rounds that a justice department
official was removed from the working committee on Bill C-28
because he raised concerns about introducing such complex
legislation. He was most upset with the complexity and the
incredible volume of amendments contained therein.
It is fair to say that one would need to be a highly paid tax
lawyer to even begin to tackle Bill C-28 in its present format.
Needless to say, the lawyer's protests were not well received by
the finance department and he was removed from working on this
particular file.
To turn to the CHST, we noted with some interest that Tom Kent,
who was recognized as the godfather of Liberal social policy in
the 1960s and 1970s, delivered a lump of coal to the government
on December 24 last when he lashed out at the cutbacks that the
government imposed on our medicare system in particular.
There are other aspects of the CHST that I will get into in a
moment.
Writing for the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, Mr. Kent
accused the government of putting the 30 year old social program
at a critical crossroads by simply neglecting to fund it
properly. He wrote “Medicare has been sustained by the public
will”, and “For this medicare, we owe no thanks to the present
generation of federal politicians. It survives despite them”.
Note the words, “It survives despite them. Though they pose,
because of its popularity, as the defenders of medicare, in fact,
they have destroyed the financial basis on which their
predecessors created it”. That is where we are coming from on
this.
There has been a lot of talk this morning from folks to my
right, literally and figuratively, about the financial debt and
deficit that we face. There is also a social deficit in this
country. It is not only health care which is at risk, we have
not made much progress in the fight against poverty.
I am referring to another article from the Caledon Institute of
Social Policy that was issued in February 1998. The writer notes
that the progress against poverty that Canada managed to achieve
in the 1960s, the period that Tom Kent talked about, and in the
early 1970s has stalled over the last 20 years. Poverty has
increased since then. It was at 17.9% in 1996 compared to 14.2%
in 1975. That is an increase approaching 3%.
In the past Canada could count on economic growth and healthy
labour markets to fight poverty. Rising real gross domestic
production reduced the number and percentage of people with low
incomes while the faltering economy had the opposite effect.
Poverty is a result not only of the changing labour market which
we have witnessed over the past couple of decades in this
country. It is also linked to household structure and
demographics. Gender is a critical demographic factor in the
poverty story of this country.
Women typically have higher poverty rates than men and families
led by women are more likely to be poor than those headed by men.
The persisting inequality between the sexes is due basically to
women's unpaid social and economic roles as homemakers and
caregivers to children and aging parents. It is a major factor
that women have lower incomes and risk higher poverty.
1225
In addition to gender, marital status is a key factor. Single
parent families, most of which are led by women, face a high risk
of poverty.
Governments traditionally have played a major role in combating
poverty in this country. Income security programs, also known as
transfer payments, have supplemented or reduced employment
earnings. Major programs such as old age security, the
guaranteed income supplement, the spousal allowance and the
Canada and Quebec pension plans have been crucial sources of
retirement income for most Canadians.
Employment insurance and workers' compensation replace
employment earnings lost due to unemployment, illness and
accident. We know as well what has happened there. I think
especially about employment insurance and the fact that prior to
the changes 85% to 95% of people who applied for unemployment
insurance, as it was previously known, received benefits. Today
those figures hover around 40%. That is the reason there is a
growing gap in this country between the very rich and the people
at the bottom 20%.
Child poverty as well remains a grave problem in this country,
as has been noted by our party in particular. One in five
children now live in low income families. Just under 1.5 million
children, or 21.1% of all children who live in what members
opposite often refer to as the greatest country in the world, are
living in poverty. That risk of course goes up if they are in a
single parent family, especially one led by a woman.
Still other demographic factors are linked to poverty.
Aboriginal Canadians are significantly more likely to be poor
than the rest of the population. Canadians with disabilities, as
other speakers noted earlier today, are another group at risk of
poverty.
The Canada health and social transfer that replaced the Canada
assistance plan in 1996 has retained only the non-resident
requirement of the Canada Health Act, and the loss of the in-need
criteria under CAP has opened the door to a very different
welfare system today than the one we have known over the past
couple of years.
In conclusion, this caucus is opposed to Bill C-28. We reject
the Canada health and social transfer which has resulted in steep
reductions in funding to health and education. There has been a
40% reduction in funding to post-secondary. We are advised that
when the millennium fund kicks in in the year 2000 this
government will be spending a full $3 billion per year less on
post-secondary education.
The provinces are struggling to provide social services. They
too have seen their budget allocations slashed from $18.7 billion
in 1993-94, the last year of CAP, to the projection of just under
$12.5 billion in 1998-99, the current fiscal year that we are
debating. Therefore, this caucus will be opposing Bill C-28.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged
to speak on Bill C-28 for a number of reasons, the main one being
that its sponsor, the Minister of Finance, is placing himself in
a position to benefit from it. His interests in civilian live,
outside politics, can benefit from this bill.
There are more than 400 clauses in Bill C-28. It is complex, and
multi-facetted.
The clause on shipping companies with foreign holdings takes up
a half-page, and could easily have gone unnoticed as the pace of
the House speeds up.
1230
This clause puts the finance minister, the sponsor of the bill,
in an apparent conflict of interest. It is sad and
incomprehensible that the finance minister himself, or the Prime
Minister, did not try to put people's minds at rest.
Politicians have questions. All opposition parties unanimously
requested that the government shed light on the matter. Through
their MPs, citizens also are involved. They need to know that
their finance minister is in no way, shape or form in an
apparent conflict of interest.
Let us not forget how proud the finance minister is to have
eliminated the deficit.
One of the main ways he was able to reduce the deficit was to
cut not federal spending but transfers to the provinces, the
Canada social transfer, which replaced the former grants for
heath, education and social assistance.
Payments were drastically cut back. The cuts are not over yet,
they are ongoing. They are cruelly evident in the health care
problems experienced by every province. They are just as cruelly
felt in education and social assistance.
It is this same minister who was at the origin of the first
major reform of employment insurance, reducing the duration of
benefits, benefit levels and accessibility in a major way.
In fact it is this first reform which is at the origin of the
spring gap which affects many families, especially those who
depend on seasonal work. They do not have enough insurable weeks
to bridge the gap until they can work again in the spring; it is
not for lack of wanting to work, but there simply is no work to
be found where they live.
If they own a house or have some savings, they have to spend the
money they saved, and depending on the value of their house,
they may not be entitled to any help at all. They are not
eligible for social assistance. Several families have nothing to
live on until work starts again. This spring gap has its origin
in the 1994 reform.
The finance minister needs to be above all suspicion.
It is difficult for opposition parties to understand why the
Minister of Finance would not meet this basic requirement, which
is to demonstrate that he is not in a conflict of interest, not
even in an apparent conflict of interest.
Given the minister's reputation, why does he not agree to have a
special committee struck to shed light on the whole issue? Why
does he not find another solution of his choice to protect
himself, once and for all, from such suspicions? It is hard to
understand.
It is hard to understand why the Prime Minister, whose interest
should be to defend the integrity of his finance minister, only
does so by repeating statements that have not convinced any
member of the opposition.
1235
Anyone taking a look at the issue can only conclude “but he is
in an apparent conflict of interest”.
When the person looking after the minister's company says he
does not intend to avail himself of the opportunity, it implies
that he could actually do so. If this is not the case, then we
should be told about it, because so far we have not received
such confirmation. Again, the opportunity was provided by the
same minister, whose reputation had not been tarnished.
The Minister of Finance has been hard on ordinary Canadians
regarding health, education and social assistance. He has been
hard on the unemployed. Now, he must shed light on this issue.
It is not too late.
As far as I know, the bill will not be passed before April 21.
The Minister of Finance must, for his own sake, for the sake of
all politicians and for the sake of the public, shed light on
this issue.
Bill C-28 will remain a sad episode. There are other clauses in
this legislation that remind us of policies against which we
fought hard in the past. It is one thing to have dissenting
opinions on economic and social policies, but it is another
thing to see the Minister of Finance in an apparent conflict of
interest and refusing to shed light on the issue.
As a member of parliament, I would have much preferred not to
have to say these things but, given the facts, I have no choice.
I would not be carrying out my responsibilities if I did not
speak out. The Minister of Finance has a duty, which is to shed
light on the whole issue, for his own sake, but also for the
sake of the public and for the sake of politics.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to Bill C-28, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act.
Taxes are important. Everyone pays them, or at least everyone
should. Of course, no one has to pay more than the law requires
but, at the same time, the law should require that everyone make
a just and reasonable effort.
Bill C-28 is a complex bill. It contains hundreds of clauses.
It affects all sorts of provisions. It is a bill that, by and
large, is in the public interest.
Unfortunately, it contains one clause, just one, that we have a
problem with and that is clause 241. Others before me have
pointed this out, and I am going to look at it as well. Between
you and me, we are not going to pull any punches.
The situation is this: in accordance with his role and
responsibility, the Minister of Finance introduced this bill.
He sponsored it. The Minister of Finance must be above all
suspicion. There should never be a situation in which anyone
could think that the Minister of Finance was trying to use
legislation to derive personal benefit.
1240
And I most certainly want to believe that the Minister of
Finance is above any suspicion, and is not trying to derive any
such benefit.
But there is a problem with clause 241. The Minister of Finance
owns Canada Steamship Lines. This is a large company, and the
Minister of Finance is fortunate indeed to be the sole owner of
this major company.
He put the company into a trust so as not to be able to
intervene directly in its affairs and derive any benefit.
That is all very well. It is indeed the normal and expected
procedure to follow.
However, the Minister of Finance knows full well that the
trustee of the Canada Steamship Lines, the company he owns, has
not sold the shares to buy some woodlot. He did not sell the
shares to buy a bus company. The Minister of Finance knows very
well that he is still, through the trustee, the owner of his
shipping company.
Companies with ships registered offshore stand to benefit
financially from section 241, through a tax reduction. The
Minister of Finance, through his trustee, is very much aware of
the fact that his fleet is partially or totally registered
offshore.
The minister or his trustee used to his advantage some of the
provisions already in the legislation, under which ships
registered offshore somehow have less tax payable here in
Canada.
I still find it a little strange that the Minister of Finance,
who is in charge of taxing all Quebeckers and all Canadians,
corporations and citizens, would shelter his company through
existing fiscal provisions. It may be ludicrous, but it is
legal.
Where the plot thickens is when section 241 is amended to allow
shipping companies that meet specific criteria, just as that of
the Minister of Finance does—to enjoy additional tax benefits.
Mind you, there are not that many shipping companies in Canada.
If section 241 was giving some tax benefit to convenience stores
and if the finance minister happened to own one, through a trust
company, I would say that he will indeed get some benefit, but
that so many store owners will get it too that he has certainly
not done this just for his own sake.
I am not suggesting here that the finance minister has done this
just for himself. But it does look kind of odd, and even more so
because since the beginning of February, the Bloc Quebecois has
been asking the finance minister, in a respectful way, with
courtesy but also with determination, to clear up all manner of
doubt on the risk of conflict of interest as far as section 241
is concerned.
We never got an answer from him. The Prime Minister himself
jumped to his feet to tell us he trusts his finance minister. I
should hope so.
We should not expect anything less.
But you have to agree with me that this is not good enough to
make Canadians believe everything is just fine. If the rules in
our code of ethics provided that a minister should avoid all
conflict of interest situations or that he should have the
confidence of the Prime Minister, it would be all right because
that is what the rules say.
1245
But the real code of ethics does not say that. It says that a
minister should avoid not only actual but also apparent
conflicts of interest. That is the rule. What does the Prime
Minister's confidence in his finance minister have to do with
this? It is all very fine for him to trust his minister, but it
would be much better if everybody could trust him.
Why does the finance minister refuse to shed light on this? Why
does he not give us all the facts? Why does he hide behind the
Prime Minister? Why does he not give all the information to the
House and the media?
We have a problem. We asked that clause 241 be withdrawn from
the bill, which would have allowed us to pass the rest of the
bill with much less reluctance and then to deal with clause 241
on its merits. But this was all put in the same package. The
Liberals put in the whole cake something that looks like a
rotten fruit. Do they think I will eat this cake? Do they think
that the Bloc Quebecois will eat this cake?
We will have to vote against the whole bill because of these few
lines that let the worst suspicions hang over the finance
minister. Perhaps he has a good explanation. The Prime Minister
may be right to have confidence in his finance minister, but why
not give us the evidence to support this confidence?
In the absence of such evidence, all bets are off, not only for
the members of the Bloc Quebecois, not only for the opposition
members, but also for the members opposite, and especially for
the people of Quebec and Canada.
As we all know, this kind of thing erodes people's confidence in
the government machinery, in Parliament itself. Why are the
Prime Minister and the finance minister not taking the
opportunity today in this House to clarify the situation and
restore confidence?
I will not be able to vote in favour of the bill before us
because of the potentially rotten fruit in this cake poisoned by
clause 241.
I will not be able to vote in support of this bill, but I
strongly hope that the finance minister will shed some light on
the issue.
If he does not, the confidence that the people have in
Parliament will be eroded and it will be the finance minister's
fault.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to
speak in this House on Bill C-28, which is sponsored by the
finance minister.
I will not read the bill, since it is so thick that it
discourages most people from conducting a thorough analysis. And
yet, this did not prevent the Bloc Quebecois from noticing
clause 241 and its two small paragraphs which will amend
subsection 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The possible benefits
for the finance minister, who is the sole owner of Canada
Steamship Lines, an international shipping company, are obvious
and yet do not represent even two pages of this 464-page bill.
This raises several questions about the government's and the
minister of Finance's real interest in supporting this bill.
While Quebeckers and Canadians pay for the cuts that the Liberal
government has been making since 1993, while everyone is
tightening their belts, while this government continues slashing
federal transfers to the provinces, thus directly affecting
people, while the finance minister is boasting about having
eliminated the deficit in his last budget without saying that he
did it on the backs of the provinces, the finance ministre, in
spite of an apparent conflict of interest, is sponsoring a bill
that will give him some fiscal advantages.
1250
The whole population should know that some members of the
government are very generous to themselves. It is inconceivable
for a minister to propose a bill which contains tax provisions
favourable to his company. This is an apparent conflict of
interest.
The Minister of Finance keeps using several arguments to prove
his supposed non-involvement in Bill C-28. He argued in this
House that his company has been in a blind trust ever since his
appointment to cabinet, and that he would not profit in any way
from this bill.
This may be true, but it only applies to the present. As soon as
the minister leaves his position, the trust arrangement will
cease. Not intending to use a privilege is not the same as not
having the right to do so.
Obviously, we do not know enough about section 241 of this bill.
The motions introduced in the finance committee by Bloc
Quebecois members were all defeated by the Liberal majority,
except one allowing the ethics counsellor to appear before the
committee. This counsellor is an employee of the Prime
Minister, paid by the government and accountable only to his
employer.
Yet, the testimony of this witness only served to reinforce our
arguments since he acknowledged that he was not an expert in
international tax laws and was therefore unable to answer
several of our questions. He went as far as saying that there
might be an apparent conflict of interest and that, had he been
made aware of the implications of section 241, he might have
acted differently.
Therefore, it is clear to the Bloc Quebecois and the whole
population that the Minister of Finance did not abide by the
code of ethics approved by his government in 1994, which says
that anyone holding public office should avoid being in a real,
potential or apparent conflict of interest. In this case, there
is an apparent conflict of interest and this is why I ask, in
good faith, that the Minister of Finance withdraw section 241 of
Bill C-28 while there is still time left.
As parliamentarians, we have a duty to our fellow citizens to
improve their quality of life and collective well-being, not the
right to use our power to our own benefit. Surveys show that
members of Parliament are not well perceived by the public.
After seeing such ways of doing things, it is easy to understand
why.
The finance minister says he is innocent of any intention.
However, in 1996, he introduced a bill in the House containing
the same provisions as clause 241; however, that bill died on the
Order Paper. In 1998, the minister came back and sponsored Bill
C-28. How could he not be aware, as he would have us believe? How
can a minister introduce a bill without knowing its content?
How
could Paul Martin be allowed to sponsor a bill containing tax
provisions that could be beneficial to his own company,
considering he is not allowed to speak on the matter so as not to
be in a situation of conflict of interest? In fact, there is
appearance of conflict of interest and considering the importance
of his position and the integrity with which he should manage the
finances of the country, the finance minister should be clear of
any suspicion.
This is a warning to the government. We asked the
finance minister to delete clause 241 of Bill C-28 until the
matter can be cleared up. He should do so as quickly as possible
if he wants to preserve the credibility he has left in Quebec and
in Canada.
My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has introduced
another amendment proposing to refer Bill C-28 to the finance
committee so witnesses can be questioned and the situation
clarified. The amendment says that the motion be amended by
deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the
following: “Bill C-28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be
not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing
Committee on Finance for the purpose of reconsidering clause
241.”
I support the amendment proposed by my colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot because, in my humble opinion, it answers
the numerous issues that the opposition has been raising for more
than a month.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since we are at the
end of the debate, I would like to try to illustrate the main
reasons the Bloc will be voting against Bill C-28.
1255
Through this bill, the Minister of Finance is trying to pass
legislation that, in all likelihood, could provide certain tax
advantages to his company, Canada Steamship Lines, of which he
is the sole owner.
Clause 241 of Bill C-28 would amend section 250 of the Income Tax
Act. In this 464 page omnibus bill, clause 241 contains only
two paragraphs and it concerns shipping exclusively. The bill
is sponsored by the Minister of Finance himself.
These two facts constitute the appearance of a conflict of
interest, which contravenes the government's code of ethics and
that is what we have been seeking explanations for since
February 5.
How can the Minister of Finance sponsor a bill containing tax
provisions that could benefit his own company, when he is not
entitled to speak on the matter in order to avoid a conflict of
interest? There is the appearance of a conflict of interest
and, given the importance of his position and the requirement
that he manage government finances honestly, this great Minister
of Finance must be above suspicion.
Even if the minister offers the defence that his company has
been in a blind trust since he became minister, he will not
always be a minister and may perhaps draw benefit from this tax
amendment.
The minister and the representatives of his company insist that
Canada Steamship Lines does not intend to take advantage of the
measures included in clause 241. They do not intend to, but
that does not mean they are not entitled to. This is the point
we would like to see clarified by the Standing Committee on
Finance.
From the start we have demanded that light be cast on this in
the finance committee. The Prime Minister tells us: “I have
complete confidence in my Minister of Finance. He is not
involved, the legislation cannot provide him with any
advantages, and if you have any questions, ask them where they
should be asked, in the finance committee”. But when we get to
the Standing Committee on Finance with its Liberal majority, the
majority response is that they want to hear no more witnesses.
In other words, the Prime Minister is saying “You may ask
questions, but you will get no answers”. We are entitled to ask
questions, but the committee members, most of whom are Liberals,
turn around and tell us that they do not want to hear the
answers, that their confidence in the finance minister is all
they require to be assured that the bill will not bring him any
advantages.
I have three main reasons for doubting the confidence inspired
by the Minister of Finance. If we remember back to when the
Minister of Finance was negotiating the harmonization of the
provincial sales taxes in the maritime provinces with the
federal sales tax, the Minister of Finance included $1 billion
in his financial statements a year before that amount was paid
to the maritime provinces.
In other words, he pulled out $1 billion with which to inflate
his deficit for that year. In order to avoid what?
In order to avoid having to calm down the people who were
clamouring for a bit of a break from taxes and budget cuts. It
was to the Minister of Finance's advantage to have a higher
deficit showing than there actually was, because this took the
heat off him, stopped people from demanding more, and from
begging “Spare us, we cannot bear the tax burden any longer”.
The minister used a strategy that has been denounced by the
auditor general. According to the auditor general, “The
Minister of Finance, in keeping with the accounting principles
generally recognized for governments, must not proceed in this
way. He must allocate to each year the amount of expenditures
that occur in that year”.
The Minister of Finance did not do so. He cannot be trusted.
1300
Second example. The Minister of Finance decided to establish a
Canada Foundation for Innovation with an investment of $800
million. What did the minister do? He budgeted $800 million last
year, knowing that not a single cheque would be issued to the
foundation until the following year.
Furthermore, the minister allocated $800 million to the
foundation in his budget, while it had not yet been officially
established. The auditor general told the Minister of Finance he
could not do that.
He said “There must be transparency and continuity in
accounting, and under the rule of continuity books must be kept
the same way year after year so that people know where they are
going. You cannot do it that way”.
The finance minister's answer was “I am in charge here, and I
will do as I please”. He made sure to inflate expenditures by
$800 million to avoid, once again, achieving zero deficit too
quickly. This way, he could keep penalizing the unemployed,
maintain employment insurance premiums and not give a penny more
to help children living in poverty. This way, he could keep
cruising at his own pace to eventually show a surplus.
In spite of the fact that he was told by the auditor general
that he cannot do that, the minister keeps doing as he pleases.
The third example is the millennium fund. The minister is
investing $2.5 billion in this fund to grant scholarships to
students, but the first cheques will not be issued until the
year 2000. Yet he budgeted this amount in the budget for the
year that just ended two days ago, on March 31. Not one penny
has yet been expended by the government, since the first cheques
will be issued in the year 2000.
The Minister of Finance recorded this amount in the budget for
fiscal year 1997-98. Why? Because, had he not, he would have had
to report a surplus of nearly $3 billion. He did not want to
show a surplus, just a zero deficit. Had he reported a surplus,
he would have had to use this money in accordance with the
people's wishes. So he did not, preferring to keep doing as he
pleases.
What did the Bloc Quebecois do? We went before the public
accounts committee.
Wet denounced this attitude and supported the auditor general's
recommendations. But the Liberals, who have a majority also on
this committee, showed up in full strength. They came to say
that the finance minister was right to behave the way he was
behaving, and to do his accounting the way he wants and if, in
another year, it suited his purpose to do otherwise, he would do
so.
This means that the finance minister, whom the Prime Minister
trusts, does what he wants with numbers, even if it lacks
transparency, and gives a distorted picture of reality, making
people believe things that are not true.
Can we trust a finance minister who behaves in such a way? We
say we cannot. So when the minister tells us his company is not
involved and will not profit from these benefits, can we trust
him?
If the minister can behave the way he has with financial
statements, could he not do the same when it comes to two little
subclauses on tax relief which could possibly benefit his
company? Can we believe him? Judging by his previous behaviour I
am not sure we can trust him.
What we are asking him is this, and we are not accusing him of
being dishonest. But we are saying “There appears to be
something that might benefit you. Could you put our minds at
ease and allow the committee to call tax experts who will come
and tell us categorically that these two subclauses are unlikely
to give any tax advantage to your shipping companies which are
registered in Panama?”
This is what we want to know and what the Liberal government has
so far refused to tell us.
For these reasons, we will not be able to support Bill C-28.
1305
It is still not too late, and we are still hoping the government
will wait to put its bill to a vote, withdraw these two
subclauses, and come back with it once the committee has
prepared a decent report after a comprehensive review.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
originally I was not going to speak to the bill. However I would
like to inject a bit of information that Canadians should be
aware of.
The gist of the Bloc's arguments is appearance, as the member
just stated. Canadians will know that when members of Parliament
are asked to join cabinet there is a requirement that they put
all their assets into a blind trust. There is a requirement that
they also adhere to the provisions of conflict of interest under
the auspices of the ethics commissioner.
The issue that the members have raised has been talked about
quite a bit in this place and was before the finance committee.
The ethics commissioner appeared before the finance committee and
tabled a report on all the holdings of the finance minister, on
all matters that had to be put into the blind trust.
I have looked at the report and all the information filed as
required by the laws of Canada. I have concluded that very
little could occur in the country that would not impact on the
finance minister with regard to his investments or holdings. If
interest rates go up, the finance minister will win. If interest
rates go down, the finance minister will probably win. It is the
same for any change with respect real property, rental property
or other investments that happens in the House.
Should we say that anything the finance minister or any other
cabinet minister has any direct or indirect relationship with
should be exempt from any legislation that ever occurs in the
House? Clearly the answer is no. That is why there is a blind
trust and why others take care of the affairs of a minister who
has responsibilities.
The members brought forth information and made indictments of
the finance minister. They have suggested, for instance, that
the bill was tabled by him when they know that is not the case.
It is was the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions. They
said that he brought forward these provisions. In fact that is
not true. Those provisions were actually brought forward by the
B.C. association responsible for shipping. The advocacy on its
behalf was basically to stimulate the shipping industry in
Canada. It was the association's advocacy; it was not the
finance minister, as the members would like to suggest. As a
matter of fact it has even put on the record that Canada
Steamship Lines could not get any advantage presently from this
provision.
However, if a few things were changed and a few other things
were done there may be some tax advantages. It is a business and
business will not be changed simply because of some changes.
Business decisions are made on much more. This is not applicable
only to this company. It is applicable to the entire shipping
industry and those who would like to be involved in the shipping
industry to try to promote shipping within Canada.
I wanted to raise this point because Canadians should know that
information is being presented in an eschewed fashion. It is
being presented in a way which questions the integrity of the
finance minister. The members even suggested that it was
contrary to the code of ethics. That is not so. The ethics
commissioner came before the finance committee and ruled that it
was not a conflict of interest. He had checked it out.
The opposition then decided to do even more work on it. There
is no prohibition for members of Parliament or any committee or
anybody else to do any further work that they might deem
necessary, but this basically constituted allegations that were
unsubstantiated. There was really nothing to prove.
The members want to say there is an appearance or an allegation,
but I can bet they will not say that outside the door here.
In here they have parliamentary immunity. They will not go
outside the door and accuse the finance minister of bringing in
provisions for his own benefit. That would be a slanderous
statement. They would be sued.
1310
I reaffirm for Canadians that the rules of this place require
that all of the affairs of a minister be placed in a blind trust.
The ethics commissioner has made a detailed ruling with regard to
this matter. He has answered all questions from all members of
all parties. The committee as a whole decided that there was no
further business to deal with on this issue. The committee is
not empowered to deal with witch-hunting or fishing expeditions.
There was business before the committee and that is exactly what
was done.
I suggest to the members and, perhaps more important, to
Canadians that the question before the House is with regard to an
omnibus bill relating to the budget of 1997. There are some
important issues in it, the most important of which is that
fiscal responsibility has always been demonstrated by the
government since it took office in 1993.
The government has moved the country away from a $42 billion
deficit and is now delivering in a fair and responsible fashion
the balanced budget that Canadians asked for. It did not do it
in a meanspirited way. It was the Liberal way to make sure that
we dealt first with those who had needs, those with low and
middle incomes. This was also reflected in the 1998 budget that
we have already debated in the House. Provisions were focused
and targeted to make sure that Canadians received the benefit of
the hard work all of them had done to ensure that we got our
fiscal house in order.
We all benefit from the financial health of Canada, from low
interest rates, from growth in the economy and from growth in
employment in Canada which will continue. The commitment of the
government to be fiscally responsible continues. The leadership
of the finance minister has been very prevalent. He has had to
make some tough choices, but I believe those choices have been
fair and in the best interest of all Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1315
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
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 yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The chief government
whip has asked that the vote stand deferred until Monday, April
20 at the end of Government Orders. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you
will find consent to further defer the recorded division
requested on the amendment of the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to third reading of Bill C-28 to the end
of Government Orders on Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House in agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
BILL C-37
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the spirit of co-operation there have been discussions among
members of all the parties and I believe you will find consent
for the following motion: I move:
That in the event a recorded division is requested later this day
on the motion for second reading of Bill C-37, the said division
shall be deemed deferred to the end of Government Orders on
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion. Does the House agree?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
BILL C-208
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there have been discussions among all parties and also with the
member for Brampton West—Mississauga concerning the taking of
the division on Bill C-208 scheduled for today at the conclusion
of Private Members' Business. I believe you will find consent for
the following motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-208, all
questions necessary to dispose of the said motion for second
reading shall be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested
and deferred until Tuesday, April 21, 1998, at the expiry of the
time provided for Government Orders.
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)
* * *
1320
JUDGES ACT
The House resumed from April 1 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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 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.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to the
order made earlier today, the vote stands deferred until the end
of Government Orders on Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
* * *
CANADA SHIPPING ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-4, an act to
amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability), as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (for the Minister of Transport) moved
that Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime
liability), be concurred in at report stage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): For the information
of members this is the report stage concurrence motion on which
there is no debate.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When shall the bill
be read a third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (for the Minister of Transport)
moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a great pleasure to speak to members about Bill S-4, an act to
amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability) for this third
reading debate.
Before I talk about the bill I have been asked by the Minister
of Transport to acknowledge the critical role that has been
played by the members of the House, the senators and the standing
committees who have undertaken a thorough examination of this
legislation.
I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to thank members
from the other side of the House for their support. We see in
Bill S-4 a good example of our ability to work together for the
benefit of Canadians.
This legislation was first introduced by the former minister of
transport as Bill C-58 in the last Parliament. At that time the
House Standing Committee on Transport held hearings where
industry groups expressed their general support for Bill C-58.
Their concerns have been addressed by the standing committee. The
amendments proposed to the legislation have since been included
in this bill, Bill S-4.
I would also like to thank the senators and particularly the
members of the Senate standing committee on transport and
communications for their work on the bill. Of course the bill is
a Senate bill.
They adopted an amendment to the legislation to remove from the
bill a proposed modification to the definition of pollutant which
raised concerns among industry representatives who appeared
before the committee on transport and communications.
This amendment to Bill S-4 will allow more time for discussion
between the government and the industry on the definition of
pollutant and whether it should be modified in the future.
1325
The changes to the Canada Shipping Act which I will outline
would not have been possible without the dedicated efforts of
government officials, in particular those from Transport Canada
and the Department of Justice. Throughout the process of this
legislation, officials from the Department of Transport have
spoken at length with the industry, including the shipowners,
passengers, cargo owners, the oil industry, marine insurers and
the marine legal community. I take this opportunity to thank
these industry groups for their participation in this reform and
for their contribution toward and support for the new
legislation.
I am thoroughly convinced and I am sure every member of the
House will agree that this new legislation represents an
important step toward modernizing Canadian maritime liability
regimes. It will improve considerably the amount of compensation
available to claimants for maritime claims in general and for oil
pollution damage in particular.
The proposed legislation consists of two sets of amendments.
There are those relating to limitation of liability for maritime
claims in part IX of the Canada Shipping Act, and those relating
to liability of compensation for oil pollution damage in part XVI
of the same act. In both cases the amendments will provide for
the implementation of international conventions on maritime
liability and therefore will harmonize Canadian maritime
liability legislation with the legislation in other major
maritime nations.
The key policy objective in respect of global limitation of
liability is to achieve an equitable balance between the
interests of the shipowners on the one hand and of potential
claimants on the other. Our current legislation concerning
limitation of liability for maritime claims contained in part IX
of the Canada Shipping Act is based on an international
convention adopted in 1957. One can easily imagine that the
limits of liability set out in that convention and by this very
fact in our existing legislation are very low.
For example, the current limits of liability for ships below 300
tonnes, which includes most pleasure vessels, is approximately
$140,000. We can appreciate that this limit is totally
inadequate. I can assure the House that this feature does not
help either the claimants or the shipowners. The new limits for
ships below 300 tonnes has been set at $1.5 million which is more
in line with the liability levels long established in the
automobile sector.
For ships over 300 tonnes, the new limits of liability are based
on the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime
Claims and its protocol adopted in 1996. The 1996 protocol to
the convention contains a new procedure for future amendments of
limits of liability which responds to concerns that the method of
revision of the limits was too cumbersome and too costly. It will
now be easier to amend the limits in the international
convention.
The spirit of this innovative provision has been incorporated
into Bill S-4 to ensure that the limits of liability in the
Canada Shipping Act keep their value over the years to come. It
will now be feasible to increase the limits in the Canada
Shipping Act by order in council to keep up to date with any
increases in the limits adopted under the 1996 protocol in the
future.
As members probably know, the Minister of Transport signed on
behalf of Canada the 1996 protocol last September.
This protocol is a major step toward the modernization of
international maritime law and we can be proud to be at the
forefront of this international initiative. We will be in a
position to formerly ratify this important treaty when Bill S-4
is passed.
1330
Let me turn to the second issue contained in Bill S-4, the
revision of the existing regime of liability and compensation for
oil pollution damage. This regime was last revised in 1989 when
Canada implemented and acceded to the 1969 international
convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and the
1971 international fund convention.
The 1969 convention established the liability of owners of laden
tankers for oil pollution damage, while the 1971 fund convention
provided complementary compensation to the extent the protection
under the 1969 convention was in adequate.
In addition to participating in the international oil pollution
compensation fund, Canada has its own domestic compensation fund
called the ship source oil pollution fund. This is a fund of
first resort for all claimants for oil pollution damage in Canada
and in waters under Canadian jurisdiction. Canadian
contributions to the international fund are paid from the ship
source oil pollution fund.
Bill S-4 will implement the provisions of the 1992 protocols to
the 1969 and 1971 conventions.
Under the 1992 protocols the amount of compensation available
for pollution damage caused by oil tankers was increased from
$122 million per incident to approximately $270 million per
incident.
The 1992 protocols also bring a number of important changes
including a provision to make it clear that shipowners are
liable for the costs of reasonable measures of reinstatement
where oil pollution damage from a ship results in the impairment
of the environment.
The proposed legislation will enable Canada to follow many other
countries which have terminated their membership in the 1971
regime and moved to the 1992 regime. If we do not take the same
action as others we will continue to be one of the major members
still under the old regime. While not entitled to any improved
compensation, Canada would also then be exposed to higher
contributions to the international fund due to the reduced
membership of nations under the old regime.
With the passage of Bill S-4 Canada will now be in the position
to accede to the 1992 protocols.
I urge all my colleagues to join us on the government side and
lend their support in order to pass this bill so that it can
receive royal assent as soon as possible.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I was rather amused at the hon. member's long
preamble in which he thanked everybody in sight for their
co-operative efforts in this bill. He included the
Standing Committee on Transport.
I believe the current standing committee had about as much input
into this legislation as I will have into the election of the
next pope.
There is an interesting coincidence here that we are debating
Bill S-4, a bill relating to marine liability, just after the
signing of a new international agreement on inter-regional action
to eliminate substandard shipping. On March 24 and 25
delegations from 33 marine nations, European commissions, the
International Maritime Organization and the International Labour
Organization all gathered in Vancouver to discuss the tightening
and control of safety, labour and environmental standards of
merchant vessels
1335
There was a remarkable degree of consensus on the need to
continue stringent inspections and to control vessels, especially
bulk carriers and tankers when they enter seaports. There was
also agreement in principle on the international exchange of
inspection data in order to establish black lists of consistently
offending vessels which would then be barred from the ports of
all nationals represented at the conference.
International control of the safety of ships received its
greatest impetus just 20 years ago with the grounding and
break-up of the Amoco Cadiz off the coast of France. This
led to stringent European port state control under the Paris
memorandum of understanding of 1982. The Paris memorandum of
understanding provided the pattern for the Tokyo memorandum in
1993, a memorandum of which Canada was a founding member. Canada
subsequently joined the Paris MOU in 1994. Canada and Russia are
therefore members of both groups, the only two countries that
are.
Under these memoranda any ship which has not been inspected by a
co-operating state during the previous six months, most bulk
carriers and tankers and all passenger vessels are subject to
inspection upon arrival at a seaport. The inspection target for
each country in the Paris memorandum is 25%. For the Tokyo
memorandum it is 50% of ships in the entire region with most
inspections taking place in the wealthier countries, very few in
the less developed.
The number of substandard ships plying the seas is mind
boggling. Of 29,700 ships subjected to port inspections in 1996,
8% had to be detained in port until they remedied deficiencies.
In Canada the rate of detentions for the last two years has been
10%. Deficiencies may range all the way from substandard crew
accommodations through defective or inadequate firefighting or
lifesaving equipment to structural defects so severe that a
vessel is quite literally unseaworthy. The latter of course are
disasters waiting to happen.
The names of detained vessels are published quarterly as a
warning to other port authorities to give them special attention.
These reports are also available to shippers who might wish to be
somewhat selective of those to whom they entrust their goods.
Unfortunately rogue vessels operating below standards or at the
thin edge of acceptability may offer rates as much as 15% below
those of legitimate carriers.
An ongoing problem referred to by almost every national
delegation at the conference is the failure of flag states to
enforce adequate standards at their end. One delegate compared
flag state control to the fence at the top of a cliff and port
state control to the ambulance sitting at the bottom. If states
offering flags of convenience were diligent or even interested in
marine safety, receiving ports would not have to be nearly so
diligent and the necessity to detain vessels for repair would be
much less common.
However, with most trading nations now subscribing to port
control of vessels, it is becoming increasingly difficult for
unsafe ships to find a berth. Moreover, the practice of naming
and shaming ships that have been detained points fingers at the
flag states with the lowest standards and will tend to discourage
insurers and responsible shippers from doing business with ships
carrying those flags.
On the whole the conference was one of those rare international
frolics that actually reached some useful conclusions and which
should contribute to greater co-operation and information sharing
to the general benefit of all countries.
A cursory overview of the new maximum liabilities set out in
Bill S-4 clearly indicates that the minor costs of port
inspections compared to the costs of major marine disasters, not
to mention the preservation of human lives and protection of the
environment, make inspections one of the world's best
investments.
1340
With the ever increasing co-operation between maritime nations
with respect to safety and marine liability it is important that
our liability legislation be harmonized with that of other
countries. Bill S-4 accomplishes this. Increased liabilities
will add a little to the cost of marine insurance but commercial
vessels insured in mutual protection and indemnity associations
will probably see no substantive increase in insurance rates
because coverage already provided by mutual associations is
unlimited. Their rates are already proportionately high.
Pleasure crafts are mostly already insured to the levels of
liability set forth in Bill S-4, much as private automobiles
usually have far more coverage than the minimum required by law.
There is no question that commercial shipowners not covered in
mutual associations will have increased insurance costs. The new
rates based on the size and frequency of claims will be an
encouragement to commercial shippers to maintain a decent safety
record. If all major maritime states subscribe to the new regime
the costs of insurance which are ultimately borne by shippers
through higher rates should be evenly and more or less equitably
distributed among the trading nations.
One of the most important features of this bill is that the
limit of liability on an oil spill by a tanker not covered by a
mutual association will be increased from $120 million per
incident to $270 million. That may not be too relevant because I
believe that most tankers are in mutual associations and
therefore have unlimited liability. For the few cases where
there are ships with nothing but their individual insurance
policies, that very large increase in the limit of liability is
very significant. The oil spill liability limits for smaller
ships will also be increased but these increases will be
proportionate to their gross tonnage.
All in all, Bill S-4 is useful legislation. The Reform Party
supports Bill S-4 even though we are going to have hold our noses
with regard to its origin in hog hollow, that other place down
the hall.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois, I am pleased to address Bill S-4, an act to amend the
Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability).
The Bloc Quebecois will support this bill, which is excellent
since it extends maritime liability to shipowners. We think it
will allow us to avoid situations such as the case of the Irving
Whale, where a disaster occurred but maritime liability was
inadequate. The proposed legislation sets specific limits.
While we support the bill, it should be pointed out that it was
first introduced in 1996, as Bill C-58.
Bill C-58 had reached committee stage and had been amended by the
Standing Committee on Transport which tabled its report to the
House of Commons on December 11, 1996.
However, the bill died on the Order Paper because, members will
recall, the Prime Minister called an early election in April
1997, only three and a half years into his first mandate.
But the legislation followed its course, and has now been sent
here by the Senate. However, if it had passed third reading in
the spring of 1997, the bill would already be in effect.
1345
Bill S-4 basically seeks to implement old international
conventions, namely the 1976 Convention on Limitations of
Liability for Maritime Claims, the 1996 Protocol, the 1992
Protocol to amend the 1969 International Convention on Civil
Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, and the 1971 International
Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for
Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage.
We are talking about a period of more than 25 years. This is
rather astonishing, given the context. I remember because I was
on the Standing Committee on Transport in the fall of 1996. It
was urgent and absolutely essential that this bill be passed in
order to harmonize our legislation with that of other countries.
This bill, without wishing to detract from it, is only now
becoming law. In my opinion, this tells us that the government
does not view shipping as very important.
There is another thing that should not be forgotten. During the
1993 election campaign, the Liberal Party candidates in the
Quebec City area—including the present Prime Minister's chief of
staff, who was a Liberal candidate in the riding of
Québec—promised to hold a summit on the future of shipbuilding.
Shipbuilding and shipping are related, in my opinion, because
there cannot be any navigating until ships are built.
It happens that my riding is home to the most important shipyard
in Quebec, the Lévis shipyard, which, in its heyday, had 3,000
employees, but which now has about 500. The Lévis shipyard is
not the only shipyard in this situation. Other shipyards
elsewhere in Canada, including Saint John Shipbuilding, the two
Great Lakes shipyards and shipyards in western Canada, are also
in a slump.
The Liberal candidates at the time, however, said that, given
the number of jobs involved, something absolutely had to be
done. But, one election later, we are still trying to pass a
bill that will harmonize our legislation with an international
convention Canada helped negotiate. But it is one of the last
of the major nations to pass a bill harmonizing its legislation
with this convention.
The Liberal government therefore does not seem to think shipping
is very important.
Coming back to the summit on the future of shipyards, when they
were in opposition in 1993, the Liberals said that it was
extremely important that a summit be held the following year,
but they did not hold one.
The years went by, and then, in August of last year, the
premiers met in St. Andrew's, at the invitation of the former
premier of New Brunswick, Mr. McKenna. This bill was on the
agenda, and all those present adopted the position that
something had to be done quickly, and this was not just any old
group, but all the premiers together, who were in agreement on
this.
Over the months, a number of stakeholders, such as the
Shipbuilders' Association of Canada, Canadian shipbuilders and
shipyard workers, expressed their views. I want to take this
opportunity to congratulate Mrs. Verreault, CEO of Les Méchins
shipyard in the Gaspé, who worked so hard to inform the various
stakeholders and the government.
1350
Unfortunately, cabinet is turning a deaf ear, so much so that,
during their recent convention, Liberal supporters passed a
resolution, reminding their own government that they absolutely
have to do something for the shipping industry and especially
the shipbuiding industry.
We all like to watch ships go by. As can be seen from Lévis and
as many members from ridings located along the St. Lawrence can
tell you, there are a lot of ships out there, but unfortunately,
very few of them are built in Canada.
It is a bit disappointing to see that the Liberal government
fails to realize that this means of transportation, which is the
most cost efficient, energy efficient and environmentally
friendly, is important.
That is why members from this side of the House and some members
from the other opposition parties, including the hon. member for
Saint John, keep reminding the government that something
absolutely has to be done for the shipping industry. All
opposition parties agree on this. As I said before, even
supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada agree on this. Despite
this growing consensus, the government refuses to budge.
One of those who should normally address this issue is the
Minister of Finance, but he does not dare to take part in this
debate, because he says he is in a conflict of interest.
He refuses to address the issue, because, as he puts it: “You
know, I have an interest in Canada Steamship Lines. Even though
it is held in trust, I cannot talk about it”. He neither defends
nor promotes this industry, so nothing is being done. Nothing.
As a member representing a riding where there is a big shipyard,
every time I hear opposition members talk about this issue, I
hasten to support them. I try to do everything I can to
contribute to every debate we have in this House that deals with
shipping, the Canada Shipping Act and shipbuilding.
I have been speaking on this subject for five years. But until
something is done about it, I think it is the duty of a member
of Parliament to raise this issue in the House during debate to
show Canadians how important it is.
I will quote some figures since time allows me to do so.
Shipping is a vital component of trade. With an annual volume of
224 million tons, shipping contributes $2 billion to our GDP
each year. But let us not forget that the vast majority of these
ships are not Canadian.
I will quote more figures. Shipping would allow us to maximize
the use of fuel—we do have to use fuel for various things—by
926% compared to other means of transportation. It would also
allow us to reduce accident risks by 610%.
I will make a comparison, using as an example a ton of goods and
five litres of fuel.
Here are some telling figures. By plane, the distance covered
would be six kilometres only; by truck, it would be 100
kilometres; by train, 333 kilometres; and by boat, 500
kilometres. The difference is huge.
1355
These figures were quoted by Mrs. Verreault in a presentation
she made on shipping. One laker, a ship that sails the Great
Lakes, can carry 25,000 tons of grain, but it would take 500
railway cars carrying 50 tons each or 833 trucks carrying 30
tons each. These figures may seem incredible, but they are real.
They were verified.
All I want to say is that we must give more consideration to
shipping. I invite all my colleagues to do so.
Often, just before question period, we see more colleagues from
different parties return to the House. Therefore, it is just the
right time to get the attention of those who just came in before
question period so that members on the government side listen to
what the opposition has to say.
I also invite them to listen to what their constituents have to
say. The millennium scholarship fund is fine, but what their
constituents want for the next millennium is to have means of
transportation that are more environmentally friendly.
International summits were held on that subject. This year, in
Kyoto, there were discussions on the reduction of greenhouse
gases, which have a detrimental effect on the ozone layer and
the environment.
In conclusion, I invite all my colleagues, especially my Liberal
colleagues, to urge cabinet members to put this issue on the
agenda and to ask the industry minister to examine this and see
to it that a shipbuilding policy is finally developed.
The Speaker: We will resume debate after question period. The
member for Cumberland—Colchester will have the floor.
It being 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MAPLE SYRUP FESTIVAL
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am proud today to rise and advise the House of a special
occasion which will occur this Saturday, April 4, in Elmira,
Ontario.
As the dreary days of winter draw to a close, each year
residents of the Waterloo—Wellington riding and visitors from
around the world converge on Elmira to celebrate the tapping of
maple trees and the promise of spring.
This year our riding celebrates the 34th annual maple syrup
festival. On behalf of my constituents I would like to invite
hon. members and all Canadians to attend this wonderful Canadian
event.
I would also like to acknowledge the many volunteers whose
tireless efforts each year ensure the continued success of the
festival. All residents of Waterloo—Wellington thank them for
their dedication.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I taught
math for 31 years and I want to talk math with the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
A total of $5.5 billion is targeted for about 400,000 on reserve
natives. If we divide that we get almost $14,000 per person or
about $55,000 per year per average family.
How can a family with a take-home income of $55,000 live in
abject poverty? It is easy. They do not get the money.
Government officials, native officials, band councils, chiefs,
lawyers and endless advisers get the money. There is nothing
left for ordinary band members.
What happens when one of them points this out? They get hassled
and threatened. What happens if they write a letter to the
minister? Their letter is sent to their hasslers. What happens
if someone asks for a impartial independent inquiry? They are
ignored and called names.
I urge the minister to do her math, recognize that there is a
big problem and get to the root of the matter with an independent
inquiry.
* * *
POULTRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, why did the chicken cross the road? It
was to get to the food bank.
The chicken farmers of Canada are calling upon all members of
parliament and senators, their families and their staff to enter
the great Canadian chicken cook-off recipe contest.
1400
For the winner we will ship 1,000 kilograms of Canadian chicken
to the food bank, soup kitchen or charity of choice. That is
enough chicken to make over 3,000 meals for Canadians in
constituencies the real winners.
The information on the contest has been sent to all MPs' and
senators' offices. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your recipe.
* * *
THOMAS D'ARCY MCGEE
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Thomas D'Arcy McGee was a journalist, poet, Irish patriot,
Canadian statesman and Father of Confederation.
During the 1860s he was the first and most eloquent Canadian
political leader to argue for a union of all the British North
American provinces into one great nation spanning the continent
from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In his many brilliant speeches
he held forth a new nationality in which peoples of two major
languages and many cultures and religions would overcome their
differences to unite and form a great new nation, Canada.
April 7 will mark the 130th anniversary of the tragic
assassination of D'Arcy McGee. A hundred and thirty years later
we live in a Canada which is the realization of his vision and
his prediction, a prosperous and peaceful Canada where disparate
peoples live together harmoniously.
This is the Canada D'Arcy McGee dreamed of, worked for and even
died for. As Canadians we owe him our thanks. Vive le Canada.
* * *
FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to bring attention to fetal alcohol syndrome or FAS
which is having devastating effects on its victims, their
families and society.
Last week in my riding of Prince Albert 100 people had to be
turned away from an overcrowded presentation about this
burgeoning problem.
Here are some of the facts. Fetal alcohol syndrome and its
milder form of fetal alcohol effects have been called the leading
cause of mental retardation in the western world. A recent study
conducted in British Columbia showed that 23% of its young
offender population had FAS and a further 12% had a milder form.
It is estimated that 15% of adult prison populations suffer from
one or both.
FAS is not reversible. It is a life sentence. It would be
appropriate for the House to act to end this national disaster.
The unborn have the right to a full life unhindered by fetal
alcohol syndrome.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR SHERBROOKE
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate the member for Sherbrooke for his courage and his
dedication. It is not just anyone who would accept to set aside
their aspirations and leave their team to venture into troubled
waters.
Following the October 1995 referendum, I took the time to thank
him and congratulate him for his helpful participation in the
referendum campaign. It was the least I could do.
To all those who would now want to depict him as the emissary of
so-called English Canada, a most divisive expression if there is
one, I say “rubbish”.
This young man, the member for Sherbrooke, who is leaving this
House today deserves, as does his family, the support of all
those who believe in this great and noble collective enterprise
that Canada represents.
[English]
On behalf of the people of Ottawa—Vanier, I assure him of my
support and I wish him and his family Godspeed.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR SHERBROOKE
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
leader of the Conservative Party made an important decision that
changes the political landscape in both Canada and Quebec. If he
becomes leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, the work that
lies ahead will have a definite impact on the future of Quebec.
The member for Sherbrooke will have to deal more closely with a
government that wants to separate Quebec from the rest of
Canada. We have no doubt that this leadership candidate will be
able to convince Quebeckers of the benefits of being part of
Canada.
As he was saying, he is well aware of the reality of both Canada
and Quebec. His expertise will be a major asset in defending
Quebec's interests within Canadian federalism.
We wish him and his family good luck and we will support him in
his efforts and his commitment to make Quebec a society that is
determined to protect and promote its culture and its language
and to take its place within the Canadian federation.
Good luck, Jean!
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
following are the words of Steven Harrison from my riding:
As you may recall I contracted hepatitis C in 1987 following a
liver transplant. Because of the hepatitis C I had to undergo a
second transplant in 1995.
My wife was nine months pregnant with our second child and I was
dying. I had my second transplant and all was well until October
1996. Then all the symptoms of hepatitis C hit. Fatigue, weight
loss and I lost my ability to work and support my family.
In past months the government has admitted liability and
promised fair compensation. Last Friday the package was
announced and what a disappointment. According to my math it
worked out to approximately $50,000 total to each person. The
deal made with AIDS victims from bad blood pays them $30,000 per
year. Like them I am sick and I am dying from my disease. Why
is my life worth less than theirs and why should my family live
on welfare in poverty because someone in the Red Cross wanted to
save some money. Please help!
* * *
1405
JOHN DAVIDSON
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, three
years ago my constituent, John Davidson, pushed his son Jesse in
his wheelchair across Ontario. That 3,300 kilometre journey
raised well over $1 million which was put toward research into
genetic diseases.
Now John prepares for an even greater journey. Starting next
Friday, April 10, in St. John's, Newfoundland, John Davidson
begins his walk of a minimum of 30 kilometres a day for gene
research, arriving in British Columbia hopefully 250 days later.
“Jesse's Journey—A Father's Tribute” is also dedicated to
hard working fathers who constantly undertake to provide the best
for their families and communities. John Davidson is such a
father, and I will join him as he starts his journey.
I urge my colleagues across the House to welcome him in their
ridings and Canadians everywhere to support him and his cause.
“Get ready Newfoundland, you are going to be first”.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government appears to have learned nothing from its
disastrous handling of the MAI. After many Canadians have
expressed their opposition to the MAI and to the government's
overall uncritical approach to trade and investment
liberalization designed by and for the multinational
corporations, the trade minister will soon be off to Chile for
talks on a free trade agreement of the Americas.
Despite promises to do things differently this time, it appears
that once again Canadians will have no say in the matter until
things are well under way.
When will the Liberals truly engage the Canadian public in all
the different globalization options instead of pursuing one
particular model at the expense of all others? If they did so, I
am sure they would find that Canadians would prefer something
other than a race to the bottom presided over by corporate
rulers.
Canadians would prefer a global economy that protects the
workers, the environment and the right of democracies to choose
from a variety of political options, not just those right wing
ones enshrined in trade agreements.
Shame on the Liberals for repeatedly embracing what they
repeatedly said they would not do.
* * *
THE LATE MAXWELL COHEN
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the late Maxwell Cohen was a long time professor of international
law and dean of the faculty of law at McGill University, founding
president of the Canadian branch of the International Law
Association, co-chairman of the Canada-U.S. International Joint
Commission and judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice
in The Hague.
He was a scholar and administrator with high imagination and
intellectual courage with the capacity and will to innovate and
to modernize outmoded classical legal doctrine.
As a scholar and writer he had a remarkable capacity for
synthesis of disparate ideas and a sparkling literary style. He
was throughout his lifetime on the leading edge of legal change.
With his contemporaries, Percy Corbett, Horace Read and N. A. M.
Mackenzie, he was one of the founders of international law in
Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government of Quebec is announcing today its new aboriginal
affairs policy.
In spite of their tough social and economic situation,
aboriginals in Quebec are striving for self-government and
self-sufficiency.
This new Quebec policy is more positive, open and beneficial to
the aboriginals. It will provide them with greater recognition
and the flexibility they need to develop as they have always
wanted to.
The new policy brings the Government of Quebec closer to the
aboriginal communities and setting up a process for a more
harmonious relationship with the aboriginals of Quebec.
On the 20th anniversary of the creation of the Quebec aboriginal
affairs secretariat, the Bloc Quebecois is proud to support this
initiative undertaken by the Government of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
BISHOP'S COLLEGE
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
each member of the House will acknowledge that educating our
young people is key to creating a competitive country.
Young people in Newfoundland know this as well and they have done
something about it.
1410
Today I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the
students and staff of Bishop's College in St. John's West.
Bishop's College high school and Nortel have recently been named
the winners of a national education partnerships award by the
Conference Board of Canada.
Bishop's College and Nortel worked together to create Vision
2000, which is a plan to create a model school for students using
technology. This kind of initiative, ingenuity and creativity
will make the country a tough competitor in the next millennium.
I am proud to say that the students displaying such drive are
Newfoundlanders.
One level three student remarked that the partnering provided
students with the opportunity to make themselves into the kind of
employees that employers were looking for.
Everyone here will agree that this is the kind of partnership
that works and should be encouraged in all our communities.
* * *
[Translation]
FIGHT AGAINST CANCER
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, imagine a world
where cancer would just be a vague and sad memory. Impossible,
you say. Yet, thousands of men and women in Canada and in Quebec
share this dream.
Even though cancer is not yet a thing of the past, we have to
realize that great progress has been made these last few
decades. More and more, we understand and screen early symptoms
of cancer more quickly and treat them before it is too late.
To put it in concrete terms, let me point out that the survival
rate of children with leukaemia has jumped from 50% to 83% in
less than 30 years.
For testicular cancer, the survival rate has increased from 73%
to 95%. The recent discovery of the gene responsible for breast
cancer has revived the research for treatment and prevention of
this terrible disease.
The fight must go on. This being cancer awareness month, I urge
all members of this House and Canadians to find the way to
overcome cancer.
* * *
[English]
HOCKEY
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
despite my best effort to maintain a modest demeanour, I find
that I am once again compelled to be on my feet for the purposes
of informing the House of the tremendous success of groups from
within Huron—Bruce.
This past weekend, the Blyth midget and bantam hockey teams both
skated their way to victory in the all Ontario championships in
their respective divisions. These accomplishments, although not
easy, were less than a total surprise to the residents of Blyth.
In fact, in recent weeks the local newspapers have carried
headlines such as “Midget Bulldogs keep on winning” and
“Bantams poised to take OMHA title”.
Without question the success of the two teams is a direct result
of the dedication and commitment of the players and coaching
staff. I ask the members of the House to join with me in
congratulating Blyth's championship teams. Once again
Huron—Bruce manages to score the winning goal.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government needs transplant surgery. The Liberal government
is chronically ill. It has made our health care system so sick
it needs intensive care. The Liberals are not responding to
therapy. They created a three tiered health system with a double
standard.
First, there is the regular system that is sick and failing us.
The second tier is where Canadians wait and wait for treatment,
even three to four hours for emergency treatment in Surrey
Central. Third, rich people get treatment in the U.S. anyway.
The Liberals decide who to help and who not to help: a double
standard. The Liberals help some hepatitis C victims but not
other hepatitis C victims.
Liberal backbenchers are squirming and crying out in pain
because of their government's cruel and heartless torture of
Canadians sick from tainted blood.
We do not have a health system in Canada. We have a sickness
system. The Liberals have a health problem: they have no vision
and they cannot hear.
* * *
SOCIÉTÉ SAINT-JEAN BAPTISTE
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Guy Bouthillier of the Société Saint-Jean
Baptiste has taken ethnocentrism to new and dangerous heights by
declaring that only Quebeckers who have a mastery of the French
language should be allowed to vote in Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Parizeau also blamed the ethnic minorities for the
Parti Quebecois' defeat at the second referendum.
When I think about it, after hearing the then deputy prime
minister, Bernard Landry, also blame the ethnic vote and
verbally abuse Anita Martinez by saying “Why do we welcome you
in our country? So that you can vote no?”, I am not surprised to
hear Mr. Bouthillier state that only those who have a mastery of
the French Language should be allowed to vote.
1415
Ethnocentrism and exclusion are values shared by Messrs.
Parizeau, Landry and Bouthillier, but not by all Quebeckers.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister assured the House that 13
governments were solidly behind his decision to abandon thousands
of hepatitis C victims infected through the government's faulty
blood system. Today it is starting to unravel. British Columbia
Premier Glen Clark has had the courage to say “I am not at all
comfortable with the compensation package”.
If Premier Clark is beginning to see that abandoning the sick is
wrong, why can the Prime Minister not see it too?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was privileged to be with the premier before his
meeting with the press. He did not take that occasion to express
to me that he was not in agreement with his own minister of
health.
All I can do is repeat that the ministers of health speaking on
behalf of their governments have all agreed to this deal. Perhaps
there should be a conversation between the B.C. minister of
health and his premier.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a sign of courage to admit when one is wrong. It
is a sign of leadership to change course when one is doing the
wrong thing.
Today Quebec is talking about a no fault insurance system for
victims of tainted blood. Premier Clark says he is not at all
comfortable with the compensation package and is beginning to
rethink his position. Other premiers and provincial governments
will likely follow.
Does the Prime Minister want to be the last government leader in
the country to admit he is wrong, or will he start to lead?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all governments had many occasions to discuss this.
There were many meetings between all the ministers of health in
the land. All the ministers, including the federal minister,
submitted a referendum to the cabinet. The federal government put
$800 million into the deal and the provincial governments only
$300 million.
If they are not comfortable with this amount, perhaps they
should match the federal contribution.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to read some quotes about the hepatitis C
tragedy.
Here is one: “Let's face it, if we are compassionate, we have
to help these people”. Here is another: “When people are sick,
you don't discriminate”. And this one: “We'll have to try to
find a way. We're responsible”. Who said these things? The
Prime Minister's backbenchers.
If the Prime Minister will not listen to the victims, if he will
not listen to the premiers who are having second thoughts, if he
will not listen to us, will he at least listen to his own members
and change his mind on this decision?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have had discussions on this. Everybody does not
always agree with me every time. I wish they would, but that is
not always the case. We have had discussions and we have a
responsibility. We are meeting our responsibilities. The
Minister of Health has given some extremely good reasons why we
made this decision.
Between 1986 and 1990 there was a failure on the part of all
governments concerning tainted blood and we have taken the
responsible—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is about negligence and responsibility. Many Canadians got
AIDS from Canada's tainted blood system. Those victims were all
compensated, even those who contracted AIDS before there was a
screening test available.
The Prime Minister agreed with AIDS compensation then and it is
still being paid out. In fact, the Liberals demanded that
compensation for all of them. However, now he refuses to show
hepatitis C victims the same compassion.
When did the Prime Minister lose his ability to tell right from
wrong?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
just to set the record straight, first of all the AIDS package
did not cover everyone. In fact, it was left to us in this most
recent announcement last week to include those who were infected
by partners or parents.
We completed what was started 10 years ago.
1420
Second, the AIDS package as I see it from this distance of 10
years was based on exactly the same principle as the proposal we
made for the hepatitis C settlement. Namely, at that time the
government implicitly acknowledged fault or negligence in not
having put systems in place to look for HIV contaminants in the
blood. Same principle then, same principle now.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is nonsense. The principle that was in effect then was that
there was no screening available and they still got that. That
compensation was fair and we agree with that. We were glad that
the government finally came through with that.
The minister talks about setting the record the straight. I
want to set the record straight here today and say that this
government is wrong. They know there are problems in its own
backbenches. The governments of the provinces are now starting to
come onside and say there is something wrong here and they need
to have another look at it.
There is no shame in saying “Maybe we made a mistake and we
were wrong”. The decision to abandon these thousands of victims
is wrong and the Prime Minister knows it.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again let me set the record straight.
The government of the province of Quebec has reaffirmed as
recently as an hour ago in a letter I received from Jean Rochon,
the minister of health, that it fully and unconditionally
supports this settlement offer that has been made by 13
governments. Allow me to quote:
[Translation]
Minister Rochon said again that he was in favour.
[English]
Governments stand together, every government of all the
provinces and the territories. This morning Mr. Clark said—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Tuesday, the Prime Minister told us that the millennium
scholarship bill was flexible enough to include an eventual
agreement between Quebec City and Ottawa.
This morning, however, legal adviser Kristina Knopp told the
Standing Committee on Finance that the bill should be amended so
that it could include an agreement with delegation of authority.
In light of Ms Knopp's comments, will the Prime Minister agree
that he should suspend consideration of the provisions of Bill
C-36, or promise to introduce an amendment providing for a
mechanism that would allow inclusion of an agreement between
Quebec City and Ottawa?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there can always be an administrative agreement and it is not
necessary to change the bill in order to be able to agree that
the citizens of Quebec may receive millennium scholarships just
as other citizens of Canada may receive them. Mr. Bouchard
himself said that it was entirely normal for the federal
government to be able to indicate to students that it was the
one paying for the scholarships.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Mr.
Bouchard showed his open-mindedness at the start of these
negotiations by saying that there was no problem: if the
federal government wanted to be visible, that was fine.
But the question put to the legal adviser this morning is a
clear indication that the present bill does not allow for an
administrative agreement.
I ask the Prime Minister, who has just said that an
administrative agreement would be possible, why he does not
include a provision for an administrative agreement in this bill
so that negotiations can reach a successful conclusion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we were at the meeting and we did not discuss the need to change
the bill. I said clearly that the Canadian government had
decided to have a millennium project that would take the form of
scholarships to help prepare young people for the 21st century
and Mr. Bouchard recognized that this was an entirely logical
goal.
He then recognized that it was entirely appropriate for the
Government of Canada to ensure that recipients were made clearly
aware that what they were receiving were millennium
scholarships, the Government of Canada's proposed millennium
project.
* * *
ACQUISITION OF SUBMARINES
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we read in the
newspapers today that the federal government is about to buy
four used submarines from Great Britain, at a cost of $800
million.
Considering that the government just made unprecedented cuts to
health, education and employment insurance, is it a priority to
buy submarines?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are still in discussions with the
British with respect to this matter. When those discussions are
finalized, we will have an announcement to make one way or the
other.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we do not want
to be told when the submarines will be bought. We want to
discuss the issue with the government and ask questions.
Since the cold war is over, it is hard to figure out what
purpose these four used submarines will serve. What are the
government's priorities? Instead of investing in people, it is
investing in armaments. Why?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we always believe first and foremost in
investing in people, investing in what the people of Canada need
and the sovereignty of the people of Canada. Protection of that
sovereignty is part and parcel of that. We believe in giving our
Canadian forces quality equipment because they are quality people
doing a quality job.
As to the specifics of this matter, the matter is still under
discussion with the government of the U.K. I have nothing
further to add at this time.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health says that all the provinces are
behind him in his cruel decision to exclude tens of thousands of
victims of the blood tragedy, but today we have learned that that
is not the case. If that is not the case and it was the federal
government that killed the plan for fair compensation, will the
minister finally assure the House today that he will go back to
the provinces, back to the table and propose a no fault
compensation plan as proposed by Justice Krever?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not think it is helpful to allow a myth to grow about the
provinces' position. It is very clear that the provinces support
this offer.
I spoke this morning with Minister Rochon of Quebec. He
reaffirmed that he is behind this offer. He put the same thing
in writing in a letter to all health ministers.
This morning Premier Clark said what we all feel. We all feel
uncomfortable about this difficult decision. The premier also
made it clear he acknowledges there is an agreement. His
minister's office confirmed it supports it.
Let us keep the facts clear. All provincial governments joined
with the federal government in supporting this position.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, let us look at the facts today. At least one provincial
health minister said the federal government should have thrown
more money into the pot. Another province will act on its own to
help the forgotten victims. Today the premier of a third
province has said that the issue is not closed.
I ask the minister, will he stop hiding behind the provinces,
hiding behind the lawyers and come up with a fair compensation
package for all the victims of hepatitis C?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member misses the point. This is not politics. This is
not partisanship. This is policy. All governments, New
Democratic governments, Conservative governments and Liberal
governments joined together and came to the same conclusion. In
the chronology of these events in this awful tragedy there was a
period during which something could and should have been done. As
a result we are offering compensation to victims who contracted
hepatitis C during that period.
That is a position shared by all governments. All of us believe
it is the right thing to do.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, West
Germans were aware of the process to secure blood prior to 1986.
In the meantime Canada was purchasing contaminated U.S. prison
system blood products for its people.
Justice Krever stated in his report “Compensating some needy
sufferers and not others cannot in my opinion be justified”. It
cannot be justified by an Canadian. With this in mind, why is the
minister refusing to treat all victims equally?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
most people who look at the facts of this awful tragedy
acknowledge, as Mr. Justice Krever did, that 1986 was the point
that separated one stage of history from the other.
It was in 1986 that internationally, governments started putting
in place methods to test blood for contaminants like hepatitis C.
There was a risk before that but only afterward was there an
international standard of a test.
It is for that reason that Conservative governments, Liberal
governments and NDP governments across the country have chosen
that period for the compensation of victims.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, whether
we are Liberal, whether we are Conservative, or whether we are
NDP, we have to do what is right for the people. We cannot have
two standards.
1430
Will the federal Minister of Health agree today to sit down with
his provincial counterparts to discuss a more just compensation
package for all victims, seeing as now the ministers at the
provincial level are saying we have to take another look?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, it is not the case that provincial ministers are
walking away from the agreement. All provincial ministers
support the agreement.
Second, I sat down with the provincial ministers for months and
the result was an agreement to which we are all a party and which
provides for government responsibility where it should be.
The member talks about doing the right thing by the people. The
right thing by the people is having a government that takes the
responsible if sometimes difficult and painful decisions based on
good public policy.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just ten
minutes before question period today we pulled off this
information from the Prime Minister's website on the Krever
commission: “We accept the conclusions contained in Justice
Krever's report about the federal role in what happened. We
accept those conclusions in their entirety and without
reservation”.
If Justice Krever said compensate all the victims, my question
is why is this website not worth the paper—
The Speaker: Before the hon. minister answers the
question, please do not use any props in question period.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the things that comes through clearly from the conclusions
of Mr. Justice Krever is that in 1986, commencing in 1986 and
going forward, there was a time when those responsible for the
blood system could have and should have acted to prevent
infections but they did not. It is as a result of that
conclusion as to responsibility that the governments of Canada
have joined together to make an agreement that we will offer
compensation to those infected during that period. That result
flows directly from the conclusions of Mr. Justice Krever on the
facts of this matter.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I quoted
the Prime Minister's website. Let me quote again so that
everyone can hear what Justice Krever really said. The first
recommendation in his report is that: “Without delay the
provinces and territories devise statutory no fault schemes for
compensating persons who suffer serious problems with the blood
supply. Everyone needs compensation”.
Which one of these individuals over here is the frequent flyer
without the f?
The Speaker: I am not sure that was a question. If the
hon. minister wishes to address himself to the statement he may
do so.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the conclusions of Mr. Justice Krever were clear, including the
factual analysis of when governments could have and should have
acted.
He made recommendations and in November I spoke on the day his
report was tabled. I pledged then to study the recommendations,
which we did, with provincial ministers to look at the
recommendation on compensation. I know he recommended that
everybody be compensated.
We decided the right thing to do for governments was to
compensate those who were hurt because those responsible had not
acted. That is the position. That is our conclusion. That is
the position of all the governments in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The heritage minister is of the opinion that Option Canada's
case is closed.
1435
Yet, that phoney agency managed to spend $4.8 million during the
referendum campaign and still refuses to tell the minister how
it spent that money.
Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who was
responsible for federal activities during the referendum
campaign, tell us how Option Canada spent this $4.8 million?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of heritage on an ongoing basis in this
House has replied to the Bloc on the issue of options Canada. She
has provided over 100 pages of documentation. They simply do not
want to accept the reality. It has been explained in this House
very clearly and the issue is closed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
information of the House, we did get a list of expenditures, but
the figures were blacked out. We could not read any of them.
How can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration join the
Minister of Canadian Heritage in the “amnesiacs' club”, since
she took part in weekly meetings to prepare every detail of the
federal strategy during the referendum campaign?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is worried about blacked out
items in documents, maybe she should go to the PQ government and
ask about plan O. What happened to the information on plan O?
Why was that not released? Why has a plan concocted by the PQ
government at the end of the referendum been blacked out? Maybe
she should ask the PQ government.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the House the minister compared the risk of
infection with hepatitis C to the risks involved with many
medical treatments. It is beside the point that heart problems
and cancers cannot always be treated successfully because when
people enter the hospital they already have those heart problems
and cancers. They are not infected with them by the health
system. How can the unsuccessful treatment of an already
existing disease be equated with the infliction of a new disease
on an unsuspecting patient?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member must know that for years there has been a very
broad debate about where individual responsibility ends and when
governments should pay compensation if someone is harmed in the
system. In 1990 or 1991 Robert Prichard, now president of the
University of Toronto, did a rather complete study on that
subject for government. It has been the subject of public debate
from time to time.
In this case it was up to governments to look at the history of
this tragedy and decide where it was that governments should step
up and say they would compensate because there was fault in the
system.
To take another approach—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wanuskewin.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would be very disappointed if I took my car into a shop to be
fixed and it could not find the problem but I would be even more
upset if it not only could not find the problem but banged up the
doors, ripped the upholstery, cracked the windshield and blew the
motor.
Will the minister admit that all those who were infected with
hepatitis C were better off before they entered the Canadian
health system than after they were injected with poison blood.
Were they better off before?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think the member knows that the medical system, the health care
system, medical procedures that are carried out in hospitals
every day carry with them certain risks. There is a risk-benefit
ratio in every medical procedure.
We are saying that we have not yet approached the point as a
society where we are prepared to say that any time anything goes
wrong for whatever reason there will be public compensation. We
may get to that point in years ahead but at the moment the public
policy choice is to compensate where governments had
responsibility and should have acted.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
In an interview with the editorial team at the Ottawa Citizen,
the Minister of Finance is reported as having stated that
employment insurance premiums did not really kill jobs in
Canada.
How can the Minister of Finance say today the exact opposite of
what he stated in his 1994 budget, where he claimed that
reducing premiums would generate 40,000 jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to all economic analyses, the main thing is not to
raise employment insurance premiums. We saw what happened during
the 1989-1992 recession.
When premiums are maintained at a stable level, businesses are
free to hire people and they do.
1440
What counts most is the reduction in interest rates, as that is
what creates jobs. This requires healthy public finances, which
unfortunately precludes reducing premiums any further.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, analyses must
have changed very quickly, and the minister has certainly
forgotten what he told us.
I think the minister cares about job creation and I wonder, as
Quebec did, why he does not quickly and substantially reduce
employment insurance premiums especially in light of the huge
surplus in the employment insurance fund?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again, the hon. member must be aware of the fact that our
employment insurance premiums are lower than any similar premium
in the United States and most European countries.
At the same time, the hon. member should know that, when we took
office, premiums were scheduled to rise to $3.30 under the
previous government. We reduced them to $2.70, the single
largest drop ever in such a time frame.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another quote for the minister and it is from the Krever
report again. Justice Krever writes: “Proving fault is a
formidable task for an individual injured by blood transfusion or
blood product. Court proceedings are especially hard on those
who are seriously ill and dying”.
Why is the health minister so intent on putting these Canadians
through that kind of ordeal?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the effect of the offer which was made last Friday by the
territorial, provincial and federal governments was to spare that
ordeal for 22,000 victims who contracted hepatitis C between 1986
and 1990. I want the member to bear that in mind.
The Krever report contains a complete and insightful discussion
of the policy of a no fault system. It may be in the future that
provinces and territories will accept his recommendation that in
the future operation of the blood system there be a no fault
compensation system. That is not what is in place at the moment.
When we gathered as ministers of health, as governments, and
looked back at the chronology of this—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to read another quote from hepatitis C victims: “I don't
think that those claimants should have to spend their lifetime in
litigation”. I will read it again: “I don't think that those
claimants should have to spend their lifetime in litigation”.
Who said that? It was not Premier Clark. It was not a Liberal
backbencher. It was the Minister of Health in the Ottawa
Citizen on November 23, 1997.
Why did this health minister abandon his own principles?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what this government did, the first government since these
events, the first government to act, was gather the provincial
ministers together and produced the best possible result given
good, responsible government public policy.
We chose the period during which people were injured because
governments should have acted and did not and we offered
compensation. By so doing we spared those 22,000 people the
ordeal of continuous litigation.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Prime Minister.
In the 1993 election, the Liberals promised to formulate a
shipbuilding policy. The premiers, in their meeting in St.
Andrews last fall, also called for such a policy. Even Liberal
Party members called for one at their recent convention.
Why is the government not taking action in the area of
shipbuilding?
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to answer the
question. This government has always had a shipbuilding policy.
There are five items involved in the shipbuilding policy and
perhaps the member does not understand.
There is the accelerated capital cost allowance we have put in
place, a 25% tariff on non-NAFTA ships that are imported, a
domestic procurement by the federal government, Export
Development Corporation financing, and a very favourable research
and development program that is also available for the
shipbuilding industry.
* * *
1445
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Two American athletes presently employed by Toronto sports teams
have criminal convictions in the United States for a variety of
offences, including weapons, illegal drugs and spousal abuse.
On what grounds have foreign professional athletes been issued
minister's permits when they have extensive criminal records?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would be inappropriate
for me to speak about the details of any case in public.
However, I can assure members of the House that decisions to
issue ministerial permits, especially for criminally inadmissible
persons, are taken very seriously and very cautiously. Visa
officers should be convinced that the needs of these persons to
come to Canada are compelling and that there is no danger to
Canadian security. The ministerial permits they issue are for
short periods of time and can be cancelled at any time.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is instructive that the Liberal backbenchers are not asking
their ministers here about hepatitis C. We know they were doing
it in caucus yesterday and afterwards.
When the government decided 10 years ago to compensate AIDS
victims no one was more supportive than the Liberal opposition.
The current heritage minister called it a national tragedy back
then. That was when the Liberals were in opposition. That was
when they had principles.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. Why does he do
exactly the opposite when he is in government than he said he
would do when he was in opposition?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the contamination of blood with HIV was a national tragedy, just
like the contamination of blood with hepatitis C. But what the
hon. member should understand is that compensation was offered to
HIV victims in that day on the same principle we are offering
compensation today for hepatitis C victims.
The government implicitly acknowledged 10 years ago that there
was not enough done in terms of surveillance, research and taking
steps to ensure that the risk was minimized to the greatest
extent possible.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is not an answer. What we are getting is just more and more
of this kind of stonewalling. The minister is in the middle of a
political firestorm because Canadians want the government to show
compassion, not more rhetoric.
Instead of repeating the lines he has been given by his health
department lawyers, why does he not do what the victims want and
give them justice and the kind of rewards they deserve after the
incompetence of the government's management of the blood system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member may have heard me say all week, since Monday when this
issue was first raised in the House, that what governments did,
not just the federal government but provincial governments from
one side of this country to the other, was to look at the history
of this matter. We asked the tough question: Where is the point
at which governments and the public, in essence, should accept
responsibility?
We found that there was a four year period during which
something could and should have been done. That is what all
governments agreed upon as the appropriate place for government
to act.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the
students' manual published in 1988, which is still distributed
today by the human rights directorate of Heritage Canada, there
is a chapter on equal pay.
Canadian students learned that sometimes employers pay women
less but it is against the law.
In its last annual report the human rights commission criticized
the government's stall tactics on pay equity.
When will the Prime Minister make pay equity a reality for
federal employees, or should teachers just skip that chapter on
equal pay for equal work when teaching about basic human rights?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the question of principle is clear. It has been endorsed by the
government and it has been put into place by the government.
Two weeks ago a few questions were raised by two
judgments of the federal court which indicated that at present
the rules applied by Treasury Board to determine pay equity
were put into place. However, we are still willing to offer a
compensation package of $1.3 billion. Once again I would ask
that the “syndicats” accept their responsibilities, help the
employees and finally start negotiating in good faith.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister will know that net cash income of prairie
farmers is in free fall. According to Agriculture Canada's own
projections, 1998 farm income will drop by 11% in Alberta, 15% in
Saskatchewan and a whopping 35% in Manitoba.
Yet in a most recent budget speech there was not one word about
agriculture as the federal government continues to abandon and
ignore rural Canada.
1450
What are the finance minister and the government going to do to
help stabilize the income of prairie farmers this year?
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the member for the question.
I want to remind the member from Saskatchewan that right now we
are undergoing a lengthy process of safety net review. A
committee is in place. Come next year all the evidence will be
in. At that time we will have some answers as to how we can prop
up the safety net system which we have in this country.
* * *
FIREARMS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, there is an old legal maxim stating that withholding
the truth suggests falsehood. I would like to return to the
flawed information used by the Department of Justice to justify
gun registration.
Last summer the RCMP commissioner raised serious concerns about
incorrect public policy resulting from firearm statistics.
In the name of integrity, will the Prime Minister advise whether
the misleading information used six times before the Alberta
Court of Appeal will be corrected?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is actually the fourth or fifth time the member has raised
this question in the House.
The answer was given in the letter that was tabled in the House
by the minister. The RCMP has said that it is satisfied with the
methodology that was used by the firearms smuggling work group of
which it was part.
It was a question of methodology. It was not a question of
fixing the figures or doing anything in order to make our point.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I think she had it right. But it may be mythology.
I attended a briefing yesterday by the minister's officials in
which the RCMP were in attendance. They refused at that time to
sign an affidavit which would justify those figures.
I am asking again, will the Minister of Justice or her
departmental officials agree to withdraw the information or at
least correct it on the record before the Alberta Court of
Appeal?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP has been very clear. It was a question of
methodology. The problems have been resolved. It has been
established by the RCMP that they have been resolved. The RCMP
is satisfied.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the President of the Treasury Board.
What is the role of the task force on the effects of government
changes on official languages?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in recent
years the government has undergone changes, it has privatized,
it has devolved and it has commercialized.
In such cases, as
the Commissioner of Official Languages has reminded us, the
Official Languages Act must continue to apply. The federal
government has long been committed to this and will continue to
be.
So, we set up a task force with the mandate of examining changes
within the government, determining their effect on the
application of the Official Languages Act and providing the best
possible recommendations to ensure that the Act—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Minister.
The hon. member for Skeena.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you would
think that the ministers could find better ways to make
statements in the House.
Chief Keith Moon from the Blood reserve wrote the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development five months ago with
serious concerns over accountability on his reserve. He still
has not got an answer. Today in the Calgary Harold there
is an article that says the minister intends to give the chief
more control over oil and gas revenues on that reserve.
My question to the Prime Minister is, how can he justify giving
more control over oil and gas money to these chiefs when the
minister has not even begun to address the problem of
accountability on—
The Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite
continuously tries to raise issues which undermine the authority
of the elected chiefs in this country.
Why is it that he does not raise the fact that the Whitecap
Dakota band in Saskatchewan, according to important media
articles, provided strong leadership and turned the First Nation
around, which is now operating in a financially successful
manner?
1455
Why is he not raising those kinds of issues? Why is he always
raising issues that undermine the credibility of duly elected
officials?
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
Yesterday we learned from a television report that confidential
information on dozens of citizens was available to Canadian
insurance companies from the main RCMP computer.
Will the Solicitor General confirm this disturbing news, and if
so, what is his explanation for it?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are looking into the matter even as we speak.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
With ACOA having been created to help foster economic
development in Atlantic Canada, keeping in mind the extremely
high unemployment rates in the region, and knowing that small and
medium size businesses are the ones creating the jobs, can the
minister responsible confirm for Atlantic Canadians that the ACOA
budget will be reduced by one-third to $250 million by the first
year of the next millennium, projecting the lowest level of
funding since 1988-89?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her positive question on
ACOA.
In response, I have to point out that ACOA is made up of two
parts: the core funding of ACOA, which basically has not changed
in about 10 years, and special programs that have a beginning and
an end, for example, the infrastructure program, base closure
programs and adjustments for the fixed link.
These programs have a beginning and they have an end. When they
end, which is projected to be roughly after the turn of the
century, the core funding of ACOA will remain basically the same
as it is now, roughly in the vicinity of a quarter of a billion
dollars, which will provide hope, opportunity and jobs.
* * *
FIREARMS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, we get the same non-answers every time we ask this
question.
In light of the recent suggestion that the Canadian Police
Association may withdraw its support of gun registration, I ask
the Prime Minister if he will speak with Department of Justice
officials and ask them to issue a clarification in the Alberta
court case which outlines the RCMP's concerns with respect to the
faulty firearms facts.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
take great offence on behalf of the Minister of Justice and also
this government to the inference that this government attempted
to make up facts and figures.
The RCMP has stated both in a letter and at a meeting which the
hon. member attended that the statistics were true, they were not
false. The methodology that was used was different and they
accepted that as a fact.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Minister of Transport announced his review of Canada's 20
year old policy governing international air charter passenger
services.
Will this review address the concerns of Canadians who rely on
affordable charter flights to international destinations?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it became obvious after the discussion last fall
that the existing policy framework really did not fit today's
needs and aspirations of Canadian travellers.
That is why we will be undertaking an exhaustive review. We
want to complete it by the end of the year. It will deal with
charter types, advance payments, minimum prices, minimum
payments, payment protection as well as one-way charters.
This government is absolutely and totally committed to an
environment with the cheapest air fares, the maximum flexibility
and the safest environment.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has silenced his own
backbench and we have to listen to questions like that.
Every opposition party—
1500
The Speaker: Colleagues, with respect, all hon. members
have the right to seek the floor to ask questions. I am sure we
want to hear the questions and we want to hear the answers.
Whether we make comments or not on the questions or the answers,
I think maybe we should just put that behind us.
I am going to hear this question. The hon. member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, every opposition party in
this House is calling for a full compensation of hepatitis C
victims. The Liberal backbenchers are calling for compensation.
The premier of my province is uncomfortable with the way things
are now. They all know what is wrong. Only the Prime Minister
insists on doing what is wrong.
Why will the Prime Minister not admit that he is wrong and
compensate all victims? Why not?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we spoke this morning he did not mention that he is
not in agreement with his minister of health.
There was a discussion among all the ministers of health in
Canada. They have agreed to take the responsibility for the
period 1986 to 1990. The federal government has contributed $800
million toward the problem and the provinces have contributed
$300 million which makes $1.1 billion. I think it is a very good
compensation program that has been agreed to by the 13
governments and the agreement still stands.
The Speaker: On a personal statement the hon. leader of
the Progressive Conservative Party.
* * *
THE HON. JEAN J. CHAREST
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to announce that I have changed my mind.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: I have never seen so many faces
change so rapidly.
[Translation]
Today I am confirming to the House the decision I announced last
week to resign my position as the leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada. This resignation is to take
effect on April 3. I shall be retaining my position as MP for
the federal riding of Sherbrooke for several weeks and shall
inform you in writing of the effective date of my resignation
from that position.
I had the privilege of being elected to the House of Commons for
the first time in 1984 and was re-elected in 1988, 1993 and
1997.
Upon my arrival in the House of Commons I was appointed to the
position of Assistant Deputy Speaker.
I held several ministerial portfolios, including Minister of
State for Youth, to which was later added the responsibilities
of Minister of State for Amateur Sport and deputy House leader.
In 1990, I headed a House of Commons special committee on a
resolution to accompany the Meech Lake agreement.
I held the position of Minister of the Environment for over two
years. For a short time I was also Minister of Industry and
Deputy Prime Minister.
During those 14 years I was actively involved in one leadership
race and two referendums. I will be leaving the House of
Commons for a new political arena.
[English]
During my years in federal politics I was a participant in two
great events. The first was one of the greatest victories in
Canadian political history. The other was one of the greatest
defeats in Canadian political history.
I am grateful to be able to stand here today in front of my peers
and to say to them that I actually survived both.
1505
As a minister of the crown I applied a simple test to the
policies I sought to implement. I would ask myself whether any
given initiative would be meaningful enough to actually be around
and withstand the test of time long after I would have departed.
As minister of youth I attempted to implement a national youth
strategy that resulted in two meaningful initiatives: the stay
in school program, which was directed at young Canadians who
needed help and encouragement to pursue their studies; and a
major youth initiative in the province of New Brunswick.
[Translation]
When I was Minister of State for Youth our government
quadrupled funding for co-operative education through what was
known as the co-operative work education program. We also
implemented several literacy initiatives.
I must note that I became concerned with this problem when, as a
young criminal lawyer I noticed that a lot of young people who
ended up in court did not know how to read or write. I was
shocked and told myself that one day we would have to deal
with this problem.
[English]
As minister of sport I assumed the portfolio at a very turbulent
period. The Dubin inquiry into the use of drugs in sport had
become a most significant inquiry in the world of amateur sport.
[Translation]
As minister of amateur sport, there are two initiatives of which
I am very proud. In 1989 Canada's ministers of sport decided to
formally include sports for physically handicapped athletes in
the Canada Games. We also made representations in this regard
for the Olympic Games and for the Commonwealth Games in
1990. We were encouraged in this initiative
by two great Canadians, Rick Hansen and André Viger who is from
my riding of Sherbrooke.
The second initiative of which I am very proud is my
contribution to the first Francophone Games, a sporting and
cultural event that is different from all others, especially
since these games are held alternately in the northern and
southern hemispheres.
[English]
As minister of environment I experienced one of the most
fulfilling mandates of my political life. I was minister of a
department that was at the cutting edge of science, law and
public administration.
We proceeded to implement one of the world's only plans of
sustainable development, the green plan. I was also privileged
to lead Canada's delegation to the earth summit in Rio. The
summit was a high point for Canada and for then Prime Minister
Mulroney whose leadership broke the G-7 logjam on the issue of
the biodiversity convention and a convention on climate change.
In all my endeavours, today if there is one thing I would like
to say, it is how privileged we are as a country to be served by
what is undoubtedly the best public service in the world. In all
the years I have worked in government, I have been impressed day
after day. I am sorry to say that there are not enough
opportunities for us in this House to share with other Canadians
how the men and women who work in our public service do it with a
great deal of rigour, with a great deal of energy. When we
compare the level of service that we get here in Canada to any
other country in the world, we are privileged and lucky to have
what I think is the best public service bar none.
In my 14 years of service I have had the opportunity to serve
five prime ministers: Mr. Turner, Mr. Clark, Mr. Mulroney, Ms.
Campbell, and the present incumbent, the member from Shawinigan.
All these prime ministers are, without exception, exceptional
individuals. There is no doubt in my mind that they had only one
goal and that is to serve their country well. I want to
recognize that today for all those in this House and for the
present incumbent.
Most of my years in federal politics were served under former
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. His government began the difficult
task, an unrewarding task, of spending restraints and deficit
reduction.
The policies brought forward between 1984 and 1993 set the stage
that allowed the current government to attain a balanced budget.
Canada's influence on the world stage was significant. I was
part of a government that fought for free trade and NAFTA.
I am honoured to have served in a government that I believe
history will judge as being one of the best.
1510
As the first French Canadian leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party, I am leaving the party of Confederation. I
leave behind a young and dynamic caucus, colleagues in the
Senate. Most of all I will miss my friend and trusted companion,
the member for Saint John.
I leave behind all those who work in the House of Commons. Today
I want to spill the best kept secret in the country. This is the
best place to work in Canada. Pages, messengers, bus drivers,
security staff, all of them, it has been a privilege to have
worked with them.
[Translation]
I want to thank my political staff who for 14 years has always
supported me in my work.
I especially want to thank the fantastic team in my Sherbrooke
office. I want to thank all these people who have served me so
well.
We live in a country which, better than any other country, is
preparing its citizens to live and work in the new area of
globalization. Our diversity demands that we respect differences
and espouse the virtues of a society which values tolerance.
Canada is based on a partnership between anglophones and
francophones, which has grown to include first four provinces,
then ten provinces and two territories, soon to become three.
This partnership has evolved toward social and economic
solidarity. This partnership, which originated in the 1774
agreement, has allowed us to do great things together in Canada.
Our destiny is calling us to even greater things, to renew our
commitment, this 1774 partnership, to reconfirm it because we
are presently in a state of doubt in this regard. But this
partnership calls on us to do more by including our western fellow
citizens in our institutions and doing more to include our
native peoples.
I know of no other country in a better position to prepare the
next generation to live, work, travel and create in the new
millennium.
I have often said that my most important title was member for
Sherbrooke.
I am giving up this title at the federal level in favour of the
same title in the Quebec National Assembly. I am answering a
call, and after listening to people in Quebec I chose to listen
to my own heart. Today Quebec is profoundly divided, therefore
in a weakened state.
However, I do know that when Quebeckers are united and pursue a
common goal, as they did in the early sixties under Jean Lesage,
they can do great things. I also know that they need neighbours
who are not strangers, especially not adversaries, neighbours
who are fellow citizens and allies, people who share the same
values. It is to go back to these people—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: I am leaving for Quebec to protect and
promote Quebec's interests, to find a kind of solidarity that
rises above the interests of political parties so that we can
head for a future where we will join those elsewhere in Canada
who want the same things as Quebeckers. It is in that spirit
that I am embarking on this new journey.
I want to conclude here today by thanking those who supported me
the most in my work: my family, my in-laws, all those who were
with me every day.
I have shared my life with two women since 1993, with Elsie,
here in the House of Commons and with my wife, Michèle,
who deserves my admiration and, above all, my love, for all she
has done for me, for our children and for the party since we
both became actively involved in politics. I want to thank them.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1515
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the few
minutes you have given me, and to all my colleagues in the House
of Commons, I am looking forward to meeting you again. Thank
you.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to salute the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party
and member for Sherbrooke.
I know today must be extremely difficult for him because, when
you have been in the House of Commons for 14 years, you
have learned a lot of things and made a lot of friends. I once
voluntarily left my seat in the House of Commons and it was
almost a tragedy for me. I missed it so much that I could not
stand it and had to come back.
I want to salute the member for Sherbrooke because he is still a
very young man who has a lot of experience. First he was a young
MP. Then he held very important positions in the House of
Commons and in cabinet. Then he became Deputy Prime Minister. He
took the reins of his party under very difficult circumstances.
[English]
The last four years must have been very difficult for the
leader. He must have been going around the country eating a lot
of rubber chicken for the good of his party. He has done very
well. Now that he is leaving we are sad to see him go because he
has made a great contribution to this House. I know he will
carry on making a great contribution to this country.
He must be quite an athlete because he likes to give it and he
can take it. Many times we have been hot under the collar as
they say in English. I admire his great commitment to this
institution.
I had the privilege during the referendum of 1995 to see his
commitment to this country. I will always remember talking to him
in the rain one night in Montreal. We knew we would have to give
a last effort to make sure Canada would stick together. I was
very impressed by the depth of his commitment to making sure this
country would carry on. We do not belong to the same party but
his commitment to the values of Canada was very evident whenever
he spoke. The notions of tolerance, diversity and sharing were
always present.
He has touched a lot of Canadians in this land. He has been a
great example to young people. We are members of the House of
Commons. It is one of the greatest institutions. Democracy came
to Canada a long time ago. We are one of the first democracies
where responsible governments were established. We have managed
to build a country that is an example to the world.
I hear a baby in the gallery. He is applauding you already. He
or she is in the Liberal gallery.
1520
[Translation]
I know the hon. member for Sherbrooke is embarking upon a tough
journey, but he can rely on the support of the members from
Quebec in this House, for we know that the future of our country
and our future, our prosperity and our place on the world stage
depend on our association with Canada.
The leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the hon.
member for Sherbrooke, announced that he had chosen Quebec,
because he wants Quebec to be part of Canada, because Quebeckers
founded this country and because French speaking Canadians have
been elected to this House of Commons ever since the birth of
our country.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke has set for himself an enormous
task, but we all are aware of his enthusiasm, of his devotion to
public life and of his desire to ensure that all Canadians can
benefit from being citizens of this great country of ours.
I want to tell him that we are all very sad to see him go. He
was an excellent member of Parliament and he worked very hard at
it.
I also want to pay tribute to his wife, because we often forget
that the family members of those involved in public life are the
ones who suffer the most and who have to make all the
sacrifices.
I understand how terrible it must be to sell a house one has not
moved into yet and to set aside all the plans you had made, but
I think she has understood that her husband is a great Quebecker
and a great Canadian.
The whole country congratulates him for the initiative he has
undertaken. We wish him good luck. Long live Quebec and long
live Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to join the Prime Minister and other members of
the House in extending best wishes to the hon. member for
Sherbrooke as he departs the House for his new role in provincial
politics in Quebec.
As parliamentarians we tend to look at decisions and changes of
this nature from a political standpoint. But as all of us know,
the people most directly affected by our career choices are our
spouses and our families. So we also want to extend our best
wishes to the hon. member's wife and children, to Michèle, to
Amélie, Antoine and Alexandra, and to express the hope that this
decision and change will open up new and exciting possibilities
for them as well.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke has sometimes expressed the
suspicion that Reformers dislike Tories, especially Tories from
Quebec. I do not know where he got that idea. As he departs I
want to take this opportunity to assure him that this is not the
case. In fact, over the next few months we plan to be especially
kind to Tories no matter where they are from and to inquire after
their welfare and even to invite them home for dinner.
On a more serious note, the hon. member is leaving the
leadership of the federal Progressive Conservative Party to join
the Quebec Liberal Party for a principled reason. That reason is
to create a stronger federalist alternative in Quebec and a
better future for Quebec within Canada.
Federalists throughout the country, including the official
opposition in the House, wish to offer our encouragement and best
wishes to the hon. member as he undertakes this important task.
1525
As the member for Sherbrooke will know, every defender and
advocate of federalism in Quebec encounters the argument,
invariably from sovereignists but also from sceptical and weary
Quebec voters, that no one outside Quebec really wants to
fundamentally change the federal system to make it work better.
If it will be of any help to the hon. member in laying that
argument to rest, I want to assure him on behalf of official
opposition members, all of whom come from west of the
Manitoba-Ontario border, that Quebeckers who want to change the
federal system, in particular to rebalance the powers, will find
allies in our part of the country. If he assures Quebeckers that
changes in the federation are coming he should know that we will
do our part to ensure that change actually occurs.
[Translation]
To the hon. member for Sherbrooke, I say thank you, goodbye and
good luck.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
rather odd for a sovereignist, leader of the Bloc Quebecois to
boot, to say farewell to the leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party, who is seeking the leadership of the Liberal
Party of Quebec to fight the Parti Quebecois.
After 14 years in this House, the member for Sherbrooke and
leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has decided the
time has come for him to do something else and move on to
another political party.
The member for Sherbrooke, who came to Ottawa in 1984 at a very
young age, is leaving today a seasoned politician. He will be
remembered as having held several positions in the federal
government, namely Minister of State for Youth, Fitness and
Amateur Sports, Minister of the Environment, Minister of
Industry and Science, and even Deputy Prime Minister during the
last month of the Conservative government.
It should also be remembered that, in a sense, he was
instrumental in the creation of the Bloc Quebecois. Indeed it
was after the Charest report was tabled that Conservative and
Liberal members from Quebec left their respective parties to
create the Bloc Quebecois.
Nevertheless, I will remember the member for Sherbrooke as a
strong political adversary. The leader of the Conservative Party
has always shown respect and professionalism during our
exchanges and debates. I am convinced he will still behave the
same way in his new position in a different political theater. I
trust he will carry out his new responsibilities with the same
dignity he has shown here in Ottawa for 14 years.
Moreover, on some fundamental issues, I have appreciated his
party's support for our position, especially with regard to the
$2 billion in compensation Quebec is entitled to for harmonizing
its sales tax with the GST.
I hope he will keep bringing this up.
I would also like to mention the support the hon. member for
Sherbrooke and all members of the Conservative Party in this
House recently gave the Bloc's motion recognizing that Quebec
alone should decide its own future. As a result, yesterday's
enemies and tomorrow's allies, the federal Liberals, found
themselves isolated.
Encouraged by his support on this issue, we are nonetheless
looking forward to the future leader of the Quebec Liberal Party
answering a number of fundamental questions in the new political
arena he is about to jump into.
For example, now that he is leaving for the Quebec National
Assembly, will he recognize that Quebec is a nation? Will he
recognize, as the Quebec Liberal Party has always done, the
territorial integrity of Quebec?
Does he still believe that the federal government should
interfere in areas of provincial responsibility such as
education?
1530
Does he still believe that gun control legislation is
inappropriate, when a consensus to the contrary has developed in
Quebec on this issue since the tragedy at École Polytechnique?
These are but a few of the essential questions the future leader
of the Quebec Liberal Party will have to answer.
Now that his career is taking a new direction, I suggest that
the hon. member for Sherbrooke always keep an eye on Ottawa and
be on his guard with his new allies.
The inflexibility of the federal Liberals, their inability to
adjust to new realities and to make the necessary changes to
bring Quebec and Canada into the next century are likely to
follow the Conservative leader and soon to become Quebec Liberal
leader to Quebec like a millstone around his neck.
Having chosen between remaining leader of the Conservative Party
and running for the leadership of the Quebec Liberal Party, the
hon. member for Sherbrooke has another decision to make, the
implications of which may be much greater for Quebec.
He has to decide whether to adopt the federal Liberals'
constitutional status quo or to fight their do-nothing attitude
from within Quebec's Liberal ranks.
I shall not dwell on this point today, as the Conservative
leader is leaving and will now have to answer all these
questions in Quebec.
I would therefore like to pay tribute to the hon. member for
Sherbrooke for his career in federal politics which is coming to
an end. As he prepares to embark on a new career with the Quebec
Liberal Party, I want to wish him good luck, but not of course
every success.
Farewell to the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to return to the federalist tone.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: It is obvious that some of our
colleagues are more concerned than others about the return of the
hon. member.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: On behalf of my colleagues and my
leader I would like to wish the hon. member for Sherbrooke well
in his new career as a Liberal. I wish him well more as a
federalist than as a Liberal.
We all know the dilemma that he must have found himself in, but
I think he did what all good people do in the end. He responded
to the call. He responded to the duty that he saw was his in
this historical moment. We congratulate him for that.
It must have been difficult, wondering whether or not the call
was stronger to go to Quebec to fight the separatists or to stay
and be a major player in the “unite the right” or whatever it
is called. I have to say to him that from our perspective the
right has been united in the country for along time. It has
never been more united than it has under the banner of the
Liberal Party since 1993.
The member for Sherbrooke has said that he needs to enter into
this new time in his life and this new time in the political life
in Quebec, knowing as we all should know that no one person can
save the country by himself or by herself. We all need to do
this together. We need to work together.
As a veteran of many constitutional debates in the House and in
that context I would specifically like to add the best wishes of
my colleague from Qu'Appelle, formerly the member for
Yorkton—Melville, who fought alongside and debated alongside the
member for Sherbrooke in many of those debates.
1535
There was a tendency in all those debates and in all those times
for political parties to hold up one member, a prime minister, a
leader or someone else, as the one person who could save the
country. We will never save the country if anybody is interested
in getting the credit for saving the country. We need to save
the country, no matter who gets the credit, and that I hope is
the sense that the hon. member will take into the struggle he is
about to embark upon in Quebec.
Our view is that the country cannot be saved apart from
recovering the social democratic consensus that has existed for
a long time. John Ralston Saul states in his most recent book
that the success of the partnership between Quebec and the rest
of Canada has been in part because it was always governed
somewhat to the left of centre.
I would ask the hon. member for Sherbrooke, because he not I
mentioned first the first trade agreement and NAFTA, to reflect
on whether or not some of the policies that have been adopted
over the last 10 to 15 years have not indeed worked to weaken the
fabric of the country and to weaken the role of government in
Canada.
It was through government that we built the partnership between
French speaking Canada and English speaking Canada. It was
through the power of government that we created this distinct
society we call Canada, a place very different in North America
where we have a different set of social and economic values.
It is in recovering those values that I think we will be able to
once again invite all Quebeckers to abandon the failure of
imagination that we see here among our Bloc Quebecois colleagues
and to begin once again to build a great country, not just
through the marketplace but through the things we do together in
the public sector and through the power of government.
Godspeed.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I need hardly
tell you and the members of this House that during the last
election campaign my colleague and friend, the hon. member for
Sherbrooke, never told me I would have to make a speech like
this one today.
It is with a great deal of emotion that I rise to pay tribute
on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative
Party to a remarkable man and a dynamic leader, the member for
Sherbrooke.
As you know, it is not easy to lose a leader and to see a friend
go. We have been colleagues since 1984, when we were first
elected to this place. Over the years we developed a true
friendship.
Incidentally I was proud to support him during the 1993
Conservative leadership race.
His political career is impressive. Regardless of the position
he held, he was faithful to his friends, his voters, his party
and his country. Following the 1993 election he accepted the
challenge of the leadership of our party under particularly
difficult circumstances.
He knows Canada and Canadians very well. A number of them
discovered him during the 1995 referendum campaign. His
passionate speeches not only moved people but made him the most
credible spokesperson for national goodwill in Quebec, and this
is still true today.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke was able to find the words to
say to Quebeckers because he is like them and because of his
deep convictions. During the referendum campaign he called
himself the keeper of change.
He talked about a modern, strong and confident Quebec.
The member for Sherbrooke enjoys such credibility is because he
gave the Progressive Conservative Party a new constitution, a
new platform. He reconnected it with its grassroots.
During the last election campaign we had a huge gathering in my
riding of Chicoutimi. People were drawn to his message and to
his genuineness.
Many Quebeckers trust the member for Sherbrooke because of his
political opinions and his strong convictions. Last week he told
me “I am choosing Quebec”. I understand his choice.
1540
How could he not answer the call of Quebeckers who, I am sure,
will answer the challenge he made on May 6 last year in
Chicoutimi where I come from: “I invite Quebeckers to again
win the heart and soul of this country, this continent they
founded, explored and shaped”?
First you will become the leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec
and then, I hope for us, he will become Premier of Quebec.
In choosing their premier Quebeckers make an important
decision. They place their trust in someone who will defend
their interests.
We know Quebec is profoundly divided and weakened.
This is why I am hoping he wins for the sake of
Quebec and Canada.
He proposed a partnership during the campaign where Quebec
would participate rather than endure, where it would express its
opinion and not just its opposition, where it
would share in discussions instead of opting for confrontation.
I believe in this sort of partnership. I believe in his
ability to bring people together.
My colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party and I want
to express our deepest gratitude for his years of indefatigable
service to our party and for having put this party back on the
road to recovery in these tumultuous and trying times.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention the sacrifices made by
his family, his wife, confidant and constant ally and his
children, Amélie, Antoine and Alexandra.
I want to thank them for sharing him with us and with all
Canadians.
I would especially like to thank the voters of the riding of
Sherbrooke. Without them, the Progressive Conservative Party
would not be here today, in which case we would have been
deprived of his leadership and his vital contribution to
democratic life in our country.
The member for Sherbrooke has done much for our party
and we thank him for it. We thank him and his family. He has
served well, and we offer him our best wishes and the best
of luck.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1550
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to fill the position of our House leader to ask the
traditional Thursday question to find out whether the government
has any agenda for the next little while and, if so, what it is.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House will
continue with the marine liabilities bill, Bill S-4, which will
be followed by Bill C-12, the RCMP bill, and then, time
permitting, we will start the debate on Bill C-38, the amendments
to the National Parks Act. Tomorrow we will continue with Bill
C-38.
There have been consultations among the parties with respect to
the debate on the rules, pursuant to Standing Order 51, and it
would appear to be more convenient for some hon. members to have
that debate on April 21, rather than the previously announced
date of April 20. Consequently, I would like to redesignate that
debate for April 21.
On April 20 we shall call Bill C-39, the Nunavut bill, and we
will continue with that bill, if necessary, on April 22.
Thursday, April 23 shall be an allotted day.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during question period today the
hon. member for Macleod used language which the Chair may find,
upon reviewing the blues, as being unparliamentary.
I draw it to the attention of the Chair. I think the Chair will
want to review very carefully what was said and the intent behind
what was said and review whether that particular language was in
fact unparliamentary, recognizing that as usual the Chair has the
full authority to decide that anything that causes disorder is in
itself unparliamentary.
With that in mind, I would ask the Speaker to review the blues
and to comment, not now, but perhaps tomorrow or at an
appropriate time.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully, too. I heard the same comment during
question period. I do not think there is anything wrong with
“requent flyer.” He just dropped the f. It is not a big
deal.
The Speaker: Sometimes, my colleagues, we try to play
with words, and it got by me if something was said. I will have
a look at the blues.
My colleagues, when we try to juggle a bit like this sometimes
the House loses as opposed to anything else.
Once again, I will have a look at the blues and if it is
necessary I will get back to the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HEALTH
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find that there is unanimous consent for some
travel motions, as there have been consultations among the
parties.
Therefore, I move:
That, within the context of its Natural Health Products Study,
the Members of the Standing Committee on Health and the necessary
staff be authorized to travel to Vancouver and Toronto, April 19
to April 23, and to Montreal on April 27.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1555
TRANSPORT
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That the Members of the Standing Committee on Transport, the
Clerk, two Researchers and one Interpreter be authorized to
travel to New York and Washington, D.C., on Monday and Tuesday,
May 4 and 5, 1998, to gather information in relation to their
study on the National Passenger Rail System.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have
the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That 10 Members of the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development be authorized to travel to Calgary from
May 4 to May 6 for the purpose of participating in the Canadian
Energy Research Institute Conference on Climate Change and that
the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have
the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA SHIPPING ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-4, an
act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability), be
read the third time and passed.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege to rise in the House to speak in favour of Bill S-4, an
act to amend the Canada Shipping Act. Bill S-4, introduced in
the Senate on October 8, 1997, will amend parts of the Canada
Shipping Act which deal with liability for maritime accidents and
oil pollution damage.
Bill S-4 reintroduces amendments to the Canada Shipping Act
first introduced to the House of Commons as Bill C-58 on
September 19, 1997. Bill C-58 completed committee stage as
proposed by the Standing Committee on Transport in its report to
the House of Commons on December 11, 1996. The bill died on the
Order Paper in April 1997 when the election was called.
The bill was introduced through the Senate because it had
already passed the different stages in the House of Commons
during the last parliament and the government wanted it to be
passed in the fastest way.
I wish to take this opportunity to mention again, as my New
Democrat colleague did at second reading, that the NDP does not
support the practice of introducing bills through the Senate.
Canadians elected 301 representatives last June. They are
sitting in this Chamber, not in the Senate.
I believe a majority of Canadians want major reforms to be made
to the Senate and, although I oppose bills coming through the
Senate, I will certainly use these opportunities to remind this
government that it is ignoring Canadians. Although we do not
support the practice of introducing bills in the Senate, we are
in favour of this piece of legislation which is long overdue.
Bill S-4 is a part of the Canada Shipping Act reform. Parts of
the Canada Shipping Act are old and out of date with today's
reality. The NDP believes that it is time to modernize the
Canada Shipping Act.
The revision of the existing limitation of liability for
maritime claims is a very important step toward modernizing the
legislation. The existing regime with respect to limits for
general maritime claims in the Canada Shipping Act is largely
based on the 1957 international convention relating to the
limitation of liability of owners of sea-going ships.
The limits on liability set out there have naturally lost value
as a result of inflation over the years. As a matter of fact,
most maritime nations consider the limits of liability set out in
1957 to be inadequate.
The 1957 convention was replaced by the 1976 convention on
limitation of liability for maritime claims and its 1996 protocol
is the global standard for limitation of liability for maritime
claims.
Bill S-4 will permit Canada's accession to it.
1600
The Canada Shipping Act amendments in Bill S-4 will also
implement the provisions of the 1992 protocols to the 1969
convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and the
1971 convention on the international fund for compensation for
oil pollution.
The maximum compensation available to claimants in an oil
pollution incident will increase from $120 million to $270
million, which consists of the shipowner's liability under the
civil liability convention and a supplementary amount available
from the international compensation fund.
When we know that tragedies such as the Exxon Valdez can
happen, we know it is advisable to increase the liability of
shipowners for environmental damage.
Just a few years ago we had the Irving Whale disaster. The
company, a very large and well known company, did not pay in the
project to refloat its barge. It is the Government of Canada, in
other words the Canadian people, that had to spend millions of
dollars.
Large corporations have to be more responsible. They have to be
more accountable. It is our environment that has suffered and we
must ensure its protection. We will be supporting the bill.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise on Bill S-4, the Canada Shipping Act
amendments.
Few countries in the world have as much interest in this issue
as we have in Canada because we are virtually surrounded by
water. We have water east, west and north. We have the Great
Lakes and the seaway.
The bill has been nurtured through the system for many years. We
are really pleased to see it and we will be supporting the bill.
The bill will substantially increase the amount of compensation
available to Canadian claimants for maritime claims in general,
especially for oil pollution damage as a result of shipwrecked
oil tankers.
The current Canada Shipping Act provisions dealing with
limitation of liability of maritime claims are based on the 1957
international convention relating to limitation of liability of
owners of seagoing vessels. Most maritime nations consider
limits of liability inadequate mainly as inflation has eroded
their value and it only make sense as those were developed in
1957.
The bill began as Bill C-58 in 1996 when it went through the
committee process and died on the order paper with the election
call in April 1997. There are important changes contained in the
legislation and unfortunately the government did not make it a
priority to move it ahead quickly enough, but at least it is here
now. Now that it is here we are dealing with the bill and I am
pleased to be here to speak on it.
The bill will substantially increase the amount of compensation
available to Canadian claimants for maritime claims, for oil
pollution damage in particular. It harmonizes Canadian rules for
maritime liability with those of other maritime nations and will
enable Canada to accede to the relevant international
conventions.
With respect to the limitation of liability for maritime claims,
Bill S-4 amends part 4 of the shipping act to implement
provisions of the 1976 convention on limitation of liability for
maritime claims and its 1996 protocol.
Bill S-4 will, first, substantially increase shipowner limits of
liability, long past due. Second, it will allow the cabinet on
recommendation of the transport minister to implement new limits
of liability to reflect inflation. Three, it will limit the
liability of owners of small ships less than 300 tons to $1
million for loss of life or personal injury and $500,000 for
other claims. It will also extend the application of the
liability regime to all ships operating in Canadian internal and
inland waters, not just seagoing vessels, which is very
important.
Finally, it increases the liability limits for owners of docks,
canals and ports and for property damage claims to the greater of
$2 million or an amount based on the tonnage of the largest ship
that has docked in the area in the last five years.
Atlantic Canada and all Canadians welcome the aspect of the bill
that relates to oil pollution liability and for compensation for
oil pollution damage. Bill S-4 will amend part 16 of the Canada
Shipping Act to implement provisions of the 1992 protocol to the
1969 civil liability convention and the 1971 convention on the
establishment of an international fund for compensation for oil
pollution damage.
This means it will make shipowners liable for clean-up costs for
oil pollution damage. It makes compensation available for
pollution damage caused by tankers with residues of oil remaining
from their previous cargo.
This also makes it possible to recover costs incurred for
preventive measures taken in anticipation of a spill from a
tanker.
1605
The maximum compensation currently available to claimants in a
oil pollution incident is approximately $120 million. As a
result of Bill S-4, the amount will more than double to $270
million which is still probably not enough but it is a good
start.
In summary, we are pleased to support this legislation. It is
long past overdue and very much needed in the maritime industry
in Canada. We are supporting this because it will improve
compensation for the benefit of all Canadian claimants involved
in any kind of marine accident in general and certainly for
purposes related to pollution claims.
Also, the important harmonization of our laws with other nations
benefits every participant. I am speaking about all participants
involved in the maritime trade, shipowners, cargo owners and
charters providing consistent internationally recognized and
accepted rules which deal with the economic consequences of
unfortunate accidents at sea.
Without these former rules international shipping, which Canada
relies on to a tremendous extent, would otherwise become
extremely expensive and unpredictable. As a result it would have
negative consequences for the Canadian industry as a whole.
Again, we support this legislation and only wish that we could
have moved it through the system a little more quickly.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, being the last to speak on Bill S-4, I am not going to
go through the bill in any detail, which will be good news for
everybody.
The bill is long overdue. It will be welcomed across the
country and throughout the world.
It was ironic, however, when I was reading the very last of my
notes. This is a little humour here. It is talking about the
failure to file information with the Minister of Transport
regarding oil shipments resulting in a summary conviction of $100
for each day of default. I know there are members who have paid
that much of a fine for speeding. I thought that portion of the
bill was a little lax. It could have been more. However, this
is a good bill.
When the bill was introduced today by the hon. gentleman from
the government side, he thanked those people who had worked on
the bill. He thanked the Standing Committee on Transport. I
appreciated his remarks. We did have a good round of looking at
the bill in committee. We had a great deal of support from all
the members of the committee. We had a great deal of support
from the chairman of the committee.
I spoke to the bill on second reading. I totally disagree with a
bill of this nature originating in the Senate and then coming
here, even though we can call this a housekeeping bill. Members
in my party and other opposition members also disagree. This is
not good practice. We do not think we should have a bill come to
us to examine amendments made by an unelected body.
That may not seem like a very big thing to a lot of people. I
picked up the papers the other day. There were some things in
there about me because of some of my criticism, some of the
criticism from my colleagues and some of the criticism from all
the parties about this practice. I assume it was a
generalization that I was being somewhat hypocritical. No one
who knows me, who has been on the transport committee with me,
would say I am hypocritical. That was the tone, because we
disagreed fundamentally.
This is a good bill. There is nothing wrong with the bill. Some
amendments were made and passed. But the opposition claims that
the last place bills like this should originate is the Senate.
Bills dealing with huge amounts of penalties, huge amounts of
fines, huge amounts of liabilities should not originate in the
Senate and then come here asking the elected people to put our
stamp on it.
We deem that incorrect. I am sure most members do. If members
from the government side really looked at it they would also deem
it incorrect.
1610
I am pleased that we are going to support this bill. We think
it is a good bill.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has been remiss in not
asking for questions or comments on members' speeches but I
assume in light of the debate there were none.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: 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)
* * *
[Translation]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-12, an Act to
amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, as
reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (for the Solicitor General of Canada) moved that
the bill be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall this bill be read the third time?
With leave of the House, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (for the Solicitor General of Canada) moved that
the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to rise in
this House in support of Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.
This bill provides RCMP members serving abroad as peackeepers in
special duty areas with medicare benefits and death benefits.
This means they will be covered 24 hours a day in case of
work-related disease, invalidity or death.
We need to pass this bill as soon as possible.
Like any other government employees, RCMP members are eligible
for government benefits if they suffer from a work-related
disability or injury or if they die as a result of a work-related
accident.
Pursuant to existing agreements, there is a difference between
work-related incidents and those that are not and that difference
is usually easy to make: the work-related incidents are defined
as occurring only during work shifts.
However, in some cases, the distinction we need to make between
“during working hours” and “outside working hours” is not so
clear.
Take, for instance, the RCMP members who are currently serving
abroad as peacekeepers.
Pursuant to the Special Duty Area Pension Order, the governor in
council can designate as special duty areas any geographic area
outside Canada where peacekeepers may be exposed to hazardous
conditions not normally associated with service in peacetime.
These dangerous areas are called “special duty areas”.
The bill acknowledges that when RCMP peacekeepers are posted in
special duty areas, they never really stop serving and running
risks, even when their shift is over.
Under the current act, RCMP members who are injured while posted
in a special duty area must prove their disability is directly
related to their service or the performance of their duties.
When Canada started taking part in international peacekeeping
missions and sending members of the armed forces to areas of
armed conflict, it was acknowledged that it would be unfair to
oblige these individuals or their department to prove that
injury or death was attributable to their work and occurred
while the individual was on duty.
1615
Under the Special Duty Area Pension Order, any injury, disease
or disability sustained by a member of the Canadian Forces while
on a peacekeeping mission in a special duty area is presumed to
be directly related to the performance of his or her duties. In
case of death, benefits are transferred to the victim's family.
Therefore, under this order, military personnel are considered
to be on duty 24 hours a day for the purpose of employment- or
service-related benefits. The order also acknowledges that the
security of these people is always threatened.
However, in dangerous areas, even when serving side by side with
Canadian Forces personnel, RCMP members are eligible for
benefits only if the injury or disease occurs during a normally
scheduled work shift.
RCMP personnel posted as peacekeepers in special duty areas are
treated differently from their counterparts in the Canadian
Forces, even though they face the same risks and circumstances.
At the present time, for instance, members of both forces are
deployed in Haiti and the former Yugoslavia , which have both
been declared special duty areas.
Under the Special Duty Area Pension Order, members of the
Canadian Forces are considered to be on duty around the clock,
if injuries, illness or fatalities occur.
On the other hand, RCMP personnel are considered to be on duty
only during their shift. In keeping with the purest tradition
of the RCMP, its members sought out this type of mission and
volunteered for it. In so doing, they are perpetuating a
tradition of which Canadians are proud, and one which has earned
them their international reputation as major contributors to
world peace and security.
Canada has an obligation to ensure that these courageous women
and men, as well as their family members, are eligible for the
same benefits as their Canadian Forces counterparts.
The purpose of today's bill is to remedy this abnormal
situation.
[English]
I also wish to note that in addition to disability benefits,
Canadian forces peacekeepers who are injured or taken ill while
serving in special duty areas are entitled to the benefits
provided under the veterans independence program. This program
provides funds for services necessary to maintain a member in his
or her own home as an alternative to institutional care. This
includes housekeeping services and modifications to accommodate
wheelchair access in a member's residence.
These special pension benefits take into account the increased
risk associated with peacekeeping duties. The amended legislation
will extend the same kind of program benefits to disabled RCMP
peacekeepers.
This legislation reflects the changing role of peacekeeping in
general. Adding to their traditional role as an arbiter of
conflict, peacekeepers are now contributing to the broader
reconstruction of society, the peace building phase that follows
a peaceful settlement.
Through the volunteered services of RCMP peacekeepers, Canada
has provided what many countries need most to sustain peace:
respect for democratic tradition and a method for enforcing the
rule of law. A troubled country may be able to build on the
traditions and expertise demonstrated by the RCMP and Canadian
forces peacekeepers to establish a new respect for law
enforcement and respect for the law itself.
[Translation]
Passing this bill is the best and fairest action we can take. I
am sure I speak for all members of this House in wishing that no
Canadian peacekeeper, whether a member of the RCMP or a member
of the armed forces, will ever need to use health insurance
benefits, disability insurance or death benefits as the result
of a mission to a special service area.
1620
If such a need should ever arise, however, it would be only fair
for RCMP members to benefit from the same extra protection, as
provided in this bill for themselves and their family members.
I believe all members of this House recognize the importance, as
far as equity is concerned, of the amendments being proposed to
the RCMP pension plan.
I trust that I shall be able to count on the support of all the
political parties in this House to ensure that this important
bill is passed promptly.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Employment; the hon. member for Crowfoot,
Violence against women.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-12.
I happen to have been a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police when we were sending members over to dangerous situations
in foreign countries. Bosnia and Namibia come to mind. At that
time we survived on the good graces of the solicitor general and
the government in that if something did happen to one of us while
we were over there, the government would stand behind us and our
families.
I and my party certainly support Bill C-12. It will ensure that
members of the force and their families are taken care of in the
event of a tragedy.
We can certainly look at the performance and the service the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police has provided to Canada since 1873.
This year is the 125th anniversary. The service overseas in
foreign countries, the latest one being Haiti, is a good example
of the dedication these men and women from every province provide
in serving their country.
Today there has been a lot of talk about Quebec and the
Northwest Territories. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is well
positioned and very prominent in those provinces in enforcing
federal statutes.
There are no problems with Bill C-12 itself. There are some
issues surrounding the peacekeeping and peacemaking role which
Canada has assumed. For the members of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, there is always the question if they are injured
or hurt whether or not the compensation will come automatically
through the pension and benefit scheme, or whether they will have
to fight for the rights and the benefits if some disagreement
arises. This was raised earlier.
The member, the member's estate or the family must receive a
commitment from the government that it will pay the family to
hire their own lawyer as opposed to being appointed one by the
Canada pensions benefit scheme. A lawyer who was appointed would
obviously have a conflict of interest in whether he takes the
government's side or the member's side. That is definitely a
concern.
Another issue which has been of concern is very evident in the
case of Haiti. Our Canadian military pulled out of that country
by agreement. Our policemen were left there. The question was
whether or not they had adequate medical services after the
Canadian military left. I raised this in question period but I
did not get a satisfactory answer. There is no doubt the health
services officer for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did go to
Haiti. I believe the RCMP will ensure that the government does
provide proper care for its members.
1625
There is also the problem of members being exposed to strange
diseases or chemicals. We have seen this happen in countries that
harbour those kinds of weapons. There is concern that these
members be taken care for their lifetime. Perhaps this falls
under the policy but I would have to look further into the
pension act. I raise this to indicate everything is not as simple
as a policeman going to a foreign country, coming back home and
expecting everything to be all right.
There is another point the government did not mention today.
There are police officers from non-RCMP forces such as city
police forces, and provincial forces from Ontario and Quebec
going to foreign countries. During our committee hearings we did
not have anyone attend from these police forces or provincial
governments to indicate whether or not those officers would have
adequate benefits, for example compensation and medical care, if
they were injured or killed.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are being taken care of but I
do question whether police from the city of Toronto for example
have medical benefit coverage for 24 hours a day. The government
would be wise to look at this issue. When a city police officer
is asked to go to a foreign country, the issue of health benefits
should be discussed to avoid the government being sued in order
that non-RCMP officers can get compensation.
When a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police goes overseas
to one of the specially designated areas, the RCMP detachment
from which he came is left with a vacant position. There is no
backfilling of the position for the period the peacekeeper is
away, which is usually six months. It causes a problem in the
community which is short an officer for that length of time.
There is special funding available under the peacekeeping
initiatives. The RCMP is being paid from government funds for
the cost of the member while he is on peacekeeping duties. The
question I have for the government is if the position is empty,
is the budget still receiving the money for that officer's salary
and benefits?
This is not a problem for the RCMP. I raise it for the
government to clarify that the Canadian taxpayer is not paying
for that position twice, once through the peacekeeping initiative
and again through the budget of the RCMP.
There have been occasions in the past when the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police was able to leave positions open in a provincial
contract. The way it is worked out financially, there is a cost
saving. It saves the province money and it saves money in the
RCMP's budget. This helps it come in on budget or a little under
budget, and it certainly is good for the commanding officer when
he can show the government that we was able to save money in a
given year.
The primary thing in Bill C-12 and for our communities in Canada
is the safety of the members who are overseas and compensation if
they are injured in dangerous situations. That is the paramount
issue.
For the people at home, the paramount issue is that we maintain
safety and security at a reasonable cost.
1630
I would like to close by commenting once again on what a
tremendous job the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other city
police forces have done over the years. I wish them well as they
continue with further peacekeeping missions in the future.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to Bill C-12. I will use the time I have today to
explain to the House why the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill.
Bill C-12 would make members of the RCMP eligible for benefits
under the Pension Act. We want members of the RCMP serving
abroad to have the same benefits as their counterparts in the
armed forces in the event of illness, injury or death.
First, I want to salute the men and women who work as
peacekeepers in a sometimes very unstable world.
The international community must show solidarity in the face of
armed conflicts, famines, droughts and all the other critical
situations that exist in the world today.
It is in this spirit of co-operation that we frequently send
contingents abroad to lend a helping hand on a temporary basis.
Year after year, countries like Haiti, Bosnia and Uganda are
added to the list of nations that need our help. As a member of
the international community, Canada must respond to these urgent
calls for help.
Members of the RCMP have played an active role in peacekeeping
missions.
Many Canadians and Quebeckers have rolled up their sleeves and
offered their help to the countries most in need of it. These
men and women have crossed oceans to share their knowledge,
their experience and their hope that they can bring peace to
this planet.
On a few occasions, the RCMP has been given the difficult task
of helping set up an entire police force. The day after the
fall of the Duvalier regime, for example, it was necessary to
restore Haiti's self-confidence, and this meant building an
effective police force.
Quebec and Canada therefore responded to the invitation that
went out to them. We have sent our soldiers and our police
officers all over the world in order to provide substantial
assistance with a number of problems. These countries are
grateful to us. Diplomats and ministers are exchanging
compliments.
Government representatives are proud, sometimes rightly so, that
their assistance has been beneficial.
But what about those who go to these countries? What about the
soldiers and police officers who risk their lives to make these
missions a success? Are we treating them fairly? Are we
providing them with proper recognition of their work which, let
us be honest, is the reason we have such a good reputation
within the international community?
As I have already mentioned, it is all very fine and well to
rise in the House and make ministerial statements in support of
people setting off overseas, but I also think it would be good
for RCMP members to feel supported economically.
This is where Bill C-12 comes in. It tries to address a certain
unfairness in the distribution of employee benefits.
We realized there was a difference in the levels of pay of
members of the RCMP serving on peacekeeping missions and members
of the Canadian armed forces serving as peacekeepers on similar
missions.
The inequality arises from the fact that the Pension Act
currently provides for payment of an allowance in the event of
disability or death relating to service in the armed forces.
While they are eligible for the same benefits as the armed
forces in peace time, the members of the RCMP are not, by
definition, entitled to benefits under the Special Duty Area
Pension Order.
So, members of the RCMP are not entitled to the same benefits as
the people they are working with—the members of the armed
forces. This salary difference remained, despite the fact that
they are both exposed to the dangers of the special duty areas.
Bill C-12 clearly tries to remedy this anomaly. In fact, by
changing section 32(1) in part II of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Superannuation Act, the bill remedies the inequality that
had existed up to now.
1635
This amendment will provide for a pension to be awarded in
accordance with the Pension Act to a member of the RCMP who is
disabled or dies as a result of an injury or disease incurred
while serving on a peacekeeping mission in a special duty area.
The expression “service on a peacekeeping mission” would not be
defined so as not to be limited in the application of the law.
A broad interpretation would enable us to apply new provisions,
not only to traditional UN peacekeeping missions, but to other
duties as well, such as supervising free elections held in
special duty areas.
In the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights we had an
opportunity to hear a number of witnesses concerned about the
changes proposed by Bill C-12. Whether it was Deputy Commissioner
David Cleveland, director of RCMP human resources or Staff
Sergeant Gaétan Delisle, the president of the association of the
members of the RCMP, everyone agreed that the bill corrected
injustices concerning the health and safety measures enjoyed by
the military, but not the RCMP.
During committee deliberations, we had the opportunity to ask a
number of questions of the various representatives. Like most
parliamentarians, I agree with the measures put forward in Bill
C-12. I took the opportunity to thank the witnesses, who, in
their testimony, shared with us what they go through on foreign
missions.
At the same time, this was an opportunity to find out what kind
of support they expected from their government.
In debating Bill C-12, we must bear one thing in mind: parity.
This is the purpose of the bill. It is designed to remedy
imbalances in the operation of the pension schemes. Basically,
the intent of the bill can be summed up as the same coverage for
the same risks.
In the future, RCMP and Canadian Forces members will be able to
say that they serve under the same conditions with the same
benefits.
However, as the members of this House are about to vote in
favour of Bill C-12, I must ask them this: once this bill is
passed, will we be able to say that any and everyone serving in
special duty areas has a pension?
In other words, is anyone who falls ill, is injured or killed in
a peacekeeping operation eligible for benefits under the
Superannuation Act?
Let us not forget that there are police forces besides the RCMP
that participate in peacekeeping operations. For instance,
municipal police forces in Quebec were actively involved in the
training of police in Haiti. For them and for their counterparts
in the RCMP and the Canadian Forces, there was a risk involved
in accepting to help these communities. In fact, I suggest that
parity requires that individuals serving abroad, whether RCMP,
military or municipal police, be entitled to the same benefits.
During the hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights, RCMP officials expressed their view on the case of
the municipal police officers who work abroad under the same
conditions as their members.
Mr. Cleveland, the RCMP's director of human resources, stated
that it was not his intention to have Bill C-12 apply to
municipal police officers, since they are not federal employees,
unlike RCMP officers. No one can refute that statement. I think
we all agree that municipal police officers are not members of
the federal public service.
However, based on the wording of the RCMP Act, municipal police
officers serving in special duty areas could be considered as
RCMP officers and thus enjoy the benefits provided under Bill
C-12, to ensure equal treatment.
In this regard, I would like to submit to the attention of the
House section 7(1)(d) of the RCMP Act, which reads as follows
“The Commissioner—designate any member, any supernumerary
special constable appointed under this subsection or any
temporary employee employed under subsection 10(2) as a peace
officer”.
As for subsection 10(2), it provides that “The Commissioner may
employ such number of temporary civilian employees at such
remuneration and on such other terms and conditions as are
prescribed by the Treasury Board, and may at any time dismiss or
discharge any such employee”.
1640
Therefore, what prevents the RCMP Commissioner from appointing
municipal police officers, so that they are temporarily deemed
to be RCMP officers during peacekeeping missions? Municipal
police officers could then enjoy the benefits provided under
Bill C-12. Far from being farfetched, this proposal would allow
all those who take part in peacekeeping missions abroad to enjoy
the same benefits.
For the Bloc Quebecois, equal treatment implies that all those
who participate in the important task of peacekeeping are
treated equally. We think Bill C-12 meets our desire for fair
treatment.
Still, we feel that a little goodwill on the part of those
involved is all that is necessary to ensure that municipal
police officers from Quebec—who do a tremendous job abroad—can
also get their fair share.
[English]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of my
party in support of Bill C-12, an act to amend the RCMP
Superannuation Act.
The legislation gives members of the RCMP serving abroad as
peacekeepers the same benefits as their counterparts in the armed
forces in the event of illness, injury or death. It has been too
long in coming.
While we support its passage at third reading, we hope that in
future when we ask our young men and women to place their lives
on the line for their country they will not have to worry about
their benefits and our commitment to them.
We must recognize that when our peacekeepers are serving abroad
in war zones, areas of civil strife or natural disaster they are
on duty around the clock, putting their lives at risk for their
country 24 hours a day.
Canada is respected around the world for its commitment to peace
and as a leader in peacekeeping missions. We as representatives
of the people must ensure that every measure is taken to give
full support to our peacekeepers and their families both at home
and abroad.
The legislation is intended to provide RCMP members who serve as
peacekeepers the same health benefits as their counterparts in
the armed forces. It is a step in the right direction and is
only fair.
However, more must be done to recognize the service of our
peacekeepers and the sacrifices they and their families make in
the name of peace on behalf of all Canadians. The issue of
equity for all those who serve Canada must be addressed both at
home and abroad, particularly with respect to the RCMP that
currently do not have the same collective bargaining rights as
their brothers and sisters in other law enforcement agencies
across the country.
We hear stories of members of the Canadian Armed Forces and
their families having to use food banks to sustain themselves.
Men and women who put their lives on the line for their country
and for peace around the world are forced to live in near poverty
conditions when they return home to Canada.
Long expected raises for servicemen and women have been put on
hold. This is in stark contrast to the Treasury Board decision
to pay huge bonuses to an executive group of the public service
averaging from $4,300 to $12,000, illustrating the government's
bias in favour of the executive ranks while denying long,
outstanding, legally required pay settlements to lower paid
workers.
Recent history shows that the Canadian government will use its
power against its own employees to take away rights and
discriminate against low paid workers. In the name of fiscal
restraint, the government has in the past passed legislation to
take away employee bargaining rights, freeze wages and remove job
security.
The slash and burn policies of the government jeopardize the
lives of Canadians at home and abroad. Half of the military
installations across Canada have been closed. Aircraft and
equipment are being mothballed, services reduced and thousands of
jobs lost in both the public and private sector.
1645
This has been the impact of the Liberal government and
demonstrates its lack of commitment not only to our peacekeepers
but to all Canadians. It is timely to address these issues at a
time when all Canadians are encouraged to reflect upon the great
sacrifices made by all members of our services on behalf of
Canada and peace around the world.
We support Bill C-12 and hope that it is the beginning of a
renewed commitment to our peacekeepers and indeed to all
Canadians, for the government has a very long way to go to
restore equity and fairness to Canadians. We in the NDP will
continue to fight to ensure that it does.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased, as always, to rise in the House
of Commons to pledge the support of the Progressive Conservative
Party for Bill C-12.
My colleagues in the Conservative caucus and I support the
legislation because it expands the scope of pension benefits for
many courageous Canadians who presently serve or have previously
served as peacekeepers throughout the world.
Specifically Bill C-12 would provide peacekeepers who are
members of the RCMP with the same pension entitlements in the
event of illness, injury or death as peacekeepers from the
Canadian Armed Forces. The legislation in essence is long
overdue.
If Bill C-12 is adopted, provisions of the RCMP Superannuation
Act would correspond exactly to provisions of the Pension Act
regarding coverage and benefits for injuries, illness or deaths
incurred while on peacekeeping missions. RCMP peacekeepers would
therefore be put on a level playing field with all Canadian
forces counterparts.
Our position in the global community is unique since for the
last 40 years Canada has built a proud tradition as peacekeepers
in the world. Cyprus, Egypt, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia and Haiti
are but a few of the countries where Canadian men and women have
put their lives on the line to help preserve the cause of peace,
proud Canadians all.
Indeed Canada has been at the forefront of developing and
implementing modern peacekeeping operations in the world. This
is due in no small part to the active involvement of thousands of
members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Following the first 30 years of participating in peacekeeping
nations and operations throughout the world the nature of
Canada's peacekeeping changed. In 1989 RCMP officers were
deployed to Namibia, the former southwest Africa, as it made its
transition from the South African protectorate to an independent
and democratic nation.
No longer would peacekeeping remain the sole domain of the
Canadian forces. These brave men and women who will henceforth
have support from their peacekeeping colleagues in the RCMP will
continue to do Canada's work abroad.
Since 1989 more than 600 members of the RCMP have participated
in United Nations missions to the former Yugoslavia, Haiti and
Rwanda. I personally have had the pleasure of knowing a member
who took part in such a mission. From the constituency of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, Guy Piché, a member of the
Stellarton RCMP detachment and a dedicated officer, served his
country proudly in Haiti.
The RCMP has successfully complemented the Canadian Armed Forces
and their involvement in peacekeeping. By expanding upon the
earlier successes of Canadian forces in many of the world's
trouble spots, RCMP members have met the demand for peacekeepers
in developing nations.
We should pause for a moment and reflect on what peacekeeping
means. It is more than a buzzword. Peacekeeping means providing
tools to developing countries to help support a stable and
democratic government, namely an effective security force in
place which will ensure and respect human rights and dignity.
RCMP members avail themselves to provide skill training in areas
such as investigation, first aid and case management. They have
also provided monitoring for individual officers and monitoring
for development of civilian peace officers.
Finally peacekeeping includes maintaining a safe and secure
environment in which developing peace forces can operate without
fear of reprisals. The last element of peacekeeping is probably
the most dangerous for those in the RCMP. Like their Canadian
forces colleagues in the traditional peacekeeping settings, RCMP
officers will face violent opposition to their presence in some
instances. They will place themselves in harm's way because of
warring factions. This is the ultimate in bravery in the fight
against unruly forces.
United Nations and the bill define these peacekeeping locations
as special area duties. The everyday reality is much more
precise.
These are deeply troubled areas in which Canadians are putting
themselves at grave risk of injury, illness or death for the
cause of peace.
1650
For these reasons the intent of the legislation, to put Canadian
forces and RCMP personnel on an equal footing with respect to the
Pension Act, is certainly a positive one, which I feel should
receive priority and attention from the House and from the
Senate.
I should note, however, that the situation of imbalance between
Canadian forces peacekeeping benefits and the RCMP peacekeeping
benefits was neither planned nor deliberate. It occurred under
the evolution of Canada's international military and security
role during this century.
At the beginning of the 20th century there was no such thing as
peacekeeping. Soldiers for the peacekeeping force were, merely
by the absence of full scale war, doing their duty abroad. Such
a war became a reality in the first world war in which Canada
paid dearly with the price of the lives of many of the young
generation of Canadians who took part.
In the wake of the first world war's carnage, the government of
the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden introduced the Pension Act,
which provided compensation for disability and death related to
service in Canadian forces. The Pension Act, however, maintained
a fundamental distinction in the eligibility of benefits between
wartime and peacetime military service. That distinction
remained almost 80 years later.
Put simply, if an injury, illness or death was attributed to or
incurred during the first or second world war, a pension shall be
awarded under section 21 of the act. This was around the clock
coverage. Peacetime service would result in the same benefit as
wartime service, only if it could be established that the injury,
illness or death was sustained on duty and attributed to service.
The difference was clear. If there existed a state of war, 24
hour coverage was provided. However for anything less much
stricter restrictions would apply.
After the second world war Canada continued to be involved in
international military operations during peacetime such as in
Korea and the Persian gulf. Canada also introduced and executed
the innovative notion of peacekeeping which nonetheless placed
Canadian forces personnel in hazardous conditions not normally
associated with traditional peacekeeping service.
In response to that evolution, the federal government introduced
the Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964. The bill then allowed
cabinet, through order in council, to designate special duty
areas outside Canada in which members of the armed forces would
be eligible for the same pension benefits as under section 21 of
the Pension Act.
In other words, there was 24 hour coverage for Canadian forces
personnel in these special designated duty areas, whether in
military operations such as in Korea or the Persian gulf or
peacekeeping activities such as in the Middle East or the former
Yugoslavia.
Various governments have issued more than two dozen such
designations. Our Canadian forces personnel have therefore been
eligible for pension benefits in the event of illness, injury or
death incurred in these special duty areas.
The RCMP meanwhile have been eligible for the same pension
benefits as those listed under section 21(2) of the Pension Act,
but the illness, injury or death provisions incurred through
peacetime military service was deemed to be equivalent to
illness, injury or death entitlements for members of the RCMP.
The principle was confirmed under the RCMP Act in 1984 and
confirmed in the first RCMP Superannuation Act in 1959. This was
a logical provision for the domestic RCMP service. In an area
such as Canada where peace is the rule, it makes perfectly good
sense to link this type of pension eligibility to duty rather
than to service.
Therefore in special duty areas peace is the exception and not
the rule. That is why the federal government, I surmise, has
changed the pension eligibility rules for Canadian forces
personnel which were in effect for 30 years. I suspect that is
why the federal government must now change the pension
eligibility rules for RCMP personnel who are now very much an
integral part of Canada's international commitment to
peacekeeping.
This is the sole purpose behind Bill C-12. For the reasons I
outlined, it is with pleasure that I pledge the support of the
Conservative caucus in a very non-partisan way. I suspect that
this will be of tremendous benefit to existing members of the
RCMP and future generations who partake in this very noble duty
abroad and within Canada.
1655
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a privilege to follow the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It must be a rare occasion when
two members with the same name on opposite sides of the House
support the same bill. I intend to split my time with the member
for Waterloo—Wellington.
This is a very straightforward bill which will correct the
inequalities that exist today between two groups of very noble
Canadians, namely our peacekeepers and members of the RCMP. In
particular, it will extend protection provided to RCMP members in
the event of an injury, illness or even death connected to such
service.
First let me explain the amendment and its importance to Canada
and its international peacekeepers. Our Canadian peacekeepers
serve in some of the most war torn areas of the world. They are
highly skilled individuals who work to bring law and order to
nations experiencing civil strife. While doing so Canadian
peacekeepers live in danger 24 hours a day.
Canadians are justifiably proud of their peacekeepers and expect
that they will receive the same kind of protection and benefits
that properly reflect the conditions in which they work and live.
The special duty area pension order recognizes the environment in
which our peacekeepers serve.
Members of the Canadian forces are considered on duty 24 hours a
day while serving in special duty areas. That means that should
a member of the Canadian forces suffer an injury or illness or
even die while serving in such an area, he or she automatically
becomes entitled to the benefit under the Pension Act.
Unfortunately such cannot be said for members of the RCMP. At
present 44 of their members are serving abroad in Bosnia or
Haiti. They are only entitled to benefits under the Pension Act
if the injury, illness or death occurs during their normally
scheduled work shift. We had an anomaly with regard to two
members serving in the same area, one an RCMP officer and the
other an off duty soldier. If injured, one receives compensation
and the other does not. It is not fair and it is not equitable.
Under the terms of the present act the onus is on the employee
to prove the disability attributable to the employment or
service. Since Canada first participated in international
peacekeeping missions by sending members of the armed forces to
areas of armed conflict, it was acknowledged that it would be
unfair to oblige these individuals or their beneficiaries to
prove that injury or death was attributable to their work.
Whereas a member of the Canadian forces benefits from the
presumption that the injury or loss of life occurred while
serving in a special duty area and is attributable to his or her
service, the onus unfortunately shifts to the member of the RCMP
to prove his or her case.
The bill corrects that inequity. It solves the problem of the
differences in treatment between members of the Canadian forces
and the RCMP. It acknowledges that Canadian peacekeepers never
stop serving and running a risk even when their shift is over. As
I indicated earlier, we would have two individuals leaving the
service area, going off duty, and in the same accident one member
would be covered and the other would not be.
At the present time, for instance, members of both forces are on
a mission in Bosnia, which has been declared a special duty area.
In accordance with special duty area pension orders, members of
the Canadian Armed Forces are considered to be on duty 24 hours a
day with respect to injury, illness or death. Members of the
RCMP, however, are considered to be on duty only during their
shift and therefore are treated differently from military
personnel participating in the same mission, even though they are
enduring the same conditions and are exposed to the same dangers.
These special benefits take into account the increased risk
associated with peacekeeping duties. The amendment will extend
the same kind of program to disabled RCMP peacekeepers. The
amendment reflects the changing role of peacekeeping and how
Canada as a country, respected worldwide for its commitment to
peacekeeping, has provided what many countries need most to
sustain peace, a respect for the rule of law and a method of
fairly enforcing the law.
1700
We must remember that RCMP members participating in these
peacekeeping missions are volunteers. They are highly dedicated
individuals and highly skilled individuals who bring to their
mission a great deal of talent and dedication. They are all
volunteers and they all experience some level of risk. Their job
is not an easy one. It is not without significant personal risk.
Therefore it is very important that RCMP members serving as
peacekeepers be treated fairly and that their families can be
confident in the adequacy of benefits to which they are entitled.
The bill strives to do just that. It seeks equity for all
Canadian peacekeepers, whether they are military or RCMP
personnel.
In supporting this bill parliamentarians from all sides of the
House will acknowledge the contributions of the RCMP as equal in
value to that of their colleagues in the Canadian forces. It is
good law. It corrects inequity and I hope all parties from all
sides of the House will see fit to support it.
I am hoping this House will act quickly. There are at present
44 members of the RCMP serving abroad in areas of risk. We need
to address that, and I am hoping all members will see fit to pass
the legislation quickly.
Members of the RCMP currently serving their country in
peacekeeping missions must be assured that they will be protected
in the event of injury, illness or death. I hope that all hon.
members understand the fairness of the amendments proposed to the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and that they
will join me in the passage of Bill C-12.
For all of those reason, as the hon. member opposite said, I
support the legislation. I hope that in supporting the
legislation it will see speedy passage.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
enjoyed the comments made by my colleague who sits on the justice
committee, as do I. I am wondering if he would like to comment
on a bit of a sidebar to this bill. As we send our RCMP members
overseas, which is rather a new and unique occurrence in the
history of the force, I am wondering if he is concerned about the
vacancy that is left in this country, where we see some
detachments, particularly in western Canada, manned by the most
senior member who holds nothing greater than the rank of
corporal.
I wonder if he has any thoughts that he might add to his earlier
comments with regard to that kind of a situation which is
developing as a result of the extension of the work of our RCMP
to serve in other countries which, at the same time, weakens the
force in Canada.
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, I was more worried that
the hon. member might ask me something about the proposed DNA
legislation.
I would point out to the hon. member that all of the people who
are serving in Bosnia and Haiti are in fact volunteers. I am
assuming that in the course of both budgeting and deploying
resources the concept of their volunteerism is taken into
consideration with their superior officers.
I would not argue that any diminution of ability or resources
locally is in any way affected because of the approach to
volunteering for this service. These people do a wonderful job.
We should be proud of them. We need to support them and this
bill goes a long way toward doing just that.
1705
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a privilege for me to address the proposed
legislative change to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act. I fully support this bill which will balance
the benefits given to our peacekeepers whether they belong to the
Canadian forces or to the RCMP.
Currently there are inconsistencies in the work related health
and death benefits offered to peacekeepers working in these two
groups. The amendment would allow RCMP officers to be covered 24
hours a day for illness, disability and death while working
overseas in special duty areas in the same way officers in the
Canadian forces receive their benefits.
I will outline the importance of this bill to all Canadians.
Our peacekeepers are sent to represent our country as well as to
provide security and stability to the people living in some of
the most war torn areas of the world. They are highly skilled
individuals who work to bring law and order to nations
experiencing strife. While doing this, Canadian peacekeepers are
effectively on duty 24 hours a day whether they are on a formal
shift or not.
While at home RCMP members, like all other Canadians, are
entitled to government sponsored benefits for work related
illness, disability and death. The system makes a distinction
between work and non-work situations. In Canada this distinction
is clear. A work related incident occurs during a work shift.
However, in the case of peacekeepers serving outside Canada in
hazardous areas, the line between being on duty and off duty is
less clear. This bill will recognize that our Canadian
peacekeepers while serving overseas can never truly go off duty
or be away from danger.
Canadians are proud of their peacekeepers and expect them to
receive the protection and benefits they deserve. I know this to
be true. My constituents in Waterloo—Wellington are very proud
of those who do so much for all of us as Canadians.
Since the Canadian Armed Forces first participated in
international peacekeeping missions, soldiers or their
beneficiaries were not required to prove that injury or death had
occurred while the individual was on duty. This acknowledgement
continues today.
Members of the Canadian forces are on duty 24 hours a day while
they serve in special duty areas such as Bosnia and Haiti. This
means that if a member of the Canadian forces suffers an injury,
becomes ill or even dies while serving in these areas, the
benefits under the Pension Act automatically apply. This is not
so for the RCMP. These officers are only entitled to benefits
under the Pension Act if the illness, injury or death occurs
during a normally scheduled shift. Under the terms of the act,
the onus is on the employee to prove the disability is attributed
to on-duty service.
Presently members of both forces are on a mission in Bosnia, a
region declared as a special duty area. According to the special
duty pension order, members of the Canadian forces are considered
to be on duty 24 hours a day with respect to the risk of illness,
injury or death. However, members of the RCMP are considered to
be on duty only during scheduled shift hours. Although both
forces are participating in the same mission under the same
conditions and exposed to the same dangers, RCMP members are
treated differently than military personnel. This bill addresses
this double standard.
It solves the problem of the differing treatment between members
of the Canadian forces and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police doing the same jobs. It acknowledges that Canadian
peacekeeping forces never really stop serving and running risks
even when their shifts are over. This special pension benefit
takes into account the increased risk associated with
peacekeeping duties.
Bill C-12 reflects the changing role of peacekeeping and how
Canada, a country respected worldwide for its peacekeeping
commitments, has assisted many countries in stabilizing law and
order. This bill strives for equality for all peacekeepers
whether they are military or RCMP personnel. By supporting this
bill we will acknowledge that the RCMP's contribution to
peacekeeping is as important as that of the Canadian forces. I
hope all hon. members understand the fairness of the amendments
proposed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act
and that they will join with me and others in passing this bill.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
1710
NATIONAL PARKS ACT
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-38, an act to amend the National Parks
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am indeed pleased, very proud and honoured to
have an opportunity to begin second reading debate on the
establishment of Tuktut Nogait National Park.
The opportunity and the sense of pride that I have in being part
of the establishment of Canada's newest national park is indeed a
broad pride that I have in our nation and in the program that we
embarked on back in 1885 when we began the process of
establishing our national parks.
This is going to be an important step in the completion of the
national park system. As members are aware, it is our objective
as a government and our objective as Canadians to have
representation in all 39 of the natural regions of Canada. When
we speak about completing our national parks system we are
talking in the sense of making sure we have representation in all
39 agreements.
The process that we are engaged in today is the completion of a
very lengthy process that has been ongoing for a number of years.
The most important part of that process occurred on June 28, 1996
when an agreement was signed in Paulatuk in the Northwest
Territories for the formal establishment of Tuktut Nogait
National Park.
There was an agreement among many of the partners who have
worked toward the initiation and establishment of this park. The
agreement was signed by the federal government and indeed by the
Minister of Canadian Heritage on behalf of the Government of
Canada, in fact the same incumbent who holds that position today.
The agreement was signed by the Government of the Northwest
Territories and by a number of representatives representing the
Inuvialuit who are also signatories to the agreement.
The agreement also completed a long and lengthy process of
almost seven years of study, negotiations and examinations of the
issues that were evident in that area which came to a conclusion
in 1996 and we are here in the House to formalize that agreement
through an amendment to the National Parks Act.
One of the primary purposes in establishing this park was the
protection of the Bluenose caribou herd and its calving and
post-calving habitat. It has long been a priority of the
government and a priority of many Canadians to safeguard the core
calving grounds of caribou, not just the Bluenose herd as we are
doing with this park, but indeed with caribou all across the
Arctic.
We as a government and indeed the Prime Minister himself has
said publicly, particularly in talking to our colleagues in the
United States, how important this objective is and we have long
called on the U.S. government to work toward that end.
Indeed this also represented a very special occurrence because
in 1994 a resource company, Darnely Bay Resources, at the request
of the Inuvialuit and others, voluntarily withdrew their mining
interests within the park boundaries.
1715
This was a very important signal of the times, that the mining
community was willing to work with national parks, recognizing
the importance of establishing them. They withdrew but not
because they felt there was no possibility of mineral resources
there because in fact the area is designated as having medium to
high potential. At that time there was a request to withdraw
because the important environmental considerations, the important
objective of protecting the caribou herd was made persuasively
and the company withdrew its interest in the area.
There are a number of important components to this park.
Obviously it conforms with the Inuvialuit final agreement
regarding their land claims settlement. This agreement signed in
1996 recognizes that and indeed it honours that agreement. It
also provides for Inuvialuit wildlife harvesting activities. They
will be able to maintain their traditional activities within the
boundaries of the park.
As I said when I began my comments, the protection of Canada's
special places is an important objective for this government. It
is indeed something most Canadians and I would hazard to say all
Canadians believe in. To date, federally we are protecting some
3% of our land and when we count that which is under protection
by the provinces it is a little over 10%. We are working toward
making sure we can leave to future generations these special
places in Canada.
With this legislation and with the protection of the caribou,
with the protection of what is one of the most beautiful places
in Canada, we are working toward the completion of our national
parks system. I am very proud of that.
I call upon my colleagues in the House to support this
legislation. Support the formalization of this national park as
a full-fledged member of the national parks family. This will
ensure the protection we provide under the act will be provided
to this area. I urge my colleagues from all parties to support
the establishment of this very special national park.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill
C-38. This bill will establish the Tuktut Nogait national park
in the Northwest Territories. The park will be 16,340 square
kilometres and it resides in the Inuvialuit land claims
settlement region.
The bill itself is very technical. It outlines in precise
geographical terms the boundaries of the new park. However there
is more to the bill than lines on a map and a lot of complicated
geographical land descriptions. The driving force behind the
creation of this national park was the protection of the calving
grounds of the bluenose caribou. In fact in the Siglik dialect of
Inuvialuktun, “tuktut nogait” means “caribou calves”.
In 1989 the closest community to the new park, Paulatuk,
prepared a community conservation plan that recommended the
creation of a national park in order to protect the caribou
calving grounds. In 1996 an agreement was signed by the
Government of Canada, the Northwest Territories and four
representative groups of the Inuvialuit.
That agreement set out the boundaries of the park as they are set
out in this legislation.
1720
The new national park not only protects the caribou but it also
protects the fragile tundra landscape in that region. The
creation of the park advances the objective of Parks Canada of
establishing a national park in every distinctive natural region
of our country.
The Tuktut Nogait park is located in region 15, Tundra Hills, as
designated by Parks Canada in its national parks systems plan.
This particular region is highlighted by a number of spectacular
features. One is the smoking hills where smoke billows from
cracks in the ash covered ground.
As well, more than 95% of this region is tundra, rock barrens
where only the hardiest plants can survive. Wildlife in region
15 is mainly comprised of summer migrants. Muskox, wolves and as
many as 500,000 caribou can be found in this region. According to
Parks Canada this area is home to one of the rarest birds in
Canada, the Eskimo curlew.
Tuktut Nogait comprises only a portion of region 15. However
the new national park is an important step in preserving the
wildlife and wilderness wonders which I have just described.
We live in a country that is extremely diverse in its landscape,
temperatures and wildlife. It is incumbent upon us to act
responsibly to ensure that the appreciation of that diversity is
available to future generations. The creation of Tuktut Nogait
is an important step in protecting that diversity and providing
Canadians and our visitors with an opportunity to discover and
enjoy the natural beauty of our country.
The Darnley Bay anomaly borders the new park on its western
side. The anomaly area which covers 463,847 hectares is thought
to contain nickel, copper and platinum group elements. There was
some concern for the boundaries of the Tuktut Nogait park since
this mineral find, or the proposed area where minerals may be,
extends within the park's borders.
The company prospecting the anomaly had been given exploration
permits by the department of Indian affairs that mistakenly
included portions of the new national park. However in 1994 the
company in question relinquished its exploration rights within
the national park area so that the establishment of the park
could proceed.
Last September the president of Darnley Bay Resources was quoted
in the Edmonton Journal. What he said was that he would not
seek a change to the park boundary if a major mineral deposit was
found on the boundary. The company should be commended for that.
It is encouraging to see that businesses in this country are
willing to work with the government in preserving and protecting
our natural heritage.
I look forward to reviewing this bill more closely in committee
so that the exact costs of the establishment and maintenance of
the park can be determined. I will be interested to learn how
the park will be managed. I will be interested to examine any
projected business or financial plans that may be available for
the new park. While I am sure we are all in agreement as to the
importance of establishing this park, we should also agree that
the establishment of this park must be done in a fiscally
responsible manner.
At this time I can see no reason for opposing the establishment
of this new national park in region 15. It protects and
preserves wildlife in an important wilderness area in the
Northwest Territories. It preserves a part of Canada's natural
heritage for us, for our children and for our grandchildren to
enjoy. Surely such an objective can meet with the support of all
members of this House.
1725
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I concur with the speech just given by my colleague on the
establishment of this park but I would like to add a couple of
caveats.
My major concern is in the management of the parks under Parks
Canada, soon to be under the parks agency.
It strikes me that there has not been a sufficient
differentiation between parks and preserves. These are English
words that I use to designate how I see the difference between
the establishment of this park and many others, and where we have
developed facilities such as the four mountain parks, especially
the Banff park.
It is clear to me that there has to be an acceptance by the top
management in Parks Canada or in the parks agency, whenever that
comes about, to ensure we do not end up robbing Peter to pay
Paul.
I am referring to the fact that the four mountain parks have the
ability to generate revenue. The town site of Banff has a gross
domestic product in the range of three-quarters of a billion
dollars a year. That is not million; that is billion.
Three-quarters of a billion dollars a year just from that one
town site in the park.
Parks Canada also has the ability and the responsibility to
collect fees from people who have concessions or leases within
the parks. There is Riding Mountain National Park. There are
the contractual arrangements for some of the tour operations in
Gros Morne National Park. The park derives revenue that is going
into the overall park revenue.
There should be some kind of linkage between the revenue which
is being derived from a given area and the services which are
being provided to that area. Unfortunately, as I understand the
situation, revenues derived from the leaseholders, the tour
operators, and other people who are paying into the park even the
permits are currently going into the consolidated revenue of the
park. In my judgment that represents a serious problem.
As my colleague has just stated, with the establishment of this
park we have to make sure that we are doing these things on a
very sound fiscal footing. If there is a good reason for the
establishment of this park, and I believe there is, we have to be
able to cost it out. The people of Canada will then know the
administrative costs for the people involved in the environmental
sciences, the protection and ranger work, the physical
infrastructure required to support them as well as their pay and
benefits. If they know that the cost of the entire package is
going to be $1 million, then Canadians can either buy into it
because it is good value or say that it is too much.
There has to be a complete separation between the leasehold
arrangements, the tour operator arrangements and the park fee
arrangements that are currently in place. There has to be more
focus on those areas where the revenue is derived.
I have a concern in the downsizing that has occurred. The Reform
Party has been supportive of making government more accountable
and leaner and we take pride in that. However, the concern I had
when I was responsible for this portfolio before turning it over
to my very capable colleague was that we were robbing Peter to
pay Paul in the parks system.
We have an opportunity in the establishment of the parks agency
which is also legislation presently before the House to address
the issue I just raised. We have to approach it very
conscientiously and very seriously.
Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?
1730
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time has expired.
It is understood that when the bill is brought back to the House
the hon. member will have 35 minutes left.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to speak on private member's Bill
C-208 brought forward by the Liberal member for Brampton
West—Mississauga.
Bill C-208 proposes to amend the Access to Information Act to
provide sanctions against any person who improperly destroys or
falsifies government records in an attempt to deny right of
access of information under the act.
The Reform Party supports ensuring that the government is more
open and accountable to the public. This bill would do that. It
therefore has my support and the support of a great number of my
colleagues.
The government has the responsibility to ensure that the affairs
of government are open and above board. Canadians have a stake
in government affairs and the actions of government must be open
to public scrutiny. The wilful destruction of public documents
clearly must be prevented. This can only be done with realistic
sanctions, which is what this bill does.
Information collected for public purposes and paid for by the
taxpayers belongs to the people. Canadians have a right to
ensure that public documents are made available to Canadians
under the requirements of the Access to Information Act.
Bill C-208 will help to ensure that the guarantee of public
access to government documents is protected. Bill C-208 will
hold government and public servants accountable for their actions
when dealing with public documents. Bill C-208 will also serve
as a deterrent to future recurrences of destruction of public
documents as we witnessed during the Somalia affair.
Information commissioner John Grace investigated and found that
allegations of document tampering or destructions at Transport
Canada and national defence “proved to be well founded”.
Investigation also found document destruction by Health Canada
in 1989 of the Canadian blood committee audio tapes and
transcripts of all preceding meetings of the Canadian blood
committee. The destruction was ordered and carried out so that
records could not become subject to the Access to Information
Act.
The commissioner concluded that the decision to destroy the
records was motivated by concern about potential litigation and
liability issues associated with tainted blood products. The
commissioner found that the then executive director of the
Canadian blood committee had custody and control of the records
and probably knew there was a pending access to information
request for the records.
According to the information commissioner, these “lamentable
incidents of wilful actions taken by public officials for the
purpose of suppressing information have been a wake-up call”.
The information commissioner has twice recommended: “There
should be a specific offence in the access act for acts or
omissions intended to thwart the rights set out in law. Moreover,
those who commit this offence should be subject to greater
sanctions than simply exposure of wrongdoing. At a minimum, the
offence should carry a penalty of up to five years in prison.
Such a penalty is in line with that imposed in section 122 of the
Criminal Code for breach of trust by a public officer. The
stakes are too high for simply a slap on the wrist”.
Also according to the information commissioner, the government
has improperly destroyed or falsified government documents in
many ways. These include altering records before release to an
access request or without informing the requester of the changes
and without invoking any exemptions under the act, or destroying
original records so that the alterations would not be found out.
This bill makes good sense.
It is filling a hole that currently exists within the Access to
Information Act by allowing or specifying penalties for people
who would wilfully destroy or alter public information so anyone
having an access request would not get that information. I
support this bill and I believe a number of people in the House
will also support it.
1735
This is one bill of four I am aware of that deal with the Access
to Information Act. Bill C-216, the third hour on which will be
in a couple of weeks, also deals with access to information. It
deals with commissions and crown corporations such as the CBC and
the wheat board that are now exempt from access to information.
The four bills come from all sides of the House dealing with
access to information. This shows all parties are interested in
having an Access to Information Act that works, that is
accessible and covers all areas of government. We will see it
happen in the votes over the next days and months in the House.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am indebted the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington for his
assistance.
I commence by commending my colleague for Brampton
West—Mississauga for bringing this important issue to the
attention of the House and for her continued commitment to
safeguarding the rights of Canadian citizens.
I am also pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-208.
It proposes to add to the Access to Information Act an infraction
for destroying documents subject to the act with intent to deny
access. Before talking about the specific of the bill I will
provide some background for my comments.
Canadians have had the benefit of the federal Access to
Information Act since 1983. The federal government can uniquely
invoke certain exceptional, specific and limited measures to
refuse access to information. It is in these cases, when the
government refuses to grant access to information, that the law
confers on individuals the right to make a complaint to the
access to information commission to review the decision made by
the government in the federal court.
The laws of access to information of the federal government are
a fundamental right in a democratic system. Under a declaration
of the supreme court made earlier this year the primary goal of
the legislative measures is concerning the access to information
to facilitate democracy.
The laws of access to information that the government possesses
in order to facilitate the functioning of the federal government
are to render more simple, more receptive and more responsible
government. States with repressive laws consequently are missing
a tool that allows them to behave responsibly as governments.
This is not to say that access to information could not be
improved or brought up to date.
The hon. member is trying to improve the act with the amendment
proposed in the legislation. One can argue that there is a gap
in the protection currently offered by the act since it does not
contain a penalty for the deliberate alteration or destruction of
a record. The act does contain a penalty but it is a penalty for
obstructing the work of the information commissioner.
The act also authorizes the commissioner to disclose to the
Attorney General of Canada information relating to the commission
of an offence against any law of Canada by any officer or
employee of a federal government institution.
1740
The bill would add an offence for actions that one can
legitimately see as actions that intend to defeat the purpose of
the act.
For that reason I agree with the hon. member that the Access to
Information Act should include a penalty for deliberately
destroying documents subject to the act. I believe that such
action is unacceptable and therefore should be punished. For
this reason I support the general goal of Bill C-208. I do not,
however, support the specifics of the bill.
We could maintain that article 126 of the Criminal Code applies
to a situation where a person voluntarily destroys a document
with the goal to revoke access to information under the Access to
Information Act.
Under article 126 of the Criminal Code whoever without
legitimate excuse contravenes the federal law by voluntarily
accomplishing is guilty of a criminal act and is liable for
imprisonment for a maximum of two years.
The severity of the penalty seen in article 126 can bring us to
ask if we can foresee the penalty under the access to information
law in the case where voluntary destruction of documents is
applied to.
We envision a penalty specific that would not be as severe as
that in article 126 for the act of this crime and to receive
imprisonment for a maximum of two years.
I am of the opinion that the penalty as described in the
Criminal Code is probably far too severe. Consequently, if we
add a penalty specific to the access to information law it should
be less severe than the penalty currently listed in article 126.
What is proposed in Bill C-208? It is to create an indictable
offence with a maximum penalty of five years in prison, which is
heavier than the penalty provided for in section 126. For this
reason I cannot support the bill.
I understand the hon. member wants to make the point that the
destruction or alteration of the document is serious. We all
agree to this. It should also be put into perspective. In my
view a maximum of five years is far too heavy a penalty for
destroying documents.
This penalty would be more severely punished than the offence of
assault causing bodily harm, a hybrid offence with a maximum
penalty of 18 months when prosecuted under summary conviction.
Destroying documents, while undoubtedly serious, cannot be
compared to assault causing bodily harm.
I believe the need to create an offence for the deliberate
destruction of records in order to thwart the Access to
Information Act is an issue that should be considered within the
context of the reform of this act and should be examined by the
House.
I believe that a case can be made that an addition to such an
offence would strengthen the principles of openness and
accountability inherent in the access to information legislation.
I also believe that particular attention should be paid to
determining the appropriate sentence to be attached to the
offence, which should be proportional to penalties provided for
comparable offences.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with special interest that I rise today to speak to Bill C-208,
an act to amend the Access to Information Act.
This bill provides more severe sanctions against any person who
improperly destroys or falsifies government records in an
attempt to deny right of access to information under the Access
to Information Act.
The 1980 Access to Information Act does not provide sanctions
severe enough for this type of offence. Section 67 currently
provides the following:
67. (1) No person shall obstruct the Information Commissioner or
any person acting on behalf or under the direction of the
Commissioner in the performance of the Commissioner's duties and
functions under this Act.
(2) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an
offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars.
1745
Bill C-208 makes it an indictable offence to destroy, falsify or
not keep required records. The punishment for such an offence
would be imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a
fine not exceeding $10,000 or both.
This bill is timely since people from every walk of life are
becoming increasingly interested in public life, and this is
good.
Whether they are artists, professionals, intellectuals or
labourers, they all want to know how their interests are being
taken care of. It is critical to understand that citizens want
to take an active part in the development of government
policies.
However, this legitimate demand requires that the policy
development process be accessible. Therefore the process to
disseminate government information must be effective and, above
all, transparent.
Does the current act meet these expectations? Do information
policies allow every citizen to really know how the government
works?
According to the member for Brampton, who introduced this bill,
the answer is no.
According to the member, we must review the Access to
Information Act to punish more severely any person who
improperly destroys or falsifies official records.
I totally agree with the member. Public servants who commit such
destructive acts must be punished more severely. As lawmakers,
we must protect the right of our fellow citizens to be
adequately informed of their government's actions. And I am not
the only one who thinks so. On several occasions, the
Information Commissioner criticized the lack of teeth in the
Access to Information Act.
In his 1995-96 report, he condemned the three following cases.
First, at Transport Canada, a senior official directed his
assistants to destroy all copies of an audit report concerning a
refurbishing project which he knew was the subject of an access
to information request.
Second, at the Department of National Defence, a reporter
claiming that certain documents had been falsified before being
released to him requested an investigation, which showed that
the allegations were founded.
Third, there was a similar case at Health Canada. Testimony
presented before the Krever Commission revealed that recordings
of meetings of the Canadian committee were fraudulently
destroyed in the late 1980s.
In his 1996-1997 report, the commissioner reaffirms his position
that the law as it stands now does not provide for effective
enforcement mechanisms.
On the specific issue of the tainted blood scandal, the
commissioner once again sent a message to the lawmakers, saying
“These lamentable incidents of wilful actions taken by public
officials for the purpose of suppressing information have been a
wake-up call. As recommended in last year's annual report, there
should be a specific offence in the access act for acts or
omissions intended to thwart the rights set out in the law. At a
minimum, the offence should carry a penalty of up to five years
in prison”.
In his last two reports, the commissioner warned us that the
legislation was not effective. In 1996, he said and I quote
“After 13 years of operation of this Act, it is unfortunate to
have to report several very disturbing manoeuvres to hinder the
right of access to government documents, including destruction
and falsification”.
In 1997, for the second time in two years, the commissioner
stated “These lamentable incidents of wilful actions taken by
public officials for the purpose of suppressing information have
been a wake-up call.
As recommended in last year's annual report, there should be a
specific offence in the access act for acts or omissions
intended to thwart the rights set out in the law. At a minimum,
the offence should carry a penalty of up to five years in
prison”.
1750
It is obvious that we need to legislate according to the
recommendations made by the commissioner. One of my colleagues,
the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, has introduced Bill C-286.
He too urges parliamentarians to solve the problems related to
the enforcement of the Access to Information Act.
However, his bill differs from the one now before the House,
because it deals with various aspects of the destruction of
documents. The bill before the House does not seem to deal with
that particular issue.
As my colleague from Laval Centre said, when we address the
issue of the destruction and falsification of documents, we
cannot disregard some considerations specific to our public
administration.
Documents requested under access to information are rarely
destroyed by the individual who would really benefit from their
disappearance. Very often—and the bill must have provision for
this—it is senior officials or senior public servants who have
ordered this to be done, although they have not done it
themselves.
That is why the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm is introducing
Bill C-268, which forbids any employer in a position of authority
from taking reprisals against anyone refusing to destroy or
falsify a record when asked to do so. This shortcoming in the
present legislation would be remedied by the bill of my hon.
colleague for Berthier—Montcalm.
There must be severe penalties for those who use their authority
to order destruction of a document and who threaten someone who
refuses to go along with this. Unfortunately, Bill C-286 makes no
mention of this.
In closing, it must be recognized that the bill attempts—albeit
only partially—to solve a very significant problem in our
information policy. It is therefore our party's duty to support
it.
The Access to Information Act does, however, deserve to be
reformed far more extensively. I am therefore inviting you to
discuss Bill C-286, which addresses access to Privy Council
confidences, with my colleague soon.
In conclusion, although this bill is praiseworthy, I must draw
attention to some of its shortcomings. One of these is that it
calls upon parliamentarians to resolve only some of the
problems. It must therefore be made clear that this reform
remains incomplete in many ways.
For example, we need to be aware that documents, and I repeat
myself here, are rarely destroyed by the very person for whom
their destruction would be advantageous. The Access to
Information Act must, therefore, prohibit any reprisal, or
threat of reprisal by an employer or a person in a position of
authority.
The complete bill, in conjunction with Bill C-286, should
therefore provide for three kinds of offence: destroying or
falsifying documents; ordering the destruction or falsification
of documents; retaliating against a person who refuses to
destroy or falsify documents.
We therefore believe the intent of Bill C-208 to be commendable
and that is why we are supporting it. Much more extensive
amendments are in order, however. That is why we hope to have
the opportunity at some point to discuss Bill C-286, which will
be a useful adjunct to the bill before us today.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will add a
few points to this important debate. We are talking about the
destruction of evidence of what government officials and
bureaucrats do. It seems the whole concept is one of
accountability of which I am strongly in favour.
When I was first elected in 1993 I inherited all of the office
equipment of my predecessor and the motor on the shredder was
burned out. Everything in the office was shredded. Apparently
they had bags and bags of shredded paper and a burned out motor
on the shredder when it was all done.
I have a couple of suggestions for government with respect to
the handling of confidential information. There is a bit of a
misconception here. I believe there are justifiable occasions
when in order to protect the rights of individuals, or in the
case of MPs those of a constituent, documents need to be
destroyed so they cannot be used against the individuals.
That I think is important.
1755
When it comes to government accountability and bureaucracy I
think just the opposite is true. There are two points that I
think are very important. One is that accountability comes from
knowing that the document will some day be made public.
Recently we had a talk with, for example, the Canadian Wheat
Board. It is not subject to the Access to Information Act so it
can do whatever it wants. Other than what it chooses to report
in its reports, the rest is never available to the public and in
particular to farmers who have the greatest interest in the
Canadian Wheat Board.
Even though one can argue that there is a commercial value to
secrecy at a certain stage, why can we not after five years, or
even after ten years, say that everything has to be opened up? At
that stage people would know what decisions were made on their
behalf five years before.
This would very greatly affect the decisions being made by
bureaucrats, by officials. They might say they can do something
and no one will ever find out and it does not matter. However,
if they know that some years down the road someone will find out,
it may affect their decision and cause them to do what is right
instead of what may not be right.
The second part of what we are talking about today is the
destruction of documents that could be called upon later. I
would like to add another feature. Anybody who is ordered by a
superior to shred documents or otherwise destroy them should have
the right to obtain the order in writing and to retain that
document for his or her own protection for the future so that
nobody can pass the buck afterward and say “I was simply
following orders”, and then the person giving the orders saying
“No, I never gave that order”.
In that way an individual, someone lower down in the hierarchy
who did not make the decision, would still have protection.
Thereby the person who actually gave the order would be held
responsible because the document would be held in the safety of
the person receiving the order who would be able to produce it if
the matter became an issue later.
In general I would like to speak in favour of the bill. It is
an important measure to provide accountability and to make sure
things are done correctly on behalf of taxpayers and voters. The
Canadian people would have confidence in their government because
information would be available to them when they need it in order
to provide the facts. This measure would provide for the safety
of materials, preventing their destruction, so that evidence
could be brought forward if needed.
In principle I support the bill and I also urge other members to
do so.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today,
all questions on the motion are deemed to have been put and a
recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday,
April 21, 1998, at expiry of the time provided for Government
Orders.
Is there unanimous consent to call it
6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
December 5, 1997, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, I
asked her parliamentary secretary when the Liberal government
would limit conditional sentencing to non-violent offenders. The
parliamentary secretary refused to answer the question.
As of today my particular question on conditional sentencing has
been outstanding for 45 sitting days of the House.
1800
However, prior and subsequent questions asked repeatedly by
myself and my colleagues have gone unanswered since the inception
of Bill C-41, the vehicle of conditional sentencing, in June
1995.
For almost three years now we have asked the former and current
justice ministers to amend the Criminal Code to restrict the use
of conditional sentencing to non-violent offenders. We have
ample reasons to be concerned about the releasing of violent
offenders including convicted rapists onto our streets. These
reasons include the safety of our sons and daughters, our spouses
and our brothers and sisters.
Sex offenders have the highest rate of re-offending and therefore
pose an enormous risk to the lives and safety of our families.
Yet despite our repeated requests, the justice minister refuses
to limit conditional sentencing. As a result, rapists and other
violent offenders are walking free.
We have numerous examples to prove this fact. However, as my
time is limited, I will use the most recent case which has raised
the ire of Canadians across the country.
On January 26 of this year, a Quebec court judge granted 24-year
old Patrick Lucien and 23-year old Evans Shannon conditional
sentencing for sexual assault. Judge Monique Dubreuil granted
these lenient sentences, although the crown recommended prison
sentences of five and four years respectively.
A community sentence is totally inappropriate and unacceptable
for these two men who took turns raping their 18-year old victim
while the other held her down.
When questioned about these two cases, the justice minister
provided her typical answer. She was satisfied to leave this and
similar controversies to the courts.
Well the justice minister may be satisfied with this abhorrent
use of conditional sentencing, but the Reform Party of Canada—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member may
not have been in the House the other day when there was an
intervention by the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole
House.
The Chair is very concerned that the precedents of this House
require that members be judicious in their comments in respect of
the bench and members of the judiciary in this country. I must
say that I take exception to the hon. member naming the judge in
this case and referring specifically to this judgement.
If the hon. member wishes to refer to the case in general, the
Chair has no objection to that. It is a perfectly fair comment.
However, the authorities of this House, including citations in
Beauchesne's, which I could find for the hon. member to assist
him, indicate very strongly that members ought not to be naming
members of the courts in connection with debates in this Chamber
and then speaking about them in terms that are less than
flattering.
I invite the hon. member to comply with the rules in that regard
and avoid reference to the judge in this or in any other case, if
he is going to make adverse comments in respect of that person
because I believe it is inappropriate for that to be done.
The hon. member may continue his remarks.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be
guided by the judgment of the Chair on this matter.
I am not sure where I ended, but I will continue my remarks.
On January 26 of this year a Quebec court granted 24-year old
Patrick Lucien and 23-year old Evans Shannon conditional
sentencing for sexual assault. The judge in that particular case
granted these lenient sentences although the crown had
recommended prison sentences of five and four years.
I submit that a community sentence under conditional sentencing
is inappropriate in this case. It is unacceptable for these two
men who took turns raping their 18-year old victim while each one
held the victim down.
When questioned about these two cases, the justice minister
provided a typical response that we have heard in our request
that an amendment to C-41 be made to limit conditional sentencing
to non-violent offences. The minister has provided the answer,
which is on the record, that she is satisfied to leave this and
similar controversies to the court.
The justice minister, as I stated earlier, may be satisfied with
this abhorrent use of conditional sentencing but the Reform Party
and I believe thousands if not millions of Canadians are not
satisfied with this. We want the Criminal Code amended and we
are tired of waiting, as we are tired of waiting for the
minister's answer to the question I asked on December 5.
1805
Since the parliamentary secretary is present I repeat my
question to the government. Will it consider an amendment to
conditional sentencing that will deny the courts the use of that
particular section in cases of convicted violent offenders,
including rapists?
[Translation]
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
December, justice ministers met to discuss conditional
sentencing issues. More specifically, they looked at the need
for an amendment in order to limit conditional sentences to
non-violent criminals.
All jurisdictions agreed that Canada's appeal courts should be
allowed to issue the necessary guidelines to sentencing judges.
This is taking place in all appeal courts in the country.
[English]
At the appellate level, courts have expressed the view that
conditional sentences are generally inappropriate for sexual
offences unless exceptional circumstances are present.
We will continue, as the minister has said, to monitor in close
consultation with the provinces and territories as requested by
the territories and the provinces, the use of conditional
sentences. There will always be sentencing decisions that create
controversy, and the Reform members are great creators of
controversy in this House by bringing up the exceptions to the
rule every single time, that seem on their face to be
inappropriate. That is why we have courts of appeal.
It is important for hon. members to keep matters in perspective.
There have been well over 18,000 conditional sentence orders
imposed in Canada since September 1996. As an article published
in the Toronto Star in March 1988 noted the majority of the
more than 18,000 conditional sentences have been free of
controversy. The vast majority of conditional sentence cases are
well-reasoned appropriate dispositions.
We continue to be vigilant. We are working with provincial and
territorial correctional experts and prosecutors to collect data
on the use of conditional sentencing, as was requested by all
territories and provinces.
The evidence so far is clear. Most conditional sentences have
been imposed for non-violent offences involving property,
driving, drugs, administration of justice and other non-violent
offences under the Criminal Code.
We do not make laws in this country for the exceptions. We make
them in order to cover a wide range of offences.
[Translation]
I also wish to advise hon. members that there is an undertaking
on the part of provincial and territorial governments to
continue working together.
[English]
I want to advise in addition that the Minister of Justice is
considering introducing possible amendments to streamline the
enforcement of conditional sentences where an allegation of
breach has been made.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.08 p.m.)