36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 90
CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 22, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HILLCREST SCHOOL REUNION
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | B.C. DISASTER VICTIMS
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THOMAS D'ARCY MCGEE
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN SPECIAL OLYMPICS
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHINESE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
1405
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NAGANO OLYMPIC GAMES MEDALISTS
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN PARALYMPIC ATHLETES
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL EARTH DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SASKATCHEWAN PARTY
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1410
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL EARTH DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GLOBALIZATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOM HASHOAH
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUYSBOROUGH COUNTY
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1415
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NAGANO OLYMPIC GAMES MEDALISTS
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET SURPLUS
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1435
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VICTIMS OF CRIME
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1440
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOOD INSPECTION
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
1445
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
1450
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1455
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUBA
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORGANIZED CRIME
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1500
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA'S OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC ATHLETES
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Gilbert Parent |
1505
1510
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1520
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1525
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-391. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATIZATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-392. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1530
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pensions
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Parental Rights and Responsibilities
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Goods and Services Tax
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
1535
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Trans-Canada Highway
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bioartificial Kidney
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-39. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1540
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1545
1550
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1615
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion deferred.
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT, 1985
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-3. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1620
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1625
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1630
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1655
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1710
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1715
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LABELLING OF TOYS
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1740
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
1745
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1750
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
1755
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1800
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | (Division deemed demanded and deferred)
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1805
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1810
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Merchant Navy Veterans
|
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1815
![V](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 90
![](/web/20061116191809im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 22, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will
now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
HILLCREST SCHOOL REUNION
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to offer my congratulations to Hillcrest School in my
riding of Bruce—Grey which will be celebrating its 50th
anniversary reunion this weekend in Owen Sound.
Since 1948 Hillcrest has provided primary and junior high school
education in the Owen Sound area. It has grown from a building
housing 150 primary students to a large junior high school of 700
students and a staff of 60.
Reunions are always full of memories. Returning staff and
students will relive the thrill of the first day, remember
obstacles they had to overcome and meet with friends. They will
all get together to think about the dreams they had in the past
and the future they will have together.
As both the present and past students assemble at Hillcrest this
weekend to celebrate I offer them my best wishes and
congratulations. I know that this weekend will be full of
youthful memories, old friends and good times.
* * *
B.C. DISASTER VICTIMS
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is a sea of blue in B.C.'s lower
mainland and it has nothing to do with the Pacific Ocean.
Hundreds of large blue tarps are hanging from condominiums in a
last ditch attempt to protect properties from extensive water
damage during repairs due to second-rate building practices. The
Condominium Owners Association of British Columbia estimates the
repair costs to be in the neighbourhood of $1 billion—similar to
Canada's other recent natural disasters.
These disaster victims are looking for help now. It is a
serious crisis and not even the Minister of National Revenue,
whose own constituents are many of the troubled condo owners, has
spoken a word about it in this House.
The minister has the power to lend a hand: allow owners to use
RRSP funds, make interest payments on loans deductible, or even
permit emergency repairs to be GST exempt.
Let us have a B.C. minister finally do something for B.C.
* * *
THOMAS D'ARCY MCGEE
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as hon.
members are aware, on April 7, 1868 a remarkable father of
Confederation was assassinated. However, 130 years later the
legacy of Thomas D'Arcy McGee is symbolized by the goals that we
as parliamentarians strive to achieve.
McGee's important contributions reflect his Irish descendancy,
defined by struggle and suffering, and his compassionate
conscience which assisted in the development of the Canadian
economic, social and political nature we have inherited.
McGee's work with immigrants led him into the political arena
with a Montreal seat in the House of Assembly of the Canadas in
1857. He was responsible as a Reform MLA for legislating
progressive social and health conditions and for providing a
stable foundation for the Canadian fabric.
It was also his participation in the Confederation debates that
fostered his historical legacy as a compassionate visionary,
encompassing an equitable partnership between two peoples which
would result in what he called a new nationality.
McGee saw Canada as a nation that would bridge differences—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
* * *
CANADIAN SPECIAL OLYMPICS
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Special Olympics is the national sports
organization that provides sport training and competition
opportunities for athletes who are mentally challenged.
Today the Canadian Special Olympics serves 20,000 athletes
through the efforts of 8,000 volunteers. There are offices in
every province and the two territories where year-round training
occurs.
The Canadian Special Olympics is endorsed by the Canadian
Olympic Association. The national winter games will be held from
January 25 to January 30 in the year 2000. Canada's capital
region's bid for these games will be presented to the Canada
Special Olympics on April 27, 1998. This bid, if successful,
will be integrated into the Ottawa 2000 millennium celebrations.
On behalf of all citizens of the great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke I endorse this bid.
Congratulations to my friend and colleague the member for
Ottawa—Vanier who has been superlative—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.
* * *
CHINESE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week the Chinese Benevolent Association which represents
over 40 organizations from Vancouver presented me with a petition
signed by over 5,000 residents of Vancouver.
They oppose the language requirement contained in the report
“Not Just Numbers” presently being considered by the Department
of Citizenship and Immigration. I will be presenting their
concerns to the minister in the near future.
1405
The people of Vancouver want their concerns taken into account.
They have a right to be heard.
The minister has proven that Canadians have a voice in shaping
our government policy. I have every confidence that the
government will maintain an immigration policy based on fairness
and openness. Why? Because the government cares about the views
of Canadians.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
December 1997 we heard the justice minister say that she was
meeting her provincial counterparts in Montreal to discuss
changes to the YOA and she would get back to us.
In February 1998 she was still in consultation, but she would
get back to us.
This week she tells us that she will respond in a timely
fashion. I guess that means she will get back to us.
What we need today is a commitment from the justice minister to
announce changes to the YOA before we recess this summer. I only
hope that she will give us that commitment.
It seems all we get are words, words, words and no action. For
me everything boils down to either you cannot do something or you
will not. It is obvious that she either cannot make these
changes to the YOA or she will not. I wonder which it is.
I hope when the senior minister from Alberta returns to her
riding she can explain to her constituents and the rest of
Alberta why her bleeding heart eastern colleagues have torpedoed
her law and order.
Words are not enough to pacify Albertans. We are people of
action, especially in terms of the safety of our children and
grandchildren.
* * *
[Translation]
NAGANO OLYMPIC GAMES MEDALISTS
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at a
luncheon today, the Prime Minister paid special tribute to
Canada's Olympic and Paralympic medalists.
He honoured them on behalf of all the people of Canada, drawing
attention to the contributions of the athletes and all those
supporting them.
We cannot fully imagine all the sacrifices and all the efforts
expended by these athletes in bringing these honours to our
country. I wish to offer them my humble and sincere thanks.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN PARALYMPIC ATHLETES
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a great honour to rise in the House today to pay tribute to
all the athletes from Canada who participated in the Paralympic
games this past winter in Nagano, Japan.
We have in our presence today some of these world-class
athletes, athletes who are dedicated to excellence in their sport
as demonstrated through their commitment to training and
achieving results. The results have been impressive.
This was Canada's best ever showing at the Paralympic games as
we came away with one gold, nine silver and five bronze medals.
I would like to recognize the tremendous sacrifices made by all
our athletes and the support that is given to them by their
families, coaches, trainers, friends, as well as the financial
contributions of over 20,000 donors. All these people played a
big part in the theme of the Paralympic games which was
“Friendship and Warmth”.
I ask my fellow members of parliament to join me in
congratulating our very own Canadian Paralympic athletes and
medal winners.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL EARTH DAY
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today is Earth
Day, which offers us the opportunity to reflect on our
relationship with the environment.
In recent generations, the human race's ability to modify the
world ecosystem has increased in a spectacular way, because of
our exploding population and our technological progress. World
economic activity, for instance, is 20 times what it was in
1900. Consequently, many human activities surpass our planet's
ability to replenish its resources.
A short-sighted view will not enable us to solve these problems.
We need to start to again incorporate environmental
considerations with our day to day decisions as individuals,
managers and legislators. It is possible for economic
development to go hand in hand with respect for the environment.
International Earth Day reminds us that there is no time to
waste in making the still theoretical concept of sustainable
development a concrete reality.
* * *
[English]
SASKATCHEWAN PARTY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this week marked a fresh start for the people of Saskatchewan and
the beginning of the end of the NDP stranglehold on that great
province. That is because a new free-enterprise coalition was
born with the election of Elwin Hermanson to the leadership of
the Saskatchewan Party on Monday.
As a distinguished former member of this place, a former House
leader and one of the founding members of the Reform movement,
Elwin is a man of integrity who will help to bring new hope to
the people of Saskatchewan, especially the young people who have
for too long been driven out of that province by the tax and
spend government-knows-best ideology of the NDP.
1410
Elwin's leadership in the Saskatchewan Party is concrete
evidence that common sense Canadians can put aside their partisan
differences to advance a united alternative based on fiscal
responsibility, strong families and democratic reforms.
On behalf of all members of this House, we extend our best
wishes to the new leader of the opposition and the next premier
of Saskatchewan, Elwin Hermanson.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL EARTH DAY
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Earth Day represents an important time for all societies in the
world, as we direct our planet toward an enhanced quality of
life, free of wars, injustice and violence.
We all share values of peace and sharing, although these remain
dreams rather than realities for many countries in the world.
If we can contribute, even in the most modest of ways, to
raising the awareness of all societies in the world to the need
to show tolerance, unity and generosity, Canada will be
shouldering at least some of its responsibilities.
Canada is involved on an ongoing basis with bringing peoples
together. Through its presence in international institutions
and through its embassies, the Canadian government has
historically shown its desire for peace and its confidence in
humankind.
We must wish collectively for Canada to continue this mission it
has undertaken in partnership with all the other countries that
share our values of compassion, openness, and generosity toward—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
* * *
GLOBALIZATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
members of the New Democratic Party understand the frustration
of the young member of the Bloc Quebecois. Many young people
across Canada share his frustration. They see the need to deal
immediately with the social problems caused by globalization.
They are asking a very important question, one that the NDP
keeps asking day in and day out: Do we want a society where the
interests of a minority of elite people take precedence over the
well-being of the community?
The Bloc Quebecois does little to address these issues. In fact,
the Bloc has joined the Reformers and Conservatives in
supporting the position of the Liberals on the MIA, as they did
before on free trade.
[English]
Globalization is all about sovereignty and the erosion of the
power of all governments—provincial, federal, federalist,
separatist—to act in the public interest. The NDP urges all
those who are concerned about sovereignty to engage in the real
debate about sovereignty.
We call on social democrats and other progressive—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mount Royal.
* * *
YOM HASHOAH
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is Yom Hashoah, a worldwide day of remembrance that
commemorates one of the greatest tragedies of our century, the
Holocaust.
On this day we pay respect, with the survivors, as we remember
the six million people who were murdered in the ultimate affront
to democracy, human rights and human lives.
From the ashes of the concentration camps rose the democratic
state of Israel which will soon celebrate its 50th anniversary
with just pride and honour.
Jointly we mark the 50th anniversary of the United Nations
Declaration of Human Rights, a worldwide recognition of the fact
that all people by virtue of their humanity possess the right to
life and dignity.
Unfortunately, such atrocities continue to plague mankind which
we must bring to closure. We must use more effectively the UN
tools such as peacekeeping and peacemaking forces and the rule of
international law so that all citizens are able to live in peace
amongst themselves and amongst the world family of nations.
* * *
GUYSBOROUGH COUNTY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, fishing in Guysborough County can be traced back to
the Basque as early as 1504. Yet as we enter the next millennium
this important industry has fallen upon tough times.
Today a delegation from my Nova Scotia riding became the second
group from Guysborough County this month to come to Ottawa to
discuss their concerns with the deputy minister of fisheries.
Two weeks ago representatives from the Canso Trawlerman's
co-op and Seafreez in Canso, and today ACS Trading in the
town of Mulgrave, arrived to request shrimp quota. Both groups
have realistic, community based proposals to modernize the
fisheries and create jobs in two of the poorest areas of Canada.
Both proposals are supported by the private sector, the public,
municipal leaders and the local Liberal MLA.
These proposals are consistent with the will to Canadianize the
industry and to give Nova Scotia a fair share of the quotas.
On behalf of the men and women of these constituencies whose
livelihoods depend on the federal government's commitment to work
with them and for them, I urge the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans to give both proposals his full support and approval.
* * *
1415
[Translation]
NAGANO OLYMPIC GAMES MEDALISTS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to welcome the
Canadian and Quebec medal winners at the 18th Winter Olympic
Games and 7th Winter Paralympic Games, which were held in
Nagano.
After several years of effort, these athletes have seen their
dream come true; they performed remarkably.
Today, I salute their courage and determination. I thank them
for their brilliant performance. Whether they brought a medal
home or not, they were already winners as far as we were
concerned.
Dear Olympians, you are outstanding models and a great source of
inspiration for all young people in this country. We are very
proud of you. Congratulations on your participation in these
Olympic Games. You have successfully risen to this great
challenge.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, enough is enough. The House has heard nothing but
excuses from the health minister for his failure to compensate
the victims of hepatitis C. He provides neither leadership nor
direction on this issue. Nor does he show compassion.
Tomorrow the Reform Party will therefore introduce the following
motion:
That this House urge the government to act on the recommendation
of Justice Horace Krever to compensate all victims who contacted
hepatitis C from tainted blood.
Will the Prime Minister call upon—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for many days we have repeated that we have taken action
on that. We have done it in collaboration with all other
governments in the country. People have looked at this problem
and we have met our obligation.
On April 6, on behalf of all the provincial health ministers,
Clay Serby said:
As health ministers from every province, we worked together to
reach a consensus on this very difficult issue. This was not an
easy decision to reach. This is a very complex issue and we have
come up with an approach that is national in scope, fair and—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the issue was whether the Prime Minister would call off
the whips and allow his members to have a free vote on that
motion.
We know the Prime Minister's backbenchers are profoundly
dissatisfied with the health minister's position. They simply
cannot justify his lack of compassion and his lack of leadership
back home.
Sacrificing a single health minister is one thing, but will the
Prime Minister really force every Liberal backbencher to vote
against these victims too?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as prime minister and leader of this party I have given
more freedom to members on free votes. We get up on free votes
and the Reform Party gets up at the same time. The same people
who were asking for free votes never have free votes.
This is a matter of confidence in the government because it is a
decision made by this government and all other governments of
Canada. We do not want to try to score political points. It is
the first time. He always comes with that. He should come first
with freedom of votes on his side.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the one area where the Prime Minister has supported free
votes in the past has been on moral issues. This is an issue of
right and wrong. It is a moral issue. It is morally wrong to
abandon the sick. It is even worse for the health minister to
abandon the sick when it was government negligence that made them
sick in the first place.
Will the Prime Minister call off the whips and allow his
backbenchers to vote freely on this motion tomorrow?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy they are all relying on their leader. We were
afraid of losing him. I will quote the minister of health from
one of the provinces.
[Translation]
Jean Rochon, Quebec's health minister, said “Compensating those
who contracted the disease before 1986 would raise a problem of
basic fairness. If these people were compensated, the door
would have to be opened for other cases, others who had suffered
complications as the result of a health or surgical procedure.
This is another issue, in no way related to the agreement,
the—”
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, but I must now give the
floor to the hon. member for Wanuskewin.
1420
[English]
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is some consolation to be in collaboration with others to deny
justice to victims in our country.
The Canadian public happens to disagree with the Minister of
Health, as do all the opposition parties and his Liberal
colleagues, and he knows it.
Hepatitis C victims were protesting on the lawn of Parliament
Hill on Monday. Thousands of Canadians will be on their phones
over the weekend asking their members of parliament to do the
right thing.
Why does the health minister not hustle back to his office, work
the phones and come up with a plan to compensate all hepatitis C
victims before the vote next Tuesday? Why wait for the vote?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in many ways the easiest thing to have done would have been to
write a cheque and pay cash to everybody. In fact one of the
reasons we get into public life is that we want to help others,
particularly the sick and the vulnerable.
At the end of the day those who are in government, those who
have positions of responsibility, must make tough decisions, must
make responsible decisions about where cash payments should be
made to those who are harmed through the public system.
On this issue and in this instance we see every government in
the country in a remarkable display of unanimity coming down on
one side—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wanuskewin.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
guess that is his choice if he wants to go down with a dozen
other people on this issue, but the Canadian public and hepatitis
C victims are watching and waiting for the Liberal government to
come up with some different lines than should have, could have
and would have. It sounds like a cracked record.
Speaking of cracked records, I appeal to the minister. Why
create unnecessary cracks and division within his own caucus and
his own cabinet? Why will the health minister not do the right
thing and go back to the drawing board to figure out how he can
compensate all victims of hepatitis C? Then he could enjoy a
good weekend with a clear conscience. Why wait for a vote on
this Tuesday?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member speaks as though this was the unilateral act of one
government. All governments took part in this. In fact
Progressive Conservative governments in Prince Edward Island,
Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta all took part in this agreement.
We are paying $1.1 billion to 22,000 victims of hepatitis C. Is
the hon. member suggesting we pay cash to all those who are
affected by adverse reactions to vaccines? Is he suggesting we
pay cash compensation to all those who have outcomes in the
health system which reflect the risks? I think not.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during
the first eleven months of fiscal year 1997-98, the government
pocketed an extra $4.1 billion, having forecast a $17 billion
deficit for that same period. This is a slight difference of $21
billion, which could rise even higher when the end-of-year
corrections come out this fall.
Is the Prime Minister aware that his massive cuts in transfer
payments have caused a major imbalance in the Canadian
federation, that the provinces are short of funds, do not have
the money to provide basic services, while the federal
government has more than it needs to fulfill its own mandate?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have succeeded in balancing the government's books and we are
very proud to have done so.
As for provincial transfers, we have cut the provinces less than
they have cut in services.
When account is taken of the increase in transfer payments, the
increase in provincial revenues because of tax points, and the
reduction in provincial interest payments because interest rates
have gone down, the difference between what the Canadian
government gave to the Province of Quebec and what the province
is now receiving is less than the province cut municipalities.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government saved money on the backs of the provinces, on the
backs of the most disadvantaged, on the backs of the ill and the
unemployed. That is how it saved money.
Is the fact that the federal government has much more money than
it needs to carry out its own mandate not proof that it is
interfering, and that this is the opportunity it was waiting for
to interfere in areas of jurisdiction where it has no business,
areas of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is very clear proof that we have provided the Canadian people
with very good government.
1425
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
headed from a $17 billion deficit to a $4 billion surplus.
This
means that the government could have balanced the budget this
year even if it had not cut transfers to the provinces by
$3 billion in 1997-98.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he not understand
that the only fair thing to do is to put the surplus back where
it came from, in provincial coffers to be used for health,
education and social services, and in the pockets of taxpayers,
who are being taxed to death?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the member had listened to my reply, instead of reading a
prepared question, he would have understood that, when
everything is factored in, the net cuts to provincial
governments, Quebec in particular, total $500 million, which is
less than what the province is cutting from municipalities.
I do not blame them. They were forced to make cuts. We were
forced to make cuts. Today, however, the economy is in much
better shape. We have the lowest interest rates in many years;
we have a balanced budget, and today we heard that—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the Prime Minister, but he is not telling the whole
truth. The Government of Quebec was robbed of $11 billion,
which was needed for welfare and education, as well as health.
That is the fact of the matter.
And is it not the government's responsibility to help with some
of the damage by giving back what it lifted from the provinces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not think there was a question. But I can tell him that what
he said is incorrect.
I have just said that the net difference is $500 million with
respect to the level of contributions made by the federal
government in 1993-94.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
mismanagement has led to disaster in the east coast fishery,
threatening to destroy an ecosystem, an economy and an entire
culture. The human and financial costs are staggering.
Will the Prime Minister use the occasion of Earth Day to admit
that federal mismanagement was the principal cause of this
catastrophe? Will he finally respond to the December 12, 1997
pleadings of all five eastern premiers to immediately establish
an Atlantic groundfish program successor to TAGS?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the issue of government
responsibility for the cod collapse is well illustrated at pages
380 and on in a book by John Crosbie, a former minister of
fisheries in the House.
He outlined as minister of fisheries the advice he received from
the department which was rejected for political reasons at the
time over a period of some four years.
The hon. member may wish to reinterpret history as she will, but
if she looks at that book, if she looks at other reports that
have been put forward and other books written, she will see that
this is not the simplest of problems. It is a complex problem.
To have the cod stock recover—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister knows that federal environmental mismanagement and
his government's woeful response to this catastrophe keeps tens
of thousands of east coast families in crisis.
An all party committee from Newfoundland and Labrador is here
today in Ottawa following up on the all premiers' letter in
December pleading with Ottawa to recognize that we are dealing
with a long term problem that requires a long term solution.
Will the Prime Minister ease the suffering caused by this
tragedy and pledge a comprehensive response sensitive to the
particular needs and conditions of coastal communities?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope the hon. leader of the fourth party will realize
that when we formed the government at a time when we had the
biggest deficit in Canadian history, we introduced a program to
solve the problems that were created before we formed the
government.
We had a program for five years at a time when it was most
difficult to have a new program. At that time everybody agreed
that a five year program was a very generous long term program.
The problem is not resolved yet and the government is looking to
see what can be done from thereon. I want to say—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John.
* * *
1430
HEPATITIS C
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health has stated that he is concerned about the
integrity of the health care system. It is not the integrity of
the health care system that is in question. It is the integrity
of this government and the minister which are in question because
the compensation being offered to some hepatitis C victims is not
the compensation package that the minister promised.
Will the minister do the right thing today and commit to
compensating all hepatitis C victims who were infected through no
fault of their own?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member refers to this government but she must also refer to
the provincial governments who have taken the same position on
the basis of public policy, Tory governments, her own party in
Prince Edward Island, her own party in Ontario, Manitoba,
Alberta.
Just last week Canadian researchers disclosed that thousands of
people lose their lives every year because they use prescription
drugs as directed but have adverse consequences. Is the member
suggesting we pay cash compensation to the estates of all those
victims? The implications of that approach for the health system
are serious—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health cannot continue to hide behind other
governments. Instead he must take a leadership role. There is
nothing wrong with anyone in this House who has made a decision
standing up and saying “we have made the wrong decision, we are
going to correct it”.
If we measure the health minister's words carefully we will
conclude the real reason the government will not compensate all
the victims of hepatitis C is money. The government wasted half
a billion dollars on a botched helicopter deal, three-quarters of
a billion dollars on Pearson airport and the list goes on. If
money was found for these deals, why is the minister denying
compensation to all of the innocent victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I have made clear, when confronted with a situation where
there are people harmed by risks inherent in the medical system,
governments have to choose. Part of leadership on the part of
the government is making tough decisions to protect the long term
sustainability of the health care system.
This is the age of the class action. It is the age of claims
against governments. Just last week we were sued in a class
action by those who claimed that mercury fillings are causing
health risks. Is the member suggesting the government should make
cash payments to all those who have claims arising from the
system?
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister seems to be all over the map when it comes to
human rights. On his trip to Cuba he refuses to raise the issue
of human rights abuse publicly. Now even though the red book
says that foreign aid should be linked to human rights abuses his
CIDA minister is talking about giving aid to Burma, one of the
most repressive regimes in the world.
Will the Prime Minister stand up today and publicly tell his
minister that we are not going to give Canadian government aid to
Burma or any country like it?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's policy on Myanmar, by the way that is the name
of the country now, has not changed. That being said, we always
review the situation and if the country and the government is
willing to show some movement on human rights and good
governance, we would be happy to look at resuming our programs.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
rather than a geography lesson perhaps the minister should look
at human rights abuse for a change and treat it seriously.
Here is the situation. The Minister of Foreign Affairs imposed
sanctions last year because the Burmese government was one of the
worst human rights abusers in the entire world. Now the minister
says we are going to give government aid.
Will the Prime Minister stand up and say that this is all over,
that that government is the wrong kind of government, that we are
not going to support it and there will be no Canadian government
aid going to the Burmese?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just want to correct a few statements.
The minister said there is nothing going there at all. She just
said that. In terms of human rights, we are the government which
is engaged in Cuba. I made a public statement, and it was in the
paper this morning, that I would raise it publicly. I have
already raised it privately with the Government of Cuba. I will
do it publicly and privately. Canada will be a leader there, as
we have been in other situations.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, again this morning Statistics Canada figures
indicate that an increasingly small proportion of unemployed
people are receiving employment insurance.
Last February, fewer than 41% of the unemployed could draw
benefits.
1435
In light of this morning's disturbing statistics, does the
minister, who claimed to be concerned about this, not see them
as a very clear indication that his employment insurance reform
makes no sense and excludes too many people who ought to be able
to take advantage of it but cannot?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
Although it is clear that this morning's figures are not good,
they do not show that the situation has worsened. On the
contrary, there has been a small improvement, a very slight one,
in the number of participants.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: I admit it is very little, but this
month's figures must not be used to claim that the situation has
worsened. That is false.
As I have said in this House on a number of occasions, this
participation rate is of concern to us and we are in the process
of examining it very closely, in order to ensure that our system
is properly serving the people of Canada.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1993, when the government assumed power,
65% of the unemployed were drawing benefits. In 1995, 52% were,
and now the figure is under 41%. This cannot go on. The
minister must get moving.
Does the minister commit to proposing concrete solutions to this
problem before the summer, yes or no?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am saying very clearly that we
are concerned about this situation.
On that side, they like to say that the problem is easy to fix
and that this figure is essentially linked to the eligibility
criteria. I say that there are also changes in labour market
conditions. The economy has also undergone changes. Seen
overall, the situation is rather more complex and we will not
make decisions blindly, as the opposition would like us to.
* * *
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have asked the justice minister literally dozens of times when
she is going to make serious changes to the Young Offenders Act.
She just giggles and keeps repeating “in a timely fashion”.
Timely? It has been 10 months since the minister made the
announcement and now her officials tell us it is going to be at
least another six months before something happens. The minister
is an utter failure. Why does she not admit she is not up to the
job?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess I can do no better
than repeat that which I said in this House before. We on this
side of the House are working very hard to complete the
government's response to the standing committee report. As I have
said before, that response will be tabled in this House in a
timely fashion.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
victims of crime and young people themselves are saying that it
is just not good enough to repeat “in a timely fashion” and
“let me be clear”.
Let me be clear. The minister says that young offender reforms
are her number one priority. I shudder to think what numbers
two, three and four are.
I will ask the minister again. Why does she not just admit what
the obvious is? She is in way over her head.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the hon.
member that indeed the renewal of the youth justice system is one
of my priorities but only one of my priorities and this
government's priorities as it relates to the justice system.
As I have said before and I will say it again, this government
will not take a simplistic approach to the renewal of the youth
justice system. We will table our response in a timely fashion.
* * *
[Translation]
VICTIMS OF CRIME
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
learned this week at the Standing Committee on Justice that the
minister plans to establish a national office for victims of
crime.
Does the minister realize that, with such a plan, she is about
to willingly create duplication and overlap with an organization
which is already performing, in Quebec, a function similar to
that of the national office she plans to set up?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the hon.
member that in fact I did not say that. I said there are a
number of strategies we might wish to pursue in relation to the
issues of victims rights and that in fact a national victims
office might be one of those strategies. But I specifically asked
the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to look at
that issue among others and report back to this House in terms of
whether such an office is necessary. I think I made it very
plain that I did not want to duplicate that which is being done
in the provinces.
1440
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
given that Quebec already has a crime victims compensation
office, will the minister undertake to include in her proposals
the possibility for the provinces to opt out of her national
plan with full financial compensation?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my commitment is clear. It is
to work with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
of which the hon. member is a member. I have asked that
committee as part of its study on victims rights to determine
whether a national office would have any utility. I await the
committee's recommendations.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
five young men, including a young offender, have been arrested in
my riding for the senseless murder of a temple caretaker.
The RCMP is pleading for calm, patience and tolerance as their
investigation continues. And the slow wheels of justice turn.
Why will the justice minister not introduce changes to the Young
Offenders Act in a timely fashion? That time is now. The clock
is ticking and time is running out for her number one priority.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to a
very tragic situation in the province of British Columbia.
What I do want to reassure everyone in this House about is that
the existing provisions in relation to hate in the Criminal Code
apply regardless of whether that hate is propagated via the
Internet or any other means of communication. Therefore as far as
I can tell at this point there is no problem with the application
of our hate laws to this situation.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in my riding this year we have had two violent murders of
innocent seniors. While the justice minister makes lame excuses,
Canadians are suffering.
The identity of the young offender will be kept secret and his
sentence will not be more than 10 years.
Can the justice minister tell my grieving community how many
more innocent people will be losing their jobs before she changes
the Young Offenders Act in a timely fashion? The time has
already run out for all those victims.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand the
question because I am not sure what it has to do with the loss of
jobs. What I will say as I have said before is that this
government will respond in a timely fashion to the
recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights.
* * *
[Translation]
FOOD INSPECTION
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Disturbing information has been circulating about the quality of
operations at the Flamingo plant in Joliette, and this
information has nearly jeopardized the future of this business.
Could the minister explain how such alarming information could
have come from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, when in fact
there has never been any threat to public health?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will agree that the health of consumers
was not and will not be affected as a result of production at the
particular plant that the hon. member is referring to. I can
also tell the hon. member that it was not the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency that released some information in a very
inappropriate manner at a certain time. It was not the
government that did so.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last month in Geneva at the United Nations Human
Rights Commission everyone was astonished when after seven years
Cuba finally voted for the declaration on the protection of human
rights defenders. When an NGO worker congratulated the Cubans on
their support the reply was “You can thank Canada for that”.
1445
Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs please explain to the
House and especially to the opposition how Canada's diplomatic
efforts are helping to improve Cuba's position on human rights?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, under the agreement we signed with Cuba last year we
established a formal dialogue system with the Cubans on human
rights. We have used that mechanism to enlist Cuban support for
a Canadian initiative to protect human rights workers around the
world.
This year Cuba changed its position. We now have a consensus
that will go to the general assembly. For the 50th anniversary
of the declaration of human rights, we will be able to provide
protection for those brave men and women around the world who are
fighting for human rights in their countries.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, exactly
one year ago today I publicly introduced a minority report on
amending the Young Offenders Act. My 65 page report fully
addresses the complexities of this act and recommends a
comprehensive three pronged approach to deal with youth crime.
Has the justice minister even bothered to read the proposals put
forward by the official opposition to deal with youth crime in
this country? Has she even bothered to read it?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member
that I have read the minority report from the official opposition
as it relates to the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, then of
course the justice minister realizes that contained within that
report we address crime in this country, the complexities of
youth crime, and recommend crime prevention through early
detection and intervention, community diversion programs for
non-violent offences and comprehensive and effective amendments
to the YOA.
If the justice minister's officials are not competent enough to
deal with these complexities will she replace them? If she feels
that she is in over her head will she simply step aside and allow
someone to—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the strong
support of the official opposition to the government's response
when I table it in this House.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
ozone recovery is an important issue to our environment and our
health.
Last week Environment Canada provided remarkable ozone
statistics, a 98% recovery, a statement carried by news
organizations across this country. The following day, NASA and
Columbia University studies stated that Arctic ozone losses were
the highest observed in any previous year.
Will the Minister of the Environment explain to Canadians which
numbers are correct, the Liberal numbers or the NASA scientific
data?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the numbers the government is using with
regard to what we have accomplished, which is significant on the
issue of ozone depletion, as we have done a lot to improve that
situation, come from scientists within the Department of the
Environment. They are not Liberals. They are professional
scientists.
It is a fact that we continue to do scientific work on this
issue within our department. We are very concerned to continue
to make sure that CFCs and ozone depleting substances are reduced
until the ozone cover is cured completely.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
NASA scientists predict the Arctic ozone hole will get worse.
With greenhouse gas impacts contributing to potential disaster,
the environmental integrity of this government is being
questioned while the government signs more agreements and tells
Canada it is doing a great job.
When will the Prime Minister show environmental leadership and
commit adequate resources to environmental science and protection
for the sake of our sustainable development?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in our world there will never be enough
science for us to fully understand the implications of all the
serious things we are doing to the environment. However, we have
a very adequate department that is science based and is
researching on a continuous basis both the issue of greenhouse
gases and ozone depleting substances, which are different.
Our objective is to make sure that we protect the environment to
the highest standard possible and engage Canadians in that
process, an important message on earth day.
* * *
1450
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
hepatitis C issue is not going away as long as there is one
member standing on this side of the House and one innocent victim
who has not been compensated.
This is going to hang around the minister's neck like an
albatross.
I am asking the minister to answer in a straightforward way, yes
or no, is the door closed forever on this hepatitis C package.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should know that as long as he is there to ask
questions, I shall be here, as long as the Prime Minister wishes
me to serve as Minister of Health, to respond. I shall respond
in a straightforward manner. I shall respond honestly and with
feeling by saying that this is a tough issue. It is not easy. It
is difficult.
None of us likes to say no to people who have been innocently
harmed and who are asking for something which we cannot give. I
am here to say, as I will say tomorrow, next week, next month and
next year, that as a matter of public policy all governments of
this country took the same position and we are doing the right
thing. This is the agreement we all came to. This is the
agreement by which we will stand. It is the only way we can
maintain a sustainable public health care system in this country.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, can you
make any reason out of that answer? I do not think anyone in
this House can, not even his own backbenchers.
Unfortunately the minister promised that this package was going
to be fair and honourable. It is not fair and it is not
honourable.
The only recourse these people will have will be the courts. I
am asking the minister is he prepared to allow this to go before
the courts. Does he honestly believe that their case is strong
enough to sustain a court challenge? At the end of the day they
are going to wind up paying more money—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I take it the member is not asking for a legal opinion.
As a matter of public policy, the governments have done their
best to determine which cases are those in which the public
should pay cash to people harmed by the system. The best we can
do, acting honestly and doing the best we can by people while
respecting our responsibility in government, is to say that when
we look at the history which Mr. Justice Krever spread out in
front of us, there was a period of time during which governments
could have acted and should have acted and they did not.
Together we are contributing—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this weekend my family and I
will be picking up garbage and planting trees to celebrate earth
day.
Can the Minister of the Environment tell this House how the
federal government is promoting earth day and encouraging all
Canadians in contributing to a cleaner, greener and healthier
earth?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague for his activities
to honour earth day. I hope every colleague in this House will
do similarly.
It is a very important day in which communities, businesses and
schools come together to do something to celebrate the importance
of the environment.
Today I went out to St. Anthony's school in Ottawa. It is
working with Nortel, with NGOs and the school students to improve
their schoolyard, to make it the most beautiful schoolyard in
Canada. Also today I approved 63 projects under an action 21—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
recent years Canada has lost two professional hockey teams. The
third is now on the ropes.
The reason for that is twofold. First, Canadian taxes are about
50% higher than in the U.S. Second, the Americans unfairly
subsidize their hockey teams.
What is the government doing to lower taxes? What is it going to
do about these unfair subsidies so that we can keep hockey in
Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on realizing that there
is a problem, a problem the government realized many months ago
when it set up a parliamentary committee to look into these very
things.
We look forward to the results of that committee in its
conclusion.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
CUBA
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Outside the Second Summit of the Americas, the Prime Minister
indicated that he was going to make an official visit to Cuba.
This is the first official visit since 1976 by a head of the
Canadian government to a country that continues to be cut off
from the rest of the Americas.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House what concrete proposals
he intends to make to President Castro to make it possible for
him to participate in the Summit of the Americas and to
facilitate Cuba's reintegration into inter-American institutions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the Minister of Foreign Affairs was saying earlier, we have been
in communication with the Government of Cuba for a good while
now and have developed a program of co-operation in a number of
areas.
As for the issue of human rights, we are working together toward
the creation of the position of ombudsman in that country's
national assembly. There are all sorts of programs under way
that we will discuss.
We hope that there will be improvements in Cuba, which may help
facilitate Cuba's return to the family of the Americas.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
I wonder if the minister on earth day could tell the House
whether he has had occasion to think twice about the wisdom of
Canada's belonging to agreements like NAFTA or seeking to enter
into agreements like the MAI or the FTAA which enable
corporations to sue governments for pursuing environmental
legislation like this government has with MMT.
When the minister goes to Paris next week will he be going to
finally say he is listening to Canadians and he does not want
Canada to be part of any MAI that has this provision in it?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate on earth day if
the NDP renounced its membership in the flat earth society.
Certainly that would be a contribution.
Canada through her trade deals has been able to energize our
economy and also speak to high standards in those trade deals. In
Chile, Canada and the Prime Minister were at the forefront in the
creation of a civil society committee so that we can build an
exciting project in the Americas and build it with all the groups
that represent our society. Canada is at the forefront of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's East.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The minister is no doubt aware of the case of Sami Durgen, a
Kurdish refugee whose case has been in the system for about a
decade.
Mr. Durgen has been conducting a vigil in Toronto in an effort
to get his landed status which was promised by the minister five
years ago. I met with Mr. Durgen yesterday. He informed me that
after 10 years of living in Canada he is still awaiting security
clearance.
Would the minister please indicate how long this case can go on
before Mr. Durgen gets some confirmation of his status in Canada?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): As you know, Mr. Speaker, out of respect for
people's privacy I am absolutely unable to supply details of an
individual case in the House of Commons.
That having been said, it is very clear that, if we wish to
admit someone to the country, we must comply with the relevant
legislation, and security audits are a component of the file.
I can assure the opposition member that this file is being
personally followed in the minister's office and that we hope to
have answers for the individual in question shortly.
* * *
[English]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the media has been reporting infiltration by biker gangs
into many areas of legitimate economic activity. They are
alleged as well to control substantial drug trafficking networks
and to perpetrate crimes of extreme violence.
Last year we passed strong anti-gang legislation which should
help. What is the solicitor general doing to fight this kind of
organized criminal activity?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate very much the question from my colleague
because organized crime is a serious problem in Canada.
We have passed the legislation necessary to fight it but we need
to do more than that. We need to put together a national
strategy that includes all law enforcement agencies. That is why
on Friday I am bringing together 40 law enforcement agencies, the
provinces and other criminal justice officials. We are going to
put the strategy together to deal with this problem once and for
all.
* * *
1500
CANADA'S OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC ATHLETES
(House in committee to recognize Canada's 1998 Olympic Winter
Games and Paralympic Games athletes)
Hon. Gilbert Parent(Speaker of the House of Commons): My
colleagues, today is a very special day for us because we are to
recognize on the floor of the House our Olympians and
Paralympians. I ask them all to come in. When they come on to
the floor I will speak to them on your behalf and will explain
how we will do it.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon Canada's 1998 Olympic and
Paralympic athletes entered the Chamber]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1505
Mr. Speaker Parent: Olympians and Paralympians of Canada
and my colleagues, this winter the eyes of the world were on
Nagano. A record number of athletes came together to compete in
Olympic and Paralympic games.
These games represent human achievement and international
friendship. They are a time for nations to engage in friendly
competition and for athletes to pursue their dreams of
excellence.
[Translation]
The men and women who represented us at Nagano were Canada's
best athletes. To take part in the competitions over there
represents a remarkable success. Those of you who returned with
medals are recognized as being the best of the world's best.
Some of you have best ever records to your credit.
[English]
Whether we were in St. John's, Vancouver or Whitehorse, you had
us all on the edge of our chairs. Canadians do not usually make
a lot of noise, but when you won those medals there were 30
million people here in Canada who were damn ecstatic and very
noisy.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker Parent: All Canadians shared in your
victories. You have made us all very proud. You have captured
our imagination and are now the heroes of a new generation of
Canadians. You represent the very finest in sport. You are
symbols of everything Canada has to offer the world.
[Translation]
We are not used to having visitors on the floor of this House,
but this is a special day and we wanted to bend the rules a bit
in order to pay tribute to all of you, to congratulate you and to
thank you for the great honour you have brought to our country.
[English]
My colleagues, I will read out the names of our Olympians and
Paralympians. I know it might be difficult, but I would ask you
to please hold your applause until the end and not to run on to
the floor when I am finished because you will have a chance to
meet our athletes in room 253-D right after we are finished this
afternoon.
As I call your names—and I know you are a little close
together—just raise your hand so that we can get an idea of
where you are.
In the Paralympic sports, alpine skiing: Ramona Hoh; Mark
Ludbrook; Daniel Wesley; Marni Winder, accompanied by her guide
Dale Winder; and Karolina Wisniewska.
In cross-country skiing: Colette Bourgonje.
In sledge hockey: Yves Carrier, Dean Delaurier, David Eamer,
Jamie Eddy, Angelo Gavillucci, Jean Labonté, Daniel Labrie,
Robert Lagacé, Hervé Lord, Shawn Matheson, Dean Mellway, Todd
Nicholson and Pierre Pichette.
The coaches of sledge hockey: Tom Goodings, Larry Hogan and
Pierre Schweda.
In bobsleigh: David MacEachern.
In women's curling: Jan Betker; Atina Ford; Marcia Gudereit;
Joan McCusker; and their coach, Anita Ford.
1510
In men's curling: Mike Harris—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker Parent: Of course that is Mike Harris, the
Olympian.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker Parent: Richard Hart, George Karrys, Collin
Mitchell and Paul Savage.
In women's hockey: Jennifer Botterill; Thérèse Brisson; Cassie
Campbell; Judy Diduck; Lori Dupuis; Danielle Goyette; Geraldine
Heaney; Jayna Hefford; Becky Kellar; Kathy McCormack; Karen
Nystrom; Lesley Reddon; Laura Schuler; Fiona Smith; Vicky
Sunohara; France St-Louis; Stacy Wilson; and their coaches, Ray
Bennett and Danièle Sauvageau.
In speed skating, long track: Susan Auch and Jeremy
Wotherspoon.
In speed skating, short track: Eric Bédard; Christine Boudrias;
Derrick Campbell; Isabelle Charest; François Drolet; Annie
Perreault; Tania Vicent; and their coaches, Marcel Lacroix and
Nathalie Grenier.
These are the Paralympians and Olympians of Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker Parent:
We will see all of you in the Railway Committee Room. Thank you
for coming.
[Editor's Note: After the singing of the national anthem,
Canada's 1998 Paralympic and Olympic athletes left the
Chamber]
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1520
[Translation]
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 eight
petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade.
This report which deals with the disturbing issue of
international child abductions is the first report of the
Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development. The
compelling personal and written accounts of victims clearly
demonstrated the need for government action. While recognizing
that there is no immediate solution to the elimination of child
abductions, we as members of Parliament have undertaken to
recommend measures that will help to minimize the successful
abduction of a child to another country.
On behalf of the members of the subcommittee I would like to
thank everyone who took the time to participate in this study,
the parents, NGOs, departmental officials, attorneys and others.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 27th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection
of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92.
This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
* * *
1525
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-391, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (wearing of war decorations).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the enactment of this bill allows a
relative of a deceased veteran to wear any decoration, et cetera,
awarded to such such veteran without facing criminal sanctions.
The decoration must be worn on the right side of the relative's
chest.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATIZATION ACT
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-392, an act respecting the privatization of the
Export Development Corporation and the disposal of the shares
therein of Her Majesty in right of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this act would have two effects, to turn
over to the private sector the provision of short and medium term
insurance and financing, and to give back to a government
department the task of assisting projects that are not
commercially viable but which are thought to be in the public
interest.
This bill is being moved because I believe it is inappropriate
for a crown corporation to be in competition with the private
sector and because I would like the minister responsible for
providing a commercially non-viable loan to a developing country
to be fully accountable to parliament.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find
unanimous consent to adopt this motion upon being read. I move:
That, in accordance with subsection 53(3) of the act to extend
the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of
individuals and that provide individuals with a right of access
to personal information about themselves, Chapter P-21 of the
Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, this House approves the
reappointment of Mr. Bruce Phillips as privacy commissioner for a
term of two years.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions. I will present them quickly to allow others the
opportunity to present theirs as well.
The first petition is from a number of constituents who are very
concerned about the government's intention to impose the MAI on
Canadians without anybody really knowing what it is all about and
without holding proper consultations, et cetera.
They point out dozens of reasons why they oppose the MAI and
simply ask the Parliament of Canada never to sign such an
agreement.
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is from petitioners mostly in the Kamloops region. They
have been filling out their tax returns and are upset with the
tax system. They feel it is biased, unfair and unjust. They
feel it favours large corporations over small business and
wealthy Canadians over average working Canadians.
The petitioners simply urge the government to undertake a fair
tax reform so that personal consumers not suffer any further
financial insecurity and unfair costs at this critical time of
tax filing.
1530
PENSIONS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, people have
been hearing all kinds of concerns and rumours about the
government's intention regarding the pension plan revisions. The
petitioners simply ask that before any changes are made to our
retirement system an adequate period of consultation occur across
the country so every Canadian can have the chance to examine the
implications. They are asking for a national referendum on this
issue.
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today. The first is signed by a
number of Canadians including some from my own riding.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children
is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also point out that the Income Tax
Act discriminates against families who choose to provide care in
the home for their preschool children. The petitioners therefore
call upon parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate this tax
discrimination against families who choose to provide care in the
home for their preschool children.
LABELLING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition again is from a number of Canadians including
some from my riding of Mississauga South. It deals with the
labelling of alcoholic beverages.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the Food and Drugs Act is designed to protect Canadians from
the potentially harmful effects related to food and drug
consumption and that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause
health problems, and particularly that fetal alcohol syndrome and
other alcohol related birth defects are 100% preventable by
avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to require health
warning labels to be placed on containers of alcoholic beverages
to warn expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with
alcohol consumption.
PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have quite a large number of petitions. I have put
them into two groups.
I am pleased to present 19 petitions with the signatures of 476
Canadians from eight different provinces. They are concerned
that by ratifying and implementing the United Nations convention
on the rights of the child, government bureaucrats and the courts
will be legally entitled to determine what is “in the best
interests of the child” not parents.
The petitioners go on to say that Canada is creating a
bureaucracy to police parents and enforce the guidelines in a UN
charter which has never been approved by parliament. Not only
are parental rights being undermined by implementing this UN
charter but they are concerned it will create greater incentives
for families to abdicate their parental responsibilities to the
state.
The petitioners request parliament to address their concerns by
supporting my private member's motion M-33 which would include
parental rights and responsibilities in the charter of rights and
freedoms.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second group of petitions I am pleased to present
has five petitions with the signatures of 127 Canadians from
British Columbia and New Brunswick.
These citizens of Canada support retention of section 43 of the
Criminal Code which states “every school teacher, parent or
person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using
force by way of correction toward a pupil or child which is under
his care if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under
the circumstances”.
The petitioners request parliament to affirm the duty of parents
to responsibly raise their children according to their own
conscience and beliefs and retain section 43 in Canada's Criminal
Code as it is currently worded.
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by 390 people
living mainly in the Delta, Surrey and White Rock areas of
greater Vancouver. They are asking parliament to remove the GST
from books, magazines and newspapers.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 it is my privilege to present a petition.
The petitioners request that parliament impose a moratorium on
the 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 opinion on same.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition
signed by 202 of my constituents in the riding of Bruce—Grey.
These petitioners hail from communities like Paisley, Durham,
Wiarton and Shallow Lake. They outline their concerns regarding
the multilateral agreement on investment. They ask that
parliament impose a moratorium on the Canadian participation in
the MAI negotiations until full public debate takes place in
Canada.
1535
TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two more petitions with respect to the
Trans-Canada death strip between Gull Lake, Saskatchewan and the
Alberta border. There are 195 signatures from residents close to
that piece of highway. This brings the total signatures to 2,119
that I have presented in this House on this issue.
The petitioners point out that although the maintenance of
highways is constitutionally a provincial responsibility, the
federal government has a responsibility to help with the
maintenance of the Trans-Canada system.
The Government of Saskatchewan is about to proceed without
federal help in twinning this highway. The petitioners call upon
Parliament to instruct its servants to begin negotiations with
Saskatchewan to jointly fund the construction of two additional
lanes on the death strip.
BIOARTIFICIAL KIDNEY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present another in a series of petitions by people who
want to help the 18,000 Canadians who suffer from end-stage
kidney disease.
These petitioners support the development of a bioartificial
kidney project in Canada. This particular petition is signed by
more than 500 people, all of whom work in the GM truck plant in
Oshawa. These are people who live in the communities north of
Lake Ontario.
They point out that kidney dialysis has been a good treatment,
that transplantation has been an effective treatment, but that a
bioartificial kidney would give great hope to people who cannot
be helped by existing treatments.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: No.70.
.[Text]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy:
With regard to the Child
Care-Visions and First Nations/Inuit program during the financial
year 1996 to 1997: (a) what was the purpose of this program;
(b) what was the total amount spent; (c) what were the main programs,
with respect to cost, to which these funds were allocated; (d)
what was the total number; (e) what is the name of the
organization, group or individual to whom each grant or subsidy
was given; (f) what was the stated purpose of each grant or
subsidy; and (g) what was the cost of each grant or subsidy
provided?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): a) The First Nations and Inuit child care
initiative is designed to overcome a major hurdle for aboriginal
parents by providing affordable and quality child care in First
Nations and Inuit communities. With improved access to child
care, aboriginal parents will be better able to work or
participate in employment training to improve the financial
prospects of their families, thereby contributing to the
development of their communities.
b) The Government of Canada is committed to providing
developmental funding of $72 million over three years. The
budget breakdown is $6 million for 1995-96, $26 million for
1996-97, $40 million for 1997-98.
c) All funds were utilized through this program. Ongoing
funding of $36 million a year will be available after the initial
three-year start-up period.
d) The First Nations and Inuit child care program will support
the creation of 4,300 new aboriginal child care spaces and the
improvement of 1,700 existing spaces for a total of 6,000 quality
child care spaces.
e) Annex A is the list of organizations that have received
funding under this program in 1996-97.
f) Funding was granted to aboriginal bands and tribal councils.
These funds may have been broken down and redistributed within
each band or council. However these funds were, as stated in
section (a), used to improve and create aboriginal child care
spaces. Proposals are received at Human Resources Development
Canada stating the purpose of the grants and subsidies, but are
not entered into our databases. This information is kept on file
and may be retrieved manually if required, but it is very costly
in terms of time and manpower.
g) Annex A is the list of organizations that have received
funding under this program in 1996-97.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the
Production of Papers No. P-5 in the name of the hon. member for
Brandon—Souris is acceptable to the government, except for those
documents which cannot be released pursuant to the Access to
Information Act. The papers are tabled immediately.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of
all plans, drawings, documents and proposals initiated by the
Crown, or by others on behalf of the Crown, surrounding the
disposition, current or planed proposals to rectify the grain
transportation delays that occurred in the 1996-97 crop year in
Western Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: Subject to the reservations expressed
by the parliamentary secretary is it the pleasure of the House
that Notice of Motion No. P-5 be deemed to have been adopted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that other Notices of
Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NUNAVUT ACT
The House resumed from April 20 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution
Act, 1867, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When debate on this item was last
interrupted, the hon. member for Prince Albert had the floor. He
has 15 minutes remaining in his time for his remarks.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will not take 15 minutes. My intervention will be brief.
It has been brought to my attention since I last spoke in this
debate that we were being somewhat critical of the people of the
Northwest Territories which is not so. If we are critical of
anyone, we are critical of the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, particularly the minister, for its
handling of the entire Northwest Territories.
The territories suffer a 30% unemployment rate and high suicide.
They have poor health, reduced life expectancy, not to mention
other social problems. This has happened during the
administration of the previous Tory and current Liberal
governments. We feel that the previous government completely
failed the people of the Northwest Territories in developing its
economy and its society. This bill should be amended and passed.
1540
We feel that the new government being established will have a
far greater chance to develop a vision for its people, to
implement it and to give its people hope. It has been written
that without a vision people will perish. We want to see these
people and their families move ahead and prosper economically and
socially. We want the very best for these people which they have
not been getting.
The legislation moves power downward toward the people who will
be governed. That should mean that the people of the Northwest
Territories will have more influence on their government. I am
sure this will produce better government in the eastern Arctic.
We support them in that endeavour.
We call for an elected senator and we make our support for this
bill conditional upon that. We feel that better government
includes people being able to pick their representatives in this
place.
We question the government on its evasiveness and lack of
preparedness in answering questions about cost. Early estimates
of the cost of establishing Nunavut were in the range of $150
million. That did not happen. A later estimate made in October
1997 set the price in the order of $300 million which is double
the cost. If they know why that is, they are not willing to say.
So we do not know. We know it will cost more to increase the
government because there will be another government in place in
Nunavut. We would like to see a reduction in the size of DIAND
to compensate for the increased cost of establishing and
maintaining this new government.
We as the official opposition have a responsibility to the
taxpayers of Canada to ask questions about this and to get direct
answers from the government on these matters. We cannot simply
stand by, clap our hands, say that is wonderful and whatever the
cost, we approve of it 100%. We are not standing in the way of
these people achieving their goal but we want to know what the
cost will be and how it will be offset in reduced costs for
DIAND. That is a major concern our party has with this
legislation at this time.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill
C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and Constitution Act, 1867.
This is a critical piece of legislation that is necessary as we
move toward the creation of Nunavut on April 1, 1999, which is
less than a year from now, to complete the whole process of the
division of the Northwest Territories. As the member of
parliament for the Western Arctic, I am in full support of this
bill.
There is a coming of age in the Northwest Territories as there
has never been before. The political destiny of the north has
been decided. We are going to divide the Northwest Territories
and create the new territory of Nunavut with all the tools of a
democratic society. This will include a governance structure.
This would not be possible without the approval of this bill. We
need this bill.
This is an exciting time in the north. It is a time of much
progression. The north is very political. If people from any
other part of Canada or the world go to the north they will speak
to some of the most knowledgeable and well travelled people. We
live in a microcosm of all the things that affect people from
other parts of our country and from abroad. Northerners travel
the world. Northerners are very political. They are very
knowledgeable about the politics of the day nationally,
internationally and territorially.
1545
We are rife with activity. We have many resource based
activities that affect both of the new territories which will
emerge.
We have three of the biggest diamond mining companies in the
world right at the back door of those people who will be
responsible for running their own activities. We have Aber
Resources and Rio Tinto. We also have the Broken Hill
Proprietary, BHP, Monopros and DeBeers.
We are also being bombarded continually with the attempts of
many groups to explore for other resources such as oil and gas.
We have in our midst a very friendly invasion of tourists
who are captivated not only by the environment of the north but
by the various aspects and phenomena of our environment such as the
aurora borealis. We have captivated Japanese tourists and other
people from around the world who come to the north.
Given the opportunities and tools and armed with the legislation
we have here we believe that people of the north will be able to
take full advantage of that potential. That is not to mention
the collective leadership and wisdom, the corporate knowledge,
the linguistic and cultural strength of peoples from both
territories which will be reflected in the kind of leadership
that leads those people once we have made the commitment to pass
this legislation. All the work that has already been undertaken,
all of the preparation, all of the visionary strategies, the
far-reaching planning and the training must not be ignored.
It can be said that if you want to do the right thing in
creating a democracy the principles of democracy are not
necessarily predicated on price or cost. Sometimes democracy is
costly. We would not have ten provinces and two territories if
we did not endure cost. If that were not the case, Newfoundland,
Manitoba and Saskatchewan would not be provinces today.
If we talk about self-sustaining entities of governance, some of
those provinces would not be provinces today. Why apply one set
of rules to them and another set of rules to the territories?
Bill C-39 is about making democracy work. Without this bill
Nunavut would not have a fully elected territorial leadership
from its beginning days. This legislation provides for the
election of a legislative assembly before the territory
officially comes into existence. That is very important.
Without that amendment to the Nunavut Act a commissioner without
a mandate from the people of Nunavut would govern the new Nunavut
government. We cannot return, however briefly, to the early days
of the Northwest Territories when governance was done from afar,
in absentia, when the Northwest Territories was run from the
south without having those people resident to really experience
and be part of what needed to be done at the time. We now have
an opportunity.
The people have been assigned their duties and they must be
empowered to carry them out. As legislators we can agree that
locally elected representatives must govern Nunavut from day one.
Elections in the north are very difficult. Having firsthand
experience in campaigning in the last three elections in the
north, I know how difficult it is and how much lead time is
required before an election. The sheer distance, the remoteness,
not to mention the severe inclement weather and environmental
experiences can create problems during an election. These are
some of the things that are to be considered.
The cost of an election is also something that is quite
prohibitive.
This bill also addresses other important issues to ensure
democracy. Bill C-39 proposes amendments to guarantee
representation of both Nunavut and the Northwest Territories in
both the House of Commons and in the Senate of Canada.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Nunavut, would be happy to
confirm, all Nunavutmiut, all northerners and all Canadians
have a basic right to be represented in both institutions of
parliament. This bill is necessary to ensure that both the hon.
member for Nunavut's constituents and my constituents have this
basic right.
1550
This bill ensures that both Nunavut and the Northwest
Territories will have their own representatives in both the
Senate and the House of Commons, which is not unlike anywhere
else in Canada.
This House and all Canadians listened with great interest to the
debate of two days ago in this Chamber. Unfortunately the Leader
of the Official Opposition was trying to use this legislation as
a springboard to advance the Reform Party's cause for Senate
reform. Senate Reform is something that we all think about, but
I do believe that timing and appropriateness is everything in
terms of politics. We have to know the right time to speak on
the right issue. Unfortunately this type of grandstanding and
manipulation is unacceptable. It does nothing to make gains on
the issue that is being promoted.
The Leader of the Official Opposition is trying to steer the
debate away from one of the most exciting and interesting events
that is happening in our country. It will shape the history of
Canada. I do not believe that was necessarily intentional. I
hope with the appropriate understanding of the north itself that
would change. I hope it was not intentional. Given the right
information, anyone can become informed, make the right choices
and have the appropriate sensitivity about such an exciting
opportunity as this for the north.
Instead of highlighting the good work done by the parties
involved in the creation of Canada's newest territory and
celebrating the biggest event since Newfoundland joined
Confederation, the Reform Party is trying to advance its own
agenda on the backs of northerners. I regret having to say that
because to attack on the basis of partisanship is not part of my
personality and normally it is not part of my political dialogue.
I like to deal with the issues.
I have a very different view of the chamber of second sober
thought. Next year will be my 10th year in the House of Commons.
When I was elected in 1988 there were many senators who had lives
before they came here. Some had been members of parliament.
Some were business people who were renowned and revered in their
communities. They were my mentors and taught me many things. I
think of Senator Allan MacEachen, bless his soul.
I sat on the Charest committee, the Beaudoin—Dobbie committee
and worked on Meech Lake. Much of the basic fundamental
understanding I gained on constitutional issues came from some of
those senators who were there from the very beginning. They had
the collective wisdom, experience, education and knowledge.
To paint that picture of all senators and of that chamber, to
put it in disrepute, is unacceptable to me. I have no political
motives in saying that, except perhaps to say that my experiences
have been different.
Instead of highlighting the good work done by senators from all
parties, it was as if they were trying to make their case by
using a few extreme examples. There is no Utopia. There is no
absolutely perfect system. Every system has its bugs.
The reality is that we have a bicameral system of governance.
Northerners are entitled to be fully represented. In my opinion
the two chambers are effective as they exist today. Perhaps some
individuals, in both Houses, could be faulted at different times.
After all, they are only human. But the present system is the one
we chose. It is the one that has been upheld and it works. In my
opinion it works well.
To be honest, this is a very non-partisan issue for me. I think
about Conservative appointed members like Wilbert Keon who is
renowned around the world for his work as a heart surgeon.
Landon Pearson is extraordinary in her work on behalf of children
internationally. She serves as an adviser to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs. I have worked with Landon Pearson. I know her
commitment, dedication and untiring efforts. Jack Austin comes
from a business background. He is known throughout Asia for his
work.
1555
These people did not just land here with no experience and with
nothing to offer. These people have something to offer.
We should be proud when we are elected or appointed. We should
be proud of what we do.
I think of Senator Jacques Hébert and his tireless work on
behalf of young people, specifically Katimavik.
Sister Peggy Butts is a nun from Atlantic Canada who was
appointed to the Senate. It is an unusual and great opportunity.
I was given literature to read when I first came here as a young
MP. One of the first pieces I was asked to read was done by
Senator David Croll. It was an outstanding piece concerning
poverty. Some of its elements are still as relevant today as
they were when he first wrote it. It is very thought provoking,
very sensitive and all encompassing. Have a look. These people
have something to offer.
Senator Eugene Forsey was one of the great thinkers, the big
dreamers. In my language a big dreamer is not someone foolish; a
big dreamer is someone who has a vision, who understands more
than their own vision or more than their own internal little
world. They can see many things. He was one of those people.
Senator Serge Joyal was a former secretary of state. He had
vision. He is the person who made the agreement with the
Northwest Territories for the first Canada-NWT language
agreement. Not only did he provide for French-language services
or bilingual services, he gave the Northwest Territories the
opportunity, with $16 million, to develop an aboriginal language
component for its government in which unilingual jurors and
unilingual members of their legislative assembly could serve.
These people have something to offer. It is not all bad. Who
better represents the views of the people of Labrador than Bill
Rompkey, a former member of parliament? I have heard him. I
worked with him on the Constitution.
I could go on. These are just a few examples, but they are
positive ones. These are people who work just as hard as any
member of parliament. They are just as committed as any member
of parliament.
This bill goes further than allowing for fair and equitable
representation in the Nunavut legislative assembly and in
parliament. It is necessary to enable the interim commissioner
for Nunavut to enter into formal agreements and contracts that
are essential to ensuring that the new government is functional
from day one.
The scope of the agreements needed range from the supply of
materials to the delivery of medical and educational services for
Nunavut residents. This bill makes sure that the essential
services and functions of a territorial government will be in
place on April 1, 1999.
Without this legislation the interim commissioner and his
officials would not be able to enter into these agreements. This
means that those reciprocal agreements for health care could not
be set up. The agreements allowing Nunavut youth the opportunity
to attend southern post-secondary schools could not be negotiated
without this legislation. That is why this legislation is so
important to the people of Nunavut and to the whole of the
territory.
This legislation also deals with the division of assets and
liabilities between the Government of the Northwest Territories
and the Government of Nunavut.
The new territory will require new laws relevant to its own
jurisdiction. The original Nunavut Act provides for an initial
legislative base for the new territory by grandfathering the
application of territorial laws currently in force in the
Northwest Territories.
Bill C-39 clarifies how these laws will be applied to Nunavut by
defining the practical results in a variety of situations. For
example, the grandfathering of laws would normally mean that all
bodies that have been created under Northwest Territories law
would automatically exist in Nunavut.
However, there are a number of instances where the creation of
parallel bodies will not be necessary. With this in mind, Bill
C-39 will ensure that the duplicating effect does not include
bodies which have no relation to Nunavut, such as municipal
corporations in the other region, the Mackenzie Valley.
As well, the proposed amendments will allow some exceptions to
the duplicating effect where it is agreed that a single body such
as the Workers' Compensation Board can continue to serve both
jurisdictions effectively.
These are practical amendments that all Canadians have an
interest in.
1600
As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
stated on Monday, Bill C-39 includes amendments that clarify the
creation of a Nunavut court system similar to that of the
Northwest Territories. The proposed amendments also ensure that
cases pending before the courts at the date of division will be
clearly sorted out between the Northwest Territories and the new
Nunavut courts.
With as much work as there is to finish, we cannot forget the
work that has already been accomplished in the creation of
Nunavut. One of the most critical issues being addressed is the
need to train Inuit for positions at all levels of the Nunavut
public service.
In April 1996 the government announced a $39.8 million fund for
human resources for Nunavut. More than 500 Inuit have been
enrolled to receive training in the use of computers, in
administrative skills and financial planning, all of the
functions of a modern government. Many are also learning from
their participation in building the new Nunavut government
buildings and staff housing.
This not only shows how committed the federal government is in
establishing the new Nunavut territory; it also shows how
committed Nunavut residents are to their new territory by taking
advantage of the opportunities to learn these new skills. These
skills are very important to the success of the Nunavut
territory.
There is a section which we have to become very aware of, that
of Senate reform. I need to deal with the specific issue of
Senate reform. On page 27 of Bill C-39 it states:
45. The member of the Senate who represents the Northwest
Territories immediately before the day that section 3 of the
Nunavut Act comes into force shall, on and after that day,
continue as the member of the Senate who represents one of the
following:
(a) Nunavut, if the member resides in the part of the Northwest
Territories referred to in section 3 of that Act immediately
before that day; or
(b) the Northwest Territories, in any other case.
This is legalese. My point is that the legislation is such that
once the Nunavut Senate seat is approved, if the current sitting
member in the Northwest Territories seat as it is now is from the
east, he or she will slide over into the newly created Nunavut
seat and a new senator from the west will be appointed.
I think it is a great opportunity. We have a great tradition in
our country. We have created 10 provinces and two new
territories. We are now dividing the Northwest Territories. We
are going to empower those people, give them the tools, give them
the support to do for themselves what we have not been able to do
for them.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my
intent to speak to Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and
the Constitution Act, 1867. It is not my intent to speak on
other matters which have nothing to do with this bill, as other
members of this House have done. I would like to make that very
clear at the outset.
This is a historic piece of legislation which will create a new
territory on April 1, 1999, Nunavut, meaning our land in the
Inuit language. This new territory is being created as part of
the Nunavut land claim agreement signed by the Progressive
Conservative government in 1993. The new territory will be
2,242,000 square kilometres, approximately one-fifth the size of
Canada and 69% of the existing Northwest Territories.
The idea of creating a new territory in the northern region of
Canada was brought to the Parliament of Canada in 1965.
It was not until the plebiscite in 1982 that the residents of the
Northwest Territories voted on the creation of a new territory.
The 1982 plebiscite achieved 54% approval with a 90% yes vote in
the eastern regions. Those eastern regions will become the new
territory of Nunavut.
1605
The next step was to determine a boundary between the two
regions and a plebiscite was held in 1992 to ratify this
selection. This was followed in 1993 with the signing of the
Nunavut land claim agreement that sets out the creation of the
Nunavut territory. This land claim agreement is the largest of
its kind in Canada.
Along with setting out the creation of Nunavut it gives Inuit
title to 350,000 square kilometres with about one-tenth of this
including mineral rights. It also gives the Inuit a stronger
voice on some management boards and a share of royalties from
oil, gas and mineral development on crown lands. As well it sets
out the creation of three new federally funded parks.
I had the pleasure of visiting the Northwest Territories last
fall and spoke with a number of people who expressed concern over
the readiness of the new territory to meet the deadline in 1999.
There are still a number of questions that need to be addressed
to ensure a smooth transition to the new territory and no loss of
service as this occurs.
This piece of legislation we are now speaking on today addresses
a number of concerns arising from the division of the Northwest
Territories on April 1, 1999. Specifically the legislation
decreases the number of members required by the western region to
form a government. This recognizes that the 14 members left
after division will be sufficient to govern, not the current
requirement of 15. As well the legislation will provide for two
seats in the House of Commons and the other place, again to
ensure that both regions are represented and have a voice in
federal government.
Division of assets and liabilities is also considered, as is the
establishment of a judicial system that will be prepared to
operate in a fair and ongoing manner.
The eastern and western regions of the Arctic however have not
satisfactorily dealt with the division of some of the essential
services.
Just a few weeks ago the Nunavut leaders rejected a proposal by
the Government of the Northwest Territories to divide the
Northwest Territories Power Corporation. The proposal was for
60% ownership by the western region and 40% by the eastern
region. While the two sides agree that economies of scale and
other such factors support maintaining one enterprise for the two
regions rather than the establishment of two separate bodies, it
is necessary to reach consensus on how this should be achieved.
The eastern region feels anything less than a 50:50 split is
insufficient.
I use that as an example of some of the hurdles that are still
in the way of this becoming reality by April 1, 1999. It is this
kind of problem that must be dealt with by the western and
eastern regions prior to that date to ensure continuation of
operations and services when the new territory comes into being.
Although this legislation states that the law which is currently
in place in the Northwest Territories will also apply in the new
territory, any disruption in service could have a significant
impact on the new region's ability to govern. Financial
considerations must also be addressed.
The western region will also be facing significant changes as it
is downsized from its current operations and focuses on service
provision for the western residents. This will mean changes in
government office space and staff requirements. Conversely the
eastern region will be building and hiring.
A report prepared by the Government of the Northwest Territories
regarding transition costs and the creation of the new territory
estimates that $3.8 million will be needed by the western region
to modify office space for new requirements as the size of the
government changes the focus on the western region.
As well the western region will continue to provide services in
the eastern region on a contractual basis until the new territory
is well established. This will be an additional cost to both
sides. The Government of the Northwest Territories estimates the
cost of retention and recruitment of staff to fulfil these
contractual obligations will be in the vicinity of $2 million in
the first year, 1999 to 2000, and $1 million for each subsequent
year.
At the same time the cost of contracting services from the
western region will be an extra cost for Nunavut as it pays for
the construction of its own infrastructure and staffing
requirements. The cost of having to rent space in the western
region while also facing the cost of infrastructure in Nunavut is
an additional cost that has not been accounted for by the
government in making this plan.
1610
Another estimate by the Government of the Northwest Territories
report is that only 10% to 15% of its workforce directly affected
by division will seek employment in Nunavut. This will
exacerbate a problem already faced by Nunavut, obtaining the
necessary workforce estimated at 600 people. As well, employment
opportunities created by other provisions of the land claim
agreement could create competition among employers for
experienced staff.
The federal transition funding plan estimates that only 150
Nunavut staff will be hired by the time division occurs. This
means Nunavut will not be in a strong position to assume control
of operations necessary for the daily operation of government
services. At the same time, according to the transition action
plan of the Government of the Northwest Territories, experienced
staff are already leaving because of job insecurity.
This is an immediate problem for this government which certainly
needs to be addressed by this government. To date we have not
seen anything put forward by the government to recognize the fact
that there is even a problem.
This legislation will address some of the concerns I mentioned
earlier. These amendments will provide the interim commissioner
with the authority to enter into contractual obligations with
staff to ensure that employees do not have to be hired on a short
term or temporary basis. This should alleviate some of the
problems with job insecurity.
A major component of Nunavut public government that will
represent all residents of the eastern region, Inuit and
non-Inuit alike, is the decentralization of government. This was
an important provision in the land claim agreement that set out
the government's structure.
Decentralization it is hoped will provide everyone, even those
people living in remote areas, with a voice in government. Given
the size of Nunavut and its sparse population, this is laudatory
but harder to implement. The chances of attracting qualified
staff to the 11 communities of the decentralized government may
be difficult especially in the short term. These uncertainties
increase the risk of stoppages in services at a critical time
when Nunavut is to be created. With the infrastructure not
scheduled to be in place until the year 2000 for the outlying
communities of the decentralized government, this will place an
additional burden on office space in Iqaluit which will be the
capital of Nunavut.
Although there is some uncertainty surrounding the creation of
Nunavut, and I have tried to set that uncertainty forth today so
that everyone in the House can understand it, this is a historic
event that is deserving of praise for those people who have
worked so long to see this happen. The Inuit both as individual
community members and through the different organizations
operating on their behalf have worked hard to see their goal
achieved. This will be accomplished on April 1, 1999. This
legislation ensures that a government will be in place to begin
operations at that time. At least we hope this legislation
ensures that a government will be in place to begin operations at
that time.
I would like to congratulate the people of both the eastern and
western Arctic regions who have helped to attempt to bring this
to reality.
I am pleased to support this bill in principle and look forward
to studying and amending it at the committee stage. It will be at
the committee stage that we will continue to try to address some
of the inadequacies and some of the problems that threaten this
piece of legislation which is by far a piece of proactive
legislation and should be commended.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken
place between the parties and I believe you will find consent for
the following motion. I move:
That if a recorded division is requested later this day on second
reading of Bill C-39, the said division shall be deemed deferred
until Tuesday, April 28, 1998 at the end 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)
1615
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 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): Pursuant to order
early this day, the vote stands deferred until Tuesday next.
* * *
[Translation]
PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT, 1985
The House resumed from April 3 consideration of the motion that
Bill S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act,
1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I shall
be brief, as this is essentially a housekeeping bill.
Bill S-3 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act,
enhancing the powers of the superintendent to supervise the
management of private pension plans.
My party will save its questions and in-depth consideration of
certain provisions of the bill for the Standing Committee on
Finance. We have a number of concerns about this bill,
particularly with clauses like clause 6(3), which provides that
pension plan administrators are not liable if they relied in
good faith on “financial statements of the pension plan prepared
by an accountant”—the type of accountant is not specified—“or
a report of an accountant, an actuary, a lawyer, a notary or
another professional person whose profession lends credibility
to the report”.
There are some very interesting questions for departmental
officials.
We also have some reservations about clause 9.2 and intend to
clarify the scope of this clause when it is studied in
committee. Clause 9.2(8) provides that the arbitrator shall not
be bound when there is a dispute, and I quote:
9.2(8) The arbitrator is not bound by any legal or technical
rules of evidence in conducting any matter that comes before the
arbitrator—
It would perhaps be better for the rules of law and equity to
prevail in cases of disagreement over management of a pension
fund.
In clause 9.2(15), it would be interesting to have clear
answers. This clause provides that the executive of a union
shall represent its members, but not its former members, such as
retired individuals.
There are questions for officials, such as why this does not
apply to retired individuals who used to pay into the pension
plan. The Bloc Quebecois prefers to ask all these questions in
committee.
Generally, however, I can tell you that this bill improves
everything to do with the management of private pension plans
and could have prevented certain problems of management and
responsibility. If provisions such as these had been available
in the past, a number of disputes over private pension plans
could have been resolved. I am thinking of Singer employers,
among others.
I will conclude by saying that, in the course of its work, the
Standing Committee on Finance will try to obtain answers to
these questions. With reservations, we are in agreement with
the general thrust of this bill.
1620
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I also
want to say a few words in the debate, not for any longer than my
colleague in the Bloc Quebecois.
I want to register a very general complaint. Once again we have
a bill here that originates in the unelected Senate. In the name
of democracy I do not think that is a very wise practice and I do
not think it is a practice that would be supported by the
overwhelming majority of the Canadian people.
There are many dedicated individuals in the Senate but the fact
remains that it is a non-democratic house, a non-democratic
legislative body. Over the years going back in the history of
the CCF and NDP and more recently joined by the Reform Party,
they objected to this kind of practice in the House of Commons
where a bill that should originate in the House of Commons
originates in the other place, in the Senate of Canada.
The bill before the House today is an administrative bill and a
highly technical bill. The main debate on the bill should be done
before the committee at the committee stage.
Bill S-3 is an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act,
1985 and also the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions Act. The bill was first introduced under a
different name. It was called Bill C-85 in the last parliament
and it was introduced in March of 1997. When the writs dropped
for the election on April 27, 1997 all legislation at that time
ceased to exist as the Parliament of Canada was dissolved.
This bill has been reintroduced and was passed by the Senate on
November 20, 1997 and here it is now in the House of Commons.
The bill covers a number of things. First of all, it governs
private pension plans set up for employees working in businesses
under federal jurisdiction. I think of the interprovincial
transportation companies and telecommunication companies. I also
think of the Canadian chartered banks and any other institutions
under federal jurisdiction.
It does not cover MP pensions or pensions of federal public
servants. It covers only private sector pension plans of
companies under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Bill S-3 would also introduce to the Pension Benefits Standards
Act the same philosophy that governs the changes to legislation
governing federal chartered financial institutions in Canada.
That of course is of interest now with the talk regarding the
merging of big Canadian banks.
The second part of the bill would deal with the office of the
superintendent of financial institutions. It would basically
enhance the powers of this office to supervise a pension plan in
this country.
There are a number of details in the bill in general that can
summarize it. It seeks to clarify ground rules for housekeeping
and codify the rules of how to handle controversial issue of the
treatment of surplus assets on pension plans. It restores a
better balance between the employer and those who benefit from
the plan. It enhances the ability of the minister to enter into
agreements with provinces to apply and enforce provinces' pension
legislation. It sets a prudent person approach as long as the
definition of a prudent person remains broadly based. That is
really the general purpose of the bill, very administrative and
very technical.
I want to at this time without going into detail, flag a number
of concerns we have in the New Democratic Party of Canada.
Regulations can be drafted by order in council that would
unnecessarily pass the parliamentary process. In other words, we
are handing too much power to the bureaucrats, a few unelected
officials, to draft legislation that is never scrutinized by the
House of Commons or by the appropriate parliamentary committee.
That is a major concern for us. All too often as
parliamentarians we cede too much of our power and authority as
law makers of the land to bureaucrats who, despite their good
intentions, draft regulations that are accountable to no one.
Even the minister and her office would be at a loss to explain
the regulations. It could change the whole intent of the bill.
We have seen that happen many times in the past.
1625
We are concerned about the solvency ratio in the bill. The
solvency ratio is much too high. That is something we should get
into at the committee stage.
We are concerned about a number of other things. There is the
question of a surplus withdrawal. The whole process seems to be
very sloppy and incoherent.
Those are some of our concerns. We look forward to pursuing
this bill in committee. Unless the parliamentary secretary and
the assistant whip can elaborate on the details of the bill, we
will pursue this at the committee stage.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken
place between the parties. I believe you will find consent for
the following motion:
That, if a recorded division is requested later this day on
second reading of Bill S-3, the said division shall be deemed
deferred until Tuesday, April 28, 1998 at the end of the time
provided for Government Orders.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to try to persuade all members present that we should give
careful consideration to what we are doing here today. I could
say I am standing here as part of the body of sober second
thought. Usually that terminology is applied to the Senate but
since the bill started in the Senate and has already been passed
by the Senate, its sober second thought has become the first
thought, and so here we are giving it sober second thought in
this Chamber.
The unelected Senate has done another wonderful thing for us.
It has now reversed the roles of the House of Commons and its own
august chamber. I object to that. I am sure thousands and maybe
millions of Canadians do. It is time we straightened that Senate
up.
I might not object if the senators had been elected, if the
people would have had a voice to say which one gets in there.
Instead the prime minister of the day appoints whoever happens to
have the best party credentials. Then that person becomes a
senator. The other thing that is so unconscionable about that is
that senator never has to go back to the people nor to the prime
minister to be accountable. We saw that recently. The prime
minister who has the right to appoint senators has no right to
right to dis-appoint them. I use that term advisedly. Even the
prime minister who appoints them cannot hold them accountable.
There is a large flaw in a democratic system when we break that
circle of accountability. In a circle everyone is accountable to
the person either in front or behind them. That is what happens
in a democracy. As a member of Parliament I am responsible to
the people in my riding. In return, those people are responsible
to correctly choose and direct their member of Parliament so we
get good laws in this country. The citizens are in that circle
of responsibility.
It is unfortunate when the prime minister appoints a Senate and
the Senate ends up initiating laws like this because the circle
of accountability is broken. We should not be surprised when
that happens, that we have laws that are not as good as they
could be.
I will talk about the amendments to the Pension Benefits
Standards Act, the bill we are debating today.
1630
I have a little problem suppressing my cynicism. What we have
here is a government that is proposing to strengthen the role of
the superintendent of pension administration. The superintendent
is the person who oversees the building of pension funds in the
public and private sectors across the country.
The federal government is appointing a superintendent to oversee
pension funds, presumably providing protection for the pension
funds of employees and employers but mostly on behalf of
employees.
One needs to ask what kind of credentials the government can
display. Since 1966 one of the largest pension funds in the
country has been the Canada pension plan. It was started by the
Liberals. Right from the beginning as data were gathered and
statistical information became available it was underfunded. When
the Conservatives were nine years in power they did not correct
it. The Liberals have been in power for a number of years. That
pension fund has been administered in such a way that its present
unfunded liability is currently about equal to our national debt,
both of which are shameful.
It is true that the national debt is a little bigger. We have
about $580 billion of debt that we owe directly because
government was borrowing. However, if one were to do the
actuarial mathematical calculation to see what kind of money is
now needed to fulfil all future obligations of the Canada pension
plan, one would see the amount of shortfall is in the
neighbourhood of $500 billion, an astronomical number. Yet the
government starts a bill in the Senate that says we need a
superintendent of pension funds.
I agree on behalf of employees that we need to have the
assurance that when pension funds are contributed by employers
and employees they are properly managed and properly invested. An
accounting should be done. There should be proper security of
those funds so that no one can abscond with the money. In the
event that businesses run into hard times there need to be
protections against those businesses reaching into their pension
funds, which really belong to the employees, to try to bail
themselves out. We need those regulations.
I agree but, as I said earlier, part of me has trouble
suppressing my cynicism when the same government says that it
should supervise pension funds so that everything goes well and
it has such a terrible track record with its own pension fund,
the Canada pension plan.
In this instance I think right now that I will support the
measures being proposed in the bill. Of course I object that the
bill did not start up here, but so be it.
Most of the measures in the bill are needed and I want to
support it. I have a concern with sections of the act that state
the superintendent, under the authority of the minister, has the
powers to do these different things.
Some of the powers are very important. Anybody who reads the
act will see that the superintendent, for example, has the right
to demand that any new pension fund be registered with his office
within 60 days. That is a perfectly fine and acceptable
requirement.
1635
This is a way of providing some assurance and some security for
employees who are paying into the pension fund. It helps
everybody involved in administering the fund to be accountable to
someone. There we come back to the question of accountability
again.
I have some real serious concerns on behalf of people who work
all their lives. When they approach retirement age they suddenly
find the things they were planning on have evaporated right under
their noses.
I know of a family back in my riding where that happened. This
man worked hard in a company for many years. He was about four
or five years away from retirement age when the company, how do I
put it politely, spun into the ground. It dug itself into a
hole. The bosses decided they would try to do some interim
financing by borrowing from the pension fund, which on the
surface seemed okay at that time. It would have been okay if it
would have been a temporary loan, if the company would have
recovered and put the money back.
In this instance it became impossible for the company to do so.
I am not even sure there was anything illegal about what it was
doing at the time. I do not know those details. However it took
the pension money to try to bail itself out. The company still
went under. Now the employees, including the person I know who
was five years away from retiring, suddenly lost their jobs
because the company quit and their pension fund evaporated with
it. Now he is dependent on Canada pension for which he is
eligible. It is really a drastic situation when people who pay
into these funds for years and years cannot trust them.
I guess the beginning and the end of what I was to say is
included in these statements. We need to make sure as
legislators that we implement rules and we set up regulations
correctly. I am grateful that in the House of Commons we have
the scrutiny of regulations committee. When the superintendent,
under the authority of the minister, makes regulations that apply
to the administration of pension funds, the regulations are
subject to the scrutiny of the House committee. Hopefully that
will give Canadians a little more security in the assurance that
their pensions funds will be there for them.
I have problems with some of the powers being given to the
superintendent. In some instances they seem to be arbitrary. I
have additional anxiety about a superintendent being responsible
only to the minister.
I can make an outrageous statement here and I am sure I will not
hear a voice of protest from them. Ministers in the present
government do not always answer questions in question period.
When we ask a question about something usually we get a
runaround. Usually we get some vicious attack on our party, even
maybe saying that we are not being very nice to ask such a
question instead of giving us the facts.
What we have here is a superintendent who is answerable to the
minister, but who can ever force the minister to be answerable to
anyone?
I would like to see a real demand for openness in pension funds.
Some of that is included in the bill. It begins a process.
Perhaps it does not go far enough, but it requires that the
superintendent get information.
I would like to make sure that everyone with a vested interest
in the pension fund, whether it is an individual employee or
someone even more distantly interested in the pension fund
because of administrative procedures and so on, should have
access to the records and administrative procedures being used in
the administration of the pension fund.
I conclude by simply saying that the administration of pension
funds is most important. We are living in an age in which many
of us live longer. I come from a family where people live
terribly long. I do not know whether I will keep up the family
tradition but I expect to do so. That is true for many of us.
1640
I remember as a young man at university studying mathematics,
statistics, actuarial tables and things like that. Back then the
actuarial tables we used had a life expectancy for a Canadian
male of around 62 years. Now that dates me because those are
very old tables. The life expectancy for males in Canada is
approaching 80 years and for females it is even higher.
We now live longer in that period of time in our lives when we
usually do not have jobs. We have retired and are depending on
our retirement income. It is incumbent on the government to do
what it needs to do so that there is openness and accountability.
Pension funds need to be well administered. People need to have
confidence in them. They need the government to actually deliver
the funds that are expected when they retire.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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 Charlotte, Health; the hon. member for
Sackville—Eastern Shore, The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy; the
hon. member for Edmonton East, Merchant navy veterans.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have two questions for my friend in the Reform Party. I applaud
what he said about the bill being introduced in the Senate. I
said similar things a few minutes earlier. We therefore
certainly agree on that and I would like to elaborate for a
minute or so.
This practice started decades and decades ago. Over the last
few years it has escalated, which concerns me. When I was first
elected in 1968 it was extremely rare that the government would
introduce a bill through the Senate. If that were to happen, the
Hon. Stanley Knowles would rise in the House and object to it.
The practice now is becoming more and more common, which concerns
me as a democrat. I am talking about a democrat in a democratic
process.
Would the member across the way think that the Senate should be
abolished? Do we need that other place, or do we form an elected
Senate? The problem with forming an elected Senate, having gone
through a constitutional process, is that it is very difficult to
come up with a national agreement that would carry in the
country. As long as we hold out a dream of electing it and
reforming it we might be stuck with the unelected Senate.
I went through the Charlottetown process, the Meech Lake
process, the parliamentary committees of the House where there
was all party consensus and so on, and the most difficult issue
was always the Senate. Triple E sounds very nice in principle,
but the province of Quebec is unique and distinct with 25% of the
people. The huge province of Ontario has 38% of the people.
There are many small provinces. We are a federation with 65% or
70% of our people in two of the ten provinces. Therefore it
makes it very difficult to reach an agreement on an equal Senate.
Ontario and Quebec do not agree to it because of their size.
If the provinces agree to an equal Senate as suggested in the
Charlottetown accord, the powers of that Senate would be
diminished. Then what would be the purpose of the Senate? I get
back to how we put a round peg in a square hole and ask whether
or not the member has some advice for the House.
My other question is on the substance of the bill. I am
concerned that the powers of the Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions are to be enhanced.
Would the member deal in more detail than he did with the types
of powers he thinks will be negative in terms of enhancement and
the move away from accountability by the House of Commons of the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions?
The issue is becoming more and more an issue of sensitivity as
we are looking at the big bank mergers that are coming down. I
know this does not affect banks, but it affects people working in
private sector companies across the country that are regulated by
federal law and jurisdiction such as our major chartered banks.
I know the member is an expert in this area so I would be
interested in hearing him go into detail in terms of the powers
he is concerned about being enhanced.
I certainly agree with him that we are handing too many powers to
that official and that office without the scrutiny of Parliament.
This whole process should be democratized. Accountability is
extremely important in public life and politics.
1645
On the Senate, how do we put that round peg in a square hole? My
second question is with regard to the powers of the office of the
superintendent of financial institutions.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the second
question first because it is going to be the shorter of the two.
That pertains to the accountability of this particular
superintendent.
According to the bill, this superintendent is actually going to
have the right to subpoena. He is going to have the right of the
court to demand the presentation of documents and he can seize
pension funds and put them under his own administration if in his
view there is an improper application or administration of those
funds. That is a formidable power. There is a lot of money in
some of these funds and it is a very great power. That is
exactly what I was talking about. How do you make it more
accountable?
My answer is simply this. Right now he or she is accountable to
the minister. I would like to see a change in our standing
orders that requires that the minister answer specific questions.
Sometimes in question period members of the opposition ask
rhetorical questions and they deserve a rhetorical answer.
Sometimes there are very specific questions asked and these
should be something in question period or through some other
mechanism of the House where members can get right down to the
facts.
Whether it is the Canadian Wheat Board, whether it is any one of
the other crown corporations or one of the superintendents in the
regulators of the government, the idea of openness and
accountability has to be the best protection that can be given to
the public.
I am very concerned when even our own Access to Information Act
usually gives more whiteouts than it does information. It has to
be changed because that is where the accountability is. People
are not going to do illegal and wrong things if they know they
are going to be found out. The temptation to try it is too great
if there are easy ways to hide it.
I am now going to address the issue of the Senate. I could
speak for an hour on this topic but I will limit it. The
question has to do with the Senate. The NDP wants to abolish the
Senate. This is wrong. That is the last thing we need.
In the House 60% of the representatives come from Quebec and
Ontario. Everybody else outside of those two provinces feels
like a second class citizen. In the west we can say it does not
matter who is elected because the election is decided by the time
the ballots are cast. Of course now with the new elections act
the timing is changed, but even then we do not have the power to
elect majority members in this House.
If the Senate is abolished and there is only this place and it
is based on representation by population, which is proper, the
rest of the country is going to continue to be in distress
because it could never have a substantial influence on the final
outcome of things. The country would keep on getting things like
that dastardly national energy program which so affected the west
and still does. The west is still reeling from that all these
years later.
The member asks how are we going to get a constitutional
approval for a Senate. I appeal to the goodness of people. It is
heard over and over again that Canadians are such wonderful
people, thoughtful, helpful, generous and that is true. Even the
NDP members are very generous, albeit usually with other people's
money, but they have a generous heart. This should be approached
properly by saying this country has a true bicameral system, a
House of Commons and a Senate where the representation is of the
people based on population. Every 100,000 people would have a
member of Parliament who occupies a seat on behalf of those
people. The Senate would represent the provinces equally.
1650
If senators were truly elected and representative and equal in
numbers per province, they would have legitimacy and the right to
introduce bills such as this one. They could introduce
legislation and bring it here. Or they could have proper veto
rights or amendment rights to bills that are introduced here and
sent over there.
I cannot believe that my fellow Canadians in Ontario and Quebec
would say that they are so selfish that they will never give up
that power. Right now they have it. There are 24 senators in
Ontario, 24 in Quebec, 10 in New Brunswick, 10 in Nova Scotia.
B.C., the third most populated province, has six. That is wrong.
If we tell them, if we appeal to their goodness, do members not
think that eventually we would come to the point where, out of
the goodness of their hearts, they would say they believe in
fairness? That is a way of achieving it. Let us have an equal
number, maybe six senators per province, maybe ten. Now the
powers are balanced.
That is my goal. That is one of the reasons I was attracted to
the Reform Party. Having representation by population in both
Houses as it is now, but even then distorted, introduces such an
inequity that it perpetuates a feeling of dissatisfaction and
disunity in the country. This proposal would add greatly to our
feelings of unity of co-operation as fellow Canadians. It would
be a wonderful change. We should never think of abolishing that
honourable place, the Senate. Let us make it honourable. Let us
make it truly honourable by electing it.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
concur with my colleague from Qu'Appelle with respect to where
this piece of legislation has initiated. If it is all right with
the Speaker I would like to talk about why I believe this piece
of legislation will not improve pension benefits for senior
citizens.
Not acting on opportunities to improve pensions and therefore
benefits simply adds to the financial struggles of too many
vulnerable people. It is beyond me how this can be the goal of
any Canadian government. If the letters I am getting from
seniors are any indication, the government will have a lot of
explaining to do during the next election.
This bill is part and parcel of the government's piecemeal
approach to updating the public pension system. The entire set
of proposals from the Canada pension to senior benefits has met
with opposition from the business community and seniors. The
seniors benefit proposal has universally been characterized as
too complicated and unworkable by financial planners.
Maybe that is why the finance department has been up to its
elbows in a redesign that has no end in sight. The cornerstone of
this half finished pension reform is an unqualified failure and
the entire policy has no integrity. The finance minister knows
that seniors are watching every stumble.
The bill before us provided an opportunity to diminish the
government's attack on older Canadians who have claimed what
author John Myles calls the citizen's right to cease work before
wearing out.
However, in Bill S-3 the government is proposing a mechanism to
take the surplus out of private pension plans rather than offer
incentives to improve pension plans. This is the wrong message to
send. The government's role is simply to do what it can to add to
the quality of life of citizens. It can do so by encouraging the
improvement and strengthening of pension funds in an attempt to
increase benefits.
Pensions and medicare have institutionalized the concept of
retirement. Imagine a society where retirement is not
institutionalized, where we are not granted the right to a
peaceful time in our final years, free from the struggle of the
labour market.
We have this right today and cutting pensions is an attempt to
take that away. To deinstitutionalize retirement, destroying the
institution of retirement one pension cut at a time means a
person never stops working regardless of age or health.
1655
The evidence is irrefutable that the private sector does not
provide enough money by age 65 to create a suitable retirement
nest egg for the vast majority of Canadians. This is why there
has been consistent public pressure throughout the 20th century
for the government to step in. Now it is stepping back from that
mandate and the result is clear.
If hon. members go to fast food restaurants and shopping malls
they will see some seniors who want to be working, but they will
mostly see seniors who have no choice but to stay on the job.
The destruction of retirement, one pension cut at a time, is big
brother's right wing dream of social engineering, a sick utopia
being administered by the finance department. Canadians do not
want the finance department carrying out centrally planned social
engineering experiments on their senior citizens. They want
pensions the way they were working well before these experiments
became so fashionable in corporate and government boardrooms.
If there is one constant theme in the government's scorched
earth campaign against the long held Canadian consensus in favour
of public pensions it is a complete lack of interest in making
life better for seniors. We have seen it with the Canada pension
plan where seniors' hopes for a little more money so some can
literally turn up the heat another degree next winter were put
through the shredder at the finance department. Hopefully it is
using the same shredder on the proposed seniors benefit.
The seniors benefit is like some foul monster worthy of the X
Files television program, speaking a language that even
financial planners cannot understand and striking fear into the
hearts of seniors everywhere.
Again the government is slashing benefits by cancelling the old
age security and guaranteed income supplement and letting loose
the cynically titled seniors benefit.
It should be pointed out that although the government's plan to
institute a seniors benefit has been stopped dead in its tracks
at least for a while, this did not come about because the
government was sensitive to the needs of seniors. The government
was unmoved by the outcry from seniors groups and their disbelief
on seeing the planned benefit.
No, it was the outcry of wealthy Canadians through their
financial planners who said this plan makes it difficult to
organize the complicated financial affairs of better off
retirees. This group saw the losses involved and together with
lower income Canadians delivered a universal message. Thankfully
this wretched seniors benefit has been put on hold, and that is
the strength of universality.
A nation is not a thing to be divided and conquered by its own
government. We are a nation of citizens who deserve to be
treated with equal respect. Universality is about equality and
balance and the government's approach to destroy universality by
expanding means testing for pensions through the seniors benefit
has simply upset the fine balance of universality and equality
born from the Canadian soul and enshrined in the institution of
retirement that we have erected as a symbol of our nation. To
dismantle these things is to dismantle Canada.
Bill S-3 has some good intentions. The bill strives to set
clear ground rules for housekeeping, restores a better balance
between the employer and those who benefit from the pension plan
and enhances the ability of the minister to enter into agreements
with provinces to apply and enforce a province's pension
legislation.
However, the bill also adds unaccountable power to bureaucrats
in the name of lowering costs and only addresses the issue of
taking a surplus out of a pension fund. This is what most
seniors and future seniors are concerned with.
Bill S-3 is an opportunity for the government to address the
need to use the surplus wisely. There could have been something
in the legislation which encourages pension fund managers to find
constructive ways to use any surplus, to perhaps leave the
surplus in a fund for the good of those who receive benefits. But
the legislation does not do that, which is a shame.
1700
We should be improving benefits or striving to improve benefits.
After all, the goal here is to improve the quality of life of our
senior citizens.
The government cannot even be bothered to appear to be striving
to improve benefits. Clearly, a discussion on how to use any
surplus for the good of beneficiaries is lacking in this bill.
Canadians are a prudent people. We like to know there is money
in the bank for a rainy day. Statistics show that for the vast
majority of seniors old age is that rainy day.
In December Statistics Canada announced a 2% rise in the rate of
seniors' poverty over many years of decline, largely attributed
to the long established pensions in the country. However, that
is not the most telling statistic.
I will quote from a StatsCan report. It states:
A large percentage of the elderly population have incomes near
the low income cut-offs. Consequently, rates for seniors are
particularly sensitive to small income shifts. The rise in the
elderly low income rate reflects the fact that more seniors fell
just short of the cut-offs.
Senior citizens are hanging on by a thread in a world where
governments are cutting pensions. The government is making
cheaper medicine more difficult to obtain and social assistance
for the victims of this wild west economy is being rolled up into
meaningless tax cuts just so the wealthy can smoke a few more
cigars.
The StatsCan report of just five months ago, three days before
Christmas, makes it clear that seniors are amassing on the last
rung of the economic ladder. It reminds me of the hundreds of
thousands of refugees amassing in the city of Dunkirk during the
second world war with nowhere to go, looking across the sea
for any sign of hope.
This government has millions of economic refugees staring at it
through wizened eyes and all the government can think about is
who will blink first. It is shameful. This is not about
blinking, it is about eating and staying healthy and warm.
There was recently an elderly gentleman from Cape Breton who had
to resort to a public plea over radio for help. Unable to pay
for his expensive heart medication and facing a refusal for help
from the cash starved provincial health plan, the man said he
expected to die the next day.
Faced with a member of their community dying in such appalling
circumstances, Cape Bretoners responded, as they always do in
Atlantic Canada, with generosity. The senior is now being taken
care of, but for how long?
What about the thousands of others we know are suffering the
same indignities across this country? If the government does not
care about them, who will? It will not be multinational drug
companies or the multinational insurance corporations. I doubt
it will be the banks who are bent on service charging senior
citizens right into the grave. The banks are probably the ones
who came up with the phrase “You can't take it with you”.
This is the job of the government. If the government is going
to treat people the way corporations do, then why have a
government? It seems the marketplace is crowded with
organizations trying to figure out ways to get their hands on
people's money in exchange for nothing but promises and
apologies.
Seniors were not born yesterday. They know the government
should return to its only market niche of good government, adding
to the quality of life of its citizens. Why will the government
not through this legislation encourage pension managers to search
for ways to increase benefits and help seniors become more
independent? This bill makes the improvement of pension plans
unlikely and that makes seniors and future seniors less secure.
So why bother?
It is part of this government's disturbing pattern of behaviour
in the area of pensions. Why did this government announce it was
going to cancel the old age security and guaranteed income
supplement which Canadians knew they could use as a building
block for their retirement, a building block that would not
shrink every time they earned a dollar of their own through an
RRSP or some other form of investment? Why does the government
plan to replace it with a seniors benefit which will give a
couple about $18,000 and then take away every dollar of seniors
benefit for every dollar earned?
1705
It seems that the government has taken its cue from thieves
lurking around banking machines, lying in wait for senior
citizens. Seniors are only withdrawing their own money paid
through pension contributions and taxes.
Why is the government forcing seniors to work harder, making it
harder for them to earn money for their final years, and then
taking away their pension, dollar for dollar, with the seniors
benefit? Why has the government put senior citizens on a
treadmill? Senior citizens do not need to be on a treadmill.
They have worked hard all their lives. They have paid taxes.
They have defended this country, with their lives in many
instances. They have raised families, built businesses, passed
on their lessons learned and made their communities better places
for all of us. After all that, all the government can come up
with in terms of social policy for seniors is to put them on a
treadmill.
I think the finance minister needs an education. He needs to
learn that senior citizens have a right to cease work and he has
a responsibility to ensure that when the private sector uses them
up and throws them away it is his responsibility to take them in
and thank them for the contribution they have made to this
country. That is his job.
We are compassionate people and a Canadian government devoid of
compassion is un-Canadian. This is the unseverable cord of this
nation's definition of patriotism.
The Minister of Finance says that all of these pension
initiatives are designed to maintain the viability of benefits
for seniors. If he can maintain them, then he can surely role up
his sleeves, get to work and go one step further to improve them.
If he does not like the idea of improving benefits, he should
step aside and allow someone else who has the stomach for the job
to do it.
How can anyone not be interested in caring for the elderly in
this country? How can you say no to that? How can you not want
to improve pensions and benefits and improve the lives of our
wonderful senior citizens?
People who cannot bring themselves to care for senior citizens
should think of this. We are all pretending here. We are all
senior citizens. We run pensions at our own peril. We are
hurting ourselves because we all have our senior years to look
forward to. That is who we are hurting when this House passes
legislation like the recent downsizing of the Canada pension plan
benefits program and, God forbid, the seniors benefit.
How can the government on the one hand slash the Canada pension
plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement by
claiming it is running out of money and then present this bill
today with no encouragement to improve pension funds? Is that
how we want to teach our children to handle finances? As soon as
you get ahead, just throw your money away.
The government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth and
seniors have stopped listening. The government should give
senior citizens a little more credit.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
know there are other members who are waiting to give speeches,
but I would like to ask the member one brief question.
Is the member aware that the old age security and GIS programs
are in fact not being cancelled? Is the member aware that if a
person was 60 years of age or older as of December 31, 1995 they
would continue to receive the old age security and the GIS, or
that they would have the option to transfer to the senior's
benefit if in fact that was in their best interest?
I want to know if the member is aware that those programs are
not being cancelled.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, in response to the
member's question, yes, I am aware of that.
I would like to say that a lot of my comments today have come
from the perspective of senior citizens whom I have both talked
with and received correspondence from in terms of their concern
for their future with all of these changes that the government
has proposed.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have a comment that I would like to make which arises out of what
my friend from Mississauga South stated. The member made a
comment about the seniors benefit.
1710
One of the concerns that I have about the seniors benefit is
that I think we are going to end all pretence of universality in
this country and that really concerns me as a citizen.
It is very ironic that the Minister of Finance is the son of one
of the founders of the national social programs in this country,
along with people like Stanley Knowles and other members of the
New Democratic Party.
With the seniors benefit, if someone earns a few dollars, they
will lose money in terms of their seniors benefit. After they
earn a few more dollars, they will lose even more money. After a
certain level it will all be gone.
Therefore, people who have saved money for their retirement, who
have a middle-class income, all of a sudden will not have a
seniors benefit. I am talking about people who were not 60 years
of age by the year 1995.
If that happens we will basically have a welfare program and
there will be a lack of political support for that program. It
will become more and more of a welfare program. There will be a
means test and an end to universality.
What a legacy for the Liberal Party of Canada to leave this
country. Here is a party which used to pretend in opposition
that it was a progressive party which stood up for ordinary
citizens. It talked about social programs and the redistribution
of wealth in this country.
Here is a party that makes Brian Mulroney look like a raving
socialist. It even makes you, Mr. Speaker, look like a raving
socialist. I am sure that you would not even advocate, coming
from a very progressive Edmonton background, the end of
universality for pensions in this country. We have a Liberal
Party that is a throwback to the conservativism of the last
century. It wants to end universality.
I want to know whether the member for Bras d'Or agrees with me
or not.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, that is a really
taffy question. Certainly I agree with my colleague.
One of the things I would like to make a point on concerns the
people of Bras d'Or.
As I have said in this Chamber on numerous occasions with
respect to the problems that are occurring both in Bras d'Or and
in Atlantic Canada, what we are finding is that our population is
aging rapidly and we have a serious problem with respect to the
exodus of our young people.
Contrary to what we hear from the other side of this House, I am
not aware of very many jobs that are being created at my end of
the country. Therefore, our young people are leaving at a very
rapid rate.
As the seniors critic, I am doubly concerned with respect to
what is happening with our population in Bras d'Or and how those
people perceive these changes will affect them.
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.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find
consent in the House to see the clock as being 5.30 p.m. so that
we may move to Private Members' Business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Do we have unanimous
consent to see the clock as being 5.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): For the benefit of
those in the gallery I will take a second to explain what is
going on.
Normally the House proceeds to Private Members' Business at 5.30
p.m. However, because the House has finished its scheduled
business early there has been a request to see the clock as
being 5.30 p.m. and we need unanimous consent to do that.
This is why, even though it is not 5.30 p.m., I say “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
1715
[English]
LABELLING OF TOYS
The House resumed from March 16 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are more
members who wish to speak than there is time for. We have 45
minutes, which includes 5 minutes for responses, which may or may
not be applied in this circumstance. Given that there are more
people who wish to speak than time allows for, I remind members
that they do not have to take 10 minutes just because they have
10 minutes at their disposal.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are talking about Motion No. 85 brought forward by the NDP
member for Acadie—Bathurst. The motion concerns the labelling
of toys that contain phthalates. There is apparently scientific
evidence to suggest this substance causes cancer.
I have not followed the research on this topic but I am sure the
member has done his research. If there are toy companies that
produce toys containing phthalates, I would agree with the member
wholeheartedly that there should be legislation that these toys
must be labelled.
I am not an expert. I am reading only from a few reports. It
is the first I have heard that phthalates cause cancer. Someone
even suggested to me that these toy companies actually produce
soothers containing this substance which are used by infants. I
find that absolutely amazing. History has shown this is not the
first time horrifying things have happened.
Providing that the science is correct, I would speak in support
of this motion. I have to go further and say that we should ban
something like this and not just label it. I give a qualified
yes because I obviously have not done the research. I am not
challenging the research done by the member. I read that tests
conducted in U.K. laboratories reveal widespread presence of
phthalates in soft plastic toys and other products, particularly
teething rings.
A September 1997 report on the subject concludes that the
primary problem is that phthalates leaking from these products
are being ingested by children. Phthalates are indeed toxic and
Greenpeace has been effective in lobbying European toy
manufacturers and distributors to pull some of these products off
the shelves.
I have two small children at home, a two-year old and a
four-year old. I see some eyebrows raised. I am not that old. I
am young enough to have a two-year old and a four-year old. I
think there are a few grey hairs but I am trying to fight those.
There are problems with toys which I have seen even in the few
years we have been dealing with this.
I would support the member in this initiative. It is a
qualified yes. Unless somebody can tell me differently I would
be very in favour of it. I thank the member for bringing this
motion before the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in
response to the motion put forward by the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst regarding phthalates contained in plastic toys.
1720
The hon. member's motion states that the government should enact
legislation mandating toy manufacturers to label toys containing
phthalates in order to allow parents to make an informed
decision when buying products for their children.
It seems to me that this no doubt well-intentioned motion is
somewhat premature. The fact is that there is no conclusive
evidence linking all phthalates in toys to health risks for
children. In fact, my predecessor already inquired about this,
and there has never been a reported case of a child experiencing
ill effects from phthalates in this country or anywhere else.
That is why the government is not supporting this motion at this
time, which does not mean that the government is taking the
matter lightly. Quite the contrary.
Health Canada officials are currently investigating the
potential health risks of phthalates in polyvinyl chloride or
PVC plastic toys.
If at any time clear evidence of health risks from phthalates
are established, appropriate action will immediately be taken to
protect the health of Canadian children.
Health Canada's investigation of potential health risks from
phthalates includes ongoing information exchange with the
department's counterparts in the United States and in Europe,
with industry, advocacy groups and health associations, as well
as a comprehensive literature assessment on the potential
toxicity of phthalates.
As part of this investigation, Health Canada officials have
undertaken a scientific risk assessment on phthalates in various
PVC plastic products. Specifically, they are trying to determine
the presence of potentially toxic substances and conducting
tests to see if these substances can in fact be absorbed by
children.
The department has developed a test protocol and is currently
assessing polyvinyl chloride products to validate test
procedures. Test results should soon be available to help
determine the risks represented by phthalates.
Two of the most valuable tools at the government's disposal are
the Hazardous Products Act and the Hazardous Products (Toys)
Regulations, which are both administered by the Products Safety
Bureau of Health Canada.
The legislation in effect totally bans the sale of certain toys
while others are not allowed on the market until they meet
certain very precise safety standards.
The mission of Health Canada's Product Safety Bureau is to
prevent deaths and injuries linked to the use of products. In
order to reduce the potential dangers of products intended for
children and to promote their safe use, the Bureau operates on a
number of levels, particularly by enacting legislation, setting
standards and informing consumers.
The Bureau's activities dovetail with those of Health Canada's
national information and education program. Child safety and
the prevention of injuries linked to the use of consumer
products constitute one of the program's key objectives.
I am certain that Health Canada's sound research, coupled with
dialogue and consultation with governments, industry and NGOs,
will make it possible to clarify the issue and constitute a
solid and informed basis for measures the Government of Canada
might take in future in this connection.
This well thought out approach reflects Health Canada's decision
to have a solid and informed assessment of the risks in order to
gain an understanding of the complex health issues,.and to act
accordingly, especially where children are concerned.
In reacting in a rigorous and thorough manner to this potential
health hazard, we are following up on an ongoing government
commitment to ensure the health and safety of all Canadian
children.
The Health Protection Branch of Health Canada is making every
effort to reduce health risks associated with the natural or
artificial environment which can lead to injury or death.
1725
The main responsibilities of this branch are, first, to assess
and control the nutritional value, quality and safety of food
products; second, to assess and control the safety and
effectiveness of drugs, cosmetics, medical instruments,
radiation emitting devices and other consumer products; third,
to identify and assess environmental risks, and to monitor,
prevent and fight diseases; and fourth, to provide laboratory
services such as those required for the analysis and evaluation
of plastic products containing potentially dangerous phthalates.
At the Health Protection Branch, these various programs are
bound together by the government's desire to ensure the health
and safety of Canadian children. Of course, this concern is
shared by parents and other caregivers, public health workers,
product manufacturers and retailers.
By mobilizing all available resources, knowledge and expertise
and by co-operating with partners from various sectors, the
government has effectively reduced potential risks to our
children's safety.
I will conclude by saying that I find this to be a worthy
motion, but in light of the efforts already undertaken by Health
Canada and because of the lack of information, as mentioned by
the member of the Reform Party, I think it is a little premature
at this time.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak on Motion M-85 put forward by my NDP colleague,
the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact
legislation mandating toy manufacturers to label toys containing
phthalates in order to allow parents to make an informed
decision when buying products for their children.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for
giving us the opportunity to discuss the safety of the
manufactured products that we buy and in particular the
potentially toxic products used in the production of children's
toys.
Today, Earth Day, is the perfect time to ask us the following
questions: In what kind of environment do we want to live? Do we
want a healthy environment for our kids? Should we let companies
put their profits before the quality of the products they sell?
Should our governments legislate to protect our environment and
ensure that the legislation is enforced?
The motion before us deals with phthalates. This is a chemical
product that is used to make many plastic products more
malleable. They are found in a number of children's toys among
other things.
Recent scientific studies carried out in several European
countries show that these products can cause cancer, liver
damage and infertility.
These same studies indicate that children, particularly
preschoolers, are more vulnerable.
The Vinyl Council of Canada and the Canadian Toy Manufacturers'
Association have denied that phthalate-containing toys are
dangerous. They have asked that any decision be postponed
pending the results of a study underway at Health Canada. But it
could take Health Canada months if not years to examine all toys
and determine which ones release phthalates. It could take this
department a long time to determine the acceptable level of this
product in toys.
Why are manufacturers putting people's health at risk by waiting
to withdraw their products until phthalates have been proven
dangerous?
By that time, parents could end up with sick children, and the
government would have to bear the cost of any health services
needed to restore them to health or to treat them for permanent
damage.
Last December, Denmark's environment minister condemned the
industry for trying so hard to deny any problems with phthalates
instead of looking for safer alternatives.
Other substances could be used to make plastic more malleable.
Why not use substances that are recognized as safer?
1730
In several countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden,
Argentina, Spain, Belgium, and Italy, stores have voluntarily
withdrawn these toys at the request of governments as a
preventive measure. This has involved losses for them, but they
believed that children's health was more important.
When in doubt, the consumer's interest should always prevail.
For example, it is common in the food sector to see a company
withdraw all its products from the shelves because a few people
got sick. It is a matter of respect for customers.
In 1997, Health Canada issued a warning because children's
health could be affected by the lead contained in blinds made of
polyvinyl chloride. The fact that these products had been widely
distributed before it was realized that they could be dangerous
shows the importance of prevention.
The motion before us today at second reading does not even
demand that all phthalates be prohibited. It merely asks that a
label be put on children's toys containing phthalates, since
they could potentially be dangerous. This would allow parents to
make an informed decision as to whether they are prepared to
take the risk of having their children chew on toys that could
release toxic substances.
The label put on these products would not say that they are
harmful, but it would inform consumers, as is the case with the
labels found on all stuffed animals, cereal boxes or other
consumer products.
Just this morning, La Presse reported that a five-year old girl
was found to have a high level of lead because she kept chewing
on a pendant that she received as a Christmas present. Health
Canada issued a warning and the American manufacturer
voluntarily withdrew the product from the market.
It is only natural for young children to put things in their
mouths.
It is part of their development and discovery process. This is
why it is worrisome to see that teething rings, rattles and
other toys that children often put in their mouth for hours may
contain toxic substances.
Phthalates are dangerous products. In the laboratories where
they are used, they have a label with the warning “Avoid
contact”. Since phthalates account for 10% to 40% of the weight
of some toys, they can be mechanically released when children
chew on these toys.
Studies conducted by the governments of Denmark and Holland, and
by Greenpeace's laboratories in Great Britain, show that the
quantities thus released largely exceed the acceptable level, up
to 40 times according to the European Commission's scientific
committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment, which
conducted a study on a phthalate, di-iso-nonyl.
These substances get into a child's saliva and then into the
digestive tract, poisoning the child.
At the present time, the manufacturers are claiming they meet
Canadian standards, which is true, but in reality there are no
Canadian standards for acceptable quantities of DINP phtalate or
di-iso-nonyl phtalate. There is a loophole in the Hazardous
Products Act, since a product not specifically listed in the act
is legal, regardless of its level of toxicity.
As far as plastics are concerned, these are not regulated by the
Hazardous Products Act. Thus Health Canada has no way of
protecting the public from dangerous additives which may be in
these plastics. Health Canada could not, therefore, ask
retailers to withdraw these products.
I must, however, put the government on guard against the trend
toward deregulation, which is being felt in all areas.
I am totally in agreement with elimination of the over-regulation
that exists in certain areas, in order to simplify and clarify
the wording of legislation for the benefit of all. But
eliminating red tape must not be confused with deregulation,
which would lead to decreased public safety.
At a time when our health system is overburdened and
experiencing financial problems, it must be realized that
preventive measures will not only save considerable amounts of
money, but also a great deal of suffering in the medium and long
term.
A child's early years are crucial to physical and intellectual
development. Young children are highly susceptible to minimal
quantities of toxic substances.
This is why it so crucial to ensure they live in a healthy
environment and the consumer products in this environment are
safe. Healthy children will grow into active and fulfilled
adults.
1735
I support this motion and I ask the government to always do the
utmost when people's health is at risk because of toxic
substances. Human health should get more priority than corporate
financial interests, even if companies try to influence the
government towards more lenient regulations.
Liberal members are suggesting that the Hazardous Products Act
already protects people, but, if the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst had not raised it, the issue of phthalates in
children's toys would not have been taken up by Health Canada.
In a previous study, the department tested vinyl toys for the
presence of lead and cadmium only.
I congratulate the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst on his motion,
and I hope it will be passed. It has already generated
discussion on the safety of children's toys and forced Health
Canada to study this issue.
In conclusion, the hon. member has also reminded us that we
should always be on the alert and demand that public safety take
precedence over the marketing of consumer products.
On behalf of those children who have no voice, and as a
preschool education professional with 35 years experience, I
sincerely thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for this
motion.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to the following motion by the member for
Acadie—Bathurst:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact
legislation mandating toy manufacturers to label toys containing
phthalates in order to allow parents to make an informed decision
when buying products for their children.
The motion was introduced following Greenpeace's allegations
about additives in vinyl toys. It alleged that the phthalates
esters, a common family of chemical products, represent a danger
to children. It would cause any of us to be concerned when we
recognize there could be a danger.
However there is an important point to make. The particular
esters we are talking about have been used safely for over 40
years in toys as well as in health sensitive applications,
including blood bags, catheters, IV tubing and surgical gloves.
It is not just toys that we are talking about. It is a wide
range of medical products. No other plasticizer has been
subjected to the same level of scrutiny and testing as the one in
question here tonight.
The product we are talking about actually softens plastic and
makes it pliable. That is all it does. That is why it is used
in children's toys and that is why it is used in surgical tubing.
Obviously that tubing is subjected to a lot of stress and has to
be able to withstand it.
Last fall Health Canada released a report conducted by the
product safety bureau's environmental health directorate. It
concludes that the lead and cadmium present in these vinyl
consumer products do not pose any significant risk to children.
It is important to remember that.
More important, Health Canada has undertaken a risk assessment
of phthalates and will be releasing the results of this testing
very soon. In fact it should be late this spring or very early
summer. In the best interest of parents and children I would
suggest that we wait for the risk assessment to be done.
In all fairness, any decision to label toys should be based upon
pure science. We have to depend on that. Obviously, if we do
not depend upon pure science, the significance of labelling would
be seriously undermined. That is the only responsible way to
proceed.
It has to be based on pure science and the research that is
necessary to determine whether or not there is a danger. That is
why we are suggesting that we should wait on that.
1740
This party does not have a problem with the member's motion
because it is coming from the right place, right here where it
should be. The scientific evidence I have been able to gather in
the last number of months points to the fact that Health Canada
is taking it very seriously and we are going to wait for those
results. No scientific evidence shows that there is any kind of
a health risk.
I talked about our party respecting the motion and how much work
the member has put into it. Our party will be the first to
approve appropriate labelling, should the scientific and
regulatory agency state that this chemical in question presents
any kind of a risk. I want the public to know that. I want
members on the government side as well as members on this side to
know that.
It is important for all of us to know that some of the Danish
studies which were alluded to and examined by Greenpeace have
been discredited for what they call producing unrepeatable
results. In the scientific world it means that results can be
achieved through a certain process. If there is a problem, that
should be repeatedly done proving the same stated fact at the end
of the test. In this case it did not. They were also using what
we consider false methodology. I am sure a few chemists in this
room tonight know exactly what I am talking about.
Standards have to be put in place by Canada's health and safety
bureau. There needs to be a regulatory standard for intake just
as the European Union has already done in terms of the theory to
put in place maximum daily intake of DINP.
Based on what we know and the scientific evidence out there,
unfortunately we cannot support the motion until the necessary
scientific protocols, which are important in the scientific
community, have been established and Health Canada has in place
regulatory powers under Health Canada's product safety bureau.
That is why we are waiting. We will wait for the scientific jury
to report back to us and we will make the appropriate decision at
that time.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
speak to Motion No. 85 in the name of the member for
Acadie—Bathurst.
It is important that members have private motions such as this
one when they and their constituents have major concerns. There
is no question that it is important to get all
the facts out.
I noted some very interesting comments from members of the Bloc
and the member opposite who just spoke indicating that we have to
be vigilant. We need ways and means of protecting not only our
children but our society in general through Health Canada,
through the kinds of processes we use, and by hearing information
from our colleagues in other countries.
There is no question that potential hazards exist from polyvinyl
chlorides or PVC plastic toys, but that is not the issue. The
issue, as the member before me said, is whether it is really the
type of toxin advocated by Greenpeace. Is it something we should
pull from the shelves? We use stringent methods of testing in order to
make sure this happens.
Health Canada has been involved with the particular testing of
PVCs since the 1980s. The department has taken a leadership role
over the last 12 years in assessing the implications of PVCs on
the health of all Canadians.
The issue is of importance to me. I have two grandchildren, one
just born the day before the election. She is 10 months old.
She has about two or three teeth, Mr. Speaker, which are quite
sharp when you put your hands in her mouth. As the member said,
this additive is something that makes things pliable.
We want to make sure that it is not toxic because when we listen
to people like Dr. Fraser Mustard we know now that the outcome
for young children is so important. We know that from the time
the child is born the parents should not be involved in smoking
and they should not be involved in alcohol or any dangerous drugs
that will interfere with the child. The first three years are
absolutely critical, we know that. We know how the brain grows
in the first six years.
1745
I have been paying particular attention to a CBC program
called Grow Baby Grow and it is fascinating to see the
outcome, when children are looked after properly. It makes for a
much better nation, it makes for great citizens, it makes for
people who will take our places when we retire and we know we
will be in good hands. We need to protect our kids.
There is no question that I want to be vigilant, I want parents
to be vigilant, but I also want to make sure that when these
tests are done they are valid and that the science being used is
not invalid and will create problems for the industry.
The issue of phthalates in children's products, especially the
DEHP, has been investigated by Health Canada. It has been
investigated by many foreign governments as well, including
Sweden, New Zealand, England and the United States. Suffice it
to say the decision on DINP will await the completion of the
scientific investigation now under way by Health Canada.
Preliminary results were expected this spring and we hope we will
have them soon. Should investigations indicate there is a danger
or a risk to children the department of course will not hesitate
to pull these things off the shelf and make sure that a threat to
our children does not exist.
We have to be consistent, we have to be responsible and we have
to use a professional approach to the testing. The government's
ongoing commitment to the health of all Canadians is extremely
important. The government will listen to all the information we
can get and we will be vigilant in making sure that our citizens
are protected.
I thank the member for his intervention. I think it is
important that we have the debate. I cannot support the bill
because, as has been said by my colleague earlier on, we want to
make sure that when we pull things and put restrictions on the
industry it is valid and we are using scientific information.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we resume
debate we have approximately 10 minutes remaining and we have
four people who would like to get a few words in. We will keep
that in mind as we resume debate with the hon. member for
Sydney—Victoria.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
bearing in mind the time constraints I will attempt to be brief,
although once I am on my feet in the Chamber I sometimes find
that a hard task.
Because I am speaking in support of this piece of legislation I
do not think it is necessary for me to go over all the reasons
why we should support it. Some of those have been enumerated by
my colleague from the Bloc and my colleague from the Reform
Party. Instead I will take the few moments I have to review
perhaps the reasons why members of the government and members of
the Conservative Party are not supporting this legislation and I
think I can effectively raise some rebuttal to that.
We heard the parliamentary secretary say that at this point he
cannot support labelling, and that is what we are talking about
doing. We are not talking about pulling toys off shelves. We
are not talking about banning them. We are talking about
labelling them so that consumers who are parents buying for their
children know what they are buying for those children and they
can make the choice.
Members of the government have said that to date there is no
conclusive evidence that it threatens the health of children, no
specific cases having come forward, but that Health Canada is
currently studying the situation. I think his exact words at one
point were research is being done that will show the extent of
the problem, not whether there is a problem but the extent of the
problem.
My colleague from the Conservative Party spoke against this bill
because he says his party is also waiting to see if there is a
significant risk.
1750
We know in Europe these products have been taken off the
shelves. We know there are studies in Denmark that indicate
there is a risk. This debate is all too familiar. We have had
this debate during question period every day for the last number
of days the House has been sitting and I refer to the hepatitis
C issue the Minister of Health has been grilled on. My hon.
colleague from the Conservative Party arranged a press conference
for those people who will not be compensated.
Why are some people not being compensated? The Minister of
Health has said they were not testing at a particular point in
time although we know and there is some evidence to suggest—and
I am not going to get into that debate today, but the parallel is
interesting—that Health Canada was aware that there was testing
available for blood products before it was implemented in this
country.
Today we have members of the Conservative Party, the Reform
Party, the Bloc party and the New Democratic Party grilling the
Minister of Health as to why people who became infected before
that test was available or accepted by Health Canada were not
compensated.
We know there is evidence in other countries that this product
can be harmful to children but the government and Conservative
Party want to wait until Health Canada does its own testing. Are
members going to be in this House in 15 years grilling the
Minister of Health about young children who today may become sick
because we have not accepted the testing?
I will not use up all of the time because there are other points
to be made. I encourage anyone watching this debate tonight,
especially from Ontario since that is where many of the
government members are from, to phone or write their member of
parliament to indicate their concerns, especially parents of
young children.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a very
important motion. While it is clearly intended to protect the
children from potentially hazardous products, and I do respect
the work that went into this, it is simply not the most effective
response. This is because the mere labelling of a product based
on the presence of phthalates tells the parent nothing about the
potential hazard itself. It is therefore of little use in
helping parents make informed decisions.
For the label to be of use it would have to identify specific
substances, how much are in the toy and what level constitutes a
potential health hazard. Furthermore, the implication of this
motion is that government health and safety regulations would
allow dangerous products to be placed on the market with full
knowledge of their potential danger.
This is not true. It was not true yesterday, today or tomorrow.
If a specific toy were found to contain a hazardous product and
if this product had sufficient quantities to harm a child the
product would not need a warning label because the product would
not be on the market. The government would have already taken
steps to remove the product from the market. That is why we have
the Hazardous Products Act.
This issue of vinyl plastic has received recent attention in the
media following a release by Greenpeace of a report that states
that phthalates used in children's products are a health risk.
But here it should be noted that the product identified in both
studies is known as DINP. The chemical was introduced by toy
manufacturers in the United States six years ago to replace a
product called DEHP which was thought to be potentially hazardous
to children. Therefore the products Greenpeace refers to in its
report are classic chemicals used to soften the PVC or vinyl.
Health Canada has tested these products and even expanded its
testing and assessment of other plastic toys. The only toxin
detected was DINP with very small amounts of DEHP. I would like
to emphasize a point here that appears to have been overlooked in
this motion and that is the mere presence of phthalates in a
given product does not necessarily constitute a health risk.
1755
Currently health officials are examining studies to assess if in
fact these particular substances are toxic in this case and if
they prove to be a hazard.
Certainly none of us will disagree on the intent of this motion
because we are concerned about the health and safety of our
children on this issue. Some of the points made during the
course of this debate have created some confusion about what
additives are under dispute and their effects.
However, I do believe that we now have a better appreciation of
this issue and of the role Health Canada has been playing because
the number one priority is our children.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, these past
four days, we have heard that all parties were concerned about
the tainted blood issue in Canada. Health Canada and its
minister have had fingers pointed at them every day. And the
issue was raised during the whole week that preceded our two
week recess.
Today, three very important points were raised in the debate on
Motion M-85. First, the fact that members from all political
parties support this initiative proves the significance of this
motion, and we can understand why that is.
At first reading, everyone spoke in favour. At second reading,
corporate lobbying began and a number of members started to
change their tune.
Most of us here, in the House of Commons, are parents, and those
who are not all know children they care about. This motion
touches a chord in us as parents and adults who want to keep
children out of harm's way.
I have three daughters and I can tell you that, I would have
wanted to know that there was a risk that some of the toys I
bought them when they were babies could cause cancer, liver
damage and infertility, had it been possible at the time.
That is the problem with phthalates in plastic toys. We cannot
tell which toys contain this chemical substance. This means that
parents who buy a soother or a teething ring are playing Russian
roulette with their children's health.
Let me outline the studies conducted internationally, which show
how important it is to label toys containing phthalates.
Phthalates are chemical agents used to make plastic more
pliable. They are largely used in the manufacturing of
pacifiers, teething rings and other flexible plastic toys.
Studies undertaken by the Danish government show that phthalates
can be released when children bite into plastic toys. Swedish
studies on rats show a correlation between the ingestion of
phthalates and the onset of leukaemia, infertility and organ
anomalies.
Also, a study carried out by the European Union concluded that
the security issue raised by the phthalates known as DINP, DNOP
and DEHP is cause for concern.
This debate also showed that members of the House of Commons are
not the only ones concerned about the use of phthalates in
plastic toys.
In Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Argentina, Spain, Belgium,
Germany and Italy, toy manufacturers and store chains have
withdrawn toys containing phthalates.
I do not have much time left, but I would like to sound a
warning. There are problems with contaminated blood and if
members vote against this motion, I would not want to see any of
our children dying because of this three years from now. I am
only asking that the label advise Canadian parents what they are
buying, just as it indicates the content of carpets or other
products.
If we cannot do this for our children, we should just pack it in
and go home.
1800
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 6 p.m., the time
provided for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order made Tuesday, April 21, 1998, the motion
is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed
demanded and deferred until Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at the end
of the time provided for government orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
concerning the hepatitis C compensation package and questions I
have asked the minister repeatedly in this House.
The position taken by the Government of Canada and supported by
the health minister is completely untenable. The package
announced by the health minister leaves 20,000 to 40,000 innocent
victims outside any kind of compensation. It is unbelievable a
package that would leave out 20,000 to 40,000 people would be
announced.
Unfortunately it could be as high as 60,000 people because the
minister the other day admitted he does not know how many people
have been left outside the compensation package. This is
unbelievable in a country as historically generous as Canada.
A little frame has been built around the years 1986 to 1990.
Those unfortunate victims who are outside the years 1986 to 1990
would not be compensated. Persons born on December 31, 1985
would not be compensated but persons born one day later, on New
Year's Day 1986, would be compensated. How can a government
agree to a package that is absolutely as insane as that?
Nobody on this side of the House supports that kind of nonsense.
Much to their credit there are many backbenchers on the
government side of the House who cannot support it either.
I want to let the Minister of Health know that this issue is not
going to go away. As long as there is a member on this side of
the House, and I do not care whether the member is a Reformer, an
NDP or with the Bloc, we are not going to let this issue die. In
the history of Canada, and Canada is 131 years old this year,
there has never been a piece of business as sad as this one. The
government is being so ungenerous to so many people.
The government has found a way to buy its way out of some of the
other problems it created. Remember the helicopter deal? It
paid half a billion dollars just in legal fees on what we would
call a cancellation clause on a botched helicopter deal. Half a
billion dollars. The government paid out $750 million,
three-quarters of a billion dollars, on the failed Pearson
airport deal.
A mathematical genius is not required to arrive at the number
that we have on this one. Simply add half a billion and
three-quarters of a billion and it is way over a billion dollars.
The government found money for those botched projects but it
cannot find money for innocent victims. It is unbelievable.
This issue is not going to go away. I am glad the justice
critic is with me tonight. He just reminded me that the minister
is the same minister who was spending half a billion dollars on
gun registration, half a billion dollars on legislation we do not
need in this country.
1805
The issue is not going to go away. We are going to fight it. We
want changes.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Minister of Health I am pleased to respond to the hon. member. I
would like to remind him that we are talking about people, not
statistics, not numbers. We are talking about people's lives who
have been affected as a result of infection through the blood
system.
I would also like to remind the House that we have been guided
by the desire to help these people, help them as quickly as
possible and to do so on the basis of compassion and sound public
policy.
We have listened to those who were affected by the blood tragedy
and we listened to Justice Krever. We heard about the urgency of
the situation. We heard that assistance should come and come
soon and be tailored to the needs. We have since moved very
quickly. We have taken action. Thirteen ministers of health
have had to act and they have had to do so in a responsible
manner.
I would like to take a moment to address Mr. Krever's approach
to the issue. He had a very particular mandate which he
fulfilled but to which he was also bound. His final report is a
comprehensive and exhaustive examination of evidence and various
facts. The report provides the best historical look at why the
events of the past occurred, what was done and more importantly,
what should be done in the future in order that we can learn from
the errors of the past and learn about ways in which we should
improve the blood system in the future.
The Minister of Health has an important mandate and set of
responsibilities that he must take very seriously also. His
provincial and territorial colleagues have mandates of their own.
They have worked together to address the past. We have also
worked together to build the future. We anticipate how our
decisions have very serious consequences now and for the future.
We are not just talking about the injuries sustained through the
blood system, we are talking about all health care, medical
interventions and health services.
On March 27 Canada's health ministers announced that governments
were offering $1.1 billion in assistance to Canadians infected by
the hepatitis C virus.
I have run out of time, Mr. Speaker. I will discuss this with
the hon. member personally.
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today on a question I asked in this House on
March 25 of this year. I asked the finance minister if and when
he would produce sufficient funds as recommended in the east
coast report and the Harrigan report. We are talking about TAGS
and the infrastructure money required for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and the other four Atlantic provinces.
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to this
House a letter signed by five premiers of Atlantic Canada to the
Prime Minister dated December 12, 1997:
“We the premiers of Canada's five eastern provinces are writing
to express our concerns over the pending expiry of the Atlantic
groundfish strategy, TAGS, and to call upon the Government of
Canada to immediately establish a successor program to TAGS.
“As you are aware the Atlantic groundfish strategy is due to
expire in May 1998. Over the past four years this program has
constituted an essential lifeline for over 40,000 individuals and
their families from Atlantic Canada and Quebec, individuals who
through no fault of their own have seen their livelihoods and
those of their families and communities challenged severely by
the groundfish crisis.
“TAGS was based on two fundamental premises which have proven
incorrect. First, the program was based on the expectation that
key groundfish stocks would begin to recover by the time the
program was due to end and commercial fisheries could be reopened
by this time. This premise has proven incorrect and many of the
principal groundfish stocks off Canada's east coast remain
incapable of sustaining a commercial fishery.
“Second, the program was expected to bring about labour market
adjustment and assist individuals in moving out of occupations
tied to the traditional fishery. This has not occurred as
funding for training and other adjustment initiatives had to be
terminated prematurely in order to meet demands for income
support which significantly exceeded initial expectations.
“The net result for these considerations is that many of the
fundamental challenges which caused the federal government to
establish the original TAGS program remain. Clearly, a
comprehensive and effective post TAGS program is essential to the
future of individuals and communities throughout Canada's five
eastern provinces.
1810
“Through the recent hearings of the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans, of which I was a member, and through the
community hearings held by the Harrigan task force, the people of
Atlantic Canada and Quebec have called on the federal government
to assume its responsibility for the development and
implementation of an effective post-TAGS program.
“They have also stated clearly that the social and economic
stress created by the fisheries crisis are continuing to
represent a fundamental challenge to the future of many of our
rural communities. This challenge cannot be met effectively
through normal programs of government.
“Unquestionably the urgent need to establish the effect of the
post-TAGS program cannot be ignored. On behalf of the people of
Atlantic Canada and Quebec we therefore call upon the government
to ensure that an effective TAGS program is developed and
implemented immediately”.
This is the response the government gives. Today in the House
the Minister of Veterans Affairs spoke to the delegation from
Newfoundland and Labrador. Some 3,000 people are to be cut off
TAGS on May 8, one year premature of the originally promised
date. He said to those people that there would be no program for
them. They are finished. They are cut adrift.
I find that absolutely abominable and the Liberals should be
ashamed of themselves for that kind of action to people who are
in such a crisis.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada is aware of the profound impact of the closure of the
fishery on provinces, communities and individuals especially in
Atlantic Canada and Quebec.
It is now evident that fish stocks are not returning to their
previous levels and we must help people adjust to an economy with
a very reduced fishery.
The government is also committed to helping the people and the
communities affected by the closure of the groundfishery and is
prepared to deal with the situation with the same compassion and
responsibility that motivated the government to implement TAGS
initially in 1994. The government committed back then $1.9
billion in benefits to help fishers and plant workers affected by
the crisis in the fishery.
While the government announced that TAGS would essentially
continue until the end of August this year, it recognized that
action was still required. That is why Mr. Eugene Harrigan was
appointed by the government to lead a review of the impact of the
end of TAGS. That is also why the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans undertook an investigation of the situation.
I wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution
of both reports. They provide us with assessments of the
post-TAGS situation and have given us important information which
will prove useful as we continue working on the development of
sensitive, forward looking approaches to a post-TAGS program.
In closing, I wish to assure the hon. member and the House that
the government remains committed to ensuring that the transition
to the post-TAGS environment is managed in a fair and sensitive
way. We recognize this is a very stressful time for fishers and
plants workers and will make an announcement as soon as we can.
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
my capacity as official opposition critic for veterans affairs I
wish to set the record straight. Canada's merchant navy seamen
have for far too long been the victims of government bureaucracy
and systemic procrastination by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
The minister replied to my question in question period by saying
that there were no outstanding concerns with regard to the
merchant navy.
Canada's merchant navy veterans have long been fighting for
recognition of their valiant effort before, during and after
World War II. Merchant seamen were the first into the war and
the last out of the war. They took our troops and supplies to
Europe during the war and brought them home safely afterward.
The merchant navy served both Canada and its allies during the
war. At one point the entire allied war effort had less than a
month's supply of food and fuel left. It was the merchant navy,
our Canadian merchant navy, that brought the supplies through and
avoided what would have been a defeat at the hands of Hitler.
On March 30, 1998 I asked the minister why he would not give
merchant navy seamen the status of war veterans and thus grant
them the dignity and respect they earned. The minister said that
merchant navy veterans were entitled to the same benefits as
other veterans. What he failed to mention was that they did not
have equal access to the benefits. Without equal access there
are not equal benefits. This must change.
Currently our merchant seamen are classified under civilian
legislation. This belittles the efforts of these veterans. These
veterans sailed the same seas as the navy, faced the same planes
as the air force and dodged the same bullets as the army. They
are not considered to be war veterans in Canada.
In other allied countries they would be entitled to the same
benefits and war status as every other war veteran.
1815
Legislation was drafted by a former Reform MP some time ago for
the purpose of righting these serious wrongs. There were more
delays by the minister. Many merchant navy veterans think the
minister is waiting for the issue to die. On average three of
these veterans die each week. Their average age is 87 years.
On March 23 representatives of the merchant navy war veterans
met with the minister's staff. Here are eight of the requests
they made at that meeting, requests they have been making for
years.
The first is to recognize the merchant navy as a war service
with full status as war veterans under war legislation, not under
civilian legislation.
The second is to include the Minister of Transport in the vice
regal party at the National War Memorial on behalf of the
merchant navy and the 1,500 lives lost in war.
The third is to compensate merchant navy veterans or their
surviving spouses for the denial of veterans benefits for over 50
years.
The fourth is to amend the Pension Act to recognize merchant
navy veterans who were held as prisoners of war and to compensate
them for missed opportunities and benefits offered to other
prisoners of war.
The fifth is to return immediately outstanding wages and
benefits being held from merchant seamen and their surviving
spouses.
The sixth is to compensate merchant navy veterans because they
were the only military service that paid income tax during the
war.
The seventh is to restore the $88 million budgeted in 1992 to
cover the expenses mentioned and to develop a program to
publicize these changes.
The eighth is to allow merchant navy war veterans the same
opportunity and access available to other war veterans.
These requests are clear, legitimate and fair. Not once during
the March 23 meeting with the minister's office could they
provide our veterans with a ray of hope. No commitments were
given, no deadlines established, no promises made. Answers were
sufficiently ambiguous to warrant a call for clarification and
confirmation.
There is simply no time left for these veterans to wait for
ambiguities to be cleared up.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two points need to be
addressed. First, the 1992 legislation provided merchant navy
veterans with the same access to all currently available veterans
benefits as armed forces veterans enjoy. As the Minister of
Veterans Affairs stated, not a few, not some, but all the
benefits.
The hon. member for Edmonton East disputes this. I would ask
him to name a current veterans benefit merchant navy veterans do
not qualify for and I assure the House that I will show him the
specific legal authority under which that benefit is provided to
merchant navy veterans today.
The hon. member also suggests that merchant navy veterans have
been denied access to benefits because of restrictive wording in
the legislation. I invite him to provide the details of any case
of a merchant navy veteran being denied a benefit because of such
wording. The reality is that not one case has been produced in
the almost six years the legislation has been in effect.
My second point is related to the commitment made in 1992 to
monitor the implementation of the legislation and to correct any
shortcomings which might arise. As mentioned earlier, no
material shortcomings have arisen in the six years the
legislation has been in force. The legislation has provided the
access to veterans benefits it was intended to do.
Nevertheless, merchant navy representatives have identified a
number of technical and legal points they would like to see
addressed. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is prepared to act
on those items. Presumably the minister can count on the full
support of the official opposition for the quick passage of that
legislation when it is brought forward.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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.
(The House adjourned at 6.17 p.m)