36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 100
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 6, 1998
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| NATIONAL FORESTRY WEEK
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| VICTOR KOBY
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| CATHOLIC WOMEN'S LEAGUE
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| GUELPH STORM HOCKEY TEAM
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1405
| ONTARIO BUDGET
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| ALBERTA FOREST FIRES
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| CANADIAN FORCES RESERVES
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| ALBERTA FOREST FIRES
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1410
| ST. CATHARINES COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOL
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| CANADA POST
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| QUEBEC ECONOMY
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| NATIONAL FORESTRY WEEK
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Randy White |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BANKING
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1435
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| SPORTS AND CULTURAL EVENTS
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| ALBERTA FIRES
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
| ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1445
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FRESH WATER EXPORT
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| CALGARY DECLARATION
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1450
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1455
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1500
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Questions
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1505
| House of Commons
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| THE LATE MARCEL DIONNE
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
1510
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1515
| Mr. André Harvey |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1520
| BROADCASTING ACT
|
| Bill C-398. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-399. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| TOBACCO ACT
|
| Bill C-400. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| HOLIDAYS ACT
|
| Bill C-401. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1525
| PETITIONS
|
| Public Nudity
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Ferry Services
|
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Transferred for debate
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Transferred for debate
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Transferred for debate
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1530
| CANADA LANDS SURVEYORS ACT
|
| Bill C-31. Second reading
|
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1535
1540
| Mr. David Chatters |
1545
1550
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1555
| Motion
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1600
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1605
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1610
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1615
1620
1625
1630
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1635
| Mr. David Chatters |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| HOLIDAYS ACT
|
| Bill C-369. Second reading
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1640
1645
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1650
1655
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1700
1705
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1710
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1715
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1720
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1725
| Mr. John McKay |
1730
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1735
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Seniors Benefits
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1740
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
| Hepatitis C
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1745
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
| Shipbuilding
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1750
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1755
| Reforestation
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Mr. George Proud |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 100
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 6, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will
now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Halton.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL FORESTRY WEEK
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week
Canadians are celebrating National Forestry Week.
For over 70 years National Forestry Week has reminded us that our
forests are vital to Canada's economy and way of life. We should
all take the time over the next few days to learn more about the
important role played by forests in our economy and in our
environment.
It is our responsibility to ensure that our forests are managed
responsibly so that future generations can enjoy the many
benefits our forests provide.
At this time I would like to salute all those who work to
protect our forests, including those in Oxford County who work in
conservation and forestry. Special mention should be made of
those who maintain the Leslie M. Dixon Memorial Arboretum, the
Brick Ponds Wetlands complex and the Oxford County forest.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, more
Liberal arrogance. The Prime Minister is rewarding his
backbenchers for toeing the line on voting against hepatitis C
victims last week. He is taking more than a dozen Liberal
backbenchers with him on a trip to Italy.
I like Italy too. But a holiday is a holiday. He is paying
them for denying their integrity. Tens of thousands of dollars
are being spent to take Liberal backbenchers to sunny Italy,
while hepatitis C victims and their families are suffering.
Ciao babies. Enjoy your Roman holiday. But arrivederci come
the next election.
* * *
VICTOR KOBY
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
take this opportunity to pay tribute Victor Koby, a constituent
of my riding of Simcoe North, for his work as a volunteer with
the Canadian Executive Services Organization. CESO is a
non-profit, volunteer based organization which transfers Canadian
expertise to businesses, communities and organizations in Canada
and abroad.
As a volunteer with CESO International Services, Mr. Koby
provided business consultation advice to a Polish company
involved in the manufacture of water heating systems.
Mr. Koby assisted the company to develop a business plan
encompassing marketing and professional development. He also
organized a three-day management conference to involve senior
employees in the planning and decision making process.
On behalf of all Canadians, I wish to congratulate Mr. Koby for
his outstanding and selfless efforts to assist a company in
coping with the new economic realities of the Polish economy.
* * *
CATHOLIC WOMEN'S LEAGUE
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, recently the Catholic Women's League in my riding of
Thunder Bay—Atikokan kicked-off a campaign entitled “Raise
Values Above Violence”.
After much study of the issue of violence and its impact on
society, the Catholic Women's League decided that positive and
energetic actions were necessary in order to raise awareness
regarding the importance of dealing with violence.
The ultimate goal of the Catholic Women's League is to achieve
through kindness and caring for others, values that are shared by
Canadians and are also reflected in this government's foreign
policy.
I call upon all members to join in the efforts of the Catholic
Women's League to spread love, tolerance, kindness, compassion
and patience—all virtues leading to understanding.
* * *
GUELPH STORM HOCKEY TEAM
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my time working in Ottawa has taught me all about winter
storms, but today it is my pleasure and privilege to stand on
behalf of all the residents of Guelph—Wellington and offer
congratulations to our own storm, the Guelph Storm hockey team.
The Storm recently defeated the Ottawa 67's, winning the J. Ross
Robertson Cup. They will now be representing all of the Ontario
Junior Hockey League at the Memorial Cup in Spokane.
Their hard work and dedication both on an off the ice have made
all the residents of Guelph—Wellington extremely proud. The
Storm serves as an example that great things can be accomplished
when you work together as a team.
This is the second time in three years that the Storm has made it
to the Memorial Cup, but this time to win.
1405
I know I speak for all of my constituents when I say “Go
Storm!”
* * *
ONTARIO BUDGET
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Mike Harris government is creating growth, opportunity and
more and better jobs through tax relief. Having already reduced
income taxes by 30%, yesterday's budget delivered a plan for 36
new tax cuts for families and businesses.
The Harris tax cuts are proof that it is possible to reduce the
size of government while spending more on key priority programs
such as education and health care.
Bravo, Ontario. By letting families and businesses keep more of
their hard earned income, consumer spending is higher, confidence
is up and economic growth is racing ahead of the national
average. What a contrast to the tax and spend status quo at the
federal level.
The Liberal government's $10 billion CPP tax hike, combined with
huge personal income and capital gains taxes is undermining the
economy, stifling the entrepreneurial spirit and hurting
families.
But Ontario should take heart. Its efforts are not falling on
deaf ears here in Ottawa. The official opposition is fighting
for real tax relief at the federal level and we are going to give
Canadians a chance at the next election to vote for Ontario style
hope, growth and opportunity.
* * *
ALBERTA FOREST FIRES
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
forest fires continue to rage in the Lesser Slave Lake region of
Alberta we should take the time to remember the people of Swan
Hills whose homes and livelihoods are threatened.
A little more than one year ago the rising waters of the Red
River threatened both persons and property in my province. The
people of Winnipeg South, in other words, know from experience
the kind of havoc that nature can wreak. It is for this reason
that I would like to say to the people of Swan Lake that they
have our sympathy and support.
I am sure that the resilience and fortitude of the citizens of
Swan Lake will see them through this crisis, but they should know
that in their hour of need all Canadians, including those in this
Chamber, are behind them.
* * *
CANADIAN FORCES RESERVES
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to salute dedicated Canadians who serve
with the Canadian Forces Reserves.
Reservists are the lifeblood of such illustrious units as the
Rocky Mountain Rangers in Kamloops, the Fort Garry Horse in
Winnipeg, the Queen's Own Rifles in Toronto, HMCS Montcalm
in Quebec and the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.
Reservists have served on peacekeeping missions around the world
and were instrumental in the disaster relief operations in
Manitoba and during the ice storm.
Cadet instructors work year-round with young people and the
rangers provide an essential military presence in the Canadian
north and in isolated communities.
Today reservists can wear their uniforms to work to display the
pride they have in serving their country and to allow their
employers a chance to show their support for reservist employees.
On behalf of all members of parliament, I want to thank all
reservists who don their uniform and serve Canada with dedication
and pride.
* * *
ALBERTA FOREST FIRES
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
the past few days fires have raged out of control through
northern Alberta.
I would like to express gratitude to all those who are working
day and night, putting their lives on the line to try to save
homes, farms and businesses.
Our hearts go out to the many residents who, for the third year
in a row, have had to deal with devastating natural disaster.
The residents of Smith, Hondo, Swan Hills and High Prairie have
had to leave their homes not knowing if they will have homes to
return to.
Our most heartfelt sympathy goes out to those who have lost
their homes, businesses or places of employment.
At times like these, in the Canadian spirit, we must be ready to
help in any way we can.
* * *
[Translation]
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this year
marks the 50th anniversary of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of
Canada, and the 22nd for its carnation campaign, which will be
held on May 7, 8 and 9.
To the association, the carnation is a symbol of determination,
and this campaign reflects the unending battle against this
degenerative neurological disease which most often strikes young
adults.
Allow me to quote from an upsetting testimonial by Alain
Ouellet, who writes:
I had just started up in business—I had to give it all up.
Today I live in a tiny apartment in Sainte-Foy, the poorest part
of the city.
There is hope, however, for Alain Ouellet and all the others
whose quality of life has been affected. Research has cast more
light on the disease, but there is much still to be done.
So let us give generously to the carnation campaign in order to
overcome this terrible disease.
* * *
1410
[English]
ST. CATHARINES COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOL
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to stand in the House of Commons today to
congratulate the St. Catharines Collegiate Institute and
Vocational School on its 75th anniversary.
To celebrate this historic occasion the collegiate is hosting a
reunion for the many thousands of students and teachers who are
alumni of the school.
When the collegiate first opened its doors in 1923 it was the
only secondary school in St. Catharines. Over the next 30 years
everyone who attended high school in the city went to this
school. More than 20,000 students have walked the halls of the
collegiate and grown up in the classrooms of this historic place
of learning.
On the weekend of May 15 to 17 several thousand of these alumni
are expected to return to the collegiate to celebrate its
anniversary at a huge three-day reunion.
This is a very important event for the school and indeed for the
entire community. It is an opportunity to celebrate our youth,
our past and our present, to celebrate the teachers whose work
has inspired and guided our young people and to gather together
to commemorate 75 years of education in St. Catharines.
I congratulate the St. Catharines Collegiate Institute and
Vocational School and send best wishes on this special 75th
anniversary.
* * *
CANADA POST
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, members
of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have a legitimate concern
that the arbitration process set up to settle their contract
dispute with Canada Post has been irredeemably damaged by the
arbitrator himself. Remarks made by the arbitrator suggest that
in advance of hearing the union's position he has already made up
his mind on certain issues and leans heavily in favour of the
corporation's position.
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has asked the federal court
to remove the arbitrator in view of its “reasonable apprehension
of bias”. From the beginning of this contract dispute there
have been serious concerns that bargaining in good faith had been
compromised by a government holding the threat of back to work
legislation over the heads of the union.
Given the fact that the recent remarks of the arbitrator,
Justice Guy Richard, have totally undermined the credibility of
the arbitration process, the NDP today urges the Minister of
Labour to disqualify the arbitrator, give Canada Post a mandate
to negotiate and allow the parties to get back to the table to
negotiate a fair settlement through free collective bargaining.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ECONOMY
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were
pleased and proud to learn that Quebec now has the second
highest number of ISO 9000 registrations among the ten most
industrialized American states, the four most industrialized
Canadian provinces, and Mexico.
This survey by the American company McGraw-Hill confirms that
Quebec businesses have been resolute in meeting the challenge of
quality and innovation, with the increasing originality of their
goods and services and with their management methods which allow
much scope for worker input.
I invite the people of Quebec to continue their quest for new
ways of improving performance and developing criteria of
excellence.
As the new millennium approaches, Quebec's economy is placing it
in a highly competitive position on the international level.
* * *
[English]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today with great pride as Canada's official languages
commissioner, Dr. Victor Goldbloom, presented a merit award to
the host society for the Brandon 1997 Canada Summer Games in a
ceremony this morning in Winnipeg. The commissioner presented
the award for Brandon's excellent achievement in providing
service in both official languages during the games.
[Translation]
English and French were both well represented at the Summer
Games, starting with brochures and pamphlets and including
interviews with participants.
[English]
Translation of the results was also completed in a quick and
efficient manner in order to provide all who attended with the
best possible services in both official languages.
I conclude by voicing my appreciation to more than 400 bilingual
volunteers who made this possible and who are sharing in the
pride of receiving this national award today.
* * *
NATIONAL FORESTRY WEEK
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, forestry has always played a positive role in the lives
of my constituents of Timmins—James Bay. The forest industry,
through pulp and paper and lumber, has created some 4,000 jobs in
the riding. It has helped to establish dynamic communities like
Hearst, Kapuskasing and Smooth Rock Falls. It has secured
economic growth in the whole area. Forests have also provided
enjoyment through camping, hunting, fishing, hiking and
snowmobiling.
The Canadian Forestry Association has proclaimed this week as
National Forestry Week. It is a time for us to reflect on the
vital role forests play in our daily lives and the great benefits
we have inherited from our forests. However, is also a time for
us to increase our awareness of the importance of preserving the
health of our forests since they are equally important to the
health of the local, national and global environment.
1415
[Translation]
Canada is the top exporter of forestry products in the world.
We therefore have a responsibility to protect this resource so
that our forest may continue to meet the social, economic and
environmental needs for future generations.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday Premier Harris wrote to the Prime Minister and
urged him to compensate hepatitis C victims infected before 1986.
He wants health officials to discuss how victims can be
compensated and not whether they should be compensated, and he
has committed up to $200 million for pre-1986 victims.
Will the government follow the example of Premier Harris and
provide funding for victims infected before 1986?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as discussed and voted by the House yesterday, there
will be a meeting of the ministers of health next week.
They will meet representatives of the people who have been
affected. They will follow the instructions of the House of
Commons. The Minister of Health will be there and will discuss
with his colleagues the change of mind of the two governmentes
that had signed the deal before, the Government of Ontario and
the Government of Quebec.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the House wants to know whether the federal government
is prepared to negotiate expanded compensation for hepatitis C
victims before 1986.
First the government refuses to take responsibility. Then it
refuses to put any more money on the table. After the caucus
meeting this morning there are insults and attacks on the
Government of Ontario for offering to do something in this very
area.
Is it not true that the Prime Minister is deliberately trying to
scuttle any further negotiations on this issue by his attacks on
the Government of Ontario?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not me who is changing my position every day. It
is the Ontario government and the Quebec government. They are
changing their point of view.
A few minutes ago I received a phone call from the president of
the conference of the premiers of Canada at this moment, Mr.
Romanow, who said that the venue was agreed upon yesterday, that
there would be a meeting of ministers next week and that the
meeting would be the one offered by the Minister of Health and
demanded by the House of Commons.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, did the Prime Minister even read Premier Harris' letter?
Harris did not break the deal. He confirmed his commitment to
compensation to victims between 1986 and 1990. Then he expanded
that compensation to victims before 1986, and what kind of
response does he get from the government? Insults.
Are the government's attacks on Premier Harris not really
designed to scuttle these negotiations rather than to help the
victims of hepatitis C?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not a question of insults.
On Friday the ministers of health of all the provinces had a
telephone conference. The president of that group, the minister
of health from Saskatchewan, made a public statement on behalf of
everybody, on behalf of everybody. It was within hours that the
Premier of Ontario disavowed the minister of health of Ontario. I
do not know how she can still remain the minister of health.
Here the government speaks with one voice, the Prime Minister
and the Minister of Health.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting that during the conference call on Friday all the
ministers said that they accept the old deal.
Premier Harris today is still accepting the old deal, but what
he has done bravely is said that there must be a new deal for the
other individuals.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. Does he accept that
principle? Yes or no. Are they to negotiate or say no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in reply to the hon. member, on Friday they all said
that there should be in the statement further compensation for
the pre-1986 victims.
Go and read the statement before opening your mouth.
1420
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker
this is getting scary.
The Speaker: I would ask my colleagues to always address
questions and answers to the Speaker.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, is it not interesting when
you are cornered like a rat you come out fighting.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask colleagues on both sides to be
very judicious in their choice of words.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, the saddest thing about all
this is that they seem to have forgotten what this is all about.
This is all about—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, we all want to listen to the
question.
Mr. Grant Hill: All we ask is that they remember what
this is all about, and it is all about the victims. For the sake
of the victims pre-1986, will the Prime Minister say if he is
willing to go there to negotiate on behalf of those victims, or
is he to go there and say “absolutely no way?”
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was talking about
negligence and responsibility. Now the words do not exist any
more.
No wonder I was able to say yesterday that 10% believes that the
Reform Party is doing that because it has compassion and 75%
thinks it is doing that because of politics. He is a member of a
party that is promising to cut welfare and social assistance
programs by $3.5 billion, promising to slash pensions by $3
billion—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Just as we want to hear the question, my
colleagues, I am sure we want to hear the answer. The Prime
Minister still has a few seconds. If he wants to use them he
may.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: I do not have much to add. All
those people for years have been advocating to make the rich
richer and the poor poorer, and now they are acting like a bunch
of hypocrites.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would ask you to stay away
from words that incite either one side or the other.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the premier of
Quebec has just announced that his government has decided to
increase its financial contribution to the compensation of the
victims of hepatitis C.
My question is for the Prime Minister. With position taken by
Ontario first, and now Quebec, will the Prime Minister
acknowledge that, for humanitarian reasons, he has an obligation
to increase his contribution in order to resolve the hepatitis C
problem?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the premier of Quebec changed his mind again. Maybe the
ministers should meet and pool their ideas. The conference is
in eight days. They can change their minds eight times between
now and then.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Prime
Minister of Canada realize how incredible it is for him to be
mocking those growing in compassion?
With his heavy responsibility and the responsibility of those
opposite, who are laughing at the moment, will the Prime
Minister agree to do as his colleagues and half the members of
this House have done and show some compassion toward the victims
of hepatitis C?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Quebec premier has changed parties five times since his
arrival in politics. He changes a lot.
These governments, a few months ago, would have nothing to do
with this matter. They were forced to look at it by the federal
Minister of Health.
The Quebec health minister and the others made statements last Friday
and now they are changing their minds. We will make sure that
all ministers meet and that each of them has paper and a pen so
they can put their ideas on the table clearly.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the premier of
Quebec has just announced that he plans to compensate hepatitis
C victims using a mechanism that would allow provinces to spread
out payments in order to accommodate provincial budgets.
Should the provinces make a formal proposal along these lines,
is the federal government prepared to go along with such an
arrangement, given the leeway available to it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
must respond. The PQ government wants to make sure that Jean
Charest's Liberal government gets stuck with the bill.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, such a
response is unbelievable.
The premiers of Quebec and Ontario are aware of their
responsibilities and are looking for a way to compensate
hepatitis C victims.
Is the Prime Minister of Canada prepared to show the same
compassion and open-mindedness towards victims as his
counterparts, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have been very open-minded, because it was the federal
government and the federal Minister of Health who forced the
provinces to contemplate compensation at this time.
Obviously, two premiers are in political hot water right now and
they want to propose that future governments, and not their own,
foot the bill.
* * *
[English]
BANKING
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. Small businesses in
Canada have reason to fear bank megamergers.
According to Canadian Bankers Association data, bank lending to
small business decreased from 1995 to 1997. Small businesses in
Atlantic Canada and Quebec were particularly poorly served.
The CFIB reports that many small businesses have been “so badly
burned by their financial institutions that they would in future
operate without bank financing”. If six big banks do not now
support small businesses how could the minister seriously believe
that two megabanks will?
1430
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the numbers that the leader of the NDP has brought forth
apparently having just discovered them are ones that have been
available to this House for quite some time. In fact it was the
industry committee under the chairmanship of the Liberal Party
and it was the Liberal task force on the mergers that have for
some time not only debated these issues but brought them out.
The hon. member is absolutely right in citing these numbers. I
just wish that she had understood that these numbers are about
two years old.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
little less bombast and a little more beef would be appreciated.
Unlike Canada the U.S. is currently holding congressional
hearings on proposed bank mergers. In testimony last week before
the committee Ralph Nader cited a federal reserve board study
which concluded that large banking companies made very few
commercial and industrial loans to small business borrowers.
These loans are just too small for the mega institutions.
Is the minister afraid to hear from Canadians now because he
does not want this kind of evidence to jeopardize his plans to
approve the bank mergers in the end?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made it very clear that there will be full
public hearings following the submission of the MacKay task
force.
I understand that the hon. member has to go to Ralph Nader and
American sources for information. If she would like to hear
Canadian sources she might like to come tonight when the Liberal
caucus task force is having public hearings.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister maintains that Ottawa has no responsibility for those
who have contracted hepatitis C except between 1986 and 1990.
The Minister of Health has said that he is looking for a
consensus going into next week's meeting about compensating all
the victims.
Will the Minister of Health tell us here today whether he has
the approval of the Prime Minister and the finance minister to
increase Ottawa's share of the compensation package to help reach
this consensus?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is wrong in referring to our position. In fact
all governments of Canada have a responsibility to all people who
have hepatitis C and every other illness and that is to provide
the best and the most intensive health care system in the world.
We intend to fulfil that responsibility.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, that
tells me he does not have the approval and that is unfortunate.
The Ontario premier called the Prime Minister's bluff and showed
moral courage. That is what we are asking for. He increased his
share of the compensation package to help all of the innocent
victims of tainted blood in Ontario.
Why is the Prime Minister playing with the hopes of people who
are sick by agreeing to another meeting when he has no intention
of increasing Ottawa's share to help compensate all the victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I counsel the hon. member to do what we are doing, to wait for
the meeting. We are waiting to see what the position of the
provinces is. Apparently it is changing by the hour. Let us
find out what the position of our partners is. The provinces and
their governments are our partners as proprietors of the health
care system in this country. Let us find out what their position
is. As soon as we know, let us work toward a consensus because
that is how we believe this country should be run.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Mike Harris did change his mind only after a few hours on Friday,
but at least it only took him a few hours to realize what was
right and he changed his mind in a positive direction. Now the
province of Quebec has said that it is willing to look at opening
up the package financially for compensation.
Why is the Prime Minister not prepared to do the right thing,
change his mind, admit it and do what is right for all victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member refers to Mike Harris changing his mind—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I think it is only fair. We
listened to the question and we would like to hear the answer.
The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the member refers to Mike
Harris changing his mind Friday afternoon. He has changed his
mind more often than that.
Last summer he said no compensation for any victim. Last March
he joined with us in agreeing cash would be paid for 1986 to 1990
and health care for the others.
Last Friday he reaffirmed that. Then he threw that position away
for the reasons he gave on Monday. Mike Harris has changed his
mind more than once.
1435
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
at least I can admire Mike Harris for admitting he was wrong more
than I can admit that this minister is just not able to do the
same thing.
The Liberals have poisoned the atmosphere in this whole thing.
The health minister has been discredited. He talks about
statesmanship, leadership and this word partnership.
Let me ask the Prime Minister, is he willing to go into this
partnership with the provincial premiers who want to do the right
thing and compensate all victims?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are calling a conference next week with all the
health ministers. We are working with the provinces and the
president of the conference of the premiers this year.
The premier of Saskatchewan called me a minute ago to tell me
that there shall be no change of venue, that there is a process
of developing a consensus working with everybody and not trying
to score political points like the Reform Party.
* * *
[Translation]
SPORTS AND CULTURAL EVENTS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
While the government is toying with the idea of funding
professional sports to the tune of millions of dollars, under
the pretext of their economic impact, promoters of sports and
cultural events are still waiting for the Prime Minister to meet
the commitments he made during the last election campaign.
When will the Minister of Health finally introduce his
amendments to the Tobacco Act, which still seriously threatens
the future of sports and cultural events?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as is our custom, we want to work in close co-operation
with the other levels of government. In this particular case, we
are still waiting for Quebec's answer.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
argument used by those who support professional sports is the
visibility provided by professional teams. Well, the Montreal
Grand Prix provides worldwide visibility.
Will the government pledge to ensure the future of the Grand
Prix and of cultural events, before investing any more money in
professional sports?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to wait for the report of the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage, which is reviewing the whole
issue of funding for sports.
I find it somewhat strange that the hon. member would ask us to
provide some funding to what is, after all, a private company,
but not to professional sports. Is the member saying that
Jacques Villeneuve is not a professional?
* * *
[English]
ALBERTA FIRES
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
the third time in as many years, disaster has struck northern
Alberta. For three days now wild fires have been raging across
northern Alberta destroying homes, farms, businesses and
families.
Why has the Prime Minister not had the compassion and caring to
so much as pick up the phone and call the premier of Alberta and
ask how the federal government might help in this situation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are very sorry that there is this disaster in Alberta
at this time.
The premier is well aware that when there is a disaster like
that, the government has a law and it will move very quickly on
it.
At the moment the Government of Alberta is handling the
situation very well. When the time comes for dealing with the
problem there is a well-known formula that applied in Manitoba,
eastern Ontario, southern Quebec and in Saguenay Lac St. Jean
some years ago. It will be the same in Alberta if need be.
While I am on my feet I would like to say that I refer to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Athabasca.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the Saguenay flood and in the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec the
government did not wait for formulas and for the provinces to
follow protocol. The Prime Minister and his government were
there within hours.
It has been three days and this is the first fire situation in
history in Alberta yet the government has not responded. How
would he know if the Government of Alberta is handling the
situation well?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government knows very well and we have very good
relations with the Government of Alberta.
1440
I spoke with the premier a couple of days ago. He knows that
the federal government will be there as it has always been
whenever there is a disaster in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
Very shortly, the Atlantic groundfish strategy will end, and
thousands of people who depend on it are anxious about the
future. Four months ago, the four Atlantic provinces and Quebec
asked the Minister of Human Resources Development to take
positive steps to reassure the people.
What does the Prime Minister have to say in response to the
distress call from the Atlantic fishers and fishery workers who
are anxious about their future?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these past four years, the
Atlantic groundfish strategy has provided assistance to fishers
and plant workers to the tune of $1.9 billion.
The program will end in August 1998, and I can assure you that
my cabinet colleagues and I are working very hard right now,
based on the information available to us, to help those who will
be living in an environment where, unfortunately, there are much
fewer fish than we had hoped.
However, we do realize they are going through a tough time right
now. This is a stressful time, but we are—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given that,
in Newfoundland alone, there are 30,000 workers affected, twice
as many as in the Ontario automobile industry, does the Prime
Minister not realize the social, economic and psychological cost
of his inaction to those involved?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are so keenly aware of the
importance of these 30,000 people in Atlantic Canada the hon.
member referred to that we, as a government, established this
strategy back in 1993-94. So we cannot be accused of not doing
our job, quite the contrary.
I can assure you that we are being vigilant and that we have
consulted closely with the communities and the provinces
concerned. We have a good idea of the situation. We know this is
a period of intense stress for many people right now. But the
strategy will nonetheless end in August, and by then, we will be
ready to act.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over
the last three years the average family of four in Ontario making
$60,000 has received about $3,500 in tax relief from the
provincial government, but from the federal government they
receive not even a thin dime, nothing. In fact taxes have gone
up on the federal level.
Why is it that the Government of Ontario understands that that
money belongs to the taxpayers? Why can it figure out but the
federal finance minister does not seem to have a clue?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last federal budget 83% of Ontarians received an
income tax reduction. At the same time Ontarians of all classes,
students and single mothers also received special tax credits. In
fact it is one of the most substantial tax reductions in Canadian
budgets for a long time.
I would put to the finance critic that the Reform Party's
position is that no tax reduction should come until the deficit
has been eliminated. Is it now swallowing itself whole in
supporting the Ontario government?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
Reform government would have balanced the budget three years ago.
The fact of the matter is that since this government came to
power it has hiked taxes 36 times. Taxes are $6 billion higher
than they were when the government came to power. Suffice it to
say, this government is the world champion when it comes to
taxes, higher taxes than any country in the G-7 thanks to this
finance minister.
When is the finance minister going to figure it out? That money
belongs to taxpayers, not to his greedy caucus and greedy
cabinet.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all be very clear that the Ontario government
has reduced taxes and it still has a deficit. That is in exact
contradiction to the Reform Party policy.
1445
We are entitled in the House to a certain degree of coherence
and consistency. Does the hon. member support what they did or
not?
Let us understand that most economists have said the reason that
Ontario was able to lower taxes was interest rates have come
down, economic activity has gone up and they have given credit to
this government.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister is in such a state over the hepatitis C case that he
will say anything in his efforts to justify his position.
He said a few minutes ago in this House that, had it not been
for his Minister of Health, no one was going to compensate the
victims of hepatitis C.
What does he say to the resolution
passed unanimously December 2 in the National Assembly that the
federal and provincial governments compensate these victims?
What has he to say?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
summer, the Quebec minister of health clearly did not want to
compensate hepatitis C victims. That was his position.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Answer the question.
Hon. Allan Rock: Then they changed their mind. Last Friday,
they changed their position and now they have changed it again.
We have proposed a meeting of all ministers next week. And I
suggest once again that the member await the meeting.
* * *
[English]
FRESH WATER EXPORT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
considering that the value of water cannot be measured in dollars
because it is priceless, will the federal government assert its
jurisdiction over the export of water and take without delay the
steps necessary to ensure that water will never be exported from
Canada?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that the security of
our water resources is a major priority for the government.
In response to the specific event that took place last week, I
consulted with the minister of the environment in Ontario.
Because it is a shared body of water with the United States I
have written today to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to
ask that we have a direct reference to the international joint
commission that will rule on this matter.
In addition, the Minister of the Environment has undertaken a
major study of all fresh water resources in Canada, including the
question of exports, and that will be conducted this summer in
full consultation with the provinces. I think we can ensure
protection of our water resources.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
September I asked the Prime Minister when he would be consulting
the people of Quebec on the Calgary declaration. He did not
answer.
I asked him again in October, November and December. He always
said “soon”, but he did nothing. This week, Lucien Bouchard's
separatists started their so called consultation.
Why is the Prime Minister leaving himself open to embarrassment
this way? Is it laziness or fear of offending Lucien Bouchard?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois said that the
Quebec premier's thinking was constantly changing. Indeed, on
May 26, 1996 the premier said “I will not respond to any
question on the Constitution, because I am going to create
jobs”.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the House passed a Reform resolution last fall promoting
the Calgary declaration. The Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs even voted for it but he has done absolutely nothing to
bring the details of the declaration to Quebec. He has left that
job to Lucien Bouchard. Great, leave the job of unity to a
separatist.
Is it not true that the only reason the Prime Minister did not
consult Quebeckers is that he is afraid to upset Bouchard and the
separatists?
1450
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am really not afraid when I face Mr. Bouchard.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, all the Minister of Health is prepared to say today is
wait for the meeting. In the meantime the spirit of co-operation
and compassion so evident in the House yesterday is rapidly
degenerating into squabbling and growing disunity between the
federal government and all the provinces. Once again it is the
victims of hepatitis C who suffer.
It is clear this mud slinging would end if the government would
simply indicate that it is prepared to put some new dollars on
the table. Will the government assure all Canadians that it is
going to these discussions with new cash to ensure all victims of
hepatitis C are compensated?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member should know that when I speak with ministers of health
from across the country, as I am doing, many of them take
very different positions. Some are urging that we remain where
things are. Others are changing their positions within the hour.
If we are to be constructive and in the interests of all people
with hepatitis C, we should work toward a consensus. The federal
government should work with provincial governments to do what
will help in the care of hepatitis C sufferers. I ask the hon.
member to allow us to work with provincial colleagues toward a
consensus in the best interests of those who are ill.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister could help achieve that consensus by making
a simple public statement that he is prepared to accept federal
responsibility and put new cash on the table. Will the minister
show that he has learned from the tainted blood scandal by giving
a commitment to the House that he is prepared to put in the
garbage the documents from his own department considering
watering down the Food and Drug Act and detaching Health Canada
from the enforcement business?
This flies in the face of everything we have learned from the
tainted blood scandal and all Justice Krever's recommendations.
Will he give assurances today that report—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member should know that as recently as this morning I spoke
to ministers of health who are urging me not to take the very
course advanced by the member. Let us work toward consensus.
Let us talk to ministers and have governments work together
constructively.
On the role of the health protection branch, I urge the member
not to draw conclusions from what she reads in the newspapers.
There is a public discussion going on about the role of the
department which must be carefully considered by this government
before a decision is made.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health and his parliamentary secretary both
indicated to the House that our social safety net is able to
meet the urgent needs of hepatitis C victims.
This sort of promise worries me, since we know that there is
already a backlog of 4,000 CPP disability files.
Given the current delays, how can the minister assure us that
victims' immediate needs will be met?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to hepatitis C
victims, my disability pension officials have already been in
touch with doctors and those who evaluate files so that we can
be sure that, when hepatitis C victims meet with our experts,
doctors in particular, they will be well treated, their symptoms
properly identified and appropriate referrals made.
As for the file backlog, we are aware that there are sometimes
delays. As you know, the auditor general has requested that we
look—
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to talk about those experts.
The fact remains that it takes no less than six months, and
sometimes up to two years, before a disability pension is
approved. Time is a luxury that many victims simply do not
have.
If victims cannot rely on the disability program, what can they
rely on in order to survive?
1455
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a great many cases, files are
scrutinized much more closely.
A few years ago, when there was a considerable increase in the
number of applications, the auditor general requested that we
ensure that those approved for disability pensions did indeed
meet the criteria proposed in the legislation.
We are in the process of appointing more people to the legal
boards and tribunals in order to ensure that rulings can be made
as quickly as possible.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the recent
expulsion of two young Quebec women from Chiapas, Mexico,
illustrates once again the need for ongoing dialogue with the
Mexican government on human rights.
What specific measures does the Minister of Foreign Affairs
intend to take to express Canadians' deep concern that the
government of Mexico respect fundamental human rights?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to announce today that a parliamentary
delegation will be going to Chiapas to look into the situation
there.
The member for Brossard—La Prairie has agreed to head it during
its visit to Chiapas and Mexico City between May 7 and 11. I
would like to thank all members of this House who will be part
of this very important delegation, and I look forward to their
report with considerable interest.
* * *
[English]
TRANSPORT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week 95% of the 2,200 air traffic controllers voted
not to accept a contract offer from Nav Canada. The two sides
are impossibly far apart.
The controllers want wage increases of up to 38%. Nav Canada
wants to cut its costs by 17.5% over three years. My question is
to the Minister of Transport. What contingency plan does he have
in place to prevent a disastrous shutdown of the air traffic
system in Canada?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we regret very much that the air traffic controllers
have rejected a settlement that has been negotiated by their
union representatives, but Nav Canada has said it will go back
with the union representatives to look at other changes that can
be made.
It is very premature to start talking about labour disruptions
when the process has not come to a conclusion.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the victims of hepatitis C we cannot let that one go by.
Since, on December 2, 1997, at 11.30 a.m., the Quebec National
Assembly was unanimously calling for a program of compensation
for the victims of hepatitis C, how can the Prime Minister keep
repeating in this House that, were it not for the federal
Minister of Health, no one would be compensating the victims?
How can he keep making such a claim? Let him say it from his
seat.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on July
22, last year, at about 2.00 p.m. I met my counterparts,
including the Quebec minister of health. I raised the question
of compensation for hepatitis C victims, and the minister
refused to take part.
He maintained this position for months. Finally, following the
leadership of the Prime Minister and the federal government, he
agreed to take part and now, today, he has changed his position
again. And that is the truth.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, more than 700
fish plant workers in the Acadian peninsula are out of work
after three processing plants closed down.
1500
This year, crab quotas were lower, which meant fewer weeks of
work. Entire communities are plunged into poverty, with no
income. The economic and social effects are felt everywhere.>
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development show a little
compassion and develop an emergency program to give these
workers living in poverty access to employment insurance?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have not received any
request or plan from the three plants mentioned by the hon.
member.
What I can say is that employers and former workers are welcome
to submit a proposal to my department with respect to the
reopening of the plants in question. We will consider every
possible way of financing worthwhile projects that meet the
eligibility criteria and our program requirements.
I also encourage workers to visit our HRDC centres to take
advantage of the active measures and programs available to them.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: My colleagues, I wish to draw to your
attention the presence in the gallery of the hon. Tito Petkovski,
President of the Assembly of the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTIONS
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, first I
want to thank you and congratulate you for keeping a raucous
House under control today.
However, the Prime Minister has taken advantage of the
situation. On numerous occasions today he stood when the light
was out, his 35 seconds was up and he kept on going. At the end
of the day, we lose—
The Speaker: My colleague, not only is your point well
taken, it gives me a chance to compliment the House.
Every day since we opened this parliament discussions have taken
place among the House leaders and, on every occasion, we have
fitted in all the questions that were negotiated by them.
I find that on average we have been able to get as many as seven
or eight extra questions in a day.
1505
I am sure all hon. members, both in asking their questions and
in giving their answers, will continue to do the wonderful job
they have been doing since the beginning of this parliament. I
thank the hon. member for raising that point.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
night, with you and many other members of parliament, we attended
a reception for the young people who were here from across
Canada. We heard from a lot of the young people from across
Canada about what was happening in our House. They were appalled
at the screaming and yelling, back and forth.
I am just hoping, Mr. Speaker, that somehow we can appeal to all
our colleagues to have better decorum.
The Speaker: Once again, my colleague, your point is well
taken. I appeal to all hon. members to do just that every day
that we are in the House. I encourage all of us to treat each
other with civility and respect. I hope this will come about.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE MARCEL DIONNE
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past
March a good friend of mine, the former member for Chicoutimi,
passed away at the age of 66.
Marcel Dionne, a man of substance, a man of great importance to
his community, a man of great commitment, is no longer with us.
I feel that it is appropriate to pay tribute to him here today.
He was an MP from 1979 to 1984. I met him for the first time in
1983 when I was with the young federal Liberals of Quebec. He
was always closely involved with young people. He was an
untiring worker for his community.
I would like to review some of his accomplishments for which he
never really got enough credit because of the Conservative
sweep in 1984.
First of all, Marcel Dionne picked up on an old project of his
predecessor, Paul Langlois. He convinced the federal government
to upgrade the port of Chicoutimi by removing some huge oil
tanks. Construction of the federal administrative complex of le
Vieux Port was also part of this project.
The port of Grande Anse, of growing importance in the
development of the region's economy, was another of the major
projects for which he was responsible.
Taking advantage of a visit to the Saguenay by then Prime
Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Marcel Dionne managed to
convince him of the need to undertake capital projects at CFB
Bagotville for F-18 combat aircraft maintenance facilities.
The base's future was guaranteed by an agreement with the
American government on the NORAD defence system, signed by
President Reagan and Prime Minister Mulroney in the early months
of the Mulroney years, during the U.S. president's visit to Quebec
City.
In addition to his political career, Marcel Dionne was involved
in a number of other areas. He was president of the Saguenéens
de Chicoutimi and of the Quebec major junior hockey league, as
well as president of the Quebec potato growers federation.
Originally from the Eastern Townships, Marcel Dionne moved to
Saint-Ambroise in 1963 where he ran a potato operation for 13
years.
Unfortunately, almost immediately after he lost his seat in
1984, Marcel was diagnosed with cancer. Still, he returned to
work in the Eastern Townships. He was a brave man who never
gave up.
At the time of his death he was an assistant commissioner with
the Canadian Grain Commission.
Two of the five Dionne children still live in the Chicoutimi
area, a son Yves, who is a police officer, and a daughter,
Carole.
My most sincere condolences, on behalf of the government, to all
of the members of the Dionne family.
So long, Marcel.
1510
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great respect that I rise in the House today to pay tribute
to one of my peers.
A native of the Eastern Townships, Marcel Dionne represented the
federal riding of Chicoutimi from 1979 to 1984. During his term
of office, Marcel Dionne helped bring about a number of
important achievements for his constituents such as the
redevelopment of the port of Chicoutimi and the survival of CFB
Bagotville.
He was also active in his community. He was the president of
the Chicoutimi Saguenéens of Quebec's major junior hockey league
and president of the Fédération des producteurs de pommes de
terre du Québec. He had also successfully battled cancer and
was working as an assistant commissioner on the Canadian Grain
Commission.
On behalf of the Reform Party, I extend my deepest condolences
to members of the Dionne family.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to pay tribute to Marcel
Dionne who died on March 3 at the age of 66.
A native of the Eastern Townships, Mr. Dionne quickly became a
member of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean community. He represented
the riding of Chicoutimi in the House of Commons from 1979 to
1984 and held the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Agriculture.
I and my fellow citizens in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area
remember him as a very committed individual who spared no
effort in promoting our region's socio-economic development.
Many people now recognize that he was a catalyst of important
achievements for our community.
Those achievements included the redevelopment of the port of
Chicoutimi, in collaboration with the entire regional community
and then MLA Marc-André Bédard. This undertaking required that
giant reservoirs be moved and the Vieux Port federal
administrative complex built.
The port of Grande Anse, which is now a hub in the development
of our regional economy, was one of the major projects to which
the former member for Chicoutimi contributed.
He was also responsible for the development of CFB Bagotville,
which required major investments for the maintenance of CF-18
fighters.
It is unfortunate I must say that he was never given credit for
these major accomplishments because of the
Progressive Conservative sweep in 1984, which denied him the
opportunity to continue his excellent work in our region.
In addition to his very full career in politics, Mr. Dionne
worked in various other fields.
Before making a political name for himself, he headed a potato
production company for 13 years. He made a major contribution
to modernizing agriculture in our region, enabling us to attain
self-sufficiency in the production of potatoes in the early
1970s.
He was active in his community as well, serving as president of
the Saguenéens de Chicoutimi of the Quebec major junior hockey
league and president of the Quebec federation of potato
producers.
At the time of his death he was an assistant commissioner with
the Canadian Grain Commission.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois I offer my sympathy to all the
members of the Dionne family and my condolences to the people in
the riding of Chicoutimi and our region whom he served so well.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to pay tribute to the former Liberal member for
Chicoutimi in the House of Commons, Marcel Dionne, who died
yesterday at the age of 66 from a heart attack.
In addition to his career in politics Mr. Dionne worked in
various fields. He was president of the Saguenéens de
Chicoutimi of the Quebec major junior hockey league and
president of the Quebec federation of potato producers. At the
time of his death he was an assistant commissioner with the
Canadian Grain Commission.
To the members of his family, on behalf of the New Democrats, I
offer my sincere condolences.
1515
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
to rise to pay tribute to my predecessor. Although we do not
have the same political affiliation nationally, I think the fact
remains that Mr. Dionne has been an efficient member of
parliament.
Marcel never liked heckling and off the cuff remarks, but he
would set goals for himself and usually achieve them.
What I have tried to share with Marcel for several years is
first and foremost the love of our region and passionate
dedication to our riding. I recall that during the 1984
election campaign a slightly negative article was written by a
journalist from outside Quebec, which was somewhat unfair to our
region and to the city of Chicoutimi in particular.
I remember how passionately Marcel set the record straight here
in the House in order to restore the good name of our region
and particularly that of our city, Chicoutimi, at the national
level. He was successful because a correction was made in a
national forum.
Marcel worked hard on very concrete issues like the ones
mentioned a moment ago by my colleagues. The port of Grande-Anse
was indeed his greatest achievement. Also the base in
Bagotville benefited from his repeated representations. Goodness
knows how important it is in a region like ours to look after an
infrastructure such as the base in Bagotville. Otherwise its
role diminishes. We must therefore continually remind the
government of the value of having in Quebec a facility as
strategic as this one.
On the social level Marcel was heavily involved with a team
that is massively supported by the people of the region and a
great source of pride to us, les Saguenéens. Then, of course,
he was also the president of the Fédération des producteurs de
pommes de terre. After coming to our region in 1963, he ran a
potato operation which created a number of jobs and is a source
of regional pride to this day.
I remember that Marcel and I had differences of opinion on
occasion. I recall, for instance, that between 1981 and 1984 we
did not see eye to eye about the old port of Chicoutimi where
some housing was planned. We did not agree on this concept, but
it was the one that eventually won out after public
consultations.
He never held it against me. On several occasions he told me “I
think giving the river back to the people instead of building
housing in the old port was the right way to go”. He recognized
that.
My most recent memories have been particularly of his courage in
the face of his illness. God knows, he met the challenge with
great courage and for a long time seemed to have gained the
upper hand.
On behalf of my party and myself I express our
most sincere condolences to his entire family.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I want to thank all members for their
kind words of acknowledgement.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[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 two petitions.
* * *
1520
[English]
BROADCASTING ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-398, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act
(designation of cable channels).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill when passed by the House would
make it possible for cable channels to be assigned on the basis
of market forces rather than the CRTC compelling cable companies
to assign them to certain positions on the cable spectrum.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-399, an act to amend the Elections Act
(appointment of election officers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill when passed would implement a
recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada that
patronage be removed from the process of appointing employees to
Elections Canada.
Very few people realize that returning officers are all
appointed by order in council, by the government in power. In
effect they are patronage appointments. Passage of this bill
would remove that ability of the government to patronage appoint.
The employees of Elections Canada would be selected on their
merit and their ability to do the job instead of the party they
belong to.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
TOBACCO ACT
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-400, an act to amend the Tobacco Act
(substances contained in a tobacco product).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present this bill to
the House today. The purpose of its enactment is to ensure that
consumers are aware of the content of tobacco products.
My bill, an act to amend the Tobacco Act, will prohibit the sale
of tobacco products that do not list substances contained in the
product on their packages. Basically what I am asking for is to
have the names of the chemicals on the package so consumers will
know every time they smoke cigarettes what kind of chemicals they
inhale.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
HOLIDAYS ACT
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-401, an act to amend the Holidays Act (Flag Day)
and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to
introduce a bill respecting Flag Day. As we know Flag Day is
totally recognized in Canada as being February 15. The purpose
of my bill is to take that one step further and make it a
national holiday.
The United States, being one country to which we often compare
ourselves, has many more national holidays than does Canada. I
think it is very appropriate that we take time to recognize our
great traditions.
The flag is on either side of you, Mr. Speaker. Thirty-three
years ago was its birthday and I think it would be appropriate to
enshrine Flag Day as a national holiday so all future generations
would remember that.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1525
PETITIONS
PUBLIC NUDITY
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of certain
constituents in my riding who object to nudity in public and who
seek a remedy by requesting an adjustment to the criminal code.
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians
including from my own riding of Mississauga South.
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 society.
They also agree with the National Forum on Health which stated
that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make
the choice to provide care in the home to their preschool
children.
The petitioners therefore call on parliament to initiate tax
changes which would eliminate that discrimination against
families who provide direct parental care to preschool children
in the home.
FERRY SERVICES
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
to the House of Commons a petition regarding the Newfoundland
bulk ferry service.
The petitioners ask parliament to consider providing proper
assistance to this essential service and to deem it so under the
Canada Labour Code, part I.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask that all 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, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like Motion No. P-14 to be called.
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all Observer
Trip Reports and Data Packages for foreign boats fishing within
Canada's 200 mile exclusive economic zone, plus those same
Reports and Packages for all bilateral fishing agreements that
Canada has outside the 200 mile exclusive economic zone, for the
1997 calendar year.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this
Motion for the Production of Papers be transferred for debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The notice is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I request
that we call Motion No. P-16.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents
relating to the Royal Canadian Mint building a coin plating plant
in Manitoba.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that under the
same standing order this motion also be transferred for debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The notice is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will correct me
if I am wrong, but is it enough for the parliamentary secretary
to only suggest it? Does he not actually have to do it?
The Deputy Speaker: I guess technically the Chair does it
on the request of a member. That is my recollection of the rule.
It has been some time since I have read Standing Order 97, I do
not mind telling the member, but my recollection is that when any
member requests it, it is ipso facto transferred for debate.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to have Motion No. P-17 called.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all minutes of
meetings of the User Group on Firearms and for copies of all
correspondence between the User Group on Firearms and the
Minister of Justice and officials in the Department of Justice.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, if the wording is correct,
I request that this Motion for the Production of Papers also be
transferred for debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The notice is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the remaining
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1530
[English]
CANADA LANDS SURVEYORS ACT
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Natural
Resources) moved that Bill C-31, an act respecting Canada
Lands Surveyors, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to
open debate on Bill C-31, an important piece of legislation that
will transfer to the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors
specific responsibilities related to professional standards of
conduct, continuing education and skills development of Canada
lands surveyors. I acknowledge the support of members and parties
of this House as we proceed through this legislation.
Anyone who has ever purchased a house or a piece of property is
familiar with the important work of land surveyors. Their job is
to provide a detailed and accurate survey of the boundaries of
the property for legal registration and for transfer of
ownership. The Canada lands surveyor is specially qualified and
commissioned to conduct legal surveys on Canada lands, lands
which the federal government holds and manages in trust for the
people of Canada.
Canada lands include the Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indian
reserves, offshore areas of Canada and the national parks system.
Anyone who requires a survey of a boundary of Canada lands must
have the survey made by a qualified Canada lands surveyor.
I pay tribute to the tremendous contribution made by government
surveyors both past and present. Dominion land surveyors, as they
were known until 1979, literally opened up this country. Their
stories are a part of our history. In 1874 Great Britain
transferred Rupert's Land and the Northwestern Territory to the
Dominion of Canada. The federal government needed land surveyors
at that time to survey and subdivide the land for settlers.
We just have to fly over western Canada to be familiar with the
results of the incredible work accomplished in the 1880s when
dominion land surveyors conducted what was probably the largest
survey effort in history. Their work made it possible for
immigrants and settlers to obtain lands in Manitoba, Saskatchewan
and Alberta. We see the results of their labour in the straight
as an arrow property lines. When hopeful miners flooded the Yukon
territories during the gold rush in 1898, they found a dominion
lands survey office already in business in Dawson where they
could legally register their claims.
More recently, members of the House have seen the work of the
Canada lands surveyors in some of the legislation we have
considered in the House: the boundaries of the new national
parks such as Vuntut National Park in the Yukon in 1994; the
descriptions of the boundaries of land transfers affecting Indian
reserves which appear as orders in council; even the boundaries
of federal electoral districts. These are accomplished by the
Canada lands surveyors through the office of the Surveyor General
of Canada Lands.
On behalf of the federal government, Canada lands surveyors are
currently making massive and critically important surveys in the
Yukon and Northwest Territories. Several thousand parcels of
land, some small and some large, involved in aboriginal land
interests and land claims must be legally surveyed and recorded.
This survey effort will help to define and shape the legal
boundaries of the Canadian north. It involves millions and
millions of dollars and directly affects the lives of residents
of these territories.
I have explained the historical and the present day role of
Canada lands surveyors in order to demonstrate to this House the
scope and importance of their contribution to the country. These
professionals are experts in property rights, land management,
land registration and the survey system used in Canada lands.
Their expertise is acquired through university education,
continuing education through their professional associations, and
through hands on experience in the field.
To be granted a commission as a Canada lands surveyor, a
candidate must first successfully complete a rigorous set of
formal examinations and meet other requirements including basic
work experience of at least two years. Surveying is a knowledge
based activity and as such demands a great deal of the people who
seek the right to use the designation of Canada lands surveyor.
Since 1872 the Surveyor General of the Dominion, now Canada
Lands, has had the responsibility for the board of examiners.
This body establishes professional qualifications and standards,
sets the examinations and grants commissions as Canada lands
surveyors. Under the present legislation the board also oversees
the professional conduct of the Canada lands surveyors but has
limited disciplinary powers.
1535
Bill C-31 will transfer responsibility for the board of
examiners from the surveyor general to the Association of Canada
Lands Surveyors. The provisions proposed in the legislation are
both efficient and appropriate.
For a number of years now at the provincial level,
self-governing professional associations have been managing the
responsibilities which we are now proposing at the federal level
be transferred to the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors.
Self-governing associations relieve government of the day to day
work of ensuring that the members of the profession achieve and
maintain professional standards of practice.
The government of which I am a representative does not hand over
such important authorities lightly or arbitrarily. The
legislation which we are now considering today touches the day to
day lives of hundreds of thousands of people and concerns
approximately one-half of the Canada land mass. Thus for some
seven to eight years the federal government has undertaken
detailed study, consultation and dialogue with the Association of
Canada Lands Surveyors, with various other associations and with
other federal government departments who rely on the services of
Canada lands surveyors. This includes Parks Canada and Indian
and northern affairs for instance. Our intent is to accomplish
the transfer in an orderly and responsible fashion.
The Association of Canada Lands Surveyors has been actively
involved in preparing for this important role since 1990.
Formerly established in 1985 as an independent multidisciplinary
association, the association is the successor to the Canada lands
surveyors professional affairs committee of the Canadian
institute of surveying.
There are four principal areas of responsibility involved in
this proposed legislation: examination, admission,
qualifications and discipline. I have already spoken to some
extent about the examination and admission processes which are
under the auspices of the board of examiners.
Under the proposed legislation the board of examiners under the
management of the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors will
continue to set rigorous technical and scientific examinations
and issue commissions to successful candidates. What will change
in this area however is the day to day management of the
examination and accreditation process of the board of examiners
which will be assumed by the association rather than by the
Office of the Surveyor General of Canada Lands.
This is an important recognition of the stature of the
profession and gives the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors
authorities similar to those practised by provincial
associations. Moreover the move is consistent with the
government's commitment to improve the way government works by
turning over to the private sector responsibilities in areas of
activity that can be efficiently and effectively managed by the
private sector.
I spoke earlier of the fact that surveying is a knowledge based
discipline. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Natural Resources, which is of course a scientific and knowledge
based department, I am very particularly interested in the
enhanced role the association will be playing in the skills
development, training and continued education of the Canada lands
surveyors.
The demanding examination process ensures that Canada lands
surveyors are well qualified at the time of receiving their
commission and provide professional standards of service, but it
is no guarantee that those standards are maintained over time.
Under the proposed Canada lands surveyors act the association
will have both the authority and the means to ensure that its
members maintain their professional standards.
One of the key commitments made by the association in
preparation for this legislation is to provide continuing
education programs for its members. Given the critical
importance of lifelong learning and skills development in the
knowledge based society and the new economy, this commitment by
the association is particularly significant.
The association has also committed to promoting the profession
of Canada lands surveyor in order to ensure that there continues
to be a pool of qualified Canada lands surveyors available across
Canada. There must be a sufficient number of these people
working in the Yukon and Northwest Territories and near Canada
lands across the country to provide quick efficient services at a
reasonable cost.
The association has already demonstrated its leadership in this
area since 1990 by preparing videos and holding seminars across
Canada explaining the survey legislation and the Canada lands
surveyors examination process.
The fourth key area addressed by Bill C-31 involves discipline
and complaints procedures and provisions which will be
implemented by the association. These new provisions and
procedures significantly improve the current system and better
protect members of the profession and the public and clients who
call upon the services of Canada lands surveyors.
1540
Ninety-nine per cent of the people actively working in the field
carry out their duties with full professionalism and respect for
quality, standards and service. Common to self-regulating
professions is the ability to investigate complaints concerning
performance and standards. As a result of Bill C-31 the
association will be able to investigate complaints and to impose
a range of penalties appropriate to the situation should fault
occur. This will both protect the public interest and safeguard
the reputation and integrity of Canada lands surveyors.
Once this legislation comes into effect all Canada lands
surveyors who want to conduct legal surveys on Canada lands will
have to be members of the association and will be required to
carry liability insurance. This will ensure that the association
is in a position to monitor, govern and self police the
professional standards and conduct of Canada lands surveyors.
The proposed legislation is carefully designed to preserve and
maintain the integrity of the Canada lands survey system. The
Surveyor General of Canada Lands will continue to be responsible
for the standards of property or legal surveys of Canada lands.
Likewise the surveyor general will continue to be responsible for
the standards of survey documentation submitted to the Canada
lands survey records. Boundary commissions, descriptions of
federal electoral districts, and surveys required by native land
claims also remain under the jurisdiction of the surveyor
general.
The benefits of the profession to the clients and to the
Government of Canada are clear. With the provisions of Bill C-31
in place, the standards of conduct required of Canada lands
surveyors will be enhanced to the level already in place
provincially. Members of the profession will be assured that
their fellow Canada lands surveyors have all met and continue to
meet the high professional standards and requirements of the
commission they bear so proudly.
The Canadian public will have the assurance and protection of a
self-governing professional association to whom they can turn
with complaints and concerns about the professional competence or
conduct of Canada lands surveyors whenever that may be necessary.
The promotion of the profession by the association will encourage
new recruits to join the ranks of the Canada lands surveyors
ensuring that qualified people are available across the country
to carry out these important surveys. The government will have
at its service a pool of professionals whose skills are
continuously updated and current as we continue to shape and
define the boundaries of lands we hold and manage in trust for
the people of Canada.
In conclusion, I would like to thank hon. members for providing
me with this opportunity to speak to this important bill, Bill
C-31. I also appreciate the level of co-operation which I
understand exists in the House today in terms of the furtherance
of this bill.
Mr. Peter Adams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There
have been consultations between the parties. I think you will
find that there is unanimous consent that we deal with all stages
of Bill C-31 today, including second reading, committee of the
whole and third reading.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the parliamentary secretary
suggesting that there be unanimous consent to change the motion
from second reading and referral to a standing committee to
referral to committee of the whole? Is that what he is asking at
this stage? The House will not adjourn until the bill has been
adopted at all stages, is that what the parliamentary secretary
is suggesting? I am seeking clarification of what is being asked
for at this point. Perhaps we could proceed with this
understanding for the time being and if there are specific orders
to be adopted at a given moment we can adopt them. On debate at
second reading, the hon. member for Athabasca.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-31, the Canada lands
surveyors act. The bill as the parliamentary secretary has
stated transfers the responsibilities of the existing board of
examiners for Canada lands surveyors to the Association of Canada
Lands Surveyors.
The Association of Canada Lands Surveyors is a non-government
association with mandatory membership. In other words, one
cannot be a Canada lands surveyor without having membership in
this association.
1545
As with any bill introduced in the House for second reading, it
stirs an interest, a curiosity as to why it is introduced and
what efficiencies or benefits Canadians gain from either the
change in legislation or the new legislation.
Upon inquiry and investigation this is kind of a curious
situation with the Canada lands surveyors in that it seems to
make perfectly reasonable sense to do what this bill proposes to
do. However, one has to wonder why now. Every province in Canada
has for years had a professional association of surveyors, and
the surveyor general assures me that the reason for this is it
will provide better service to Canadians than the Government of
Canada has been able to provide in the past.
That raises questions as it has raised in previous times. If it
is good for the country why did it take so long for this
government to admit it and to get on with the business of
introducing and passing the bill?
I would like to go through how the bill will serve Canadians
better. First, it would transfer responsibility for developing
and maintaining professional standards among Canadian lands
surveyors from a federal agency to a non-government agency. This
non-government agency, the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors,
will be responsible for designing and implementing a complaints
and discipline process that the government itself does not seem
to be able to put in place, or to maintain to the same degree at
least, as this non-government organization.
Currently there does not appear to be any formal process to deal
with complaints of quality of workmanship or professionalism of
Canada lands surveyors.
Under existing legislation the board of examiners must prove
gross negligence or corrupt practices to discipline a land
surveyor. Certainly those are pretty draconian measures and not
an easy task to achieve.
Through the proposed changes, however, there will be very clear
processes by which the complaints may be filed against individual
surveyors. These changes call for the formation of a complaints
committee and a discipline committee, the latter of which will
have the power to discipline a surveyor in a number of ways if
proved negligent or incompetent.
I wholeheartedly agree with the creation of two committees. We
need to protect the good name of responsible and reputable
surveys as well as the integrity of the Canada lands survey
system. As my colleague the parliamentary secretary pointed out,
the Canada lands surveyors have a long and glorious history of
service in Canada and certainly in opening up this country for
settlement.
I believe the implementation of a formal discipline process will
help us to accomplish the goal of maintaining that integrity and
that reputation. The complaints and discipline committees set up
as a result of this transfer will have the power to discipline
surveyors guilty of incompetence or professional misconduct.
It would be very time consuming and costly for the federal
government to design and implement such a process. Therefore I
was delighted to learn that through this transfer the association
will assume financial responsibility for this process as well.
The association will not receive funding through the government
but rather through the collection of membership dues from its
member Canada lands surveyors. Second, through the transfer of
responsibilities this bill will result in the creation and
operation of a practice review program that will ensure that
Canada lands surveyors maintain professional standards.
Lands surveyors will be required to continue to upgrade skills
in order to ensure high quality and accuracy of surveys. The
practice review program will be fully funded by the association,
as will the continuing education program through which surveyors
can continue to upgrade skills.
Currently each of the 10 provinces has professional associations
operating in much the same way as the Association of Canada Lands
Surveyors.
1550
Like other professional associations, ACLS will have mandatory
membership and similar standards to its sister associations in
the 10 provinces. The proposed changes mean that surveyors
surveying on public lands, including land in Yukon and Northwest
Territories, on Indian reserves and in national parks as well as
in offshore areas, will be adhering to the same standards as
surveyors elsewhere in Canada. Surveyors across Canada will be
expected to show the same level of skills and professionalism.
I support the government's efforts to eliminate and streamline
government agencies. This transfer would not eliminate but
streamline the responsibilities of the legal surveys division of
Environment Canada. It would relieve this agency of the burden
of setting and enforcing professional standards among Canada land
surveyors. The surveyor general would continue to establish
standards for and manage surveys made under the Canada Land
Survey Act. The surveyor general will also retain custody of
records of all such surveys. These changes will simply shift
responsibly for the licensing and continual review of the
performance of surveyors without infringing on the surveyor
general's control over the surveys produced.
Such government downsizing and streamlining is purported to
serve the interests of the Canadian public. However, in
reviewing the proposed act I wondered if this act would truly
benefit the average Canadian. The government has itself admitted
that the introduction of this act was largely driven by the
interests of the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors. The
association has been asking for this role for 10 years. However,
as history has shown, it is often the case that many professional
associations act in the best interests of the professionals they
represents rather than in the interests of the clientele the
professionals serve.
Therefore I was interested in how this transfer would protect
the interests of the average Canadian. It is, after all, the
average Canadian I was elected to represent. In answer to this I
found that the proposed changes would standardize the quality of
surveying services received by all Canadians. This act will
establish the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors as a
non-government professional association that adheres to similar
standards as its provincial counterparts. This means that
residents in Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indian reserves and
town sites within national parks will receive the same quality of
survey service as Canadians living elsewhere in Canada.
Approximately 450,000 Canadians residing on Canada lands will
directly benefit from these changes.
This in itself does not positively reassure me that Canadians
are being well served by the changes being proposed by this act.
However, I am reassured by the fact that the professional
association will not be completely autonomous of the federal
government. The association will be a self-governing body within
federal jurisdiction. Through this act the minister retains the
power to take such measures as the minister considers appropriate
to fulfill any objective of the association the minister is of
the opinion the association is not fulfilling. Providing the
acting minister has the best interests of Canadians at heart,
this clause can be used as a means of government intervention
should the association fail to meet its obligation under this
act.
It is not uncommon for Canadians to engage in disputes over
property lines. Many Canadians do not notice the errors in the
surveys of their land until they go to build a fence, pave a
driveway or plant a tree. Although this is only one small aspect
of land surveying, it is my hope that this transfer of
responsibility will raise the quality of surveys to a level
whereby such disputes can be avoided from the outset by high
quality surveys. It is also my hope that ACLS will honour its
obligation to the Canadian public by serving the interests not
only of the member surveyors but of the Canadian public as a
whole.
I believe this act, if properly implemented, will result in an
association of responsible, professional and reliable surveyors
equipped with the most current skills and knowledge. Therefore I
and my party support Bill C-31.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I previously received some guidance
from the Chair on this and some advice from members opposite.
There have been consultations between the parties.
1555
I think you will find unanimous consent for the following
motion. I move:
That all stages of Bill C-31, including second reading,
committee of the whole and third reading, be completed today, and
that all questions necessary for the completion of those stages
be put no later than 5.30 p.m.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. Pursuant to
Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, Seniors
Benefits; the hon. member for Charlotte, Hepatitis C; the hon.
member for Lévis, Shipbuilding; the hon. member for Yukon,
Reforestation.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, as the NDP
critic for natural resources, I rise today in support of Bill
C-31, the Canada Lands Surveyors Act.
This bill is the result of five years of consultation and
development. This consultation involved several departments,
including Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Indian reserves
and lands that have been surrendered, land claims, the Yukon,
the Northwest Territories, offshore regions, Heritage Canada,
Parks Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the divisions
responsible for petroleum, gas and subsoil and offshore mineral
rights.
This legislation is required because of existing gaps in the
complaints and discipline procedure.
It is also required to ensure that complaints are handled fairly
and properly.
This bill concerns surveyors working on Dominion lands, that is,
lands in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, aboriginal
lands, national parks and offshore areas.
This bill will transfer to the Association of Canada Lands
Surveyors responsibilities with respect to the granting of
commissions, regulations and disciplinary measures applicable to
lands surveyors of Canada. Until now, these functions came under
the surveyor general at Natural Resources Canada.
[English]
This will give Canada lands surveyors more voice in their own
affairs. They will be able to elect some members of the council
which will be responsible for running the association.
Currently it is the Minister of Natural Resources acting through
the governor in council who appoints members of the board of
examiners.
However, I have concern regarding certain sections of this bill.
Section 12(1) stipulates:
12. (1) The president and vice-president of the association
shall be appointed or elected in accordance with the bylaws.
I believe it is important that these two positions be filled by
the people elected by the membership. The positions of president
and vice-president are key positions that will determine the
direction the association will take.
For these reasons it is only logical that the membership
determines who will run the association.
[Translation]
It is important to note that this idea of self-regulation is not
new. Provincial surveyors are all regulated by provincial
associations. The proposed change reflects what has already been
implemented in 10 provincial jurisdictions. In my province of
New Brunswick, the surveyors' association was established in
1954. As we can see, it works for the public and for surveyors.
Reforms such as this one often imply a loss of jobs in a
government department. This is one of those rare situations
where self-regulation does not involve any layoffs.
The fact that no one is directly responsible for managing the
complaint and discipline processes shows how necessary this
legislation is. Surveyors must be accountable for their actions
to those who make use of their services.
This self-regulation process also has its limits. Even though
some responsibilities are transferred, the Minister of Natural
Resources reserves the right to intervene if he is of the
opinion that the association is not fulfilling its mandate.
1600
I talked to surveyors in my riding, and they assured me that
their interests will be adequately served by the Association of
Canada Lands Surveyors. They referred to the New Brunswick
surveyors association as an example of a self-regulatory body
that works well. It is important that we listen to these people.
After all, they are the ones who will be most affected by the
changes.
Finally, the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors will be able
to fulfil a role which, until now, had been completely ignored
by the Department of Natural Resources. Since the association is
made up of surveyors, it will be able to design and maintain
proper training for its members.
We all know how important it is to see that every group provides
training for its members and ensures the renewal of its
workforce. This legislation allows the Association of Canada
Lands Surveyors to take over continuing education, to ensure that
its members get the best possible training.
The only adverse effect of this bill seems to be the increase in
fees for permits and liability insurance. This increase will
have to be borne by the surveyors, which means they will be
passed on to the consumers.
Except for this minor reservation, we should see pass Bill
C-31 immediately. Canada's surveyors have waited five years for
this legislation. The time has come to act.
[English]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Madam
Speaker, let me begin my comments by giving some background on
Canada Lands Surveyors. Canada Lands Surveyors performs surveys
required for the legal transfer and registration of rights to
real estate properties in Yukon, Northwest Territories, Canada's
offshore, Indian reserves and Canada's national parks.
Currently provincially regulated lands surveyors perform these
functions in each province except for Canada's offshore, Indian
reserves and national parks. The Canada Lands Surveyors at
present operates under the authority of the Surveyor General of
Canada which is part of Natural Resources Canada.
This bill will change this relationship, transferring
responsibilities for the regulation to the Association of Canada
Lands Surveyors.
This bill would authorize the Association of Canada Lands
Surveyors to be a self-regulating association with
responsibilities for all aspects of commissioning Canada lands
surveyors.
The bill would authorize the association to establish the
standards of qualification, knowledge, skill, conduct and
practice of Canada lands surveyors.
Furthermore, this bill would authorize the Association of Canada
Lands Surveyors to grant commissions to persons who have acquired
the appropriate educational qualifications and work experience.
This bill will also give the Association of Canada Lands
Surveyors the power to hear complaints and institute a discipline
process concerning the conduct of Canada lands surveyors. Some
of these discipline powers would include the removal of licences,
as well as memberships and commissions of Canada lands surveyors
who have been found guilty of professional misconduct or
incompetence.
The bill also requires Canada lands surveyors to maintain a
membership in the association and a licence to practise in order
to be able to perform surveys on Canadian lands.
As well, this bill gives the Association of Canada Lands
Surveyors the power to make regulations concerning professional
examinations and professional standards for Canada lands
surveyors.
This bill also provides for the appointment of a board of the
association. The board would be comprised of five members. The
current board of examiners under the old act would become
redundant.
The Minister of Natural Resources would make appointments to
this board. Remuneration for board members would be set by
guidelines fixed by Treasury Board. Members that would be
required to travel to meetings of the board would have their
living and travel expenses covered.
The Surveyor General of Canada will continue to manage surveys
under this legislation, as well as establishing standards for
those surveys.
1605
Also remaining under the authority of the surveyor general is
the management and maintenance of the survey system and survey
frameworks for Canada lands.
The Surveyor General of Canada will also retain control of the
boundaries of Canada lands. The custody and record of the
surveys will also continue under the auspices of the surveyor
general.
The Progressive Conservative Party views this bill as a
housekeeping matter. The possible exception is that the Minister
of Natural Resources would make appointments to the five member
board of the association. With that in mind, we support in
principle the thrust of this bill.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
want to ask the member a question of clarification. I thought he
said that the board would consist of five members. It is my
understanding that the board would consist of the president, the
vice-president, the past president and three members, the
Surveyor General of Canada and two persons appointed by the
government. That is considerably more than five members. I was
confused by his explanation.
I have some concerns, this being a non-government organization,
a professional organization that will be responsible to its
membership, with an ex-officio member being the Surveyor General
of Canada, about what the requirement would be for the minister
to have two patronage appointment positions on the board.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Madam Speaker, when I spoke of the five
members I meant the five non-executive members. With the
executive members I think the hon. member's number is accurate.
I believe the patronage appointments are more in the area of
five, not three, because the five directors that are to be
appointed by the minister are certainly going to be, as far as I
am concerned, patronage appointments.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the debate of the previous three speakers
but, as I understand it, we are not allowed to put questions to
previous speakers. However, I have some questions which I
would like to ask the hon. member who just spoke.
The Canada Lands Surveyors, as I understand it, is responsible
for public domain lands of the Government of Canada, which
include Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Indian reserves,
national parks, offshore sites, national wildlife areas and
migratory birds sanctuaries.
The purpose of Bill C-31 is to establish the Association of
Canada Lands Surveyors as a self-governing association which will
substitute its board of examiners to establish, under the Canada
Lands Surveyors Act, the authority responsible for the
examination, admission and qualifications of candidates for
commission as Canada lands surveyors.
I have no hesitation in supporting this bill, particularly
because this bill is an effort to transfer responsibility to the
private sector. I believe the private sector can better regulate
its members.
Furthermore, this transfer will result in a cost reduction to
the departmental budget.
It is very important for us to define what a Canada lands
surveyor is responsible for. Can the member throw some light on
what is the definition of the role of the Canada lands surveyors?
Mr. Jean Dubé: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
being attentive to my speech.
If I was a minister of the crown I could probably answer better
what the member is asking. I sort of agree with the member's
comments, but I think his question would be better directed to
government.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the member called this a housekeeping matter. I would say that
it is more in the nature of a motherhood issue that everyone
could agree with. Housekeeping, to me, says that we are cleaning
up something that previously existed, whereas in this case we are
building something.
We are establishing for the first time legislation to give the
Canada lands surveyors self-governing authority. I would like a
response to that comment.
1610
Mr. Jean Dubé: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for the housekeeping comment.
The reason for that comment was to identify the patronage
appointments that the government will be making.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte
for his kind comments about lands surveyors because I am a lands
surveyor myself and I agree with his comments.
As a member of a provincial lands surveyors association it gives
me great pleasure to speak today to Bill C-31, the Canada Lands
Surveyors Act.
Historically dominion lands surveyors, the predecessors of the
Canada lands surveyors, had a special role to play in the
development of this country. They were issued commissions for
the purpose of undertaking surveys of dominion lands. The most
obvious and enduring aspect of the work is the dominion lands
survey system in western Canada which had its origin at the first
principal meridian just west of Winnipeg and its first base line
at the Canadian-American border.
The majority of the occupied land in the west is subdivided into
one-mile squares which is the most noticeable feature from the
air. When flying in to any of the western airports we see that
the land is laid out in a rectangular fashion. It is very
orderly. Even satellite photos of the prairies show the DLS
system of subdivision.
The importance of surveys in the historic and future development
of Canada is indisputable.
Surveyors were and remain Canada's explorers. It was surveyors
who not only subdivided but mapped this country's frontiers.
They also established the borders of this country on the ground
after the political decision was made to accept the international
boundary as the 49th parallel.
An interesting aside is that American surveyors usually ended up
north of the British surveyors, or the other way around, when
they made their astronomy shots to determine the exact parallel.
Usually the decision was made to split the difference.
Furthermore, surveyors are called on daily to resolve boundary
disputes, leading to peaceful relations among members of the
public.
The prairies were surveyed during a few decades of intense work
as the west was opened up for development and settlers poured in.
Legislators of the time recognized the need for an orderly method
of subdividing and conveying land to the settlers and also for
setting aside the tracts of land reserved for Indians.
The system was developed by Colonel J. S. Dennis and the bulk of
the work was carried out for many years under the direction of
Dr. Edouard Deville, Surveyor General.
As the western territory was divided into provinces the new
provinces assumed control of their lands and the survey of them.
The task was undertaken by provincial survey associations which
operated under provincial legislation. The legislation provided
the means by which the associations governed themselves. They
had the authority to elect their own councils, appoint
educational and disciplinary committees and pass bylaws to ensure
that a high level of competence and professionalism was
maintained.
In the provinces land surveys are the responsibility of
provincially legislated land survey associations. All provincial
land surveyors' associations are self-governing and accountable
to the public.
Through the years since provincial associations have been
responsible for the maintenance and extension of the survey
fabric within the provinces the only change the Dominion Lands
Surveyors have had was incorporation in 1985 and a name change.
Dominion Lands Surveyors are now officially known as Canada Lands
Surveyors. They remain without an elected national executive.
They do not have an association directed professional examination
committee. They have no registrar nor do they have a discipline
committee to investigate complaints and take action against a
member found to be in violation of standards of professional
conduct.
The legislation before the House today establishes the
Association of Canada Lands Surveyors as a self-governing
association with all of the powers and responsibilities that
entails. For instance, the association will now be able to
establish and enforce the standards to qualify for the granting
of commissions. This means they will determine appropriate
educational levels and standards of professional conduct and
skill required both to obtain and maintain a CLS commission.
Bill C-31 will enable the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors
to create the necessary committees to investigate malpractice
complaints and to establish discipline committees which will be
empowered to conduct hearings and determine what disciplinary
measures are appropriate in individual cases. This will advance
the public interest.
1615
Under the new legislation the association will be able to create
a practice review committee charged with the responsibility for
ensuring that those who are commissioned for the survey of
federal lands maintain a high standard of professionalism.
In the same vein the new act will make it possible for the
association to maintain a continuing education program for its
members so that the public can have confidence that the surveyors
engaged are well prepared for the task.
In line with other jurisdictions, the surveyor general has
retained the powers necessary to ensure the ongoing integrity of
the survey system. He will continue to retain control of the
technical standards for surveys. These include ensuring that
surveys comply in all respects with the Canada Lands Surveys Act
and regulations, that the surveys meet standards for accuracy of
the field work, proper documentation of surveys, including
preparation of plans, and monumentation of the survey on the
ground.
Despite the many positive features of this legislation there
remains one concern. We note that there is a provision for the
minister to appoint two members to the governing council. While
we in the Reform Party endorse input from the public to ensure
professional organizations act in the public interest, we have
two concerns with this clause. First, it does not
specifically state that the members are to be lay persons and not
professional surveyors who may also be members of the civil
service. This would defeat the purpose of this requirement.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
do not mean to interrupt the hon. member while he is giving a
good speech but there does not seem to be a quorum in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is now a
quorum.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Madam Speaker, I was talking about the
possibility for patronage in this bill and I will continue in
that line.
While we recognize that it would be impossible to legislate it,
what a great day it would be if the Liberal government did not
abuse the appointment process to reward loyal Liberal Party
members, fundraisers, defeated candidates, friends of friends and
that sort of thing.
However, based on their recent record of patronage appointments
we are not confident that this will not happen.
1620
The legislation is important and timely so, despite the
reservations expressed, the Reform Party will support it and seek
amendments.
I also do not want to be uncharitable to the Minister of Natural
Resources and the government but they really do not deserve
credit for this legislation.
As a land surveyor, I am aware of the years of effort by the
associations to have this legislation drafted and introduced in
the House of Commons.
Most Canada lands surveyors also hold provincial commissions so
they know the benefits of a self-governing professional society.
Without their invaluable input this legislation would not have
got off the ground.
This legislation is not ground breaking. It simply raises the
Association of Canada Lands Surveyors to the same status as a
provincial association. It has taken the government years to get
from incorporation to legislation. Congratulations are due to
the surveyors for their commitment to the creation of this new
professional association.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by
unanimous consent, the House went into committee of the whole
thereon, Ms. Thibeault in the chair)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Order. House in committee
of the whole on Bill C-31, an act respecting Canada lands
surveyors.
(Clauses 2 to 12 inclusive agreed to)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 13 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 13 agreed to)
(Clauses 14 to 16 inclusive agreed to)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 17 carry?
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 17 agreed to)
(Clauses 18 to 42 inclusive agreed to)
1625
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall Clause 43 carry?
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 43 agreed to)
(Clauses 44 to 104 inclusive agreed to)
1630
(Clause 1 agreed to)
(Title agreed to)
(Bill reported)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Natural
Resources) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): When shall the bill
be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Natural
Resources) moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
unanimous consent that at the completion of deliberations on Bill
C-31 the House will call no further business but will see the
clock as standing at 5.30 p.m. and proceed to Private Members'
Business.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to proceed as such?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1635
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
while we support this bill and the principle of what it is trying
to achieve, there were some concerns with the bill. I was hoping
that the parliamentary secretary might address some of those
issues. The members opposite might have noted that there were
only a few as we were going through it clause by clause.
I question the wisdom or the need for the minister to appoint
two lay people. My colleague, who is a land surveyor, raised
that question as well. When the minister has representation
through the Surveyor General of Canada on the council, why is it
necessary and why is it desirable to have two patronage appointed
lay people on that council as well? I would be interested in
hearing the government response through the parliamentary
secretary.
The other point I wanted to raise is that we had some concerns
with the power of a surveyor or a licence holder to have access to
private land at any reasonable time as long as that person takes
reasonable precautions to avoid damage during the survey. It
seems to me that that is a powerful provision in the bill.
Perhaps the private landowner would be entitled to some
protection for the entry, or that the surveyor would have to go
through some process to gain access to the land, to assure the
landowner that their interests in that land are protected.
I wanted to raise those concerns on the record before this bill
passed third reading. I would be interested in hearing some kind
of government response to those concerns. We have not had that
opportunity. Unfortunately, I am not sure if we have enough
government members present to do that.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
HOLIDAYS ACT
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-369, an act to amend the Holidays Act (Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day)
and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to
my private members' Bill C-369 which would proclaim November 20
as Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day.
1640
There is no greater gift we can give future generations than to
honour our history, to leave them a memory of our past. This
bill asks parliament to recognize the contributions and role that
Sir Wilfrid Laurier played in our history.
In asking the House to proclaim November 20 Sir Wilfrid Laurier
Day, his birthday, I am not asking the House to proclaim the day
a statutory holiday, but rather a day of recognition for
Canadians to mark an important milestone in our history.
A true Canadian, Laurier was a skilful and pragmatic politician
with a charismatic personality. He was a dominant political
figure of his day.
[Translation]
As a French speaking prime minister, he was one of the builders
of the nation, from prairie towns to the Canadian navy, in 1909.
[English]
Under his leadership Canada continued its industrialization and
urbanization. It was strengthened by the addition of two
provinces and two million inhabitants.
In designating November 20, it will pay tribute to Laurier's
vision, his determination that Canadians regardless of their
ethnic or linguistic background could work together toward a
common goal, that of nationhood.
Laurier pursued and consolidated the work of Confederation begun
by his predecessors. He was a true nation builder. In these
days of political uncertainty we can look to Laurier as an
individual who embodied his love for Canada, his love for a
united and prosperous country.
We live in an era where our children have little appreciation
for our history and for our roots as a nation. Professor J. L.
Granatstein in his work Who Killed Canadian History
comments on the fact that our knowledge of our history is
disappearing.
[Translation]
Those aspects of our past that reflect our traditions, our
values and our ideas, and that have helped to shape our society
are disappearing from our collective memory.
[English]
This bill will help us recognize and promote our history. The
federal government has proclaimed several national days of
recognition. February 15 is National Flag Day. We celebrate
June 25 as National Aboriginal Day. We have built educational
programs around these days. We have helped to expand the
understanding and the importance of these days to Canadians but
we cannot stop there. We must mark those occasions in our
history that are important to our nation's survival and to
preserve the memories.
In these times when our national unity is called into question,
it is only through the dedicated efforts of concerned Canadians
that we find occasions or situations which celebrate the very
fact of being Canadian.
Whether by disaster as demonstrated by the ice storm of 1998, or
by design as in the more formal declaration of national holidays,
I believe we must find ways to come together to celebrate our
very Canadianism.
[Translation]
Armed with a better knowledge of our history, we can promote
national unity.
[English]
We can define what it means to be Canadian. We can help
Canadians better understand their past. My private member's bill
is a further step in that direction.
Canadians will judge what we do as legislators in part by how we
treat and respect our past. It is worthy to note that this bill
which I put before parliament does not infringe upon provincial
legislative authority or the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Rather, it seeks to enhance that which is truly
Canadian, our common interests and sense of deep rooted history.
Joseph Schull in his work outlines the unique vision of Laurier,
an individual who viewed himself as a Canadian both in terms of
nationality and in terms of thinking.
If Sir John A. Macdonald is considered the Father of
Confederation, Sir Wilfrid Laurier can be considered the author
of Canadian independence. Such a title in and of itself is
worthy of recognition.
[Translation]
Laurier was probably the greatest political orator in our
history.
1645
[English]
Warren Bennis says that leadership is the capacity to translate
vision into reality. This applies to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. As
prime minister, Laurier was determined to create a nation that
embodied many elements. Laurier said of Canada:
Our country is Canada. Our fellow countrymen are not only those
in whose veins is the blood of France. They are all those
whatever their race, whatever their language whom the fortunes of
war, the chances of fate or their own choice brought among us.
If there is anything to which I have devoted my political life,
it is to try to promote unity, harmony and amity between the
diverse elements of this country.
Laurier said:
I am a Canadian. Canada has been the inspiration of my life. The
19th century was the century of the United States. I think we
can claim that it is Canada that shall fill the 20th century. I
cannot hope that I shall see much of the development which the
future has in store for my country.
But whenever my eyes shall close to the light it is my wish, nay
it is my hope, that they close upon a Canada united in all its
elements, united in every particular. Every element cherishing
the tradition of the past.
And all uniting in cherishing still more hope for the future.
These words of Laurier are as relevant today as when they were
first spoken.
I read in the Ottawa Citizen of May 3 that research
collected by a group of federal bureaucrats shows the Queen and
the Mounties were once central institutions. They have found
however that these institutions, and in addition the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation, no longer provide Canadians with a
common sense of identity.
It means, they say, that the federal government must strive in
the coming years to refine a unifying vision for the country or
risk its disintegration. In the words of the policy research
committee:
Canada will need a new sense of common purpose to preserve social
cohesion and to take the country, intact and thriving, into the
next century.
[Translation]
The purpose of this bill is to take into consideration the
comments I have just cited.
[English]
Proclaiming November 20 a day of official recognition of Sir
Wilfrid Laurier will in my view help Canadians focus on our roots
and help Canadians appreciate the contributions of a visionary
and leader such as Laurier.
We will be judged by how we treat our history. We will be
judged by whether or not we are prepared to honour political
leaders such as Laurier as nation builders, as representatives
who were prepared to lead when others only wanted to stay quiet.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-369 to
make November 20 Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day.
We note that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was born on November 20, 1841
in Saint-Lin, Canada East in Quebec. It was Laurier's parents
who first instilled in him the benefits of learning about both
the French and English cultures. They sent him to an English
school in New Glasgow before attending the French language
classical college at L'Assomption. He studied law at McGill and
delivered his first ever French valedictory speech at this
English speaking institution.
His political career began formally in 1871 when he became a
member of the Quebec Legislative Assembly.
Three years later he was elected to the House of Commons. He
became the minister of inland revenue in 1877 under Alexander
Mackenzie. The Liberals became the opposition in 1878 when Sir
John A. Macdonald returned to power.
1650
He led the French Canadian protest against Macdonald's decision
to allow the execution of Metis leader Louis Riel in 1885, and
while not condoning Riel's action he gained national recognition
in condemning the Macdonald government's mishandling of the
northwest rebellion.
I might say in parenthesis that I as a member of the Reform
Party, having done some research on the issue of Riel, would find
myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the position of Sir Wilfrid
Laurier on that issue.
These actions established Laurier as a man of principle, a
reputation which would stick with him throughout his political
career. He became leader of the Liberal Party in 1887 following
Edward Blake's resignation. He led the Liberals to victory in
1896 and remained Prime Minister until 1911.
Laurier's achievements as prime minister are often cited as
including the settlement of the west and the building of an
effective transportation system. During his 15 years as prime
minister more than one million people moved into Manitoba and the
western territories which became the provinces of Saskatchewan
and Alberta in 1905.
Laurier said:
I am a Liberal—I am one of those who think that everywhere
there are abuses to be reformed, new horizons to be opened up,
and new forces to be developed.
The idea of reform is fundamental to Laurier's liberalism. He
had a recognition that reform and compromise were necessary for
national unity. We as a party and the present day leader of
Reform Party have acknowledged and recognized that Sir Wilfrid
Laurier was one of the first reformers in Canada.
Laurier wanted to make changes and make changes in a very
positive way. He was not satisfied with the status quo. We
believe these fundamental principles still hold true today as we
continue to search for new ways to reform the federation and lead
Canadians into the 21st century in national harmony.
We would agree with the hon. member for Oak Ridges that our
national holidays help to educate Canadians of our history
through which we find a shared pride in all things Canadian.
I believe that we have a responsibility in this Chamber, and
perhaps people of my generation have a responsibility to those
Canadians going through the school system right now, to bring a
focus on our Canadian ancestors. Again I agree with the member
for Oak Ridges that we need to have a greater knowledge of our
history.
I also agree that in supporting the motion there is no need for
there to be a national holiday because of the unnecessary cost
that would be incurred by it. However, with the stature of Sir
Wilfrid Laurier, the contribution he brought to Canada and the
fundamental ways in which he reformed many of the aspects of
Canada, surely he should be noted.
As heritage critic for the official opposition I am pleased to
offer my support for Bill C-369. I hope in the event the bill is
passed that the Minister of Canadian Heritage finds a way to
include Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day, November 20, on her next
calendar. I note she happened to miss Easter and Good Friday, so
I am sure as she is making corrections on that calendar she would
want to make this correction as well.
Anything we can do in the Chamber or as Canadians to bring
forward the contributions and the strength of our Canadian
ancestors will do nothing but build a stronger nation. As we set
these people up, examine their lives and learn from them we can
move forward strongly into the 21st century.
I very heartily support the bill proposed by the member for Oak
Ridges.
1655
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Madam Speaker, on
March 11, the member for Oak Ridges introduced two private
member's bills. Bill C-369 aims to have November 20 designated a
national holiday in honour of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The aim of
Bill C-370 is to have January 11 designated a national holiday in
honour of Sir John A. Macdonald, the first Prime Minister of
Canada.
The bill before us today concerns Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the first
French Canadian to be elected Prime Minister. Laurier pursued a
number of ideals, but the one he considered the most fundamental
was that of a united and bicultural Canada.
I invite you today to give thought to his action.
Laurier was born into a family whose roots went back to the
beginning of New France. He was born four years after the
arrival of the troops in 1837 and at about the same time that
the government of the union, or Province of Canada, which,
according to the recommendations of Lord Durham in his report,
was imposed by the British on Canadians of the day, who are now
Quebeckers. The objectives of the 1841 government included
punishing Canadians for the popular insurrection led by
Louis-Joseph Papineau and assimilating them.
Laurier's father felt that both cultures were vital to Canada's
survival. He sent Wilfrid to study in New Glasgow, where he
lived with a Protestant family.
After completing his classical studies at the Collège
L'Assomption outside Montreal, he obtained his law degree from
McGill in 1864.
The plan to build a Canadian federation dominated the politics
of the day. Laurier campaigned actively against this plan with
the Rouges and took part in the work of the national committee
set up to examine the various plans for federation. The
committee's recommendations were overwhelming; in particular, it
concluded that the plan should be put to the people. During
this period, Laurier even wrote that confederation would spell
the death of the French race and the ruin of Lower Canada.
Despite vigorous opposition, Confederation became a reality and
Laurier was elected with the Rouges to Quebec's Legislative
Assembly. He was opposed to dual representation, as he felt
that it signified the takeover by Ottawa of provincial
jurisdiction.
Laurier defended provincial autonomy, and the preservation of
this autonomy would become for him the key to protecting the
French fact in Quebec.
He was elected to the federal government in 1874 with Alexander
Mackenzie's team. In 1878, he found himself in opposition,
where he would remain for 18 years.
In 1885, Laurier took the side of the Metis in Saskatchewan and
of Riel. It was in recalling the rebellion of the Patriotes
that he said that there were times when the only course open to
an oppressed people was insurrection.
In the House of Commons, he said that the real criminals were
sitting across from him on the government benches. It was
Laurier's view that minorities would have faith in their
government if they were treated honestly, and their needs were
met. He also held that patience and compromise were essential
if violence in this country was to be avoided.
In 1888, buoyed by the support he had garnered in Quebec for the
Liberals in the preceding election, in which, for the first
time, the Liberals won a majority of seats in Quebec, Laurier
became the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
In 1890, D'Alton McCarthy introduced a bill in the House of
Commons calling for the abolition of French in the Northwest
Territories. Laurier saw clearly that this was part of a
movement that would eventually reach Quebec.
In his speech to the House of Commons, he said that this bill
was a declaration of war against the French race and that the
plan was clear, because the bill was designed to prevent French
Canadians from speaking their language everywhere that it was
used. For him, the only way to protect Quebec was to defend
provincial autonomy, even though the price to be paid was
sometimes high in other regions of the country where
francophones were in the minority.
He approved an amendment making it possible to abolish the use
of French in the Northwest Territories.
In 1891, the Government of Manitoba introduced two bills: one
abolishing the French language as an official language, and the
other taking out of the hands of francophones the funding of
their separate, Catholic schools. In 1895, the Privy Council in
London, England, ruled that the federal government had the right
to intervene to restore the constitutional right of
francophones.
The Conservatives tabled a bill restoring the
rights of the minority in Manitoba, but Laurier feared that, in
reaction against the federal government's action, the other
provinces would follow Manitoba's lead.
He promised that, once back in office, he would find a solution
that would satisfy the minority and serve justice in terms of
equal rights, on which our Constitution is based.
1700
Sensing that an election was imminent and that public opinion
was on their side, the Liberals led by Laurier filibustered to
delay passage of the bill. A general election was called.
On June 23, 1896, Laurier became the Prime Minister of Canada
with the support of French Canadians in Quebec, who chose a
French-speaking Catholic over an English-speaking Protestant in
spite of the fact that Laurier had opposed the bill to restore
French schools in Manitoba.
Robert Rumily wrote:
At the risk of displeasing Ontario supporters, Conservative
leaders made an effort to be fair to Catholics and French
Canadians. The Province of Quebec voted instead for a leader with
a French Canadian name but English sympathies, who had hindered
this effort and was not promising à and would not offer—anything
for the future.
On November 19, 1896, to settle the Manitoba school issue, the
Laurier-Greenway agreement was signed. This agreement provided
that English and another language would be the languages of
instruction in bilingual schools, wherever ten or more students
spoke a language other than English.
This therefore put all other languages on the same level as
French. According to historian Réal Bélanger, Laurier was
laying the very idea of a bicultural Canada open to question
with this action.
The year 1905 brought the Saskatchewan separate school crisis,
and Laurier gave in once again, as he had for the Northwest
Territories and Manitoba. According to him, it would be up to
the provinces to decide whether or not to make separate schools
available.
In 1912, Laurier was in opposition when the crisis broke over
the adoption of Ontario regulation 17, which to all intents and
purposes abolished French language teaching in that province.
The people of Quebec followed the struggle of the
franco-Ontarians with emotion. French Canadian solidarity with
the francophones of Ontario even became the primary obstacle to
recruiting French Canadians for the first world war.
Laurier felt that he had given in enough to the anglophones. He
saw that aggression toward the minority was coming close to the
borders of Quebec.
The Soleil de Québec of the time voiced the following opinion:
When the malice and bad faith of the adversaries of French has
been proven, we in the province of Quebec will be forced to
conclude that it is no longer possible to co-exist with those who
betray us and cheat us.
This debate was to be followed with the one on conscription.
Laurier was against it, because he felt that, if it was Canada's
duty to sustain the British Empire, that contribution needed to
remain a voluntary one.
That position prompted the following comment from the London
Free Press:
The Hun is among us—Just look at the situation in Quebec. A
vote for one of Laurier's men is a vote for the Kaiser.
Laurier's political career was marked by many other important
milestones: the massive immigration influx to the west,
expanding trade, the country's economic growth, Canada's status
in the British Empire. He is credited with moving Canada from
colony to nationhood.
One of his greatest victories in Quebec was to have paved the
way for the separation of political and religious power.
But as regards national unity, here is what historian Réal
Bélanger wrote:
The most negative aspect unquestionably remains the compromises
made that sealed the fate of French-Canadian catholic minorities
outside Quebec—Here, the illustrious leader lost some of his
glory—The Anglo-Saxon character and mentality that prevails in
9 out of the 10 provinces is partly the result of concessions
made by this great man who, strangely, always claimed to be
receptive to the aspirations of the minority dispersed across
the country—The Arthabaska lawyer even inspired his
successors, all the way to Pierre-Elliott Trudeau. To preserve
Canadian unity according to the Anglo-Canadian way, these people
resorted to the “small steps” strategy—In the end, that
strategy often had a negative impact on the cause that these men
thought they were defending.
Today, the francophonie in Canada, outside Quebec, is eroding.
It only accounts for 3% of the country's population.
1705
I am not saying Wilfrid Laurier is responsible for this
situation. He was, as are today the francophones of this
government, the instrument of an English speaking Canadian
majority that did not want Canada to become a united and
bicultural country.
The Bloc Quebecois exists, among other reasons, because Sir
Wilfrid Laurier's dream was a dismal failure.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak today to Bill C-369, which would establish Sir
Wilfrid Laurier Day, November 20, as a national holiday to be
observed throughout Canada.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier was born in Saint-Lin, Quebec, in 1841. He
was the son of a farmer. He studied at McGill. In the 1896
election Laurier became our first francophone prime minister.
National unity was of supreme importance to Laurier. He saw how
divisive the Riel and the Manitoba school issues were and he
sought to reconcile the interests of French and English Canadians
with his policies.
In 1885 Laurier supported Louis Riel as a French national
martyr. He vigorously supported the cause of the Metis leader
and the need to unite the French and English in Canada.
It is interesting and important to me that in 1917 he opposed
the process of conscription. Instead he proposed a referendum
and a continuous voluntary enlistment.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier believed in human rights. He believed in
protecting people's democratic rights. As the hon. member
opposite said, he was a nation builder. He was an interesting
and valuable voice in our country, of that there is no doubt.
However, do we need a day to commemorate him? I think not. I
appreciate that the hon. member opposite finds Laurier an
instructive and inspiring leader and I respect that fact, but I
do not feel the need at this point in time to name a day after
him.
I agree with the member that Canadians should recognize their
roots. It is very important for us to draw strength from our
roots. We need to find inspiration and guidance from the people
who came before us, but each one of us looks to different people
for inspiration.
I have found inspiration in an early suffragette named Francis
Beynon. She was an early journalist in Winnipeg in the 1910s.
She worked for the Women Grain Growers. She worked for
many years spreading information and communicating with isolated
women on the prairies who lived on mile-wide farms and had no
contact with anyone.
She taught them a lot about their rights. She was very involved
in the struggle to get the first vote for women. When the first
world war came along she fought very hard to get the vote for
immigrant women. That was not an easy battle because,
unfortunately, there were a lot of women even in this country who
were unwilling to allow foreign women to vote during the war.
She took this important democratic stand. I respect her for
that. It was not a popular stand. She also fought against
conscription. I believe that she passed out of history because
she did not take a popular stand.
I respect and find inspiration in people like Francis Beynon. I
do not know whether I should suggest that we also have a Francis
Beynon day, but I want to make the point that the inspiration in
my life would not come from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it would come
from one of the early suffragettes who worked long and hard for
some of the rights which I now enjoy in the House of Commons.
Other people might find inspiration in other places. Another
inspirational person might be Agnes MacPhail. She was a
political reformer, born in Ontario in the 1880s. MacPhail was
the only woman elected to the Canadian Parliament in 1921. That
was the first federal election in which women had the vote. She
served until she was defeated in 1940.
1710
In 1943 she was one of the first two women to be elected to the
Ontario legislature. She lost her seat, but was again elected in
1948. She was also the first woman appointed to the Canadian
delegation of the League of Nations where she insisted on serving
on the disarmament committee.
Again, this was a very important woman in Canadian history. She
was a peacemaker and an inspiration to many women. Perhaps some
people would like to see an Agnes MacPhail day.
Very recently I had the privilege of being part of an unveiling
of a plaque for Portia White in Preston, Nova Scotia. She was a
very famous and inspirational black Canadian woman from my
community.
Portia White was the first African Canadian woman to win
international acclaim as an opera singer. She was a famous
musician in our country. She was born in a musical family and
taught choir in a church. She was a teacher and a community
person who is remembered by thousands of people now scattered all
over the country. She has become well known as an inspiration
for thousands of young black Nova Scotians.
I too believe we should be celebrating our roots and our
ancestors. We should be helping young Canadians to find
inspiration wherever they can. I think it may be more
appropriate, instead of having a day that represents one
inspiration, such as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to have an ancestor
day. We accept the fact that we all have ancestors who we gain
strength from and we should try to recognize them in a public
way. I believe that would go a long way in encouraging us to
gain strength from our roots and in helping us to understand our
roots better.
I do not agree that a Sir Wilfrid Laurier day is a wise option
at this point in time. I would instead suggest that we make it
an ancestor day.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-369, an act to amend the
Holidays Act (Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day), and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
I must admit that when I first saw this bill I thought it was
just another example of Liberal partisanship, but then I noticed
that the member had also introduced Bill C-370, an act to amend
the Holidays Act to designate January 11 as Sir John A. Macdonald
Day.
Yesterday the president of the Canadian Museum of Civilization
Corporation Board, Adrienne Clarkson, appearing before the
Canadian heritage committee, illustrated the need to do more to
encourage our youth to learn more about their country.
A recent survey revealed very disturbing findings on our
knowledge of history. An alarming percentage of young Canadians
between the ages of 18 and 34 who were surveyed could not say in
what century Confederation took place or who we fought against in
the first world war.
Twenty-four per cent of university graduates did not know that
our Constitution had been repatriated.
We need to do more to help educate our students and in fact all
Canadians about our rich history and heritage. This bill is a
step in that direction. I would like to thank the member
opposite for his continued interest in promoting the history of
this great country.
The PC Party wishes to see the great historical figures of our
country commemorated and their exploits celebrated. Let me be
clear in saying that our party would not have a problem with
amending the Holidays Act to include Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day to
be commemorated on November 20. We would support a day of
commemoration, just as my colleague from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough proposed a day of commemoration
for our fallen police and peace officers.
However, we do not support a paid holiday. A holiday with pay
does not guarantee greater awareness of key points in Canada's
history and costs an excessive amount to the country's employers.
1715
In preparing for this debate I came across a February 1997
edition of Maclean's magazine that reported the findings of
a survey of 25 well-known Canadian historians and scholars. They
were to rate our prime ministers. Sir Wilfrid Laurier came in
third might I add behind Sir John A. Macdonald.
Many referred to Laurier's legacy to Canadians as that of being
a splendid orator and a master of political compromise. It is
quite obvious when we look across this House today that those
Liberal shoes were too big to fill.
[Translation]
In closing, I am proud to note that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the
first French Canadian to become Prime Minister of Canada. The
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has no objection to
November 20 being designated Sir Wilfrid Laurier day and the
Minister of Canadian Heritage being given the task of
recognizing the contribution by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and other
great Canadians to the development of this country. However, it
does oppose this day's becoming a mandatory paid holiday.
[English]
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, many Liberals think of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as the real
founder of the Liberal Party.
When Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, was
in power the chief opposition to Macdonald came from two
recalcitrant reform groups: les Rouges of Lower Canada, a group
of French speaking radicals whose chief target was the Roman
Catholic church; and the Clear Grits, originally an assemblage of
discontented Presbyterian and Methodist farmers from the area
southwest of Toronto. While the Grits disappeared as an entity in
the 1870s the term clung to Liberals and was still widely used a
century later.
Laurier was an attractive man, an elegantly handsome lawyer from
a Quebec country town, eloquent, ambitious and sensitive. Early
in his political life as one of the young leaders of les Rouges
he had realized that if his confrères were ever to gain office
they would have to form an alliance with the English and at the
same time soften their anticlerical stance by identifying
themselves with a political program acceptable to the Roman
Catholic church.
Laurier proselytized that these goals could be reached through
stressing the liberalism of his party, demanding the separation
of republican and anticlerical dogmas. What he was saying to
both races was that les Rouges could take a moderate approach
compatible with the philosophy of William Lyon Mackenzie, the
first Liberal prime minister, and Edward Blake, the only federal
Liberal Party leader in Canada never to become prime minister.
He emphasized compromise and admiration for the liberal reform
ideals that were then articulated by William Gladstone in England
and that were to have a hold on the imaginations of Canadian
Liberals for decades to come.
[Translation]
Laurier served four terms as Prime Minister, from 1896 to 1911.
He taught us Liberals many of our greatest principles, including
the most important: the need to find and maintain common ground
between anglophones and francophones.
The Liberals realize that Laurier won the 1896 elections because
the Conservatives had lost sight of this fundamental principle
of the Canadian federation.
[English]
For Liberals the lessons of Laurier's leadership went far beyond
the French-English entente. He buried dogmatism, abandoning the
ideological rigidities that had plagued les Rouges and the Clear
Grits. He built his electoral strength on the organizational
backs of Liberal provincial premiers, Oliver Mowat of Ontario,
William Stevens Fielding of Nova Scotia and Andrew George Blair
of New Brunswick. He brought them into his cabinet as power
brokers for their regions.
1720
He launched the building of a second transcontinental railroad
and sought support from the business community, modifying his
party's commitment to free trade in order to appease the
country's new industrialists.
Laurier supported the aggressive open immigration policy of his
minister of the interior, Sir Clifford Sifton, whose purpose was
the settlement of the west. He talked optimistically about the
glorious future of Canada.
Laurier's successes were turned into principles that Liberals
have followed for decades. Despite some setbacks, Laurier on the
whole skilfully walked the French-English tightrope throughout
his years in office, balancing French Canada's racial fears and
[Translation]
Nearly a century ago, Sir Wilfrid Laurier predicted that “it is
Canada that shall fill the
20th century”. When we look back at it,
who could call him wrong? The challenge before us now is to
find a balance or a compromise among ourselves and among our
many interests to make the 21st century Canada's as well.
[English]
Sir Wilfrid Laurier believed immensely in his country. He held
strong views of what Canada could be or should be. More
important, he possessed vision for Canada and for Canadians.
For all of these reasons, it seems very appropriate to celebrate
the beginning of the 21st century by amending the Holidays Act to
honour this remarkable Canadian by designating Sir Wilfrid
Laurier Day.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak in
support of private members' Bill C-369, an act to amend the
Holidays Act, introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Oak
Ridges. The hon. member's bill would set aside November 20 in
recognition of the contributions made to Canada by Sir Wilfrid
Laurier.
Why would we commemorate Laurier? Many of us remember him from
our early learning of history. He has been described as the
golden tongued Laurier, the seventh prime minister, the first
French speaking Canadian to hold our highest political office, a
man of breadth and a man of vision, a hero even among those who
disagreed with him.
Laurier travelled a vast and varied political road. However,
whatever we have come to associate with his name, he was first
and foremost a true Canadian. He stood for those key issues
which remain close to the heart of all Canadians: tolerance,
national unity, and the continuing development and growth of
Canada.
In preparation for today's debate I requested a copy of
Laurier's maiden speech in this House from the library. Some may
be surprised to learn that it was delivered before the time of
Hansard. All that is available to commemorate his remarks
are the comments people made about them and the excerpts in the
paper. Times certainly have changed.
Although many issues of the day have changed beyond what Laurier
could have imagined, others closely mirror the challenges that he
faced during his tenure here.
Some of the challenges which he met, members of this House have
also met. He dealt with the question of denominational schools.
This parliament has addressed that very issue. Under his
government two new provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, were
added to Confederation. We are currently working on the creation
of Nunavut.
Laurier once said “I look forward to the day when Canada will
have a population of 30 million inhabitants, of 40 million
perhaps, and when its voice will weigh in the destinies of the
world”. Over 100 years later we are there.
Canada is admired around the world for its quality of life and
its international role in peacekeeping and peaceful actions, most
recently through the realization of our goal for an international
ban on anti-personnel land mines.
While we as a country continue to develop our strength within
our national borders and across international boundaries, as we
move into the next century and the next millennium, it is fitting
that we pay tribute to the last prime minister to lead Canada
into a new century, and to face and meet the challenges that lay
before our country.
1725
I am pleased to support the hon. member's bill. Here is to
Laurier. In the words of the Prime Minister leading us into the
next millennium, “here in this place that was home to Laurier,
let us find inspiration for an even brighter future for us all”.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in support of the hon. member for Oak Ridges
and his bill. It is an excellent bill and one which is worthy of
support by the House.
Canada is one of the world's oldest democracies. It was
conceived in 1841 by LaFontaine and Baldwin in the context of
some competing visions. Canada is a great idea and sustains
itself as a great idea by virtue of its visionaries. It was
conceived at the time when the competing visions were very strong
indeed.
There was a competing vision of being closer to the British
Empire which my ancestors frankly supported. People from British
ancestry, British stock said that we needed a relationship that
was closer to the British Empire.
On the other hand there was the emergent empire of the United
States. It was quite a force in terms of its ability to attract
people to populate the country and clearly was a force to be
reckoned with and one of great attraction to many Canadians.
Then there was a third vision which was centred in Quebec. It
wanted its relationship to be much closer to the mother country
on a colonial tie basis.
In this maelstrom of visions emerged the vision of LaFontaine
and Baldwin which led to the creation of Canada. Canada, being
Upper Canada and Lower Canada, attracted in turn other provinces
primarily from the Atlantic region and emerged from that in 1867
as a nation.
What has kept Canada together over these great number of years
has been the visions of its leaders, particularly with Macdonald
who brought the country together by virtue of a railway. The
railway made absolutely no sense from an economic standpoint. It
should have gone down through the United States and come back up
into Canada. The point of the railway was not to make an
economic livelihood for people but was to unite the country.
Similarly Laurier had visions such as that, visions which made
for a country, nation building visions. One of the strongest
ones was with respect to immigration to the west, the population
of the west. It was an idea which allowed Canada to bring to its
territory huge numbers of immigrants to populate the west,
largely in response to the encroachments of people from the
United States.
Around 1917 and 1918 over 400,000 people came to this country of
six million at the time, something in the order of 7% or 8% of
the population. It is an incredible thought when we think of it
in the context of our own immigration policy which strives to do
1% of the population.
Similarly, Laurier resisted the encroachments of the British
Empire, the attraction of being part of the trading agreement. He
stuck out his political neck, shall we say, and tried to make
distance between Canada and the British Empire.
I support the hon. member's bill. One of Laurier's speeches
says “Although Caesar once said that he would rather be first in
a village than second in Rome, I say that it is my ambition to be
a citizen of a great country. I look forward to the day when
Canada will have a population of 30 million to 40 million
perhaps, and when its voice will weigh in the destinies of the
world”.
That day has arrived. Therefore I support the recognition of
that day.
1730
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is only time
for the reply of the member who put forward the bill.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Speaker, may I split my time
with the member for Brossard—La Prairie?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): If the hon. member
has unanimous consent of the House I do not see any problem. Is
that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to take part in the debate on Sir Wilfrid
Laurier's contribution to our history.
I had hoped to do so in a non political fashion, as a Canadian
recognizing the contribution of an eminent Canadian to our
history.
However, before beginning, I must make a quick correction. In
her speech, a few minutes ago, the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis
said that the Canadians of the time were today's Quebeckers,
when she referred to a well researched document which I respect,
even though I do not share the views of its author. This is not
quite accurate because, at the time, the term Canadians referred
to all francophones in America, in Canada, and did not just
include those we now call Quebeckers.
Some 12 or 15 months ago, I attended a meeting with history
teachers and I asked them point blank who, in their opinion, had
been the best Prime Minister in the history of Canada. The
answer to such a question requires one to think for a moment.
However, two of the teachers spontaneously said it was probably
Wilfrid Laurier. I asked them why. The first answer that came
from one of the teachers was Laurier's sense of compromise.
It goes without saying that no political career can be perfect.
Politicians face unavoidable obstacles. Their decisions may be
arguable, but it is the spirit of compromise shown by Laurier,
and by others, but particularly by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that led
to the building of a country which, while it may not be perfect,
is nevertheless the envy of many.
Canada was built on compromise, on honourable compromise that
was respectful of the other party.
This is not just a philosophy or a concept: it is also reflected
by concrete measures, such a equalization.
There are many writers, musicians, artists and authors who did
not get the recognition they deserved in their day. The same is
true for—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member, but I must leave the remaining two and a half
minutes to the member for Oak Ridges.
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
thank the members who spoke to my bill today. It does not ask
for a statutory holiday but a day of recognition.
My colleagues spoke of other very notable people who could be
recognized. The major difference is that Laurier was a prime
minister and certainly the father of Canadian independence.
It is said that those who do not learn from history are doomed
to repeat it. If one does not understand the past one has no
concept of the present and is unable to contemplate the future.
By recognizing and promoting Laurier Day, November 20, is to give
Canadians a sense of who they are.
As my colleague has just said, the spirit of the country was
built on compromise. The spirit of the country was built by
Canadians working together, the settling of the west, because of
Laurier and because of men of vision.
1735
It is important that we as Canadians in the House look to that
inspiration. By proclaiming November 20 we are able to point to
this day and tell our young people how important Laurier was as a
nation builder. Then, as we go into the next century, we will
have a good understanding of what it means to be Canadian, the
glue that brings us together as a people. That is extremely
important.
I thank my colleagues for the debate and seek the pleasure of
the Chair to make the bill votable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent of the House to make the bill votable?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault):
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired. This item is dropped from the Order
Paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
SENIORS BENEFITS
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, on March
17, I asked the Minister of Finance why he continued to
discourage people from saving for retirement.
I explained to the House that a number of financial experts were
discouraging middle class Canadians over 50 from investing in
RRSPs. With the new seniors benefit, the money they save today
will not make up for the tax they will have to pay later.
This is only one of the weaknesses in the seniors benefit the
Minister of Finance announced over two years ago.
Many have been critical of it. Here are some of their concerns.
With current marginal tax rates, the recovery of 20% of income
over $26,000 means that middle income seniors would have a
marginal income tax rate of 60% to 70%.
Middle income Canadians will no longer have anything to gain by
saving for their old age. Seniors choosing to remain in the
labour market will discover they are keeping only 30% of their
salary.
When the income of a couple entitles them to the benefit, the
husband and the wife will each receive a cheque, but the wife's
entitlement to a pension will depend on the husband's income.
A study commissioned by the Canadian Real Estate Association
also revealed that seniors who live alone and who have an income
exceeding $31,000 will see their financial situation
deteriorate, as well as couples with a total income of $26,000.
When there is an increase from the present situation, that
increase will not exceed $120 a year in most cases. However,
middle income seniors could lose from $3,000 to $7,000 a year
compared to what they are getting under the present system.
Even middle income seniors who choose to stay with the old
system will pay more taxes since the age credit and the pension
benefit credit will be abolished when the new seniors benefit is
implemented.
Indeed, with the implementation of the seniors benefit, the
Liberals propose to abolish the old age pension, the pension
benefit credit, the age credit and the guaranteed income
supplement.
They are still refusing to provide a thorough analysis of the
impact of these measures on tomorrow's retirees.
Instead of encouraging individual responsibility, the proposed
benefit will discourage everybody from saving for their
retirement, except for the wealthiest people. It will also
prompt a lot of seniors to get out of the labour force since
they would keep only 30% of their salary.
The Progressive Conservative Party intends to force the
government to fully disclose to Canadians the financial impact
of the proposed seniors benefit. Canadians of all ages must
understand the consequences of this new benefit.
We must prevent the government from destroying the foundations
of our national retirement income system.
1740
I encourage all Canadians to write to their respective MPs to
express their opposition to the new seniors benefit proposed by
the finance minister and to tell the minister to get his hands
out of their pockets.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise in response
to my colleague's intervention regarding the seniors benefit and
the Canadian pension system at large.
The government has actually stabilized the nation's pension
system in terms of the Canada pension plan. As well we are
moving forward in terms of the seniors benefit and providing
security and access to income for seniors. This is very
responsible.
While the hon. member continued to discuss issues of partisan
politics, I point out that the government actually stabilized the
system after years of neglect under a previous administration by
another prime minister.
The government is committed to developing the best policy for
the public pension system and the whole retirement income system
in Canada. That is why we took time last fall to consult
extensively with seniors groups, social groups and pension
industry experts on the proposed seniors benefit.
Meetings were held from coast to coast. We listened carefully
to the issues that were raised and to the concerns that were
expressed. We took time to consult with Canadians because it is
important that the government be fully aware of the concerns and
views of seniors. The pension industry and other interested
parties also have points of view that we took into consideration.
We have done that and now we are reviewing the proposal based on
what we heard from Canadians. That is the reason an announcement
has been delayed on the seniors benefit issue. We are making
every effort to ensure that the concerns of Canadians are
reflected in our proposed policy for the retirement income
system.
Members on these benches are listening intently to different
ideas and to different positions on the pension system and the
seniors benefit. I mention, for example, the member for
Hillsborough who has done an admirable job working directly with
the Minister of Finance on the issue as recently as today.
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Madam Speaker, I
wanted to put a few more words on record with regard to the
hepatitis C package.
We know the federal, provincial and territorial health ministers
are to meet next week to re-examine the package. We know the
package is flawed. The government is very arbitrarily leaving
innocent victims in an strict and totally artificial timeframe
from 1986 to 1990 outside the package. I believe we have to
compensate all victims.
The point I want to make this evening is simply in response to
what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health said today. I
am a bit concerned because I do not think they have learned
anything from the debate that has taken place and the displeasure
expressed by Canadians from coast to coast to coast for the
package as it presently exists.
They are basically saying that they will not change anything. If
one listens to today's language of the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Health, that is exactly what they are saying. Why are
they to meet with the health ministers if they are to stick to
the original package? What is to be accomplished by that type of
stance?
The Prime Minister today tried to twist the words of the premier
of the province of Ontario and his recognition of the problem.
What I have in my hand is the letter that was sent to the Prime
Minister yesterday by the Premier of Ontario.
I want to quote from the second paragraph of the letter. The
Premier of Ontario, Premier Harris, states “Ontario is committed
to sharing assistance for pre-1986 victims on the same basis as
the existing package for those infected between 1986 and 1990”.
How much plainer can you be than that? The Prime Minister today
stood in the House and tried to twist the words of the premier,
but those words are on paper.
1745
What I am saying is that I think he has taken the most
reasonable approach that we could possibly take. He is
committing dollars to innocent victims left outside the package.
The Prime Minister is denying that. He stood in the House today
and denied it. There is something wrong when the Prime Minister
of Canada cannot accept responsibility for innocent victims and a
botched plan on behalf of his health minister.
They are being sacrificed by the finance minister. The only
person taking great pleasure in this package is the finance
minister. He sits over there with a big cheshire cat grin on his
face every time we debate this. Unfortunately it is politics
being played out on the front benches of the Liberal government.
The responsibility for Canada's blood supply system falls
totally and completely at the doorstep of the federal health
minister. The federal government is responsible. What I am
asking it to do is to act unilaterally because, unfortunately,
not all of the provinces are rich. Not all of the provinces can
afford to give more to that package.
As I conclude I want to put this on the record. Is the health
minister willing to swallow himself whole to make this package
work?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in response to the
hon. member's comments regarding the hepatitis C package and his
interpretation of the federal-provincial process involved in
these particularly difficult negotiations, I simply would like to
point out that if there has been any twisting of words it has
been by the hon. member.
What this House understands and what the people of Canada
understand extremely well and very thoroughly is that it was the
Government of Canada and this health minister that provided an
opportunity for health ministers and premiers from across the
country to come to the conclusion that where there was fault
there should be compensation.
Let me make this very clear. While the hon. member from the
Conservative Party holds up a letter from the Conservative
premier of Ontario stating that now he has seen the light and is
prepared to initiate an action, I would like the hon. member to
stand and say specifically where the hon. premier was in the last
12 months.
While no other premier, no other health minister in this country
was willing to stand to support a compensation package to bring
the parties to the table, this health minister was. This health
minister, despite the objections of some, brought the parties
together and came up with a deal.
That deal was signed and put in place by premiers and by health
ministers from across the country, representing not just
Liberals, not just Conservatives, but New Democrats,
separatists—members from all parties and all walks of life.
Now we have a change of heart. We have members who are now
suggesting they have seen the light and they want to twist the
words of their colleague, the premier of Ontario. We have
nothing to learn from Mr. Harris or from the hon. members
opposite.
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, on April 2 in this
House, I put a question to the Prime Minister about the
implementation of a real shipbuilding policy. It was the hon.
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry who answered
my question and I guess he will be the one answering again
today.
I then reminded the House that the Liberal candidates in the
Quebec City area, including the Prime Minister's current chief
of staff, had promised to hold a summit on the future of
shipbuilding in Canada in the year following the election and
coming into office of a Liberal government.
Here we are in 1998, five years later, and no summit has been
held.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, I have
suggested several times this year that the committee address the
issue of a shipbuilding policy. I have written to the Prime
Minister and asked questions in this House.
1750
The last time he appeared before the Standing Committee on
Industry, the minister finally told me he might have done
something in terms of subsidies but, since he has no intention
of doing anything, he steered me off in a different direction.
The parliamentary secretary seemed to indicate in his response
that all was well in the shipbuilding industry. Yet, the
Canadian shipbuilding association, which represents Canada's
leading shipyards, has been asking the government for a year to
implement a number of measures.
First, an improved export financing and loan guarantee program
similar to the Title XI program in the United States.
Second, the exemption of new ships built in Canadian shipyards
from Revenue Canada's current leasing regulations.
Third, a
refundable tax credit for Canadian shipbuilders and ship owners
who enter into contracts to build ships or conversion contracts
involving a change in roles, mid-life refit or major refit.
Fourth, the elimination of the unilateral aspects of NAFTA which
allow the Americans to sell new or used ships to Canada while
denying Canadians any access to the American market.
These are but four measures. Others could also be taken. For
example, in its 1997 budget, the Quebec government introduced
tax credits for any type of shipbuilding and, 12 months later,
extended these credits to drilling rigs.
For the Lévis shipyard in particular, this is a very important
niche in the market.
I conclude with the hope that the parliamentary secretary will
be able to provide me with more information. What are the
Liberal government's plans? Does it plan to follow up on its
1993 promise to hold a summit? Or, failing that, could the
Standing Committee on Industry or the Standing Committee on
Finance study the matter, as Liberal delegates requested at the
last Liberal Party convention here in Ottawa less than two
months ago? They too asked the government to do this, following
similar requests by the premiers at their meeting in St.
Andrew's last fall.
I ask the parliamentary secretary: When the government will
honour its promises?
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon.
member for Lévis has given me the opportunity to speak on the
subject of federal shipbuilding policy. I appreciate some of his
concerns.
Let me first say that most Canadian shipyards are generally in
good shape, providing repair and refit services and some new
construction to the commercial marine market and government
fleets.
However, Canada is only one of many players in shipbuilding
internationally. We must recognize that fact and ensure that our
industry is geared to realistic market opportunities. That is
why between 1986 and 1993 the federal government spent nearly
$200 million on an industry-led rationalization process. The
industry itself decided it was necessary to reduce its capacity
so that the remaining shipyards could survive and remain
competitive.
I must also stress that this government already has a
shipbuilding policy. It consists of support to the industry in
the form of the following measures and the Minister of Industry
has repeated them over and over in this House: domestic
procurement by the federal government for all its ship
construction and repair requirements where it is feasible to do
so; a 25% tariff on most non-NAFTA foreign built ships; an
accelerated capital cost allowance of 33.3% on new ships built in
Canada, which many other sectors have requested; financing
through the Export Development Corporation for commercially
viable transactions; and a favourable R and D tax credit system
that encourages shipbuilders to keep pace with new technology.
I work with various shipbuilding and repair companies. I
encourage them to become more and more competitive, but subsidies
are not an answer.
In summary, this government is now and always has been
supportive of the shipbuilding industry and we will continue to
encourage its development.
1755
REFORESTATION
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, since 1995
Elijah Smith reforestation funds have been collected and
deposited in the consolidated revenue fund but they have not been
available for reforestation in Yukon. The federal government has
recognized that the process is not transparent or workable. The
President of the Treasury Board says that it is necessary to
amend the Territorial Lands Act to establish a separate account
in the Accounts of Canada for reforestation in Yukon. It is
unfortunate that it has taken so long to initiate this process.
At the same time Canada is in the process of devolving
provincial like powers to Yukon. Considering that the federal
government proposes that the Yukon government assume
responsibility for the administration and control of lands,
forest, water and mineral resources, I call on the government to
modernize the Yukon Act so it is consistent with the powers
currently exercised by the Yukon government and the powers to be
conferred on the new territory of Nunavut.
The department of Indian affairs currently manages the inventory
of Yukon forests. Rather than amending the Territorial Lands Act
to open a separate account for reforestation, the federal
government will better serve the people of Yukon by modernizing
the Yukon Act so it is consistent with the devolution objectives
and gives the provincial powers needed for Yukon to manage its
own forestry.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, on April 23 the hon.
member asked a question about the Elijah Smith reforestation
fund, in particular about the disbursement of the funds once
deposited.
Since 1995 Yukon timber harvesters have been contributing to the
cost of reforestation in Yukon. I assure the hon. member that
reforestation activities have occurred. In 1995, 100,000
seedlings were planted. This number increased to 480,000 in 1996
and 800,000 in 1997. Other reforestation activities have also
occurred such as the collection of pine and spruce cones and the
purchase of site preparation equipment.
When the 1995 regulations were implemented the disbursement
mechanism was put in place. Under the mechanism revenues from
Yukon reforestation fees are deposited in the CRF. INAK is
authorized to draw into its budget an amount equivalent to the
value of the revenues deposited.
However we recognize that the current process of collecting and
disbursing funds to reforestation could be more transparent to
the residents of Yukon, particularly to timber harvesters.
To this end Treasury Board people have been working with INAK to
establish a more transparent process. To do so legislation must
be created, and this is consistent with the requirements of the
Financial Administration Act.
INAK is currently working on a proposal to amend the Territorial
Lands Act which would include a provision to establish a separate
account in the Accounts of Canada. This would enable the
collection and distribution of funds for reforestation to be
tracked publicly. We hope to put this in place as quickly as
possible with the co-operation of parliament.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.)