36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 166
CONTENTS
Friday, December 4, 1998
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-25. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1010
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1015
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1020
1025
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-57. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1030
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1045
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DALIAN, CHINA
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1100
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROBERT SIMPSON
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FARMERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FARMERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1105
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE PRIME MINISTER
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1110
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUYSBOROUGH COUNTY
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1115
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1120
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1125
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARLIAMENT HILL
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1130
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOCKEY
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MONTREAL CONVENTION CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1135
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE BREAKING POLICY
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1140
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WATER CONTAMINATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1145
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFRASTRUCTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
1150
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Ianno |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE BREAKING
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AVIATION SAFETY
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GM PLANT IN BOISBRIAND
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1155
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LOBSTER FISHERY
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRISONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1200
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tabling of Documents
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1205
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT WATERS AND NUNAVUT SURFACE RIGHTS TRIBUNAL ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-62. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1210
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Immigration
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Divorce Act
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Family
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Osteoporosis
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1215
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pornography
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-57. Report Stage
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1220
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
1235
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAILWAY SAFETY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-58. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault) |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1
|
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1300
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1305
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1310
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1335
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1340
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1355
1400
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1405
1410
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1415
1420
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1425
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
1430
![V](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 166
![](/web/20061116180946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, December 4, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.) moved the second reading of, and concurrence in,
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-25, an act to amend the
National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am going to keep this very brief. Bill
C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, has returned to the House
with an amendment from the other place.
Bill C-25 was first introduced in the House a year ago today.
On behalf of the government and the men and women of the
Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces, I would
like to commend the Senators for their thorough review of the
issues in Bill C-25.
The bill is a key element in the program of comprehensive change
for both the department and the forces and is much anticipated by
the men and women in those organizations.
The Senate has proposed one change to clause 96 of Bill C-25.
Clause 96 provides for a review of the provisions and operation
of the bill within five years, and the tabling of a report of the
review before each House of Parliament.
The amendment made by the Senate changes the requirement for a
report of the review of the bill to be made within five years to
a requirement for an independent review and report to be tabled
before both Houses every five years.
The government is prepared to support the amendment.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
find it an opportune time to rise to address Bill C-25 and the
amendment proposed by the Senate.
As hon. members know, this is the first time the National
Defence Act has been amended since 1950.
It is an opportunity for the government to put forward important
changes which would allow the Department of National Defence to
shore up its solid foundation as one of Canada's most important
institutions. The Canadian forces, after all, when all is said
and done, are charged with protecting Canada's sovereignty and,
by extension, Canadians' freedom. Unfortunately, the government
is about to squander yet another opportunity to do good by the
Department of National Defence.
Bill C-25 is largely a housekeeping bill. It does nothing to
address the systemic problems in the military justice system. It
does nothing to address the larger concerns of the Somalia
inquiry. There will be no inspector general. There will be
little independent oversight of the operations of the Canadian
forces.
The Canadian forces have been subjected to decades of neglect at
the hands of this Liberal government and former Liberal
governments. Chronic underfunding, equipment shortages,
excessive bureaucratization, political correctness and a decaying
military justice system have all played a role in undermining
this proud institution.
I will not go into detail on these matters today, but I would
like to urge the members of the House or anyone listening to this
debate to read the official opposition's minority report in
response to the SCONDVA report on the quality of life in the
military. Our position on these matters is outlined there.
The official opposition is opposed to Bill C-25 because it does
not deal with any substantive problems that the Canadian forces
face.
Bill C-25 is an unfortunate waste of opportunity to set an
agenda for renewal for the Canadian forces. The amendment sent
from the other place is fine. The trouble is that the bill as a
whole is flawed.
1010
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the bill was
introduced, the Bloc Quebecois opposed it for a number of
reasons.
The main reason was that the bill did not seem to improve the
situation sufficiently to ensure the rights of the military
would be protected before the courts, especially as regards
summary proceedings before military tribunals and court
martials. For example, a member of the armed forces had only 24
hours to decide between a summary proceeding or a court martial.
He could only consult a lawyer. He could not have one present
at his trial.
These things remain in the bill and are unchanged by the
amendment. Human rights in the military are, in our opinion,
largely ignored.
There was another example this week. I read in the paper that a
serviceman was taken to military court for refusing an anthrax
vaccination. It that is what it means to respect human rights,
we do not agree.
We can understand that more expeditious summary proceedings
would be more commonly used in wartime. We are not in wartime,
however, and the military deserves better treatment when their
rights are at issue. This is particularly true in summary
proceedings, when a serviceman is judged by a commanding
officer, who is necessarily in a conflict of interest situation,
because he has to judge one of his subordinates.
He must discipline him, he must often pass judgment on his own
decision concerning a soldier. The situation may be one in
which he himself was involved.
The amendment does not resolve these situations. All that
today's amendment, which the government is prepared to pass,
accomplishes is to increase the number of reports tabled in the
House. There will be more reports, which is admittedly already
an improvement.
There is talk of an independent report, but what that means is
not defined. Who will produce this independent report? By whom
would the authors be appointed? By the department or by the
government? Here again, it might be produced by the government
and not really be independent.
Will there be any soldiers on the committee responsible for
producing the report?
We have no guarantee that the term independent will mean that
there will be greater respect for the rights of the military
when there occurs a contentious situation.
Unfortunately, therefore, we are unable to support the
amendment. It does not correct the flaws we pointed out when
the bill was introduced. The Bloc Quebecois will therefore be
voting against this amendment.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say a few words about the Senate amendment to
Bill C-25. Our party supports the amendment, which is a very
minor amendment to the bill. However, even though we support the
amendment, I want to say a few words about the Senate itself.
In principle I object to a bill originating in the Senate or to
the Senate amending a bill because people in the other place are
not elected. The time has come for parliamentary reform in terms
of doing something about the Senate. The Minister of National
Defence is nodding his head and I agree with him.
An hon. member: No, he is smiling.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I heard him nodding his head from
this distance. I heard the rattle.
As we are about to enter a new millennium we should have a more
mature parliamentary system. The Senate has been with us for a
long time. It was created many years ago as a very elitist
institution to keep an eye on the commoners, the people in the
House of Commons. It comes from the House of Lords in the
British parliamentary system.
The latest Angus Reid poll shows that 11% of Canadians support
the existing Senate. That is a very small number. One reason
people are cynical about the political process is because of the
parliamentarians in this House. As well, there are not many
people who support the Liberals in the west.
I know that the government House leader is a big fan of the
Senate. He wants to be appointed to the Senate someday, the
happy hunting ground for retiring politicians. This House has to
take some leadership along with provincial legislatures and do
something about getting rid of the other place. Of course there
is a debate in the country as to whether it should be abolished
altogether or whether it should be reformed, elected or whatever.
1015
Over the last decade I have been involved in this issue for some
time in terms of constitutional change. We have seen a growing
movement in the country of the number of people who actually want
to abolish the Senate. About 10 years ago it about 20% to 21%.
In the last polls I have seen it is about 41%, and about 43% want
to reform the Senate, elect it or change it in some way. There
is no consensus in how it should be changed.
The Liberal member from Sarnia and I have started a national
petition working together in a non-partisan way to try to
mobilize the idea of straight abolition of the other place. I
think the time has come for that. It is undemocratic, it is
unelected, it is unaccountable, it costs almost $50 million a
year and yet we sit here and tolerate the other place as an
institution.
A lot of ministers, and I do not want to quote names, said
publicly in the past or privately that the Senate has to go. The
time has come to show some leadership as we enter the last year
of this century in terms of a motion on that. I wanted to make
that point. Often over the years when we debated a bill that
originated in the Senate or was amended by the Senate had
comments about the Senate itself, going back to the days of
Stanley Knowles and even before that. These comments are very
relevant today. The government leader nods and I hope we will
have some leadership in terms of democracy for the new millennium
across the way, a millennium project for democracy and get rid of
the Senate. If the government House leader wants to put the
motion right now I will certainly second it.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to speak to this amendment.
My party is in favour of the amendment. However, my party
remains opposed to the bill. The bill addresses military justice
and my party agrees with re-examining the issue that is long
overdue. Like everything this government does, no matter how
noble it appears to be, all we have to do is scratch the surface
and we will find there are always ulterior motives. Those
motives are generally to look good rather than to be good. Again
today is one of those days.
Addressing the issue of justice in the military is both
important and urgent. My party understands that if we are to do
something at all it is worth doing right. Unfortunately while
there are some interesting points in the bill it leaves far too
much out and it does not address the real problems Canadian
forces face today.
What events brought us to this point? I think all members are
aware of the events that transpired as a result of other events
in Somalia. However, they are worth repeating. The Somalia
inquiry was shut down for political and personal reasons early
last year. That is what brings us here today.
Inquiry commissions are created because there is a public
concern that needs to be addressed. As elected officials to the
House it is incumbent on all of us to take such matters very
seriously. It seems to me that if there a good enough reason to
begin an inquiry commission then there is probably a good reason
to complete an inquiry commission.
Canada's fine military is dragged through the mud and still
there is no resolution. The government did not learn from these
actions. Last week the public complaints commission looking into
RCMP behaviour at APEC was shut down because there is a question
of whether it was biased. The government should appoint an
independent judicial inquiry that will get to the truth on that
matter.
The government does not want the truth. It is not interested in
the truth. Why? Because the truth hurts. We are not here
because the government all of a sudden cares about justice in the
military but because the government knows it made a mistake and
now it wants to hide that mistake as well as possible. It is not
because the government all of a sudden cares about military
justice. The government shut down the Somalia public inquiry and
the armed forces were left with no resolution. The government
not only hurt the people involved directly in the Somalia case
when it shut down the inquiry, it hurt the entire Canadian
forces.
1020
There is much in the bill that my party agrees with. The
problem, however, is that when one tries to cover something up
rather than address the real issue, as this government so often
does, the result is often very inadequate.
Similarly, because the government introduced the bill for the
wrong reasons, it does not go far enough in addressing the real
problems.
The government missed an excellent opportunity to instil new
confidence in the military. The government could have taken
measures that would truly make a difference, measures that the
Canadian public could point to and say the government listened,
and they now have faith in the way the military operates, but the
government did not listen. Instead it shut down an inquiry and
stifled debate.
Now the Canadian public feels cheated, and justly so. The
government feels proud when it says it is fulfilling 80% of the
recommendations of the Somalia inquiry. I want to make two
points on this not so great accomplishment.
First, the Somalia commission was cut short and so we do not
know what the full recommendations would have been. Second,
while the government thinks 80% is something to brag about, my
party's answer is that quality is much more important than
quantity.
The Somalia inquiry commissioner recommended that the judge
advocate general be a civilian. The government ignored that
recommendation. The Somalia inquiry commissioner recommended
that an office of the inspector general be created. The
government ignored that recommendation.
My party proposed in our election platform last year and we
maintain today that creating the office of the inspector general
would be the best way to make the military accountable and
increase transparency to give the public more confidence in its
armed forces.
We proposed in our platform establishing an inspector general
for the armed forces to act as an ombudsman to address concerns
that cannot be dealt with in the routine chain of command.
In the government's response to the Somalia inquiry, a document
that for one reason or another which my party has not yet figured out
is called “A commitment to Change”, the government turns down
the proposed inspector general.
Why is this minister convinced that the Department of National
Defence does not need an independent inspector general when
experts who have studied for months and made recommendations to
this department tell him he does need an inspector general?
The Minister of National Defence said the Canadian forces do not
need someone looking over their shoulder. He went on to say that
the role of the inspector general is being fulfilled in other
ways. He mentions the grievance board made up of eminent
Canadians. He mentions the new ombudsman.
If the minister really thinks the role of the inspector general
is being fulfilled in other ways, why does he react so violently
when my party recommends such an office?
It seems to me that if this grievance board and the ombudsman
truly did the same thing as the inspector general, the minister
would not be so quick to shut down the idea of inspector general
by saying such a thing as the military does need someone looking
over its shoulder.
Could it be that the grievance board and the ombudsman do not do
what an inspector general could do? The way the bill would have
it, these bodies have absolutely no teeth. They can make
recommendations and the CDS can ignore them.
The Canadian public has little reason not to believe the
recommendations will be ignored. The Canadian public is looking
for a Canadian forces justice system that is fair and
transparent. The Canadian public needs such a thing if it is to
continue supporting the Canadian forces.
Unfortunately the government squandered the opportunity when it
refused to listen to the advice of its own commissioners and
ignored their recommendation for an inspector general.
The government does not listen. It does not hear. It does not
want an office with teeth, with real authority. The government
ignored the Somalia commissioner's recommendation and what my
party cannot accept is the way the government picks and chooses
what recommendations to follow.
My party wholeheartedly agrees with the need to change the
military justice system. The bill needs to go further to create
real change. We want people to know their military serves them
and not itself. The bill fails to do that and the government has
failed to do its job.
1025
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday,
December 7 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, given that votes are
already scheduled for 5 o'clock on Monday, I think you might find
consent to have this vote deferred to the same time on Monday.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. I have
the honour to inform the House that a message has been received
from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed
a bill, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
* * *
[English]
NUNAVUT ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-57, an act to
amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of
Justice and to amend other acts in consequence, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to introduce the debate on the motion for third
reading of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with
respect to the Nunavut court of justice and to amend other acts
in consequence.
The bill represents the fulfilment of a commitment made by the
federal government to the people of Nunavut to bring forward
legislation in a timely fashion to establish a single level trial
court in Nunavut.
The establishment of a trial court which is specifically
designed to meet the needs of the people of the north is part of
the larger dream of the Inuit of the eastern Arctic to shape
their own future. I am very proud today to be part of a process
that will help the people of Nunavut realize that dream. We are
all part of a new process making history today.
The witnesses who appeared before the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights praised the consultative
process through which Bill C-57 was developed.
1030
As Ms. Rebecca Williams, the assistant deputy minister designate
for Nunavut so eloquently said:
The process we used to develop the Nunavut Court of Justice was
revolutionary in our history because it involved Inuit. Inuit
were able to express what kinds of systems they needed to handle
conflicts and to work for peace and safe communities in the
future. The process itself has given me hope about the future of
our public government in Nunavut. I learned from this process
ways of bringing our time of silence to an end.
Similar sentiments were expressed by Ms. Nora Sanders, the
deputy minister designate for Nunavut, who praised the open,
respectful and meaningful way in which federal officials
conducted the consultation process in respect of Bill C-57. They
should be commended.
The development of Bill C-57 also signals the commencement of a
new phase in the partnership between the federal government and
the people of Nunavut. It is a concrete acknowledgement that
reform of the criminal justice system in Nunavut now and in the
future must be responsive to the needs and wishes of the people
of Nunavut.
[Translation]
I am very pleased to announce that, when the Minister of Justice
appeared before the standing committee last week, the Reform
Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservative Party
indicated to her that they supported Bill C-57.
I call upon all members of this House to support this bill, and
thus help the people of Nunavut to realize their dream of
establishing a single-level trial court before April 1, 1999.
Since Bill C-57 was studied so thoroughly by the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I have no
intention of discussing the content of the bill in detail. I
would, however, like to go over its salient points, which bring
out certain unique aspects of the Nunavut Court of Justice.
One of the important characteristics of the Court of Justice is
that, unlike judges in other jurisdictions, the judges of this
court will be authorized to hear all cases. An amendment to the
Nunavut Act authorizes a judge in the Nunavut Court of Justice
to exercise and perform all powers, duties and functions which
any law in force in Nunavut confers upon a representative of the
judiciary.
The amendments made to a specific part of the Criminal Code
provide that a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice has and may
exercise and perform all the powers, duties and functions of any
court or agent of the judicial authority prescribed in the
Criminal Code.
Consequently, a single judge of the Nunavut court of justice
will be able to do in a remote locality what cannot be done
anywhere else in Canada, that is to hear all matters on the
docket of a given circuit court, from the most mundane to the
most serious cases, in both adult and youth courts.
Territorial legislation will also enable judges to hear all
cases, whether family or civil. I have no doubt that this
characteristic of the new court will expedite trials and ensure
speedier access to justice.
Another important point is that the bill confers on the Nunavut
court of justice the jurisdiction of a superior court. Because
of the demands associated with the administration of justice in
Northern Canada, judges of the Nunavut court of justice will, of
necessity, perform most of the functions and duties normally
performed by other agents of the judicial authority. However,
these judges will perform these duties in their capacity as
superior court judges and will have all the powers vested in
superior court judges.
Since the judges will reside in Nunavut and be in frequent
contact with the various communities in Nunavut, I have no doubt
that the people of Nunavut will notice an improvement in terms
of access to justice. They will also be able to explain their
problems to judges who are familiar with their culture, their
values and their needs.
I am pleased to say that the proposed amendments to the Criminal
Code to establish a single level trial court will not curtail in
any way the rights of the parties before the court.
1035
This respect for equity is reflected, for example, both in the
appeal provisions and in the new statutory form of review
designed to ensure the review of certain key decisions made
under the criminal justice process.
Bill C-57 preserves the full ambit and scope of appeal rights
relating to summary convictions made under all legal proceedings
instituted in Nunavut. The appeal of summary convictions made by
the Nunavut court of justice will be heard by a single judge of
the court of appeal. At the second level, the appeal will be
heard by three judges from the court of appeal.
As for the changes made to the legislation, those hon. members
who take a close interest in the more technical aspects of a
single-level court system will note that, unlike provincial and
territorial court rulings, the decisions of the Nunavut court of
justice cannot be reviewed through prerogative writs, since the
Nunavut court of justice will be a superior court.
[English]
To compensate for this, the provisions of this bill will create
a new statutory form of review for certain important decisions in
the criminal justice process. As is the case with summary
conviction appeals, the review will be conducted by a single
judge of the court of appeal and an appeal will lie from the
review decision to a three person panel of the court of appeal.
In describing these features of the statutory review scheme in
some detail, I want to emphasize that one of the important
purposes of the scheme is to ensure that the people of Nunavut
are not treated as second class citizens when it comes to the
rights accorded to them by their court system.
It is because of these features that the government can say in
the summary printed on the first page of Bill C-57 that the bill:
—creates a single-level trial court system for the territory of
Nunavut in order to provide an efficient and accessible court
structure capable of responding to the unique needs of Nunavut
while, at the same time, maintaining substantive and procedural
rights equivalent to those enjoyed elsewhere in Canada.
A final theme in Bill C-57 concerns the changes to the Judges
Act necessary to accommodate the operation of a single level
trial court in Nunavut at the superior court level.
The amendments to the Judges Act provide for the appointment of
three superior court judges to the Nunavut court of justice. As I
indicated earlier, all of them will be resident in the territory
itself.
The Minister of Justice is committed to finding candidates who
are qualified, experienced and committed to the north to be
appointed to the Nunavut bench. The hon. minister is on record
with a commitment to consult the people of the north to ensure
that appointments reflect and respond to the unique demands,
culture and conditions in Nunavut.
The establishment of a single level trial court in Nunavut
represents the starting point in developing a justice system
which meets the needs of the people it serves.
The Department of Justice is committed to working closely with
the interim commissioner of Nunavut, Nunavut organizations and
the new Nunavut government when it is established to help further
adapt the justice system to the needs of the Nunavut people.
For example, one very important issue relates to the training of
justices of the peace to ensure that they will have the ability
to complement the work of the Nunavut court of justice by
resolving less serious matters at the community level. While the
training of justices of the peace is a territorial
responsibility, the Department of Justice will do everything it
can to assist the new territory in this important task.
Another aspect of the administration of justice which will
continue to be an important aspect of justice delivery in the
north is the use of both community justice committees and youth
justice committees. Continued funding for both committees will
be the responsibility of the new territory.
Youth justice committees are extensively used on Baffin Island
and deal with youth in a pre-charge context. Youth justice
committees are also recognized as alternative measures programs
pursuant to the Young Offenders Act. Both the youth justice
committees and the community justice committees have been and
will continue to be an important part of the broader justice
system in Nunavut.
1040
The creation of a single level trial court brings with it high
hopes for a court structure which is more responsive to the needs
of the people of Nunavut, the people it stands to serve.
The new system proposed in Bill C-57 is unprecedented. There
will be a need therefore to monitor and evaluate the system in
the years ahead to ensure that it achieves the objective of
providing an efficient, effective and accessible justice system
in the north. The Department of Justice is working with the
interim commissioner's office to design a monitoring and
evaluating system to identify problems and possible changes to
the court system which might be needed.
The creation of Nunavut in a mere four months from now is a
momentous event in Canadian history. It signals a realization of
a 25 year old dream of the Inuit of the eastern Arctic. It
signals the creation of the first single level trial court for
criminal, civil and family matters in Canada. It signals a new
chapter in partnership between the Inuit and the federal
government. As one witness indicated to the standing committee
last week, it signals the dawn of a new age of hope for the
Nunavut people.
The evidence given before the standing committee last week by
Miss Leena Evic-Twerdin, policy adviser for Nunavut Tunngavik
Incorporated is noteworthy in this regard. I quote:
Today we are beginning the process of reclaiming our identity and
our ways. It is the opportunity that is unfolding in front of us
that is allowing us to begin the process. Nunavut is that
opportunity and everything that falls under the establishment of
Nunavut is a chance for a positive impact on the future of the
Inuit. The successful passage of Bill C-57 will mean a better
opportunity for Nunavut and its people. That is why we are here
to encourage you to support the bill.
I thank all the members of the committee and of this House on
behalf of the minister for their attention today. I ask for
their support in the speedy passage of Bill C-57 so that we may
make history together.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill
C-57.
This legislation comes down to the creation of the Nunavut court
of justice, a single level of court to handle all trials in this
new territory. Instead of two levels of court as we have in the
rest of the country, Nunavut will have this single court. This
is required because of the small population of approximately
26,000 spread over such a vast territory with only about 25
settlements. This only makes sense.
Three superior court judges are to be appointed. These
individuals will be tasked with all matters. While it is
unfortunate to have these highly expensive and qualified judges
being assigned the responsibility over all types of cases
regardless of importance, there appears to be little alternative.
It does not make sense to transport a federal level judge and a
territorial level judge to each community when one judge could
come in a deal with all cases available for adjudication. We all
understand that most of these communities are isolated and
remote. Judges are not available except from centralized and
more populated areas.
The bill amends a number of other pieces of Canadian law but
these are mere consequential changes. A number of our acts use
procedures or terminology which must be altered to recognize the
new territory of Nunavut, the Nunavut court of justice and the
single level of court.
My Reform colleagues and I have expressed our very serious
concerns over the methods used to select our superior court
judges. We have expressed our opposition to the recent pay
increases granted to judges in Bill C-37 at a time when Canadian
families are under intense financial pressures. We also
expressed concerns surrounding the creation of this new territory
and its untold costs. However, those issues are not relevant to
this debate.
Nunavut is a reality. As I have said, this legislation is
highly practical for that reality. All citizens of Canada are
entitled to an efficient court system.
If the Nunavut court of justice model proves successful, and I
am sure we all hope that it does, perhaps we will see it
replicated in other remote, sparsely populated parts of this vast
country we call Canada. That would be up to the provincial or
territorial governments concerned.
There has been some opposition expressed to this legislation as
it is currently worded, most notably by the Dene of northern
Manitoba whose traditional territories extend into Nunavut.
It is my hope that fair and just minded peopled, both north and
south of 60, will work together toward a solution agreeable to
all.
1045
The Reform Party will be supporting the legislation. It makes
the most practical sense both for Canadians and for the people of
this new territory to be known as Nunavut.
I extend to the people of our newest territory our best wishes
and look at the legislation as a step toward further
self-determination. We wish them all the best toward seeing
their dream realized.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as an
associate member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
and Northern Development for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to
speak again today on C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with
respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other Acts
in consequence.
My position and impressions with respect to Bill C-57 are really
no different than the comments made at second reading. We were
favourable then, and we are favourable now. Ever since this
bill was introduced in the House, we have wanted to see it
passed as promptly as possible.
The purpose of Bill C-57 is to amend the Criminal Code so that it
reflects the realities of the new territory of Nunavut and to
make it possible to establish an operational government before
April 1, 1999, the territory's official launch date. It is
therefore very important for this bill to be passed so that the
people of Nunavut may be prepared and equipped with all the
necessary tools to be equal to the challenge of this new
government.
Bill C-57 is part of the process that began in 1992 with the
territorial land agreement setting out the legal and political
framework of the new territory of Nunavut. Approved in 1993, the
creation of Nunavut is supported by Bill C-39, which we debated
in the House last year and which provides for the holding of a
legislative election, while facilitating the transition and
legitimizing the process. Bill C-57 is part of this ongoing
process.
It is the last building block, as it were, in the political and
legal structure that will allow the inhabitants of this
territory to at last be ready for April 1999.
We are on the threshold of 1999. It is high time to give the
inhabitants of Nunavut all the political, and more particularly
in the case before us today, all the legislative instruments
they will need. This will enable them to have a court that
meets their needs and that is closer to them. The creation of a
trial court, as provided in Bill C-57, is vital to full
government autonomy.
Since Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949—I said
“Confederation” but I should have said “federation”, because we
know that the successive federal governments, without any
consultation, threw out Confederation and replaced it with a
federation.
Since 1949, Canada's borders have not been changed. This
indicates clearly just what a historic moment the creation of
Nunavut represents and also explains the importance of its
creation to the people living there. The Northwest Territories
will therefore be divided into two separate entities.
1050
Nunavut covers some two million square kilometres and is north
of the 60th parallel. It is divided into three regions and
includes 28 communities. Eighty per cent of the population is
Inuit. “Nunavut” is a lovely word from their language meaning
“our land”.
Needless to say, life in the Canadian far north is very
different from life as we know it in our big cities. The size
of the territory alone explains the need to pass legislation
more suited to these northern communities' needs and realities.
I firmly believe Bill C-57 meets that need.
With the establishment of a single level trial court and the
broader powers accorded it, the judges will be more versatile
and better able to meet the specific needs of the people of
Nunavut.
I would like to repeat that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill
C-57, which enables thousands of native people to move closer to
solid, viable and more relevant self-government.
Bill C-39 passed in the House last year permits the Inuit in
Nunavut to administer their land through a legislative assembly
elected by universal suffrage. We supported the bill at the
time. It gave form to more than 25 years of negotiations and
enabled the Inuit, a great people within Canada, to take their
place on the continent by controlling their own destiny.
Bill C-39 provides for a transition period and for the powers of
the federal and territorial governments to be devolved to the
Nunavut territorial government. This legislation also amends the
Constitution Act, 1867, so that the people of this territory
will be represented in the House of Commons and the Senate.
It ensures that representatives of the Inuit of Nunavut will be
able to serve their constituents in an operational legislature
as soon as their territory is officially created.
While Bill C-39 dealt with many issues, some of them must still
be addressed to ensure the proper functioning of the new
territory at the political and legislative levels. Indeed, much
work remains to be done between now and April 1, 1999. That is
why it is essential that Bill C-57 be passed as soon as possible
to complete the establishment of the territory's legal and
administrative components.
In order to be ready by April 1999, Nunavut must have at its
disposal all the necessary legislative instruments now. This is
what Bill C-57 is all about, and we support it. The transfer of
certain territorial and federal jurisdictions to Nunavut is not
a simple matter, but it is nonetheless vital and meets the needs
of the far north.
This bill establishes a single level trial court system for the
territory of Nunavut. This tribunal, to be known as the Nunavut
court of justice, is established to provide an efficient and
accessible court structure capable of meeting the unique needs
of Nunavut, while at the same time maintaining rights equivalent
to those enjoyed elsewhere in Canada.
In concrete terms, this means that the new Nunavut territory
will now have its own court of justice. This court of justice
will replace the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories as
the superior court, and the territorial court as the lower
court. Bill C-57 makes further amendments to the Nunavut Act,
passed in 1993, when the Progressive Conservative Party was in
power.
The bill also amends the Judges Act to provide for three
superior court judges on the Nunavut court of justice
1055
The senior judge of each of the three territories must be a
member of the Canadian Judicial Council. Indeed, given the
expanded jurisdiction of that tribunal, it is important to make
sure that the judges will be competent to hear cases from the
lower and superior courts, with the exception of those cases
that come under the jurisdiction of specialized and
administrative tribunals.
The bill also amends the Criminal Code to provide for new
procedures for the court of justice and it includes a whole
range of legal considerations. The creation of this court of
justice will ensure a flexible and efficient legal process for
the whole territory of Nunavut.
By making the court competent to hear any case, whether it
involves a minor wrongdoing or a serious criminal offence, we
give the people of the territory access to a service that is
more consistent with its reality.
From now on, when a judge travels to some small community in
Nunavut, he will have broader powers. It must be understood that
the multiplicity of jurisdictions, in other words a multifaceted
court system, useful in high density urban centres, is not
necessarily useful in the proper administration of justice in a
territory such as Nunavut. This is why legislation must be
passed on this issue and to permit the necessary changes to be
made to the various laws that, up to now, have granted various
jurisdictions authority to hear various cases.
Bill C-57 provides the changes needed for the establishment and
operation of this court of justice, and it also meets the wishes
of the promoters of self-government.
I add that we support the bill and that we will continue to
support the principle of actions that, like Bill C-57, enable
peoples to find the tools they need to reach their full
potential.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
for Manicouagan wishes, he will have approximately 30 minutes
after question period when debate resumes.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
DALIAN, CHINA
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
month while travelling in China with the Canada-China Business
Association we had the opportunity to visit Dalian in northeast
China.
It was a memorable trip. Dalian is truly one of the most
beautiful and most dynamic cities in China. It has one of the
largest ports in China, comparable to our own port of Vancouver
with which it is twined. It has a modern, efficient industrial
infrastructure.
This dynamic city is led by an equally dynamic mayor, Mayor Bo
Xalai. His obvious love of his city and the people who live
there and their admiration for him were marvellous to behold.
Home to a major international fashion festival and an extremely
competitive soccer team, Dalian is a city I am sure we will all
hear more of in the future.
On behalf of the members of the Canada-China Legislative
Association I thank Mayor Bo for his hospitality and wish him and
his city the very best in the new year.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
someone much wiser than I once said “where there is no vision,
the people perish”. That is exactly what we have happening in
the country today. There is no visionary leadership coming from
the government, especially in the huge matter of health care, and
people are literally perishing.
As long as there are 188,000 sick and dying people on waiting
lists, as long as wards are being closed, as long as 1,400 plus
doctors are moving to the States and as long as nurses are being
laid off, people will continue to suffer.
There have been $7 billion in cuts to the provinces. The
Liberals cannot blame the provinces. They cannot blame any other
party. They must accept the blame. They gutted health care to
preserve their precious spending spree.
Now the government tells us that it has a $10 billion budget
surplus. Next year is not the time to put this money back into
health care. Canadians need that money now. They have been
waiting for five years. In that time how many people have
perished because of inadequate health care?
* * *
1100
ROBERT SIMPSON
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Robert Simpson, a resident of Thunder Bay, founder and
past president of the Thunder Bay Salmon Association was an
honorary recipient of the Recreational Fisheries Award presented
by His Excellency Romeo LeBlanc, Governor General of Canada.
For years Mr. Simpson led the battle to enhance our fisheries
resources. His efforts were not for his own gain, but for the
benefit of Canadians and our recreational fisheries. He has done
his part to give us a richer resource and has acted as a model of
public spirit in northwestern Ontario.
It is really gratifying to see that the fine work of anglers,
outfitters, guides and other people who care about recreational
fishing are being recognized.
We should all know that recreational fishing is an important
contributor to our country's economy, culture and heritage. No
one knows this better than Bob Simpson.
* * *
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
our opportunity as residents of Nunavut to manage our own affairs
will come in about 117 days with the establishment of Canada's
third territory, Nunavut, on April 1, 1999. To do this we need
to have trained personnel.
Part of the challenge in creating a civil servant employment
base representative of the population has been met by the
innovative Sivuluiqtit Nunavut Management Development Program
created by Nunavut Arctic College and the Canadian Centre for
Management Development.
This partnership designed a very effective program that allows
participants to continue working in their home communities with
periods of intense formal training in Ottawa and other centres to
expose them to best practices management theories and Inuit
traditional ways.
A unique element of this program is the utilization of mentors
and elders, giving Sivuluiqtit a dimension unlike any other
training program. The success rate alone is testament to the
effectiveness of this holistic approach to training.
* * *
TOBACCO
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
cigarette smoking is a scourge in our society, especially and
regrettably for youth.
Over 40,000 Canadians die each year from tobacco related
diseases. Eighty-five per cent of smokers in Canada make the
decision to smoke before the age of 18. What 12 year old thinks
about lung cancer or heart disease as they light up their first
cigarette? The answer is, a child who has been educated about
the dire consequences of tobacco use.
This government has heard, has listened and is acting. The
tobacco control initiative allocated $50 million for research
program development, public education and enforcement of
legislation; legislation restricting access by young people to
tobacco products, restricting promotion of tobacco products and
empowering the imposition of health warnings on package.
Bill C-42 will impose a complete ban on tobacco sponsorship by
2003. We are committed to spending $100 million to reduce
tobacco use, $50 million of which will be targeted to young
Canadians. We are committed to win this tobacco war. Young
Canadians, indeed Canadians of all ages, will be much better for
it.
* * *
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
crisis in agriculture has reached new heights. North Dakota
Senator Byron Dorgan has called on the Clinton administration to
begin formal trade actions against Canada because of the
deceptive trade practices of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Our farmers are reeling under the effects of this avoidable
agricultural crisis. They are facing bankruptcy because of low
commodity prices. They can hardly afford to feed their families,
let alone their livestock. Worst of all, they have been
blindsided by this government which stands idly by while they are
being bullied by foreign politicians.
The day after tomorrow borders from Minnesota to Washington
State will be blockaded. American producers are rallying public
opinion, demanding an end to the predatory tactics of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
The Minister for International Trade and the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food have done nothing to guarantee Canadian
producers that their products will continue to flow freely across
the border.
How much more abuse are our farmers going to have to take before
this government steps in and demands an equal playing field?
* * *
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this year has been a very difficult one for Canada's farmers. A
crisis is unfolding in Canada's agriculture industry.
This industry, which is Canada's third largest employer, is
suffering great losses and is facing financial ruin. Farmers in
my constituency of Waterloo—Wellington have approached me about
their great concern for this problem. Hog and grain producers
across our country are facing horrible circumstances in relation
to commodity prices. Financial forecasters are expecting
conditions to get even worse.
1105
These circumstances are beyond their control since many of the
problems have their roots in Asia and elsewhere in the world.
Family farms are a very important resource in Canada. They are
the cornerstones of our country and when they experience
difficulty all Canadians are affected.
The national farm income crisis is a sad realty and one that
needs to be dealt with and the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food is doing so. I wholeheartedly support the efforts of
the government and the Minister of Agriculture and thank him on
behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington for his help on
this very important issue.
* * *
[Translation]
PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
appears that being in power gives one the right to choose.
Yesterday, the Liberals made a choice.
They see an urgency to use the budget surplus to create new tax
credits worth hundreds of millions of dollars to satisfy the
bottomless appetites of the sport millionaires. The Bloc
Quebecois totally disagrees with this and we beg the Minister of
Finance not to give in to his irresponsible colleagues.
After the $42 billion in cuts to federal transfers to the
provinces, millions of Quebeckers and Canadians believe money
must be reinvested in health. Employment insurance must be
improved, for it has become poverty insurance for the
unemployed, and surplus insurance for the government. Taxes on
the middle class must be reduced.
The public will never agree to this government's giving in to
these spoiled kids who want millions just to push a puck around.
When I was with the New York Rangers, we played mainly for the
honour—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Winnipeg North—St. Paul.
* * *
[English]
THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to share the sentiments of Canadians and give
many congratulations to the Prime Minister.
Last night our Prime Minister received the Beth Shalom Synagogue
Humanitarian of the Year Award. It is richly deserved by a man
whose vision of Canada is one nation wanting the very best for
her citizens, a nation with a soul for humanity for all.
In accepting the award the Prime Minister said: “Canada is a
nation where there is no higher calling than helping people build
better lives for themselves and their families. It is a country
that is worth protecting and fighting for”.
With his characteristic humility he continued: “This award is
more about Canada than anything I have accomplished in my
career”.
These are truly the words of a man whose habit of the heart and
habit of mind throughout his entire political life have remained
focused on ensuring one Canada for all. I, along with my
colleagues in this House, salute our Prime Minister.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
comments recently made in private by the Liberal caucus and the
Prime Minister clearly indicate that the federal government has
no intention of co-operating in good faith with the provinces to
create winning conditions for the social union.
The Prime Minister puts his love of power before the needs of
the country. Ten premiers and all the opposition members of this
House support a strengthening of the social union. We want to
improve health care, education and the other social programs in
Canada.
Canadians have had enough of the status quo. On Monday,
Quebeckers sent a clear message to the Prime Minister.
It is time to show leadership.
It is time to set partisan politics aside. It is time to create
the winning conditions for a new Canada.
* * *
[English]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 1989 the reality of the issue of
violence against women was forcefully brought home to Canadians
and to the world community when 14 young women were gunned down
at École Polytechnique in Montreal.
As a result, Canadians from coast to coast to coast faced that
tragedy, first with profound shock and horror and then with
determination and the conviction that violence against women must
end.
Today, to honour the memory of those 14 young women, I urge all
of my colleagues in the House and Canadians across this great
country to pause and reflect on December 6, the national day of
remembrance and action on violence against women.
We must all collectively work together to effect real change and
to ensure that no woman must live or die in the shadow of
violence.
* * *
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak of hope. Fifty years ago a group of men and
women from diverse cultures, traditions and faiths came together
to offer humanity an extraordinary vision of how the world could
be.
1110
They adopted the Universal Declaration of Human rights which,
half a century later, continues to address directly what is
necessary for a life of dignity for every human being.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a proclamation of
the most fundamental rights to which a human being is entitled,
written in large part by a Canadian. It was to represent a
common standard of achievement for all people and all nations.
It is a message of hope, equality, liberation and empowerment.
It is a message to all who are committed to freedom, justice and
peace in the world.
On behalf of my party and for all of our children, I encourage
Canadians to reflect upon these values and celebrate human rights
day on December 10.
* * *
[Translation]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on December
6, 1989, 14 young women were killed in Montreal. As we know,
violence is a worldwide problem. Everywhere, women and young
girls are victims of psychological and physical violence,
including rape, assault, mutilation, sex slavery, dowry crime
and infanticide.
We have a collective responsibility to ensure safety, equality
and justice for women and their children. I join the
Urgence-Femmes organization in marking the national day of action
to fight violence against women, on Sunday, December 6.
To show that we will not tolerate such crimes, the Urgence-Femmes
team is asking all of us to light a candle and put it in our
window, on Sunday.
I invite all Canadians and Quebeckers to say no to violence
against women through this symbolic gesture.
* * *
[English]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians commemorate December 6 as the national day of
remembrance and action on violence against women. 1998 marks
nearly a full decade since the tragic deaths of 14 promising
young women at École Polytechnique in Montreal.
Let us remember them by name: Geneviève Bergeron, 21; Hélène
Colgan, 23; Nathalie Croteau, 23; Barbara Daigneault, 22;
Anne-Marie Edward, 21; Maud Haviernick, 29; Barbara Marie
Klueznik, 31; Maryse Leclair, 23; Annie St. Arneault, 23; Michele
Richard, 21; Maryse Langanière, 25; Anne-Marie Lemay, 22; Sonia
Pelletier, 28; and Annie Turcotte, 21. These are the beloved
daughters, sisters and friends who are deeply missed to this day.
Canada is that much more poorer because of the remarkable
promise lost in these young lives. By remembering them and
acknowledging our collective loss, may we be inspired to create a
peaceful society, a society where gender based violence must
never again cut short the lives of women.
* * *
GUYSBOROUGH COUNTY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, once again the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is
making decisions that are costing jobs in Guysborough County,
Nova Scotia.
In July I joined with the town of Canso, the Canso Trawlermen's
Co-op and the local chapter of the Canadian Auto Workers in
supporting Seafreez's request to the minister that the Canso
plant continue to be allowed to process turbot caught by foreign
offshore vessels.
Had the minister acted promptly, 300 jobs would have been
created during the first six months of 1999. Moreover, Canso
trawlermen would have had the opportunity to work on offshore
vessels.
Instead, DFO waited five months before finally granting the
request from Seafreez. Instead of 300 jobs for six months, the
people of Canso and surrounding communities will be lucky to get
150 jobs for six weeks.
Meanwhile, there will be no offshore jobs for the trawlermen
because of DFO's unacceptable foot-dragging.
On behalf of Guysborough County, I urge the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans to be more prompt in his decisions and start
to work with our local people in bringing prosperity and hope to
the local fishery workers and their families.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is
good news this morning. November 1998 marked the fifth
consecutive month of economic growth in Canada.
In November 103,000 new jobs were created, the unemployment rate
fell to 8% and 60.3% of Canadians were employed. This marks the
first time since 1991 that the employment rate has been above
60%.
So far in 1998, 425,000 new jobs have been created, more than
were created in any full year in the 1990s. The vast majority of
these jobs were in the private sector or in self-employment.
The government's well balanced approach to getting the fiscal
house in order, creating the environment to grow the economy,
while at the same time providing help to those who are struggling
is paying off with a brighter future for all Canadians.
* * *
THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this week marks the one year anniversary of the signing of the
Kyoto protocol regarding Canada's commitment to reduce greenhouse
gases by 25% by the year 2010.
1115
This is one of the most important economic issues facing Canada,
yet the government still has no economic analysis of what that
reduction will mean to Canadians. Independent studies show that
the cost will be staggering and that Canada will be more
adversely affected than almost any other developed country.
Last month negotiations in Buenos Aires failed to resolve
critical issues such as mechanism for the implementation or
signing on of developed countries.
The reality is we signed on to a bad deal for Canada. The
environment minister agreed to reductions without knowing what
they meant in economic terms and there is little hope that the
reductions agreed to will be met.
Once again the government has given Canada a black eye on the
international stage.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on January 1 the Liberal government and the finance
minister will take yet another step toward the biggest tax hike
in the history of Canada.
With the CPP premiums going up more than twice as much as the
measly EI premium refund or decrease, when we do the math it
works out to another net tax hike for Canadians, yet another
pound of flesh cut out of Canadian family budgets.
The parliamentary secretary told the truth when he said he would
take the blame for the Liberal assault on health care.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Deputy Prime
Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should have stood up and praised the
government for the fact that our policies have brought about the
lowest unemployment rate in almost 10 years.
He is missing the fact that this means money in the pockets of
millions of Canadians who are working rather than being
unemployed if conditions had remained the same as they were
before we took office.
The hon. member talks about tax hikes. He is wrong. He should
remember the tax cuts in the budget of February 1998. Millions
of dollars of tax cuts—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, if they want to talk about tax cuts, they should
talk to Ralph Klein and Mike Harris. Over 60% of all the jobs
created in Canada over the last two years were created by Klein
and Harris.
If the government does not get the message that tax hikes kill
jobs, why does it not simply follow the lead of Mike Harris and
Ralph Klein and what they did in those provinces?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we know about creating jobs. One and a half million
jobs have been created in Canada since this government took
office.
If jobs increased in Alberta, certainly the praise for that has
to come to the federal government as much as any other level of
government. Furthermore, contrary to what the Reform Party says,
those provinces are still integral parts of the government and
the country of Canada. We deserve praise as much as—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the figures do not lie. Let us do it slowly. Tax
cuts in Alberta, increase in employment. Tax cuts in Ontario,
increase in jobs. Those are the facts. The C.D. Howe Institute
says the CPP increase of 73% will cost $13 billion in GDP and
200,000 jobs by 2003.
How on earth can the government's high tax policies contribute
to the Canadian economy? How can they create jobs? They can
only lose jobs for Canadian workers.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my impression that the adjustments in Canada
pension plan premiums were agreed to by the very premiers, Klein
and Harris, he is citing. Is that not correct?
If that is the case, he should go back to Klein and Harris if he
disagrees with them but I know that would hurt his strange
efforts to unite the right. It is a strange way to do, attacking
Klein and Harris for a program they agreed to.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for this
government to say it has increased employment is like me saying I
lost 25 pounds at Christmas and not telling anybody that I gained
30. This is ridiculous.
The fact is that after January 1 every employer and every
employee will be sending more money to Ottawa. Money sent to
Ottawa means money not at home to create jobs.
Why will the government not admit this and start dealing
honestly with people?
1120
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member wants honesty he should talk
honestly about his weight. He is certainly not a heavyweight
when it comes to asking his question.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is
supposed to be the highest court in the land. In any other court
if the minister answered a question like that he would be in
contempt of court. I want an answer to this question, not
flippant responses. I want to know when the government will
start reducing the total payroll tax load on employers and
employees so we can get people working again.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there was just an announcement of a substantial decrease
in employment insurance premiums. That is a tax cut by their
standards. In the last budget we announced cuts for lower and
middle income Canadians worth billions of dollars. That is a
fact. It is also a fact that the Reform Party voted against
these tax cuts. So much for sincerity.
* * *
[Translation]
PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we
know, the report on sports was released yesterday. It contains
many recommendations for the provision of financial assistance
to professional sports. According to our calculations, if the
government acted on all these recommendations, sports tycoons
would be reaping more than $600 million in hidden subsidies over
the next two years.
Will the minister who, yesterday, considered this report to be
an excellent report admit today that the measures in support of
professional sports proposed by the committee really do not make
any sense?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as usual the hon. member does not know what she is
talking about. She should have known, having sat on this
committee, that 68 of the 69 recommendations pertained to
amateur sport. Now, with the help of all parties who take an
interest in amateur sport, we will be addressing these
recommendations.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
once the minister should be more on the ball. If she had read
the recommendations, she would have realized that all 69
recommendations, not 68, deal with amateur sport. Once again,
her incompetence is showing.
The message this report is sending to sports tycoons is “Wait,
do not leave just now; the Canadian taxpayers are prepared to
stuff your pockets before you move to the United States”, is it
not?
That is the real message.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have students from the Terre-des-Jeunes school of
Bonaventure with us today. If we take them as an example, a 10%
increase in the level of physical activity of Canadians—
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Answer the question.
Hon. Sheila Copps: —would translate into a $5 billion saving in
the health system.
So, why does the hon. member not want to invest in Canada's
youth? What does she have against the 200,000 Canadian soccer
players? Why does she not want—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
already helping professional sports teams. Corporate boxes and
tickets are 50% deductible. Sports facilities can be written
off, and so forth. Sports millionaires receive special
treatment and then turn around and squeeze hundreds of millions
more out of the public, and people are already fed up.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage really think that
increasing the tax write-off to 100% for corporate boxes,
lowering the taxes sports millionaires pay to American levels,
and writing off professional sports facilities in one year,
which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax
revenues, will fly with Canadian taxpayers?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there were 69 recommendations in the report.
Sixty-eight of those recommendations spoke to the importance of
amateur sport and fitness for young Canadians. All Canadians know
how important health is, particularly for young people.
I would like to underscore the findings of the committee that if
all Canadians were active, annual savings to health care for
heart disease alone would be $776 million.
1125
I want to invest in young Canadians. I want to invest in amateur
sport and I want to keep Canadians happy, healthy—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that
really takes the cake. We are talking about sports
millionaires, not amateur sport. Once again, she is lying.
For three years now, the government has been telling us it has
nothing to offer unemployed workers, nothing to offer those who
are ill, nothing to offer hepatitis C victims, nothing in the
way of pay equity, nothing for the poor and the middle class.
It has nothing for—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order. It has been
confirmed that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot accused
the minister of heritage of lying. I would ask the hon. member
for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to withdraw that statement forthwith.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.
But this is a government we have been after for months to help
the poor and the unemployed—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Minister of
Canadian Heritage.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know it hurts to lose the majority in an election.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Sheila Copps: But what matters is that we are doing—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Sheila Copps: —an in-depth analysis of the amateur sport
recommendations. Give us the time to examine the report in its
entirety and we will—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order. After
question period we will deal with the question of the request to
withdraw the statement. We will go now to the hon. member for
Halifax.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
the world celebrates the 50th anniversary of the UN declaration
of human rights.
On this day the federal government, despite its bragging, has
been caught by the United Nations and roundly condemned for
abusing the basic human rights of our poorest and most vulnerable
citizens. The government has consistently ignored the pleas of
Canadians. Will it now listen to the UN and reverse the policies
that are creating so much hardship for so many Canadians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as far as I am aware, the UN report has not been
formally presented to Canada. We have not had a chance therefore
to review the text, but I think we have made serious and
important efforts to combat child poverty. We have introduced
the national child tax benefit, $1.7 billion a year for families
with poor children. We have increased deductions for child care.
We have provided a family income supplement for some 350,000 low
income parents on employment insurance. We have introduced tax
relief for low and middle income Canadians, taking—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Halifax.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government should be humiliated by the two very different Canadas
that exist today for our citizens. But what does it do instead?
It continues to boast. I am humiliated and so are most Canadians.
When will the government clean up its act and respect its
international obligations? When will the government respect the
rights of all Canadians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are respecting our international obligations but even
more important, we are respecting our obligation to Canadians
through the kinds of programs I have just outlined. I am sure we
will continue these efforts to do more and more for low income
Canadians and all Canadians.
* * *
PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this Prime Minister said in 1991: “The rule is simple. You take
the blame when something is wrong. You do not finger anybody
else but yourself. This is what a person of dignity does”.
Does the Prime Minister support the decision of the public works
minister to not take the blame for cost overruns on Parliament
Hill renovations and to instead blame a civil servant and ruin
his career?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know
exactly what the hon. member is referring to. Maybe he should be
more clear. I did not blame any public servant. My officials
are doing a very good job in my department.
1130
We are preparing a long term plan. I did not ruin anybody's
career. Perhaps, if the member wants to be more specific, I can
answer.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am talking about Mr. Glen Duncan. I will quote what
the Prime Minister also said: “Every minister in the cabinet
that I will be presiding over will have to take full
responsibility for his department. If there is any bungling,
nobody will be singled out”.
The cost of parliament renovations are out of control, but the
minister is more interested in hanging his own staff out to dry.
Will the Prime Minister direct his public works minister to take
full responsibility for these cost overrides?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am taking full
responsibility for my department every day. The work plan that
has been approved is within budget.
We are looking at the complete long term plan. When that long
term plan and the budget are approved I will announce it. The
member does not know what he is talking about. He does not even
know how this place works.
* * *
HOCKEY
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Liberals announced an emergency aid
package. No, not for farmers. No, not for hepatitis C victims.
Guess what? It is for millionaire hockey players and billionaire
club owners.
How could the Liberal government possibly justify government
handouts to rich hockey players and club owners while it is
nickel and diming starving farmers?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government made no such announcement.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the sports committee got one thing right yesterday. It blamed
our hockey woes on Canada's low dollar and high taxes. That is
true.
How can Canadian teams compete with their American counterparts?
Farmers and businesses have the same problem. There is one
solution to all this. It should cut taxes and get our dollar
back up to where it should be.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Finance. Is professional hockey's number one problem not the
finance minister?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I am amazed at the
level of questions coming from the Reform Party. This one tops
them all.
I cannot believe that Reformers would actually take the time and
spend taxpayers money to ask such a ridiculous question. Are
those the priorities of Canadians? I think not.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTREAL CONVENTION CENTRE
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
The expansion of the convention centre is important for the
Montreal region. With double the area, this significant
economic infrastructure could draw 15% of the American
convention market, thus creating 2,732 jobs.
While his government is considering paying out hundreds of
millions of dollars to sports millionaires, will the minister
acknowledge that, by refusing to become involved in the
expansion of the convention centre, he is undermining Montreal's
competitive position in the international convention market and
causing the loss of thousands of jobs held by ordinary people?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
preamble to the question is erroneous.
I must say that we did hear Montrealers' views on the convention
centre. At this point, there is no program available to help
with this project. There was the infrastructure program, which
was used for the Quebec City congress centre. It was also used
in Toronto for the same purpose. However, it was decided not to
use it for the Montreal convention centre.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here
again, the minister is refusing to do his part for Montreal,
whereas his colleague from Bourassa says he is prepared to
support the construction of seven new stadiums, seven white
elephants, elsewhere in Canada in order to support a potential
application to hold the World Cup.
Does this government's priorities lie in the sports fantasies of
the member for Bourassa or in Montreal's economic development?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I find sad about Bloc Quebecois members is that
they are trying, as usual, to talk out of both sides of their
mouths.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1135
Hon. Sheila Copps: On the one hand, they say they want money
invested in infrastructure, on the other hand, they are saying,
as the member for Rimouski—Mitis mentioned in the report, that
they oppose such investments. I hope the two members will
consult each other so they will speak with a single voice for
once.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
December 6 American farmers will be blockading the Canada-U.S.
border. This will only add to the economic problems faced by
Canadian farmers.
For the past two months the government has been telling us that
its trade working panel will resolve all these issues. We find
out today that it is a total sham. It is resolving nothing.
Will the minister finally get out from under his desk, talk to
the Americans and tell them that we will not take this harassment
any more? Or, does he have to ask the Minister of Canadian
Heritage for permission to do that?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to confirm today that we have signed an
understanding with the Americans. It is a good result from the
Canadian perspective.
There are no quantitative limitations, no caps, on Canadian
exports. There is no new audit of Canadian grain marketing
systems. It is agreed that all sanitary issues at our border
will be resolved on the basis of sound science and sound science
alone. There will be no political interference.
We have built in insulation against U.S. trade harassment
possibilities, either self-initiated by the administration or
provoked by individual states. We want to diffuse the border
tensions and facilitate—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Okanagan—Shuswap.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we know the border is to be closed. You know the border
is to be closed. The minister has sat and done absolutely
nothing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would ask the hon.
member to direct his question through the Chair.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has done
absolutely nothing with regard to this issue.
Will the minister finally do his job, or does he want me to go
down there? If I have to, I will take the hon. member for Wild
Rose with me and get it straightened out.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, more specifically Canada and the United States
reaffirmed their commitment as contained in the international
trade agreement to ensure that all necessary measures were taken
to meet the obligations contained in the agreement, including
their observance by state and provincial governments.
The United States has an obligation to ensure that its citizens
obey the law.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE BREAKING POLICY
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, eight days
ago, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans met with officials
from the Canadian shipping industry regarding the ice breaking
issue. He promised he would contact them again in seven days to
inform them of his intentions. But industry officials have yet
to hear from the minister.
If the minister did not bother to keep his word, will he at
least inform the House of what he intends to do with the
industry's counterproposal?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do keep my word. As I told the House over the
past two weeks, we carefully considered the alternate proposal
made by the shipping and industrial coalition of the Great Lakes
and the St. Lawrence.
I am pleased to announce today that we have accepted the
coalition's request to reduce fees. The new fees will come into
effect on December 21. The objective will be to reduce the fees
by 50%.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I must say
we are very pleased with the minister's decision. However, since
the industry's counterproposal does not expressly deal with the
specific issue of the ferries, which are a public service, will
the minister immediately pledge to exempt St. Lawrence ferries
from any type of fees?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I often said over the past two weeks, I intend
to take a close look at the fees for ferries. I will reduce the
fees by 50% for the coalition, and by at least 60% for ferries.
* * *
1140
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
accountants hired to probe apparent financial irregularities as a
result of complaints by grassroots natives of the Stoney Indian
Reserve have now referred 43 cases to the RCMP for criminal
investigation.
Many other natives across the country are calling for forensic
audits on their reserves. Does the minister not believe that
grassroots natives know when things are wrong on their reserves?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we saw the results
of a forensic audit at the Stoney First Nation. This was an
extraordinary measure taken in extraordinary circumstances.
I can confirm that 43 files were referred to the RCMP for
review. We got other recommendations which will help that first
nation work toward building a strong, accountable and transparent
government.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Why does the minister
only listen to the chiefs and councils when the grassroots people
report injustices?
Why does the minister talk only to the chiefs and councils? Why
does the hon. minister not listen to the people who are really in
need?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members opposite
why they think the appropriate response is to start at the
extreme.
A forensic audit is an extreme measure. Our view and our belief
is that we have to work in partnership with first nations
communities so that we can build sustainable resolutions to very
difficult problems.
* * *
[Translation]
WATER CONTAMINATION
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October
20, the Minister of Transport acknowledged his department's
responsibility in polluting the water table around the beaches
in Sept-Îles.
To date, he has offered only weak excuses and bottled water.>
What is preventing the minister from making a firm commitment to
resolve quickly and completely the problems his department
caused? People's health is at risk.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we recognize that the Department of Transport was part
of the problem and we have put measures in place to improve the
situation.
We are working with local authorities to resolve the problem,
and I think that in the future there will be a solution for
everyone in the region.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The International Court of Justice has ruled today that it does
not have the jurisdiction to hear Spain's complaint on Canada's
arrest of the Spanish fishing vessel Estai in 1994 just
outside our 200 mile territorial zone.
What are the implications of that decision?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we very much welcome the decision of the court which
respects Canada's reservation in terms of the conservation of
stock outside the 200 mile limit.
The position we have taken all along is that negotiation is a
much more effective way of dealing with the problem. Negotiation
has paid off. We now have agreement with the European Union on
quota allocation. Negotiations have led to the straddling stocks
convention at the United Nations.
I look forward very much to consideration by the House of the
legislation to implement the straddling stocks convention so we
can pursue that good arrangement to conserve fishing stocks
around the world.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after crying
for the release of convicted kidnappers in Brazil, the foreign
affairs minister is begging for the release of a convicted
murderer in Texas, is helping this convicted murderer.
Why has the minister ignored Mr. Michael Kapoustin, a Canadian
citizen who has been held without charges in a Bulgarian jail for
the last three years?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the tone of the hon. member's question is quite
offensive. We are not going around begging from anybody.
All we are saying to country after country is that there is a
Vienna convention on consular agreements which makes every
country responsible for ensuring that nationals arrested in
another country have access to that government, access to their
families and certain rights that must be respected.
We will do everything to ensure that Canadians who are arrested
in other countries have their rights under international law
properly respected by any country that wants to turn them over.
* * *
1145
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
list of ACOA failures grows. Taxpayers can kiss another cool
million of their hard earned dollars goodbye because the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency has failed again.
Now Planta Dei, a herbal remedy company in New Brunswick, is
closing its doors after announcing it cannot pay its bills.
Marthe Boissonnault, an ACOA employee, says that writing off bad
loans is the nature of ACOA's business. Will the minister for
ACOA admit that he is going to write off the money and he is
going to write off the jobs?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the tone and the context of the hon. member's question
do not at all indicate the work ACOA does. We take risks and in
certain areas where high technology is involved the funding is
very difficult to—
An hon. member: Your tone is terrible.
Hon. Fred Mifflin: If you want to know the answer to the
question, pay attention.
It is difficult for these companies to get funding from other
areas. I would ask the hon. member to comment on some of the
difficulties that were experienced by the 35,000 successful
projects that have operated in Atlantic Canada for the last 10
years.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first
nations leaders in Manitoba do not agree with the Deputy Prime
Minister's self praises. They want a meeting with the Prime
Minister.
Intolerable conditions on many reserves have driven them to
consider desperate measures. Poverty and unemployment are
widespread. Suicide and disease rates are many times higher than
the national average. The United Nations has called these
conditions subhuman. First nations are tired of the government's
token gestures and they are tired of getting the runaround from
Indian affairs.
Will the Prime Minister agree to meet with Manitoba's first
nation leaders? A simple answer, yes or no?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the litany of concerns that
the hon. member brings forward was also presented to us in the
work of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
As a result of that significant documentation, this government
has taken new measures through “Gathering Strength—Canada's
Aboriginal Action Plan” to recognize that we have to build a new
structural relationship. We have to focus differently on areas
of providing income support. We have to encourage educational
curricula that will ensure children stay in school. We have to
focus on new methods of providing housing on reserve. This is all
part of the government's approach through “Gathering Strength”
to ensure aboriginal people in Canada also feel the benefits of
this great country.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the land
claim agreement for the Nisga'a people is now in the B.C.
legislature. It faces bitter opposition from both the Liberal
and Reform parties of B.C. So far the only defence and promotion
of this agreement has come from the NDP. The minister's
department did not acknowledge my request for a briefing.
How would the minister defend and promote this treaty? How will
she convince B.C. Liberals that this agreement is essential to
move the first nations people out of poverty?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty is a
historic undertaking in the province of British Columbia. Over
the past number of months, I have enjoyed being in that province
going into communities and talking with municipal and business
leaders and individual British Columbians about the importance of
this treaty. I am very proud of the recognition our Prime
Minister has given to the significance of this treaty and his
point that we will introduce legislation to settle the Nisga'a
treaty as soon as that legislation is available.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Statistics show that as of 1994, 93% of Canadians served by
municipal sewer systems have at least primary sewage treatment.
However, in Atlantic Canada more than 50% of the people had no
sewage treatment at all.
Does the minister acknowledge a significant regional disparity
in the level of sewage treatment in Atlantic Canada as compared
with the rest of the nation? Would she not agree that the matter
warrants a major federal initiative to reduce that disparity?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the great priorities of this government is to
ensure the necessary infrastructure is put in place for all
Canadians to enjoy a very decent healthy life. There are
disparities across the country.
It was this government some years ago that brought in the $2
billion infrastructure program which involved the municipalities,
the provinces and the federal government. It was up to local
authorities and provinces to choose those priorities. This
program could address the concerns of the hon. member.
1150
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker,
given that answer and given the regional disparity in sewage
systems in Atlantic Canada, would the minister not agree that
major harbour clean-ups in places like St. John's, Newfoundland
warrant a special infusion of federal dollars, not token dollars,
but a meaningful contribution that will make possible the
clean-up of St. John's harbour at least sometime in the next
century?
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the minister indicated
earlier, with the infrastructure projects $6.8 billion of good
works were extended with the ability of partnerships with
governments at all levels to work together.
We hope that at some point in the future there will be another
opportunity to continue developing the infrastructure so badly
needed in the country and to ensure environmental clean-up is
part of the process. The sewers he is talking about are part of
that process. We hope he continues to support the government on
its infrastructure works.
* * *
ICE BREAKING
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Shipping companies in my region have serious concerns that the
minister's ice-breaking fees will have serious financial
implications possibly leading to business failures. Is the
minister prepared to reduce these fees now before the winter
season starts?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly am. I would like to add to
what I said earlier on the subject of ice-breaking fees. First,
there will be no moratorium on fees. They will enter into effect
on December 21 as originally planned. In addition there will be
no changes to the constitutionally protected ferry runs, but for
the levels of cost, they will be reduced for ferries 60% over the
original proposal, and it will be 50% for other ships.
* * *
AVIATION SAFETY
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals have no trouble finding hundreds of
millions of dollars to finance their loopy gun registration
scheme because they say it is a safety issue, but they cannot
find any funds to improve or make adequate aviation inspection
services.
The Minister of Transport bragged that 179 inspection positions
have been generated in the last few years, but more than 70 of
those positions are vacant and the department continues to lose a
net average of four inspectors per month.
When will the minister address this real safety issue and why
did he provide the House with spurious information?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would never provide the House with spurious
information.
The government is all about informing Canadians and members of
the opposition with the true facts. I answered the question the
other week. We have indeed increased the number of inspectors. I
do not deny that because of attrition there are vacancies. This
is being addressed by retraining, reclassification and
recruitment. The bottom line is that Canada's aviation system is
indeed safe.
* * *
[Translation]
GM PLANT IN BOISBRIAND
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canadian Auto
Workers President Buzz Hargrove has criticized the attitude of
the Minister of Industry concerning the situation at the GM
plant in Boisbriand.
According to him, “We got a far better response from Lucien
Bouchard and Bernard Landry than from the federal Minister of
Industry”.
What does the Minister of Industry have to say to workers who
are concerned about the future of the GM plant in Boisbriand and
need every possible assistance if their jobs are to be saved?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have been working in close collaboration with GM management in
the discussions on the future of the Boisbriand plant.
I am convinced that a solution can be found. It must be
realized that, if GM invests in Boisbriand, some political
certainty will be necessary.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Hon. John Manley: The best thing Messrs. Landry and Bouchard can
do to help the Boisbriand plant is to declare that there will be
no referendum for at least ten years.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The minister of agriculture has said that farmers might have to
wait until after they file their income tax before they can
expect a cash payment from the disaster plan. We know that the
farmers cannot wait. This is the biggest crisis we have had
since the Great Depression.
I would like the minister to answer a couple of direct
questions. Can the minister assure the farmers that there will be
a bankable announcement before Christmas? Will they have cash in
their hands before spring seeding so that they can pay last
year's bills before they plant next year's crops?
1155
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's objective is obviously to make the most
definitive announcement at the earliest possible date. He and
his cabinet colleagues are working very much in that direction.
I would also note that one of the points clearly made by Premier
Romanow when he campaigned against former Premier Devine in
Saskatchewan was that in dealing with agricultural programs,
especially disaster programs, it was important to avoid the ad
hockery and the chicanery of Mulroney and Devine. We intend to
follow that same pattern.
* * *
LOBSTER FISHERY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Halifax Herald stated that lobster catches in St.
Mary's Bay were down significantly, suggesting that fisheries
could be headed for a disastrous season.
As everyone in this House knows, I have repeatedly called on the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to put an end to this illegal
lobster fishing before it seriously affects the livelihoods of
thousands of commercial lobster fishermen.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans acknowledge that our
fishers' worst fears are being realized and that the illegal
lobster fishing has led to a decline in catches?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the hon. member's
interest in this issue. I can assure him that only yesterday I
was in consultation with the premier and minister of fisheries of
Nova Scotia. I have also been in consultations with my colleague
the solicitor general.
We will be setting up joint federal-provincial task forces to
work on the lobster smuggling issue. We will not simply be doing
that at the site of the boats and the docks. We will be going
after trucks. We will be going on the highways and will be at
the border. We will be going after restaurants. Anybody who
buys poached lobsters can be sure that they will be prosecuted.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the wheat
board announced minutes ago an agreement between Canada and the
United States. I want to know whether this means that Canada has
received a commitment from the United States to foster increased
two way trade in agriculture and agri-food products rather than
pursuing trade-disrupting political actions.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is very much the spirit of the agreement. I would
repeat that there are no quantitative limits and no caps on
Canadians exports. There is no new audit of Canadian grain
marketing systems.
It is agreed that all sanitary and phytosanitary issues are to
be resolved on the basis of sound science and sound science
alone. We have built in insulation against U.S. trade harassment
possibilities, either those that are self-initiated by the U.S.
administration or those that are launched by individual states.
We want to defuse border tensions and facilitate two way trade.
We believe this agreement will help.
* * *
PRISONS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
inmate Lawrence Stocking blew the whistle on rampant drug use in
Canadian prisons. Guess what? He was transferred to a maximum
security prison where he mysteriously died.
Why was he transferred? Was it to save this government from the
embarrassment of drug use in our prisons?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the inmate in question was
transferred because he threatened other inmates. He was
therefore moved from a minimum to a maximum security
institution.
There are only three inmates in Canada who are not allowed to
speak to the media, two of them being Mr. Olson and Mr.
Bernardo. Would the opposition want them to be able to speak to
the media?
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
second time since 1996, the auditor general concludes in a
report that the federal government still does not have a
complete picture of the various environmental hazards posed by
the 5,000 contaminated federal sites.
What is the Minister of the Environment waiting for to adopt a
comprehensive environmental policy to remedy this serious
problem?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this government has a very comprehensive
environmental policy that takes into account the concerns of the
hon. member. Certainly I will draw her particular concerns to the
minister's attention when she returns to the House on Monday.
* * *
POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister crows about the government's care of the
poor but the UN committee knows the real story and has slammed
the government for an unconscionable level of poverty and
homelessness and for the living conditions of aboriginal people.
It also slams Canada for its evasiveness. Rather than boasting
about what is really a terrible record, is the Deputy Prime
Minister proud of the fact that Canada will be the first wealthy
nation to violate this important international covenant?
1200
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government appreciates the research work of the United Nations
and we are anxious to read the details of this latest report. But
I must point out to the House that the figures on which this
report was based were collected prior to 1995.
We have always been very concerned about poverty and that is why
we have committed $1.7 billion by 2000 to the national child
benefit.
We believe the real solution to poverty is finding people paid
work. That is why we are very proud that 1.5 million new jobs
have been created since 1993 and especially proud that last month
alone 103,000 new jobs were created.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker,
last spring, the Minister of Justice announced that her
government would be introducing a new young offenders bill.
Winter is now at our door, but the minister has not delivered on
her promise. Canadians from coast to coast are sick and tired of
waiting.
When will the minister act on her promise to introduce the
legislation this country so badly needs?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will answer in French, seeing that the question was put to me in
French.
We did respond in the House to the report of the Standing
Committee on Justice, and the minister will be introducing a new
young offenders bill during the next session, whenever it opens.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot I know is a servant of the House. We may
have our differences but I know the hon. member respects
parliamentary traditions. When I asked the hon. member to
withdraw the remark he did so forthwith.
I moved directly to the member for Halifax because in my
opinion, and this is the right of the Chair, it was the right
thing to do to maintain order in the House. It meant that the
hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot lost his supplementary
question. That is just the way it is.
The fact is we will not allow the House to descend into
something of which we are not proud.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
response to a question I asked, the Minister of Natural Resources
referred to an agreement that was signed between Canada and the
United States and read from that agreement. I would ask that the
agreement be now tabled in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If a minister or a
parliamentary secretary reads verbatim from a specific report,
that is the custom.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be obtaining later today the formal text as
signed. I was referring to the notes but they include the
specific language that I referred to. I would be happy to
present the formal document as soon as it is available, which I
presume will be in the next hour.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like some clarification. I was under the
assumption, as were many people, that the minister was quoting
from the document.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That has already
been dealt with.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1205
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both
official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary
Association, which took part in a meeting of the Council of
Europe held in Strasbourg, from September 21 to 25, 1998.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
Pursuant to its order of reference of Tuesday, December 1, 1998,
the committee has considered Bill C-49, an act providing for the
ratification and the bringing into effect of the framework
agreement on first nation land management, and has agreed to
report it with one amendment.
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on
Finance on prebudget consultation.
* * *
NUNAVUT WATERS AND NUNAVUT SURFACE RIGHTS TRIBUNAL ACT
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-62, an
act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut
surface rights tribunal and to make consequential amendments to
other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been discussions with
representatives of all the parties. I seek unanimous consent
that the following bills, moved by me and seconded by the hon.
member for Argenteuil—Papineau, be deemed adopted at all stages
without debate or amendment: Bill C-445 in my name, an act to
change the name of the electoral district of Stormont—Dundas,
and standing in the list of items outside the order of
precedence; a bill in the name of Mr. Stoffer, Sackville—Eastern
Shore, an act to change the name of the electoral district of
Sackville—Eastern Shore, and standing on the order paper under
the heading introduction of private members' bills, item No. 20;
a bill in the name of Mr. Dumas, an act to change the name of the
electoral district of Argenteuil—Papineau, which has not been on
the order paper.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have to
admit it may be a breakdown in our party but I am not aware of
this and I would have to decline that unanimous consent until we
know something. It can be done again later if it is on the fair
and square.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I had not asked for
unanimous consent. With the consent of the House we will come
back to this in a few minutes.
* * *
1210
PETITIONS
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present a petition that expresses concern
about refugees being left in limbo after they have been declared
convention refugees.
The petition signed by 280 Canadians calls on the government to
ensure that refugees are not forced to wait more than two years
for landed status.
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am presenting a petition from 161 people. Basically
they are requesting the government follow the recommendations of
the Krever report and to compensate those people who contacted
hepatitis C outside the timeframe of 1986 to 1990.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition today on behalf of several members
of the Olds community in my riding of Wild Rose.
The petitioners pray that parliament enact legislation such as
Bill C-225 in order to define in statute that a marriage can only
be entered into by a single male and single female.
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by many constituents in Ontario who are asking
that parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision as
supported in Bill C-340 regarding the right of grandparents to
have access to or custody of the children.
JUSTICE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions to present. The first bears 831
signatures.
The petitioners call on parliament to enact two strike
legislation requiring everyone who is convicted for the second
time of one or more sexual offences against a minor to be
sentenced to life without eligibility for parole or early release
whatsoever.
The second group of petitions bears 736 signatures. The
petitioners call on parliament to eliminate the right of a
convicted pedophile to be let out of jail on bail pending an
appeal. This would thereby ensure the protection and safety of
the victims and the community of such a convicted offender.
FAMILY
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition bearing 25 signatures.
The petitioners say that in the opinion of the House the
government should authorize a proclamation to be issued to the
governor general under the great seal of Canada amending section
7 of the charter of rights and freedoms to recognize the
fundamental rights of individuals to pursue family life free from
undue interference by the state and to recognize the fundamental
right and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of
their children. The petitioners urge the legislative assemblies
to do likewise in the provinces.
JUSTICE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have 53 signatures on the last petition.
These petitioners request that parliament exempt all physical
and sexual offenders from the provision of section 742 of the
Criminal Code.
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition on behalf of
citizens throughout Canada who call on the government to comply
with article 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and comply with
the human rights tribunal decision in the matter of pay equity.
OSTEOPOROSIS
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf
of a group of constituents from Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey
I would like to present the House of Commons with a petition that
requests the government, through the Medical Research Council,
increase and adequately fund the remaining years of the Canadian
Multicentre osteoporosis study.
BILL C-68
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
truly an honour to present two petitions on behalf of
constituents of Blackstrap, Saskatchewan. They are both very
important.
The first petition deals with the repeal of Bill C-68. I have
somewhere in the neighbourhood of 70 signatures on this petition.
JUSTICE
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition deals with amendments to the Young Offenders Act,
specifically reducing the age of eligibility from 12 to 10 years.
1215
PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from people in the
immediate areas of Ottawa, Kanata and Nepean, pursuant to
Standing Order 36. The petition contains over 600 signatures.
These people are deeply concerned about the topic of pornography.
The petitioners are asking parliament to pursue changes to
legislation that would give municipalities some say and a right
to prohibit these activities within their communities.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wonder if I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to
revert to Introduction of Private Members' Bills.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the chief
government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to revert
to private members' bills.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.) moved:
That the following bills: Bill C-445, in the name of Mr. Kilger
(Stormont—Dundas), entitled “An Act to change the name of the
electoral district of Stormont—Dundas” and standing in the list
of items outside the Order of Precedence;
a bill in the name of Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore)
entitled “An Act to change the name of the electoral district of
Sackville—Eastern Shore” and standing on the Order Paper under
the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”, (item no.
20);
a bill in the name of Mr. Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau) entitled
“An Act to change the name of the electoral district of
Argenteuil—Papineau” and not having appeared on the Notice
Paper;
be deemed carried at all stages without debate or amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the chief
government whip have unanimous consent to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to accept the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have four petitions to present today.
The first two petitions implore this House and parliament to
enact a bill to amend the Marriage Act (Prohibited Degrees) and
the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage
can only be entered into between a single male and a single
female.
THE FAMILY
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second pair of petitions from my riding of Erie—Lincoln is from
petitioners who implore this government to enact legislation to
authorize a proclamation to be issued by the governor general
under the great seal of Canada amending section 7 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms to recognize the fundamental right
of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference
by the state and to recognize the fundamental right and
responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their
children. These petitioners urge the legislative assemblies of
the provinces to do likewise.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
NUNAVUT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, an
act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of
Justice and to amend other acts in consequence, be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this bill.
1220
[English]
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-57. I thank my colleague from
the New Democratic Party for permitting me to speak before her.
I also want to indicate to the Chair that I will be splitting my
time with the member for St. John's East.
This bill will amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut
court of justice. It will also amend other acts as a
consequence. It is a very important step in our justice system.
I would commend my colleague from South Shore who has been a
strong and vigorous spokesperson, not only on behalf of his
riding, but on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and
all Canadians with respect to his responsibilities as critic for
the Indian and northern affairs portfolio.
I also want to take the opportunity to commend the efforts of
the hon. member for Nunavut. Although we do not share the same
political affiliation, I know the member is deeply committed to
achieving progress for her constituents as they enter the 21st
century as residents of Canada's newest territory.
Her participation in Tuesday night's hockey game also showed
that she is one of the Liberal Party's smoothest skaters. I look
forward to hearing her provide some lessons to her less limber
and perhaps less timber happy colleagues, especially the hon.
member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
Before I begin my remarks on Bill C-57 I want to highlight an
often overlooked participant in the creation of the Nunavut
territory. He was a leader with foresight and vision who pursued
an aggressive and activist agenda. He was the Right Hon. Brian
Mulroney, who as prime minister set the wheels in motion to
establish the Nunavut territory by signing the Nunavut land
claims agreement in 1992. The creation of Nunavut is yet one
more reason why Mr. Mulroney was named a Companion to the Order
of Canada. Furthermore, it was under his government, as well as
that of the Right Hon. Joe Clark as constitutional affairs
minister, that aboriginal people became full participants at
formal constitutional negotiations for the first time in Canadian
history.
It was refreshing to hear the Minister of Finance say a few
weeks ago that it was because of the PC government's economic
plan that the budget is now balanced. It cannot be stressed
enough that it was the previous Progressive Conservative
government which gave aboriginal peoples a voice at the
constitutional table, a voice through a royal commission, a voice
through the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and a voice
for our Inuit people now through the signing of the Nunavut land
claims agreement.
Today we are debating another piece of legislation that was
introduced by a government with a proud legacy, that is, the
government of the Progressive Conservative Party. Although our
party's ambitious policies were unpopular at the time, history
has shown that it was by and large the Progressive Conservative
Party that brought forward these initiatives for the betterment
of Canada.
Bill C-57 deals with the best way of providing a court system
for Nunavut, which is a new and expansive territory. There have
been those who object to granting the people of Nunavut a single
court system. They may object, on the basis of jurisdictional
concerns, that this bill would create an intrusive precedent.
They may object on the basis that this bill might somehow violate
the equality provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms and
create constitutional problems. I believe this piece of
legislation addresses those problems in a fair and practical way.
As the justice critic for our party, I do not share the
objections that have been raised by some opposition members.
Bill C-57 appears to recognize the unique circumstances in which
the people of Nunavut live. First and foremost in this unique
environment is that the Inuit people will form a strong majority
of the Nunavut population; 17,000 of the 22,000 residents or 77%.
Nunavut's territory also represents approximately one-fifth of
the overall size of Canada, yet its population is only 22,000,
less than one-quarter of 1% of the entire population.
In that context, let us compare Nunavut's size and population
with other jurisdictions. Nunavut's 1.9 million square
kilometres fall just under the figure for Greenland. Nunavut is
five times the size of Germany, four times the size of Sweden and
one-fifth the size of China. With those expansive territorial
boundaries we must factor in population distribution. Nunavut
only has one-hundredth of one person for every square kilometre
of its physical territory. Canada, as a whole, has nearly three
people living per square kilometre. Ontario has 11 people per
square kilometre.
Nunavut's main human and territorial characteristics are not
only unique to Canada, they are unique to the entire world. For
example, Nunavut has only 20 kilometres of highways.
1225
Moreover, there is disparity between communities. The largest
community is its future capital, Iqaluit. More than 3,000 people
call Iqaluit home.
The community is located approximately 2,000 kilometres from
Ottawa and the average temperatures range from -30° Celsius in
January to 15° Celsius in July. Iqaluit residents experience 24
hours of daylight in June, while they find no more than six hours
of daylight in the month of December.
Grise Fiord is Nunavut's most northern community. In fact, I
believe it is one of Canada's most northern communities and it is
a community I had the pleasure to visit some time ago. It is a
full 2,700 kilometres from the capital. The population is only
about 130 people, who experience an average temperature of -35°
Celsius in January. These hearty souls also live in 24 hours of
daylight in June and around the clock darkness in December.
I experienced a number of challenges practising law in rural
Nova Scotia. At that time I always found it a pleasure to work
with the law enforcement community and those who administer our
criminal justice system. By and large, I found that many of
those individuals work long, hard hours and go above and beyond
the call of duty, like police officer George Mageney in the
community of Stellarton, in my riding of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, who I have a great deal of time
and respect for.
It is nevertheless difficult for me, drawing upon my own
experience, to perceive how court proceedings as they relate to
criminal, civil or family law, would occur effectively and
efficiently in such a large jurisdiction as this new territory.
With such a small population and with such diverse communities,
this will truly pose an incredible challenge to the people of
this new territory of Nunavut.
However, as has been mentioned previously, Bill C-57 amends
several existing federal statutes. It amends the Nunavut Act to
establish a single level of trial court at the superior court
level, to be known as the Nunavut Court of Justice.
It amends the Judges Act to provide for three superior court
judges on the Nunavut Court of Justice and also to provide for
full membership in the Canadian Judicial Council for senior
judges in each of the territories.
It amends, most consequently, the Criminal Code to provide for
new structures and procedures for the Nunavut Court of Justice in
the following areas: jurisdiction of judges; summary conviction
appeals; a new statutory form of release; judicial interim
release; and elections as to a mode of trial.
All of those technical changes that occur within our Criminal
Code are encompassed in Bill C-57.
It also amends the Young Offenders Act to ensure adequate
structures and procedures for a single level of trial court,
consistent with the new structures and procedures in the Criminal
Code.
I believe the drafters of this legislation should be credited
because it does mesh nicely with the existing provisions of the
code.
I therefore welcome Bill C-57 as a positive measure that
recognizes the unique characteristics and conditions of the
people and the territory of Nunavut. However, I have a number of
concerns which were not completely addressed at the justice
committee by the minister and her officials.
The first concern deals with the greater use of justices of the
peace. The Department of Justice believes that with appropriate
training there is potential for greater use of justices of the
peace to conduct preliminary inquiries and in some cases summary
conviction trials. I endorse this concept. My concerns mainly
arise out of the training and the funding for such training that
will ensure that those who appear before these justices of the
peace will receive adequate treatment under the law, the same
treatment that they would receive from a properly ordained
justice, if I can use that term.
I share the belief of many that the greater use of justices of
the peace would not only benefit this single justice system in
Nunavut, but also some of the courts, as our friends in Nunavut
would say, in southern Canada, that is, the rest of Canada.
If the role of justices of the peace is to expand, training must
be assured. Unfortunately, responsibility for this training
falls solely under the responsibility of the Nunavut territorial
government. So the federal government is once again, in some
instances, able to wash its hands clean and download to a
territory or a province. It is therefore problematic for the
federal government, through Bill C-57, to open the door for
increased responsibilities for justices of the peace without
assuring that they will in fact be able to fund this new
initiative.
We need only look at the federal government's downloading of the
funding of the young offender programs in the rest of Canada to
fear that similar problems could arise in Nunavut.
We need to ensure that Bill C-57 accurately reflects both the
needs of Nunavut and the obligation of the Government of Canada
to protect the due course of justice.
1230
I join my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus to
support the bill as it is very positive in content. Let us
continue to build upon the legacy of Inuit self-government left
by the Progressive Conservative government.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to say a few words on Bill C-57, an act to amend the
Nunavut Act. The bill is important not only for what the
legislation entails but also for what it represents. The bill
provides for a single tier court system in the new territory of
Nunavut.
The creation of this territory on April 1, 1999 will be a very
historic occasion. The legislation will help to ensure that when
that day comes everything will be ready to begin operations and
allow for a very smooth transition for this new territory.
The Northwest Territories and the rest of Canada will be
watching with interest when Nunavut becomes a territory. With
the unique justice system the legislation will put in place there
will be even greater reason to monitor the situation closely.
The single court system has been discussed on many different
occasions but has never been implemented by another province or
territory. It will be interesting to see how well it meets the
needs of the Inuit people. Currently all provinces and
territories operate on the two court system.
I will provide some historical background and information on the
demographics and size of Nunavut. The creation of a separate
Nunavut territory has been discussed for many years, beginning in
1976 with a request by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada to have a
boundary drawn between the eastern and western sections of the
Northwest Territories. It was not until a land claim settlement
was signed in 1993 under the Conservative government of the day
that the new territory was realized. The creation of Nunavut was
included as a provision of that agreement.
As the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said, the
agreement gives the Inuit control of about 350,000 square
kilometres within the more than two million square kilometres
that will become Nunavut. The Inuit will make up approximately
80% of the population of the new territory which will be
approximately one-fifth of Canada's land mass. However it will
only have a population of 22,000. That sparse population base
makes the one court system preferable in the eastern arctic.
Less time will be spent travelling to remote communities with
only one court level. A judge will be able to rule on cases
relating to criminal, civil or family matters while in the
community, negating the need for a number of judges to make
similar trips. That should reduce costs and eliminate
administrative details such as the scheduling of numerous court
appearances. In time the judges should become more familiar with
the different communities, which may assist them in their duties.
The one court system was chosen for the eastern arctic at the
request of the Inuit. The Inuit have their own views of what a
justice system should provide. It is hoped that a one tier
system will better meet their requirements. We shall have to
wait to see if that is the case.
The creation of Nunavut on April 1, 1999 has special
significance for me. It will be the first new territory or
province created since Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949.
Obviously that will be a very historic day for Canada. I am
pleased to support a bill that will help to ensure the transition
occurs smoothly and put in place a system which will be adequate
to address the needs of the Inuit and non-Inuit residents of the
eastern arctic.
1235
I had the opportunity in the last session of parliament to speak
to a bill which also amended the Nunavut Act. I am pleased to
speak again to another amendment to the act. I will be watching
closely with my colleagues when Nunavut becomes the newest
territory in Canada in April 1999.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party to Bill
C-57.
The people of Nunavut have a unique culture and deserve to have
a court system which reflects their culture and geographic
realities. The NDP has been consistent in its support for
self-government and that is why at second reading our aboriginal
affairs spokesperson indicated our principled support for the
bill.
However I have very serious concerns about the bill. If the
court system created by the bill is implemented, it will have
devastating consequences for the Manitoba Dene whose traditional
territory straddles the Manitoba-Nunavut border. The Manitoba
Dene are my constituents. Although I too support self-government
for Nunavut, I cannot support or endorse a bill which runs
counter to their well-being.
The Manitoba Dene are those bands in the Dene nation whose
reserve lands fall within Manitoba. There are two such bands,
the Northlands First Nation who signed a treaty with Canada in
1907 and the Sayisi Dene First Nation who signed a treaty in
1910.
These treaties guaranteed members of the nations the inalienable
right to hunt, fish, trap and select reserve lands anywhere in
their traditional territories. Fifty-seven per cent of their
traditional territory lies north of the 66th parallel that
divides Manitoba and Nunavut. This area represents less than 5%
of the territory of Nunavut.
Ever since these first nations signed their treaties they have
continued to hunt, fish and trap in their traditional territories
north of 60. When the federal government negotiated the Nunavut
agreement with the Inuit of Nunavut, the Manitoba Dene asked to
be included in these negotiations but were inexplicably and
unjustly excluded. There was no justification for this
exclusion.
The government was negotiating the transfer of lands to which
the Manitoba Dene have a right according to treaty. In a feeble
attempt to justify what it had done the federal government
claimed out of the blue that the Manitoba Dene had no rights
north of 60.
This claim would almost be laughable if it did not have such
serious consequences for the Manitoba Dene. No one who knows
anything about the Manitoba Dene believes this ridiculous claim
in light of the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
Archeologists have proven that bands have occupied lands of north
of 60 for 2,600 years. These bands have no less than 25 burial
sites north of 60. They have occupied lands north and south of
the 60th parallel for as long as there have been historical
records about them.
For most of the past two and a half centuries they have been a
nomadic society. The staple of their diet was the caribou and
they travelled across vast distances following the great northern
caribou herds. This is why their traditional lands do not match
up with the nice straight lines we see on maps. Caribou do not
care about the lines on maps. By the terms of the treaties the
Manitoba Dene signed in the first decade of this century they
have an undeniable claim north of 60.
The Government of the Northwest Territories acknowledges the
ridiculousness of the federal government's position with an
administrative measure called the border A licence area. Within
this area, which very closely coincides with the traditional
territory of the Manitoba Dene, Manitoba Dene are not required to
have a licence to carry out their traditional practices.
This policy directly contradicts the federal government's claim
but acknowledges the reality of the situation. To this day the
Dene of Manitoba still hunt, fish and trap north of 60. In these
communities where most food has to be flown from the south,
making it very expensive, most people still rely on hunting and
fishing to feed their families.
1240
Despite the evidence arrayed against their position, the
Government of Canada clings irrationally to its claim that the
Manitoba Dene have no rights north of 60. Even when in 1993 the
standing committee on aboriginal affairs unanimously called on
the government to recognize the rights of the Manitoba Dene
within Nunavut, the government refused. At that time the
Progressive Conservative Indian affairs minister said that the
Manitoba Dene claim north of 60 would have to be resolved in the
courts.
In response to this challenge, the Manitoba Dene filed a claim
with the Federal Court of Canada asking the court to enforce
their treaty rights. This case remains before the court today.
While the Dene of Manitoba case has dragged on, the Liberal
government has forged blindly ahead with the implementation of
the Nunavut Act.
The bill before us today is to establish a Nunavut court of
justice to reflect the unique cultural and geographic realities
of Nunavut. I say again that my party and I support the Inuit
right to self-government and we support the creation of a
separate court system for the territory.
The Northern Manitoba Tribal Council, of which the Manitoba Dene
are members, the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, also officially
support the Inuit of Nunavut. However, they know as I do that it
is not fair and it is not right to settle one land claim at the
expense of another.
When Nunavut comes into being a few months from now, the Nunavut
wildlife management board will have jurisdiction over hunting,
fishing and trapping in the traditional territory of the Manitoba
Dene. Nunavut leaders have refused to recognize the treaty
rights of the Manitoba Dene until there is a ruling from the
court. In the meantime, since the rights of the Dene are not
recognized, they will be subject to the rules and regulations of
the Nunavut wildlife management board.
The Nunavut court of justice created by the bill will have the
power and responsibility to enforce the regulations of the board.
I cannot in good conscience support the creation of a legal
authority that will prevent the Manitoba Dene from hunting,
fishing and trapping in their traditional lands. I therefore
submitted an amendment to the bill which would have granted a
stay of prosecution of the Manitoba Dene people charged with
these kinds of offences in their traditional lands.
I want to take a moment to read that amendment:
Any proceedings before the Nunavut Court of Justice that involve
the Denesuline of Manitoba claiming as a defence any matter set
out in the claim presently being advanced for and on behalf of
the Sayisi Dene First Nations and the Northlands First Nation in
the Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) in a Statement of
Claim dated March 9, 1993, as amended, initiating suit T-703-93
against the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
and the Attorney General of Canada (among other defendants) shall
be stayed pending the final decision of the Federal Court of
Canada with respect to the matter of, if the matter is appealed
or referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, the final decision of
the Supreme Court of Canada.
When the Table ruled this amendment out of order because it went
beyond the scope of the bill, I was extremely disappointed and
frustrated. This one amendment could have protected the treaty
rights of the Manitoba Dene until the courts affirmed them.
How typical of the disrespect and contempt with which the
Canadian government has treated these people. In a bill dealing
with the Nunavut court of justice and its jurisdiction to try
different crimes in the territory of Nunavut, an amendment to
temporarily modify its jurisdiction seems entirely within its
scope to me, especially in light of the number of omnibus bills
we have seen pushed through the House in the last two months.
What hypocrisy on the part of the Liberal government. Without
tainting or delaying the process that the people of Nunavut
deserve, the Manitoba Dene, MKO and I have done what we can to
try to amend the bill within the methods available to us.
Now that we are at third reading all I can do is say I am
opposed to the bill. I will continue to do everything I can to
ensure that the rights of the Manitoba Dene are respected. The
Manitoba Dene deserve justice. If their treaty rights are
respected there is no reason why the Inuit and the Dene cannot
find some sort of mutually acceptable accommodation in the
context of Nunavut.
I emphasize again that the area in question is less than 5% of
Nunavut. Rather than promote such a resolution, successive
Liberal and Conservative governments have denied Manitoba Dene
treaty rights and have acted as roadblocks to their justice.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
1245
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
[Translation]
RAILWAY SAFETY ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-58, an act to
amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential
amendment to another act, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The notice paper
contains a motion in amendment at report stage of Bill C-58.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and put to a vote.
I now put Motion No. 1 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-58, in Clause 19, be amended by adding after line 7
on page 12 the following:
“(3) Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the
following after subsection (2):
(3) A railway company that operates a line of railway shall
reimburse a provincial government, city or municipality for
expenses incurred by the provincial government, city or
municipality, as the case may be, in respect of the line of
railway for the purpose of complying with a regulation made under
subsection (1).
(4) For greater certainty, subsection (3) does not limit the
scope of subsection (2) with respect to a provincial government,
city or municipality.”
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today
to outline my reservations about Bill C-58 introduced by the
government to optimize rail transportation safety.
Anything that has to do with the rail system is of interest to
the inhabitants of the riding of Argenteuil—Papineau. In 1994,
we prepared a brief opposing CP's request to abandon its
operations in the subdivision of Lachute between
Saint-Augustin-de-Mirabel and Thurso in the province of Quebec .
Fortunately, through the intervention of Jacques Léonard, the
then provincial transport minister, we obtained a moratorium so
the line would not be abandoned. Because of this moratorium,
the trains are again running between Saint-Augustin-de-Mirabel and
Thurso.
While the Bloc Quebecois welcomes this bill, it deplores the
circumstances that led up to it. In September 1997, a VIA rail
passenger train left the tracks near Biggar in Saskatchewan with
tragic results. This is what it took to get the minister's
office to introduce the substantial amendments to the 1989
Railway Safety Act that were needed.
We have carefully examined the bill, which is a series of very
technical amendments to the present legislation and, with some
reservations, are in favour of Bill C-58.
First, we see it as positive that steps have been taken to
enhance the government's ability to get the railways to remedy
nuisances and hazards relating to safety and to the environment.
Thus the government is assuming more of one of its fundamental
responsibilities, to ensure people's safety.
1250
It is also obvious that the government is taking advantage of
this opportunity to encourage collaboration between the various
parties involved in railway transportation in the process of
creating and implementing safety measures for rail users and
employees, and the population in general.
Finally, this bill gives the Minister of Transport the necessary
authority in cases not covered by the legislation to step in
promptly, overstepping the regulations, in the interests of the
safety of those affected by rail transportation.
We acknowledge the justification of this provision. It is a
valuable tool in the hands of a Minister of Transport with
concerns for public safety.
As I have said, one of the provisions in the bill strikes us as
unacceptable in its present wording. This is clause 19, which
gives the governor in council authority “respecting the
construction, alteration and maintenance of roads for the
purpose of ensuring safe railway operations”.
Hon. members are no doubt aware that the construction and
maintenance of roads is a provincial and municipal responsibility.
Railway safety is, and we do not dispute this, under federal
jurisdiction. We nonetheless believe that steps must be taken to
prevent Ottawa from using this responsibility as an excuse to
once again invade provincial jurisdictions and letting the
province or municipality foot the bill, when they cannot afford
the road work required, especially in the case of small
municipalities.
Clause 19 is sufficiently vague and its scope sufficiently broad
that the governor in council could, under this provision, force
a municipality to build a bridge to carry the road over the rail
line on the pretext that it will mean greater safety for road
and rail passengers.
This is totally unacceptable, hence our amendment, which reads
as follows:
Section 24 of the same Act is amended by adding the following
after subsection (2):
(3) A railway company that operates a line
of railway shall reimburse a provincial government, city or
municipality for expenses incurred by the provincial government,
city or municipality, as the case may be, in respect of the line
of railway for the purpose of complying with a regulation made
under subsection (1).
(4) For greater certainty, subsection (3)
does not limit the scope of subsection (2) with respect to a
provincial government, city or municipality.
I am delighted to have the member for Jonquière seconding this
amendment.
Indeed, it is desirable and normal that the measures decided by
a round table headed by the federal Minister of Transport and
designed to improve safety conditions relating to a railway line
are not a financial burden unfairly imposed by the federal
government on the province, city or municipality concerned.
Clearly, the safety of a railway line is the responsibility of
the operator of that line.
We realize that imposing fees on the railway companies concerned
may be a deterrent to the implementation of projects designed to
improve the safety of the facilities. This is why it is
important to include in the act provisions specifying that even
though the cost of such work must be borne by line operators, it
must in no way adversely affect the implementation and the
timetable of such projects.
In conclusion, while the Bloc Quebecois supports this purely
technical bill, it insists that the proposed amendments be taken
into consideration, in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians.
1255
Our party remains firm in its determination to protect the
interests of Quebeckers and to oppose potential or actual
federal interference in jurisdictions that come under the
provinces, which this government has no business doing. That
being said, we think this is basically a good bill.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that once the necessary adjustments
have been made, everything should be done to ensure the bill's
quick implementation. As for us, we are prepared to work to that
end.
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in
the House today in response to the motion to have a new section
in this bill that would require railways to fund provincial or
local government costs. We are not able to support these proposed
changes for a number of reasons.
Subsection 24(3) proposed by the hon. member of the third party
seeks to make railways responsible for reimbursing governments
for any cost they may incur in complying with requirements
established under subsection 24(1) of the Railway Safety Act. We
should consider what this truly implies and particularly how this
motion would improve safety.
The requirements under subsection 24(1) of the act could
conclude control or prohibition of a variety of land uses
adjacent to railway property to the extent that they may
constitute a threat to safe railway operations. This might mean
buildings or other structures, mining operations, drainage
systems, storage of materials on adjacent property, and fencing
to name a few. Bill C-58 adds to this list by proposing that
safety requirements could be established for road approaches, an
important provision that I will touch on later.
It is important to remember that section 24 of the act does not
address who will pay for meeting safety requirements, except
where the owner, lessee or occupier of the land suffers a loss.
In that case the act wisely provides that the railway company
will pay such losses as are agreed to between the parties. It
also provides that where there is a dispute, the Canadian
Transportation Agency may make a determination. This appeal
process is specifically intended to ensure that any economic
considerations are resolved through an independent body.
There is the question of the costs of meeting any regulations
established under this section. All government regulations are
developed in consultation with affected parties so that both the
cost of complying with the requirements and the safety benefits
are established. Each specific regulation must also identify
which party is responsible for meeting the requirements.
For example, a regulation may specify that a drainage system
meet certain standards for the purpose of railway safety. It
would normally be the responsibility of the owner of the drainage
system to design and build it in compliance with the law. It
would be their responsibility to pay for it. This is the very
same situation for the railway company today that must pay the
cost of meeting requirements for safety of rail equipment, or
manufacturers of motor vehicles that must meet safety standards.
On the third point, subsection 24(1) applies widely and not just
to provincial, local or municipal governments. Many of the
owners or occupiers of land are private industries or
individuals. Even if we supported the intent of this motion,
which we do not, it would not help anyone other than governments.
I would like to turn for a moment to the intent of clause 19 of
the bill as presently written. It adds two sections aimed at
improving the safety at railway crossings, an important issue for
all Canadians and a major priority for the Department of
Transport.
Every year in Canada people are needlessly killed and injured in
accidents at crossings and while trespassing on railroad
property.
While the number of accidents has come down, initiatives proposed
in the bill will help to reduce it even further.
1300
This will ensure that Canada maintains its commendable rail
safety record as was noticed by the chairman of the Standing
Committee on Transport.
The intent of the bill is to improve the safety of Canada's rail
transportation system. The act recognizes that a number of
parties are involved in meeting this objective and has the
necessary authority to ensure the respective obligations are met.
The proposed motion does not in any way lead to a possible
improvement in this regard, since it addresses economic issues
only. It would also conflict with government regulatory policy
by making only one party bear the cost when in many cases others
have responsibility to do so also.
The act already provides adequate protection where there are
economic disputes. This motion is not, in our opinion, necessary
for that purpose. Therefore the government is unable to support
the proposed amendment by the hon. member. The Railway Safety
Act has already led the way in ensuring that our nation's
railways operate in an extremely safe manner.
The review of this legislation has shown that our system meets
high safety standards. Bill C-58 will ensure that we continue to
build on this well established safety base.
I strongly urge all hon. members to give quick passage to this
legislation when put forward for third and final reading.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I regret that the Reform Party cannot endorse the
amendment presented by the Bloc. We cannot support an amendment
that would require railways to pay for the removal of hazards
created as a result of the emissions of local governments.
This defies natural justice. In that respect only we cannot
support the amendment.
For example, if a local road authority allowed brush to grow
wild on the approach to a railway crossing and then was forced to
remove it, under the terms of this amendment, as I understand it,
the railway would be required to pay for the work. That would be
patently unfair.
If I have misunderstood the motion, I hope during questions and
comments that will be brought to my attention. As I interpret
it, this is simply wrong.
As far as the general question of this legislation is concerned,
in my part of the country this entire debate is becoming moot or
academic. The railways it would govern are disappearing thanks to
the government's brilliance in writing the new Canadian
transportation act. It is pretty hard to have a railway crossing
accident where there are no railways. This is happening to us
out there at a very rapid rate.
I am a little concerned that this bill has been fast tracked the
way it has. Basically there is not much in the bill with which I
could find fault. But it certainly is clear evidence of utter
disorganization in the office of the minister that the bill has
sat around for heaven knows how many weeks and all of a sudden it
is being pushed through first reading, second reading, committee,
report stage, bang, bang, bang, for no good reason that I can
understand unless we are looking at prorogation.
The bill has been languishing over there in that tower. Now we
have it here and we have to deal with it. The bill has not even
been printed as reported. It is not even available online, on
the net. Yet here we are debating the terms. It has not been
printed as reported.
I suppose we could raise that as a point of order and create
some disruption. I do not intend to do so but this is
ridiculous. What is the hurry?
1305
If I had not alerted some stakeholders to the fact that the bill
was coming up in committee, they would not have had time to even
think about preparing presentations. It caught them completely
off guard. They had to rush to do what they had to do and they
did it very well. Other stakeholders would have come forward if
they had known what was going on. Perhaps I am impugning motive
but the government did not care whether the public was aware of
what it was doing so the word did not go out that committee
meetings were to be held.
I have one example. The Canadian Trucking Alliance hired a
prominent transportation consultant to review the bill,
specifically the provisions related to crossings and the
standards for construction or alteration of railway works. I
presume since these guys do not work cheap it cost the
association a bundle of money. The report will not be completed
until Monday, December 7, which is too late to have any impact.
So these people have wasted their time trying to get some input
into the democratic process.
The opposition has not obstructed the bill in any way because it
is in essence a technical bill. On the advice of various
stakeholders we tried to introduce some minor amendments in
committee but, as usual, the Liberal members lined up in lock
step to stop us. Same old, same old. I sometimes wonder why we
have committees when everything is done according to the wishes
and whims of the minister. However, we are on the rails here. I
am not going oppose the bill nor are my colleagues but we are
getting sick and tired of this nonsense of being pushed around
and bullied when there is no good reason for doing so.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill, in particular to the
Bloc motion before us. Perhaps we should look historically at
the motion. Railways were the first type of major land
transportation. They were used years before cars were built and
we had highway traffic acts in each province. Therefore the
standards set out in the Railway Safety Act must be applied from
coast to coast. We cannot put in a separate statute for a safety
feature for one province and negate that safety feature in
another province.
As my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands said, it appears
the bill is aimed at one province, that it is not national in its
scope. It seems to be a redundant and therefore I will not be
able to support the amendment.
There is a growing concern that we should have a more
co-ordinated safety program. Like my colleague from Cypress
Hills—Grasslands, I am wondering why we had to hurry this bill
through. It would be more of a safety issue at this time to have
a national trucking safety policy co-ordinated with this bill.
Eventually we will have to deal with a national policy on the
trucking industry and adapt it to the bill before us. That could
have been done in conjunction with this bill which would have
made abundantly more sense than pushing this bill through as
quickly as we did.
The last time the Standing Committee on Transport met we had a
presentation on ITS, intelligent transportation systems. This
presentation proved to the few members there that this is the
coming thing. ITS no doubt in the future are there not just for
the railway system but for the trucking system. They are there
for the automobile, all traffic, and should have been
co-ordinated. All these things should be built in to one facet of
a National Safety Council presentation.
1310
The railways in the United States, because they are the oldest,
are reneging about getting into ITS. I suggest to hon. members
opposite that the same would be true in Canada that the railways
will be the last to co-operate in ITS because historically they
are the oldest and they are the granddaddy of them all.
What impressed me with the presentation, which leaves the motion
out, is we must have a national program and that national program
through intelligent transportation systems will eventually become
a continental program. I agree with the member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands that we should not have pushed this so rapidly.
We should have incorporated it not within this bill but made
this bill more applicable and easily applied when we move to the
highway trucking industry.
I want to congratulate a person who came to the transport
committee. I asked him for a video. It was about safety on the
rails. I viewed the one hour video which was excellent. The
problem is it was made in the U.S. There is nothing wrong with
that in itself, however the reason I wanted this was to see if it
was all right with the copyright to make some copies, send it out
to my schools, particularly on the two major railways through my
constituency, for safety reasons to be presented in the schools.
I saw the big accidents of Amtrak, Southern Pacific and so on. I
had some concerns about that. I encourage the Minister of
Transport in working with other ministers in the House that we
should present a Canadian video to each province's departments of
education and schools so that we could stop these needless
fatalities of children taking chances, playing on right of ways
of the railway and the needless risking of lives at crossings and
so on.
We cannot support the motion. We will be supporting this bill.
The final plea I make is please look at the safety features not
only with regard to the operation of trains but relating to the
general public and for this department to come up with a good
safety video similar to the one I mentioned produced in the
United States.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. member from the Bloc for proposing this amendment to
Bill C-58.
This is a very reasonable amendment to the railway safety aspect
to ensure that railway companies take financial responsibility
for the safety of operations. Should there ever be a cost to
comply with the safety regulations under clause 19 it is only
fair that the railways pay for this.
This amendment if passed will ensure that local taxpayers are not
forced to pay for railways to comply with these regulations.
1315
In response to some of the concerns my hon. colleagues in the
Reform have mentioned, there are already regulations in place. If
it is a matter of highway and roadway brush, regulations are in
place within the provinces to ensure that they are responsible.
We have seen more and more devolution of responsibility from the
federal government on to the provinces and ultimately the
municipalities to cover costs. They are absolutely taxed to the
limit. We need to ensure that the railways are owning up to
their responsibility. As my colleague from Souris—Moose
Mountain indicated, perhaps it will not be a problem in the
prairies because rail lines are disappearing rather quickly. It
is inherently important that we ensure the municipalities do not
suffer the consequences.
The amendment is also very timely because it deals with the
larger issue of corporate welfare. I have to comment on the
suggestion that sports teams should have some kind of a tax break
when citizens throughout Canada are suffering hardships because
of lack of money going into health care. It is inherent that we
make those who are profiting from certain things pay the price.
Taxpayers already give up far too much pay for corporate
welfare. The Liberal government cheered on—here is where the
hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands comes in—by the Reform
and Progressive Conservative parties shells out billions of
dollars in tax break and direct subsidies to private interests.
One of the most outrageous examples was the privatization of CN
Rail. Since 1867 and even before then Canadian taxpayers have
paid for our railway system.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. My party and I are being defamed. We have been leading
the pack in fighting against corporate welfare.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the hon.
member is getting into debate.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, I am not really
concerned because most Canadians truly know who are speaking out
on their behalf.
Taxpayers paid for the trans-continental railway that linked the
country from east to west. They got an excellent return for
their investment as the railway spurred economic growth,
particularly in the west where it facilitated transportation of
prairie grain.
I can remember a time not too long ago when branch lines
criss-crossed the prairie provinces. I grew up in southern
Saskatchewan and feel a great love for the prairie provinces as
well as for my new home in northern Manitoba. Grain elevators in
small prairie towns all connected by rail were gathering points
for communities.
All that began to change when the Liberal government betrayed
the Canadian people and sold off CN Rail at a bargain basement
price. A few investors got very rich off the corporate welfare
measure but prairie farmers have ultimately paid the price. CN
Rail has begun ripping up the branch lines taxpayers paid for and
selling them off, leaving prairie farmers to truck their grain
themselves.
Another aspect of corporate welfare is the double standard when
it comes to taxation. Individual Canadians and small businesses
carry large burdens primarily from regressive consumption taxes
like the GST. Corporate taxes in Canada are among the lowest in
the developed world. Yet when the Liberal government decided to
balance its budget it cut programs like health and education
rather than rebalance an unfair tax burden. It balanced the
budget on the backs of ordinary Canadian workers and small
business people who suffered the consequences of the cuts while
carrying an unfair share of the tax burden. All the while
corporate welfare bums made higher and higher profits.
Now that the budget is balanced the government should reinvest
in health and social programs and make tax cuts where they are
needed, like phasing out the GST and reducing the burden on small
business. Instead the Liberal dominated finance committee has
recommended a set of tax breaks in favour of high income
Canadians.
The New Democratic Party opposes this tax cut. In its place we
propose reinvesting in health and other vital programs and
targeting tax cuts like a GST cut that will help everyone, not
just people making well above the national average income.
I will be supporting the Bloc member's proposal as I feel that
it will ensure Canadian municipalities and provinces will not
suffer further consequences from the government. It certainly is
in the spirit of ending corporate welfare.
1320
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to speak to report stage of Bill C-58, an act to
amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential
amendment to another act, and in particular to the Bloc amendment
regarding compensation to provinces and municipalities due to
regulations made under section 24 of this act.
The act is basically the same as the previous Bill C-43
introduced during the last parliament which unfortunately died on
the order paper at the call of the election.
The bill proposes amendments to the Railway Safety Act which
came into effect in January 1988. A statutory review took place
after five years and the result was the previous Bill C-43 and
now Bill C-58.
We are pleased with the exhaustive consultation which took place
with the stakeholders involved and their valuable input. The
Railway Safety Act which passed in 1988 was a significant change
in the way we regulate railways and in how railways interact with
government. This has proven to be a very good approach, and with
the legislation before us today I hope it will become even
better.
The member for Cumberland—Colchester examined the bill in
detail in committee. He was glad to hear the witnesses who
appeared including CP rail, Canadian National, the Canadian
Railway Association of Canada and three groups representing
labour.
We are in support of the amendment proposed by the Bloc today as
we feel it will enhance railway safety in Canada. The Railway
Safety Act currently allows for compensation to land owners
affected by the regulations made under section 24 of the act and
the amendment extends that compensation. The proposed amendment
addresses the new areas in which the governor in council may make
regulations as a result of Bill C-58.
The new regulations deal with the construction, alteration and
maintenance of roads for the purpose of ensuring safe railway
operation and respecting the control of vehicular and pedestrian
traffic on road approaches to railroad crossings for the purpose
of ensuring safe railway operations.
It is always a top priority of the Progressive Conservative
Party to ensure safe railway operation and to provide
compensation to those affected through no fault of their own. I
am glad to say that we will be supporting the motion as we look
forward to a safer railway system as a result of the bill.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, in my
brief time in the House rarely have I seen something rushed
through as quickly as Bill C-58.
I had the joy of sitting on the transportation committee. The
bill was as quickly considered as a bill could be considered in
committee. For the information of the folks at home, the
Liberals across the way have decided that prorogation of the
House is a good idea. I see members shaking their hands, some
one way and some the other, but that is basically what is going
on.
The Liberals have been dragging their feet on changes to the
Railway Safety Act for a very long time. Each time they talk
about it they decide they did not do it right the first time and
have to make a couple of amendments. That is what is going on
here.
They went ahead and brought the bill to committee. They did not
take a lot of time, energy or effort to go ahead and notify
stakeholders with regard to Bill C-58. In one session on one day
all the people who had an interest—and I have copies of their
briefs—were rushed through very quickly, one after another,
rapid fire, so the government could get its changes to the bill.
Now it is before us at report stage.
Let us look at some of the interesting scenarios we have with
regard to Bill C-58. The Reform Party put forward some
amendments to the bill in committee. Just like in all other
committees we recognize the government will not have its ears
open in this regard.
It does not want any changes or any improvements to the
legislation.
1325
In committee the Reform Party recognized that government members
were trying to go for very broad and encompassing definitions of
what would be considered a combustion emission or pollutant. In
the past they have included very broad definitions which were as
expansive as possible so that if any problems arise they are able
to address them.
This was not the first time this type of thing happened. We
recognized that if we strictly defined pollutants as combustion
emissions it would be very clear what the government was
intending in this regard. It would not be talking about noise
pollution, for example, which is referred to in other pieces of
legislation. It would be fairly specific. It would address
exactly what we were trying to regulate.
It is very important to be precise in terms of what we are
trying to regulate. If we allow the government too broad a
definition, it sometimes takes too great a liberty. Who gets
hurt by that? It is the railways and the other stakeholders. We
tried to make that small amendment.
I am just raising this as an example. This is not the first
time we have brought forth amendments to a piece of legislation
to try to improve it. Government members turned it down because
they wanted as broad a definition as possible. They did not want
to discuss it. As a result, somewhere down the line somebody will
have to pay the price for that.
The government does not want to accept responsibility with
regard to provinces and municipalities in terms of any costs that
will come about as a result of the regulation. It does not have
any problem with hoisting all types of costs on people, whether
it be the railways in terms of precise definitions like
combustion emissions versus pollutants, or whether it be the
provinces and the municipalities as a result of the regulations.
It does not have a problem with other people internalizing the
costs of its regulations.
When the government does these types of things it forces others
to pick up and internalize their costs. We learned in economics
in university the whole concept of either internalizing or
externalizing costs. If people do not want to internalize a
cost, they spread it to others.
That is when government members like to talk about sharing. They
love the concept of sharing when they can share costs or
expenditures with others. That is when they like to share. That
is exactly what we have in this government legislation. That is
exactly what we see with the Liberals all the time. They love to
share the misery. They love to share the costs.
This is not just with regard to Bill C-58. I can look at a
whole bunch of other pieces of government legislation to see that
the Liberals love to share misery. They blame Mike Harris and
Ralph Klein when they make cuts to health care. Indeed it is the
Liberals who are offloading those costs and responsibilities.
It is exactly the same in this case. It is more minute but
nonetheless we have members of a Liberal administration who love
to share the misery. They love to share the cost with others,
but they do not like picking up the responsibilities for what
they do.
I have given a couple of examples in Bill C-58 where that type
of top down arrogant philosophy continues on big issues like
health care which impact on every Canadian. It has spread to
other things, even the minutia in the Railway Safety Act. That
is the type of problem we have.
I will apply a couple of the tests which I said the government
should have applied before to other pieces of legislation. Who
wants it? Who wants some of the changes? The Liberals did not
even have the gratitude or openmindedness to notify ahead of time
the stakeholders who were to be intimately affected by some of
these things. They were rushed through the committee very
quickly.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Madam Speaker, I do not want to interrupt
the member's speech. I think it is valuable to hear what he has
to say. However I am rising to seek unanimous consent.
1330
Maybe some of my colleagues across the way will bear with me.
The hon. member has about four or five minutes remaining. In
order that we may hear his concluding remarks, and in order that
we may have the bill at report stage, I ask for unanimous consent
of the House that we not see the clock at 1.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, one more time we have the
case of the government wanting other people to pick up its costs
for its regulation and for the things that it wants to see done,
but the government does not want to pick up the responsibilities
and the costs. It is only willing to share the costs, the
expenditures and burden others with its problems.
I want to wrap up with a couple of simple questions I wish the
government would apply to every piece of legislation it brought
into this House. One, who wants it? Two, who wants to pay for
it or who is going to pay for it?
I look at these things time and again and the list goes on.
Whether it is health care, jobs programs, or whatever it happens
to be, even the minutiae in the railway safety act, we see time
and again that the government likes to get its way but wants
other people to pay for what it wants done. The government does
not like taking the costs itself. It likes sharing the burden
with others. This is a classic case of that.
I wish the government would have been willing to listen to some
of the amendments from the opposition. I wish it would have
notified the stakeholders and given them appropriate time. I
wish it would have asked itself some of these crucial questions
when proposing legislation like this. The government failed on
all of those accounts. However, the government will get its way
because it has a majority.
[Translation]
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 Motion
No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the division stands deferred until Monday, December 7, 1998,
at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly, the
division will take place on Monday at 6.30 p.m. I seek the
unanimous consent of the House to have this division held at the
same time as the other votes, at 5 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House to have this division held at
5 p.m. instead of 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your
attention something that could be considered a serious breach of
the integrity of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Madam Speaker, as you know the finance committee report was due
to be released at 1.30 p.m. today in the public environment. Yet,
not more than 15 minutes ago the chairman of the finance
committee was in the public environment outside the House with a
copy of the finance committee report in his hands in the presence
of media.
1335
Madam Speaker, I want to point out that he was the only person
of the Standing Committee on Finance who had a copy of that
report. I therefore question the independence of the report in
view of that fact. I would ask that the Chair recognize this.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this is the first I have heard
about this. I will endeavour to verify these facts immediately.
If I have enough information before we adjourn this afternoon, I
will gladly report to the House.
It is a breach of our standing orders for anyone to release a
report publicly before it is tabled in the House. All members
know these rules. However, I will verify that and report to the
extent possible before we adjourn today as to our findings.
Mr. Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify
for the government House leader that the report was not
circulated. However, it was in the public venue outside this
House and outside the confidentiality that was required before
the public release of the report.
We, as committee members, are given to understand that we are
considered equals when it comes to dealing with the
confidentiality of reports. Confidentiality applies to all of
us. I have some grave concerns in light of the concerns that
were expressed in this House in this past week regarding the
leaking of reports.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We will wait for the
government House leader to come back with his comments.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should act
decisively, in response to the evidence in the Canadian Arctic
Contaminants Assessment Report, to eliminate persistent organic
pollutants by working to advance the POPs protocol.
He said: Madam Speaker, members may ask why we are debating
this motion. The brief answer is that certain harmful polluting
substances, which travel long distances, are landing in the
Arctic. The Government of Canada is constructively working with
other governments in arriving at agreements to reduce these
polluting substances, to protect human health, the environment,
wildlife and people living in the Arctic.
The name of these polluting substances is POPs. They are
pesticides used in agriculture, chemicals such as PCBs, products
such as chlorinated dioxins, furans, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons otherwise known as PAHs, resulting from fossil fuel
combustion, the burning and processing of wood and other
materials.
One might ask why the signature on the protocol of persistent
organic pollutants or POPs is important and urgent. Because 16
nations are required to ratify the protocol so that the agreement
to reduce organic pollutants goes into effect.
I am told it will be open for signature by interested nations
after December 21, 1998.
1340
The situation in the Arctic is described in the Canadian Arctic
contaminants assessment report which was produced last year.
The report states that persistent organic pollutants from
sources outside Canada and outside the Arctic have been
transported to the Arctic by air. These pollutants find their way
into the Arctic food chain and accumulate in traditional
aboriginal foods. As a result, high levels of the pesticides
toxaphene and chlordane have been found in beluga muktoq and seal
meat. In many cases, our Inuit people who eat even a very small
quantity of traditional sources of meat may ingest more than what
Health Canada considers tolerable.
It is important to note that neither toxaphene nor chlordane is
used in Canada.
In that report we find also that there are disturbing
measurements of PCBs in the breast milk of Inuit women which are
now among the highest levels in the world. In the cases of 40%
and over of Inuit women, the PCB in their blood is up to five
times the level of concern prescribed by the Department of
Health.
Clearly, human health depends on what we do about pollutants and
in the case of the Arctic, about these POPs. In southern Canada,
Professor Jules Blais of the University of Ottawa whose research
appeared in the journal Nature in October 1998 reports
disturbing quantities of pesticides transported by air to the
Rocky Mountains. In the Columbia ice fields and at Lake Louise,
Professor Blais found traces of the prairie crop insecticide,
lindane; endosulphan, a popular insect killer used in eastern
Canada; chlordane, a banned termite terminator; and even DDT, a
pesticide banned in Canada but still in use in China, in Mexico
and in other countries.
There are also reports related to Denver and Mexico City. People
may face a problem with respect to their drinking water from snow
melts on mountains more than 3,000 metres high where there may be
even greater accumulation of pollutants than found in our
Rockies. Scientists in Switzerland have also expressed alarm
because a number of Swiss towns also take their water from lakes
high in the mountains.
All this points to the problems posed by these POPs as faced by
people and governments in different continents.
For the Government of Canada, it therefore becomes necessary to
control the release of these POPs that we still produce at home,
such as dioxins and furans. As long as we continue to produce
them, POPs will enter the ecosystem and the food chain.
The more we pollute, the higher price we pay in terms of health
care costs. Many POPs we are told cause endocrine system
defects, immune system dysfunction, reproductive abnormalities
and developmental problems in humans. Some POPs can induce or
promote cancers. Here at home once we clean our own backyard,
then of course we can urge our neighbours to clean up theirs.
Ratifying the POPs protocol becomes desirable so that other
countries know we are serious about the reduction of these
organic pollutants.
We need to take a lead role in the implementation of the new
global agreement. A meeting of international experts on organic
pollutants held in Vancouver in 1995 produced recommendations.
The agreement I am referring to is the one that UNEP, the United
Nations environment program, produced to ensure that firm targets
and timetables are set for the elimination of these POPs around
the globe.
1345
It will take a great deal of political will to convince
developing countries of the long term human health benefits of
eliminating POPs. It will also require significant financial
resources to help those countries to change their processes and
practices in agriculture and pest management.
Apparently the World Bank and other international lenders, as a
condition for giving financial aid, often force farmers in
developing countries to use pesticides containing POPs. This
policy led to a meeting in Vancouver three years ago when
international experts got together and came up with the following
recommendations.
One, that international and national banking practices should
promote safe alternatives to and the reduction and elimination of
POPs.
Two, that incentives for the use of safer pesticides and
chemicals be offered to communities in developing nations in
order to reduce and eliminate POPs.
Three, that there be an enforcement of stricter limits on
pesticide residue on food and that countries be discouraged from
using POPs in agriculture.
Four, that human and ecological health be taken into account
when making decisions related to trade and investment.
The importance of addressing the human health implications in
the Arctic resulting from the long range transport of organic
pollutants is proven by the northern contaminants program. This
will be funded in Canada for a further five years by the
Government of Canada, in the amount of $6 million each year, for
a total of $30 million.
The elimination of these organic pollutants also points to the
need to take action in Canada on several fronts.
First, we must continue to do research on the effects of POPs.
Second, we must enact strong legislation to eliminate and prevent
POPs and enforce it. Third, we must regulate industry
efficiently and prevent damage to human health. Fourth, we must
ban substances that are dangerous to human health and, where
certain substances cannot be banned, use pollution prevention
policies.
We are mindful of the fact that there are over 23,000 substances
registered for use in Canada. So far only a handful have been
banned. Thousands of others still need to be reviewed to
determine if they are toxic and plans for their management,
control and elimination still are to be developed.
There is a need to implement a policy whereby health is given
priority over the economy because, as we are discovering, over
the long term a healthy society and a healthy environment ensure
the foundation for a healthy economy. This is the reason we as
parliamentarians are interested in promoting and accelerating
treaties which reduce international pollution.
International organic pollutants, POPs, must be seen as a threat
to health and the economy. Pollutants from faraway places can
and do harm us. Hence, there is a necessity for agreements
between governments so as to ensure good economic and
environmental behaviour among nations.
For parliamentarians there is a role to play through the Arctic
Council. There are parliamentary colleagues in Scandinavia, the
U.S.A. and Russia interested in preventing pollution. The member
for Lac-Saint-Louis and I discovered this fact several years ago
and have at every opportunity advanced the cause of pollution
prevention and reduction through the signature of protocols. In
the case of organic pollutants, we have done so in Iqaluit, in
Salekhard, Russia and at the Council of Europe.
Next year we intend to intensify our efforts in Brussels on the
occasion of a meeting of the Arctic Council and again in
Strasbourg at the Council of Europe.
1350
I conclude in urging colleagues in this House to speak
forcefully in favour of pollution reduction and prevention and
any initiative that can take us toward the reduction and virtual
elimination of pollutants which are so damaging to human health,
the economy and the environment.
As the population on this globe grows and human activities
intensify, it is becoming evident that we have to accelerate the
process of pollution reduction and, where possible, pollution
prevention through changes in industrial processes and practices
if we are to make life on this planet possible in the long run.
The issue of POPs is a classic example of international
interdependence. The pollutants we let into the atmosphere can
harm people in distant places and the pollutants emitted in
distant places harm us. We have to renew the strong will which
guided us in the seventies and the eighties and make a concerted
new effort toward the goal of a pollution free society. Today
that is what this debate on POPs is all about.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to
inquire into the matter raised previously on a point of privilege
by another member of the House in the matter of the tabling of a
report by the chair of the finance committee.
I think there was a bit of a misunderstanding, I am sure
inadvertently, in the beginning. I had concluded from the
comments of some hon. members that there was an allegation that
in fact the report had been circulated and made available to the
media and possibly commented on by the chair of the committee
prior to it being tabled in the House.
I am satisfied that was not the case. In fact the document was
tabled in the House and then the chair left and commented on this
report.
I was also led to believe, and perhaps this is my mistake, that
copies were made available to the media prior to being made
available to members. That was not accurate either.
I have made inquiries to the officials of the House of Commons
and they inform me that they are doing their best to have copies
available as quickly as they can. Obviously, committee members
had their own working copies when they were in committee.
Apparently two or three copies are being sent to the opposition
lobbies now, with the good graces of our clerk's office, and I
have obtained two copies myself which I am certainly willing to
share with any hon. member who wants one.
I am told that the matter is a matter of printing with the House
of Commons and has nothing to do at all with anything that the
chair either has done by way of commission or omission.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
my privilege to stand today to speak to Motion M-37, moved by my
hon. colleague from Davenport.
The member for Davenport has been chairing the Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development as we go
through CEPA, a bill which has some 380 clauses and some 480
amendments. So his task in the last few weeks has been rather
daunting. It is encouraging to see that he still has the
strength to be up on Friday speaking to his private member's
motion.
We do not agree on how to get to a clean environment, in most
respects, but we do agree that a clean environment is important.
The motion reads:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should act
decisively, in response to the evidence in the Canadian Arctic
Contaminants Assessment Report, to eliminate persistent organic
pollutants by working to advance the POPs protocol.
I think it is important in order to fully understand this motion
to explain the origin of the POPs protocol. The roots of this
protocol can be traced back to the creation of the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe, a forum at which the countries of
North America, western, central and eastern Europe and central
Asia came together to forge the tools of economic co-operation.
This large group of countries, with close historical ties,
accounts for 64% of world production, but it also is responsible
for 60% of the world's CO2 emissions.
These facts illustrate the region's responsibilities toward its
own people as well as toward those of the other regions of the
world. They are the backdrop against which UN/ECE's activities
are carried out. The ECE is intended to be a forum for dialogue
aimed at bringing about better understanding and agreement on
common guidelines and policies. Where agreements are negotiated
and assistance activities prepared, its main purpose is to
harmonize the policies and practices of its member countries.
1355
The ECE has many different divisions, one of which deals with
environment and human settlements. One of the many bodies of
this division is the executive body for the convention on long
range transboundary air pollution. This was drafted after
scientists investigated the link between sulphur emissions in
continental Europe and the acidification of Scandinavian lakes
and later studied the possibility that air pollutants could
travel several thousand kilometres before deposition and damage
occurred. This implied that co-operation at the international
level was necessary to solve problems such as acidification.
The convention was the first international legally binding
instrument to deal with problems of air pollution on a broad
regional basis. It was signed in 1979 and entered into force in
1983. Since its entry into force the convention has been
extended by seven protocols, one of which is a protocol on
persistent organic pollutants. The executive body adopted the
protocol on persistent organic pollutants on June 24, 1998 in
Denmark. It focuses on a list of 16 substances that have been
singled out according to agreed risk criteria. The list contains
eleven pesticides, two industrial chemicals and three byproduct
contaminants. The ultimate objective is to eliminate any
discharges, emissions and POPs.
The protocol bans the production and use of some products.
Others are scheduled for elimination at a later stage. The
protocol severely restricts the use of DDT, HCH and PCBs. The
protocol includes provisions for dealing with the wastes of
products that will be banned. It also obliges parties to reduce
the emissions of dioxins, furans, PAHs and HCBs below their 1990
levels. It lays down specific limit values for the incineration
of municipal hazardous and medical waste.
Canada has been host to the first of five negotiating sessions
to be held over the next two years that will eventually see a
legally binding treaty by 2000. What does this mean to Canada?
The Canadian Arctic was once considered pristine because of its
remoteness and sparse population. However, over the past 50
years the north has been exposed to contaminants originating from
local sources such as heavy industry and from distant regions of
the world through air and sea currents.
Since this is the case we are faced with quite a dilemma. Many
of the contaminants of concern in the Arctic are pesticides and
industrial chemicals that are no longer used in Canada and that
in many cases have been banned or restricted for use in most of
the developed world. However, they continue to be used by
developing countries and can be found in Canadian lakes, rivers
and snow. It is important for developing countries to be part of
any protocol to reduce pollution in the world. Canada has been a
world leader in assessing the problem of long range airborne
pollutants but it will require co-operation on a global scale
before the pollution problem is properly assessed.
Arctic ecosystems are very fragile. The nature of these
chemicals is such that they tend to accumulate in the tissues of
living things. Animals at the top of the food chain have been
found with unexpectedly high levels of these contaminants which
is cause for some concern for Inuit people. The Inuit people
rely heavily on naturally harvested foods such as fish, seals,
caribou not only for their diet but also to maintain their
culture.
If this were to be taken away the socioeconomic impact alone
could be vast. Because of this heavy reliance on traditionally
harvested foods northern aboriginal people are susceptible to
exposure to the potential adverse effects of these contaminants.
Although the Canadian arctic contaminants assessment report
concludes there is not an immediate threat to the health of
adults, there are concerns over possible health effects on unborn
children and infants.
This motion is not the right way to fix the problem. The
environmental damage to Canada's north is from more than just
POPs. The motion is only a piecemeal solution to a much bigger
problem.
The government has not yet told Canadians how it is planning to
deal with contaminated sites on federal lands.
1400
Last week the auditor general recognized that the government has
no idea how to deal with the estimated 5,000 contaminated sites
located on crown land in Canada. It has no comprehensive view of
the potential risk to health, safety and the environment
associated with these sites. It does not yet have a complete and
accurate view of the related contingent or actual liabilities.
The government has not developed and implemented a central
timetable and has not finalized and implemented a high level
environmental policy for common standards for due diligence in a
consistent manner. There is still confusion over who would take
a leadership role with respect to this mess, so as a result there
is no leadership.
The Reform Party recognizes the right of all Canadians to dwell
in a clean and healthy environment. It has been our policy from
the beginning to support immediate long term restoration programs
for areas of the environment damaged due to inadequate or
improperly enforced regulations.
But this motion is not a long term restoration program for an
area of the environment that has been damaged due to inadequate
or improperly enforced regulations. It is a solution to only a
small part of a greater problem.
The motion lets the government off too easy. When will we see a
motion that would commit the government to a clear plan of
action, a plan where it will take responsibility and show some
leadership? It would be seriously remiss for this House to
approve this motion, although I know it is not votable, while
ignoring the bigger problems Canada's northern people face.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Earlier the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley did
not accuse the chairman of the finance committee of leaking the
report but accused the chair of compromising his position to take
advantage for himself while the other members of the committee
were disadvantaged because the report was not available to them.
I want to make it clear that since the report was not printed
the other members were disadvantaged. Ethically it was not
appropriate to use his position in this way.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise to
support this motion.
In June 1997 the Arctic environmental strategy, northern
contaminants program issued the Canadian Arctic contaminants
report. This report was the result of 6 years of scientific
research and more than 100 studies. The results confirmed what
northerners had been saying for years, that the environment is
changing, people are becoming sick by compromised immune systems,
thyroid malfunction, tumours and cancer. These are unheard of
through thousands of years of northern people's histories. The
fish, the caribou, the birds, they too are sick, the very food
and sustenance of the north.
The science identified a complete contamination of the northern
ecosystem. Persistent contaminants could be found throughout the
Arctic ecosystem: air, surface, sea water, suspended sediments,
show, fish, marine mammals, seabirds and terrestrial plants and
animals.
The most frightening and shocking findings were that
contaminants in northern people are in mothers' breast milk. PCBs
and other chemicals are there. There are very high levels of
thyroid malfunction in the north as well. The science calls it
POPs, persistent organic pollutants. They persist and they are
unmanageable.
The New Democratic Party recognizes these POPs are an
international concern, an issue that threatens ecosystems around
the globe, a danger that is all too real for aboriginal peoples
through the north as well as anyone else who lives in the north.
We support this motion that calls for strong action on POPs and
we commend the hon. member for Davenport for raising this issue,
for his persistence and his dedication in doing so. We are truly
fortunate to have such a member of parliament among us.
Canada's Arctic is one of the most susceptible and proven
dumping grounds on earth for these insidious poisons. The cold
climate acts as a sink. These pollutants do not evaporate to be
carried elsewhere. They persist and they remain in the north.
They are known as the dirty dozen. They are acknowledged
deadlies and there are thousands more as yet undefined and
unidentified.
The United Nations meeting in Montreal for the elimination of
POPs, held this June, is a significant step toward reaching a
global treaty by 2000. Canada's environment minister called for
the elimination of POPs which do include PCBs.
1405
Yet she refuses to clean up the PCB laden Marwell tar pit in
Whitehorse, Yukon. This government owned the land, allowed it to
be polluted then transferred it to the Yukon tar pit, PCBs and
all. Yet this government refuses any responsibility for these
deadly pollutants in the middle of a major city in the north.
I worry that this government has little regard for transboundary
contaminants in the north. An excellent example of the obvious
indifference demonstrated by this government to the environmental
degradation in Yukon and the north is not limited to the mass
deforestation encouraged by this government.
I call to the attention of the House a request for information
on possible transboundary contaminants related to four decades of
the United States military operations in Alaska. POPs and
environmental contaminants are known to be carried by the wind
and water. These operations were conducted within 200 kilometres
of Canada's borders, perhaps carried across our borders.
On September 29, 1998, I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs
to determine if possible cross-border environmental contamination
of Canadian territory, Yukon, had occurred. This request was
related to the following five points: chemical and biological
weapons testing at the Gerstle River site of Alaska;
transportation of replacement nuclear reactor cores to Fort
Greely in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1970; the March 1998 bunker bomb
testing using depleted uranium bomb cases just across the border
from Yukon; chemical weapons testing at Fort Wainright in the
early 1990s; unexploded ordinance, nuclear waste storage,
landfills and disposal sites at various points in Alaska.
We have not received a response to date, this after the November
30 meeting in Washington D.C. with the minister's counterpart
Madeline Albreight. If northerners cannot receive a basic
response from this government to concerns related to
environmental contaminants such as chemical and biological
weapons testing adjacent to the Yukon Territory, how can we
expect any leadership related to international efforts related to
persistent organic pollutants?
I hope we as a nation can acknowledge the terrible price the
north is expected to pay for inaction. Action is needed.
I quote Craig Boljkovak, part of the U.N.
treaty on persistent organic pollutants. Canada's moral
authority is in peril:
At present Canada is headed down a road where its hard fought
gains in the form of a POPs treaty are being seriously
undermined by its weak domestic record. Political intervention
is necessary at the highest level to put the government back on
track. The environment and its human inhabitants deserve no
less.
Canada's international reputation belies its lack of domestic
action on POPs and other toxics.
The government has done a laudable job of publicizing the plight
of the Arctic and the Great Lakes among countries considering
action on POPs and Canada can be considered a driving force for a
treaty. This high level of international activity unfortunately
is not matched by domestic action on POPs.
These are the very citizens in the north who depend on our
government to protect them and to protect the environment and
food source in the north.
Action is needed. Leadership is needed. Political will is
needed to reduce the pollutants, prevent their creation and to
clean up old messes.
Yukon has over 200 abandoned military sites that need to be
cleaned up and again this government cut funding to the Arctic
environment strategy which identified these contaminated sites
for clean-up.
The United States has a serious involvement. It has abandoned
distant early warning sites, old military sites and airfield
sites. The list goes on and on. Much of this was done during the
second world war but that does not mean it should not be cleaned
up.
I conclude with the words of Norma Kassi, a woman who
represented the flatlands of Old Crow for many years. She is a
Gwitchin woman:
I was raised on Old Crow Flats in northern Yukon. Old Crow Flats
is one of the world's great wetlands, having more than 2000 lakes
throughout 600,000 hectares just above the Arctic circle.
The name of my people, Vuntut Gwitchin, means the caribou people
of the lakes. We've lived here for thousands and thousands of
years.
For a long time I've watched the birds come back to Old Crow
Flats every spring.
I remember when I was about ten years old, sitting with my
grandfather at the lake where a lot of birds used to come. They
would land and play and meet one another after their long trip.
They made a lot of noise. They were singing. They were happy.
They were telling stories. These birds I only knew in my own
language.
My grandfather said to me “You know, someday when you are a
woman you are going to see a lot of changes. When there are only
loons out there you are going to know that something is wrong
with the land and the weather”.
That was 30 years ago. Now I go back to Old Crow Flats every
three or four years and I see the changes. I sit at the same
spot and I remember my grandfather's words.
Every time I return I see fewer animals, fewer fish, fewer
birds. The water is silent and so crystal clear I can see to the
bottom. There used to be so much activity, so much aquatic life,
insects and little bugs. But now I can't. And now I see a pair
of loons only out there and that is about it.
1410
These are Norma's words and I think we should take them as a
warning and act before it is too late.
Again I would really like to stress that often the north is
overlooked. It is not a large population but people are getting
sick. People of Old Crow have suffered an incredible amount of
loss through cancer, yet their elders have remained strong, those
who lived off the land. The younger generation is suffering. I
do not think as a country we should be allowing that to go on.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon to
Motion No. 37 as presented by the hon. member for Davenport that
in the opinion of the House, the government should act decisively
in response to the evidence in the Canada Arctic contaminants
assessment report to eliminate persistent organic pollutants by
working to advance the POPs protocol.
The member for Yukon had the opportunity to speak to this
motion. She represents a riding obviously of a northern nature
that is more susceptible to the effects of persistent organic
pollutants than any other region of our country.
I also want to point out that pollutants that are created from
afar affect us no matter where we reside in this country. Also,
pollutants with respect to POPs produced where we live actually
have an effect on individuals who live very far from us.
The motion refers to the Canadian Arctic contaminants assessment
report. I would like to read a few words of that report:
The Arctic was once considered pristine because of its remoteness
and sparse population. However, over the last 50 years the north
has been exposed to contaminants originating from local sources
such as mining and from distant industrial and agricultural
regions of the world. These persistent contaminants have been
detected throughout Arctic ecosystems including air, surface
seawater, suspended sediments and snow.
I would also like to highlight another comment with respect to
POPs:
Contaminants such as persistent organic pollutants, known as
POPs, heavy metals and radionuclides enter the Arctic through
long range transport on air and water currents, with the
atmosphere being the primary pathway.
The point is individuals who may not be responsible for
manufacturing or creating these pollutants are actually victims
of these pollutants.
The report goes on to say that from 1985 to 87 PCBs were
measured in the blood of Inuit in the community of Broughton
Island, NWT, known to have a relatively high per capita intake of
traditionally harvested foods. Results showed that blood PCBs
exceeded tolerable levels set by Health Canada in 63% of the
females and males under 15 and in 39% of females 15 to 44. In 6%
of males 15 years and older, they also had a higher proportion of
PCBs in their bodies than the acceptable level as set out by
Health Canada.
The point is the evidence of this report is actually calling on
society and the world community to take actions. POPs are carbon
based chemical compounds that are products and byproducts of
human industry. They are highly toxic substances that cause a
wide array of adverse health effects.
1415
This motion is about human health, that the pollutants we create
affect others. The member for Davenport encouraged all members
of the House to speak aggressively about pollution prevention,
the reduction of pollution and ultimately eliminating all
persistent organic pollutants.
POPs have what we refer to as a grasshopper effect. They are
released in the environment through evaporation and deposit and
are transported through the atmosphere to regions far from the
original source. The colder the climate, the less these
substances tend to evaporate. As a result the north is a cold
trap for them. POPs can be found in people and animals living in
regions such as the Arctic, thousands of kilometres from where
POPs are produced.
This phenomenon is especially prominent in the north. As a
result Inuit women have up to eight times higher levels of PCBs
in their breast milk than women in southern Canada. These are
well over the limits permissible by Health Canada. Some POPs are
known to affect the liver, the nervous system, the kidneys, the
reproductive system and the immune system. They are endocrine
disrupters or hormone disrupting substances as we aggressively
discussed as we went through clause by clause consideration of
the Environmental Protection Act.
No man is an island. POPs is a global problem that requires
global solutions. I point to the DDT pesticide which has been
used to combat malaria in a number of developing nations. Even
though DDT has been banned for a number of years in this country
it ends up in our food chains. As a wealthy industrialized
country it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we develop
replacements for pesticides such as DDT so that we can change
practices for combating diseases such as malaria. It is our
responsibility to help the developing world, which has real
concerns with respect to malaria, to do that.
What has been done so far? At the Rio earth summit in 1992 we
began to discuss the issue. Agenda 21, including chapter 19
which called for an intergovernmental forum on chemical safety to
promote and co-ordinate international work on chemicals, was
adopted. Countries were committed to formulating a joint plan of
action.
In June 1998 the intergovernmental negotiating committee met in
Montreal to begin laying the framework for a global plan.
Negotiators were asked to target a short list of the 12 most
dangerous POPs known as the dirty dozen. They were also assigned
the task of defining a procedure for identifying new substances
as candidates for future global action.
What needs to be done? The government needs to act quickly. The
persistence of these substances and their accumulation in living
tissue means that each year that passes without a solution will
result in decades of additional exposure.
A second round of international treaty negotiation talks will
take place in February 1999. A deal must be reached by the year
2000. The only effective solution is to phase out and eliminate
POPS as the source and to begin now. CEPA, as is currently
written, does not accomplish this fact and thereby continues to
fail to protect the most exposed and vulnerable in the north.
We need to phase them out. We need to find replacements. We
need to change practices. We need a stronger CEPA, one that
assesses and classifies new substances quickly before they
further contaminate the north. The proposed system for assessing
substances is weak. Attempts to improve the new CEPA bill have
been voted down by the government on a number of occasions.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
spoke in committee. She said it was perhaps too premature to
include any kind of mechanism to address endocrine disrupters or
hormone disrupting substances, many of which are POPs.
I remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that in defeating
amendments tabled by my colleague from the NDP, the member for
York North, and the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, supported by the
member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, and me, she had to build a
coalition with Reform. The parliamentary secretary is now
building an environmental coalition with a party that is still
challenging the science on climate change.
1420
The government is now in the sixth year of its mandate and has
still yet to pass a piece of environmental legislation other than
the MMT bill which cost Canadian taxpayers $16.5 million. The
government needs to develop an environmental agenda.
Often the government likes to criticize the Conservative
government's record between the years 1983 and 1993. Our record
on the environment is the establishment of the green plan, our
leadership on the Montreal protocol which banned ozone depleting
substances, and our leadership in bringing forth the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act for the control and use of toxins.
Our crowning achievement with respect to the environment was in
the area of acid rain.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am proud to report that Canada is actively pursuing initiatives
and making great progress in the management and control of
persistent organic pollutants or POPs, particularly with respect
to foreign sources of substances that are impacting on the health
and environment of Canada.
In speaking to this item I wish to begin by thanking the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Health, the Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Minister of
Natural Resources for the effective way in which we have all
worked together to make the POPs protocol a success story for
Canada. I also thank the member for Davenport for raising this
very important issue.
[Translation]
Our tracking of the POPs issue indicates that we are also making
progress in aspects of great importance for the federal
government, such as health, children and aboriginal peoples.
Although Canada has banned or greatly cut back on the use of
POPs in the Canadian North, other countries continue to use
them.
[English]
POPs continue to be a problem for Canadians since they are
carried by air currents from sources outside Canada and are
deposited in Canadian ecosystems, particularly in northern
Canada.
Canada has contributed significantly to the science that has
enabled us to substantiate the need for international action and
agreements on persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals. We
have stopped releases from most Canadian sources of POPs and
reduced domestic emissions of heavy metals. Unfortunately
domestic efforts are not enough to protect the peoples of the
Arctic.
Reducing POPs in Canada's Arctic requires concerted
international efforts. Canada has played a leading role in using
the scientific information contained in the Canadian Arctic
contaminants assessment report and AMAP reports to achieve
international action on contaminants reaching the Arctic.
[Translation]
Regional protocols on the reduction of POPs and heavy metals
have been drawn up under the Convention on Long-range
Transboundary Air Pollution of the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe.
These protocols, signed in June 1998 by 34 countries, including
Canada, the United States, and the countries of Eastern and
Western Europe, as well as the former Soviet Union, are the
first enforceable major multinational agreements aimed at
protecting the environment and human health by imposing limits
on the release of POPs and heavy metals.
These protocols will serve as a model for even broader world-wide
participation.
In June, under the auspices of the United Nations Environment
Program, Canada hosted the initial session to negotiate a global
POPs agreement, which is expected to be signed around the year
2000.
[English]
Canada strongly supports this effort and is committed to playing
a vigorous leadership role. The government is committed to a
continuing leadership role in moving the UNEP global initiative
to a successful conclusion, for it is only through the concerted
and vigorous action of all countries to eliminate or reduce their
emissions of hazardous substances that Canada can achieve the
protection it requires from these chemicals that know no borders.
1425
[Translation]
By signing and ratifying the protocols, Canada demonstrates its
ongoing and serious commitment to actively looking for ways to
lead an international campaign on health and environmental
issues of concern to Canadians.
We must play a leadership role in these initiatives in order to
ensure that the serious risks POPs represent for the environment
and for the health of Canadians, particularly aboriginal peoples
in the north, are taken into account. This approach is
consistent with the priority our government accords to native
issues.
Canada's signature of the protocols will be an important step
towards signature of the UNEP global agreement on POPs.
[English]
At the recent joint meeting of ministers of energy and
environment in Halifax, all provinces and territories supported
the expeditious ratification of the POPs protocol.
It is the government's intent to conclude the ratification of
the POPs protocol, as well as the companion heavy metals
protocol, before the end of this year. Indeed, Canada will be
one of the first, if not the first country to formally accept the
controls on POPs specified in this agreement.
I want to thank the hon. member for Davenport for bringing this
matter to the attention of the House.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
because of the hour I will make only some brief remarks in
thanking hon. colleagues for their interventions and input today.
The members for Lethbridge, Yukon and Fundy—Royal brought out a
number of additional issues and dimensions which are important. I
concur with them that we should have an approach which is as
broad as possible in resolving the question of pollution.
The member for Lethbridge dwelt on the question of contaminated
lands. His observations reflect the reality there, as did those
of the member for Yukon when referring to over 200 national
defence sites that have been abandoned.
I have some difficulty in understanding completely the logic of
the member for Lethbridge. He said that he and his party cannot
support this motion because it is not comprehensive enough and
does not deal with all aspects of the issue that we are facing,
not only on the POPs but also the contaminated lands and related
issues. It seems to me that there is a choice between
incremental action and supporting any possible motion that moves
the agenda forward or no action at all. It escapes my ability to
follow the logic of the Reform Party in this respect, and I must
say in other respects also.
I would like to thank the member for Yukon for her very kind
remarks and friendly suggestions. She certainly brought to our
attention the situation that is now being faced in the north,
which probably was the same situation faced in the south several
decades ago. We should draw some lessons from what the
northerners are telling us as to what they are observing so that
we can see the necessity in prevention and that the north retains
its pristine quality. Possibly through that lesson we can regain
the lost ground in the south.
1430
I also thank the member for Fundy—Royal who got a little
carried away with partisan remarks which is understandable. He
felt it was necessary to put on record the achievements of the
previous government. We have not forgotten that record. He
certainly reinforced the theme of this motion and provided a
helpful observation which I will take very seriously.
I thank the parliamentary secretary for the good news she gave
the House and for emphasizing the importance of co-operation in
achieving something which, because of its international nature,
is extremely difficult. Canada has developed a skill for which
we are highly respected abroad, namely the capacity to bring
diverging interests together in the pursuit of the environmental
agenda.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired
and the order is dropped from the order paper.
[Translation]
It being after 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.31 p.m.)