36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 57
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 11, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEART AWARENESS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CITIZENSHIP AND HERITAGE WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEAN OTT
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1405
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENATE OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIGHTHOUSES
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLACK HISTORY MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YEAR 2000
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENATE OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1410
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN NATIONAL
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAILWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORNER BROOK-CANADA WINTER GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JEREMY WOTHERSPOON
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1415
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1420
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL DISASTER RELIEF PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1430
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1435
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-28
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1440
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-28
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES CHIRAC'S STATEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1445
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANTHRAX VACCINE
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1450
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAY EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAILWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1455
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1500
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL REVENUE
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Justice Louis Marcel Joyal—Speaker's ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
1510
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-313. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-314. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SHIPPING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-4 First reading.
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1515
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Highway System
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Immigration
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Safety Officers
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1520
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA EVIDENCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-5. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1525
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1555
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1620
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1635
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1640
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-4—Notice of time allocation
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHARLOTTE COUNTY PORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1655
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1740
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Education
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1745
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1750
![V](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 57
![](/web/20061116175659im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 11, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Saint John.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
HEART AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that February
is Heart Awareness Month.
Cardiovascular disease remains Canada's leading cause of death
and one of the major causes of disability. More than 79,000
Canadians die every year from heart disease and stroke. Besides
the human toll of the disease, the cost to the economy is
considerable: about $20 billion per year and more than 6.5
million days of hospitalization.
Cardiovascular disease is an area where we are making major
health gains. The roots of heart disease and stroke are in the
way we live. By eradicating smoking, promoting a healthy diet
and physical activity we can help Canadians in preventing andor
postponing the onset of this disease.
Health Canada is proud to be collaborating with the Heart and
Stroke Foundation of Canada and with all provincial health
departments in the Canadian heart health initiative.
[Translation]
By investing in cardiovascular health, we can considerably
reduce—
The Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up.
The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fisheries minister claims he cannot release vital
observer reports that show foreign fishing activities, legitimate
or otherwise, off our east coast. He claims he would be breaking
the law to do so.
The minister also claims there are no foreign trawlers fishing
off the coast of Labrador. He claims there is no salmon crisis
on Canada's west coast. He claims he has every right to continue
the aboriginal fishing strategy when the court has declared it
illegal. He claims bureaucracy does not interfere with DFO
science.
The minister is consistent in at least two respects. First, he
is dead wrong. Second, his claims do not reflect the facts as
known by the Canadian people, Canadian fishermen, Canadian courts
or even his own employees.
* * *
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to extend my appreciation to the staff of the Library
of Parliament for continued support to my office. The library's
annual report indicated that in 1996-97 division personnel
handled a total of 153,000 requests for information and provided
96,000 direct answers to authorized clients.
In the same time period the information service responded to an
additional 57,000 information requests from parliamentarians and
the general public alike. Those numbers are above and beyond the
nearly 500,000 visitors that were welcomed to centre block by
parliamentary guides.
Although some days I am certain that it seemed like my office
was responsible for the aforementioned calls, members of the
library staff were always prepared to cheerfully and competently
tackle any projects we threw their way. Without the service
provided by the various sections of the library, the
effectiveness of my office would be greatly reduced.
I would ask that my colleagues join with me in thanking the
Library of Parliament for its excellent work.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec
and parts of Ontario and the Maritimes were hit by an ice storm
which left heavy damage in its wake. More than a million people
were left without electricity, and consequently heat as well, for
various lengths of time, in mid-January.
The people of Matapédia—Matane have a reputation for being
very generous, and once again they have shown this to be true.
People everywhere in my riding were quick to offer help to the
victims. My thanks to the people of Matapédia—Matane for their
great generosity.
There was a great feeling of solidarity among us, as there was
among all the people of Quebec. My hope is that this feeling,
which reached its peak during the recent emergency, will continue
to flourish.
Hooray for community spirit.
* * *
[English]
CITIZENSHIP AND HERITAGE WEEK
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, February 9 to 16 is Citizenship and Heritage Week.
This annual celebration of Canadian citizenship and heritage
allows us to show our pride for Canada and to share common
values.
This year on Heritage Day the Government of Canada will
commemorate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations universal
declaration of human rights. This document inspired our own
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which upholds values that
Canadians cherish: the dignity of the individual, the rights of
children, fairness, equal treatment and democratic participation.
I ask all my fellow members to join in the celebration of a rich
past. We want to ensure a bright future for the greatest country
in the world.
* * *
DEAN OTT
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, January 30, 1998, Canada's theatre community
suffered a tragic loss. Dean Ott, a member of my riding
association, a former colleague and my friend, passed away
suddenly at the age of 34.
Dean began his career at Sunshine Theatre in Kelowna, B.C., at
the age of 14. His career advanced rapidly from shop supervisor
at JV Theatre Productions to stage carpenter at Theatre Calgary,
technical director at Alberta Theatre Projects, and project
manager at F&D; Scene Changes in Calgary.
Dean came to Toronto in 1990 as the production manager at the
Canadian Stage Company and later the associate producer and
director of production. During his tenure at Canadian Stage he
was responsible for initiating and implementing with the city of
Toronto the renovations to the Dream in High Park site. The
Dream in High Park is the free outdoor Shakespearian production
that takes place every summer in my riding.
Dean will be missed by everyone in the theatre community and by
everyone he touched.
* * *
ICE STORM
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the face of the recent ice storm devastation many
people showed courage, generosity and determination. Faced with
the opportunity to assist fellow Canadians, residents of
Guelph—Wellington joined together to make a difference.
Local industries, schools, media, social clubs, individuals and
families came together to do their part. Two 45 foot trailers
were provided by a Guelph company, MacKinnon Transport and
Southwestern Express, to transport urgently needed items.
1405
Our local radio stations, Majic FM 106.1 and CJOY, were tireless
in their radio announcements informing the community of the
locations to drop off items. When the trailers left Guelph they
were so packed they took hours to unload.
People can make a difference and we did. I thank
Guelph—Wellington.
* * *
SENATE OF CANADA
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
tends to be embarrassing for the government when skeletons come
tumbling out of the closet unexpectedly. It certainly looks like
one of those skeletons just appeared.
A recent patronage appointment of the prime minister made a
public speech on November 13, 1982, a speech which so impressed
one of my constituents that he kept the transcript for 16 years.
One paragraph of that speech reads:
I too had some difficult years as a politician; I'm still having
them, in fact, because everything we undertake and everything we
are doing to make Canada a French state is a part of a venture I
have shared for many years—
I would like to know if this same agenda is shared by the prime
minister because those oh so patriotic words were in a speech by
none other than his recent Senate appointee, Serge Joyal,
unelected, unaccountable and completely unacceptable.
* * *
LIGHTHOUSES
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, for most
Canadians lighthouses are simply a symbol of our maritime
heritage, but for some people in my riding the lighthouse might
just save their lives.
While it is true that most vessels have on board navigational
aids such as GPS, a number of lighthouses are still indeed
necessary.
Recently my constituents of West Nova, including fishers and
recreational sailors, were very concerned about the possible
closure of the Yarmouth light at Cape Forchu. Their fears were
legitimized in Halifax Chronicle Herald interview when
coast guard officials confirmed that the federal government was
exploring the possibility of further lighthouse closures as a
cost cutting measure.
Our fishers already affected by the downturn in the industry
must put their lives on the line each and every time they venture
out into unpredictable seas. Many men and women still depend on
the Yarmouth light to guide them home to safety, in particular
during very adverse weather conditions.
Further reductions of national aids will put fishers at risk of
serious injury or even death.
* * *
[Translation]
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
the occasion of Black History Month, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to
pay tribute to a community which has made an invaluable
contribution to the development of Quebec.
Since the creation of Black History Month by American
historian Carter G. Woodson in 1925, a variety of events throughout
America have marked the contribution of the black community.
A number of names spring immediately to mind when one thinks
of the black community in Quebec: Dr. Yvette Benny, the first
Quebec physician to perform a pediatric bone marrow transplant;
Oliver Jones, the world-famous pianist; businessman Christopher A.
Ross; musician Charles Biddle; last but not least, the Olympic
medallist Bruny Surin. These, and many others, are a source of
tremendous pride to the black community, and to all Quebeckers, for
their excellent accomplishments.
It is my hope that we may all work together to enhance the
quality of life of a community to which all in Quebec owe a
considerable debt.
* * *
[English]
YEAR 2000
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to raise awareness on a crucial issue for
Canadian businesses and to give them a call to action.
The issue is the year 2000 computer problem. The Minister of
Industry appointed an industry led task force to review the state
of readiness of Canadian businesses. The task force has reported
that the current economic outlook for Canada in year 2000 is now
at risk because too many businesses have failed to start the
repair and replacement of technology. Too many businesses are
putting this off. Too many are ignoring the inevitable.
The all party industry committee is reviewing the task force
report. We will be working together to raise awareness of the
issue and to send an urgent call for action.
All of us must work to ensure Canadians are prepared for the
year 2000. We must take action and take it now.
* * *
SENATE OF CANADA
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have
tried everything to get Senator Andy Thompson to show up for
work. We even threw a welcome party to make him feel more at
home in Ottawa: a mariachi band, a little la bamba and even some
nice hot burritos; but for the 448th time Senator Thompson stood
us up.
There is one person who can solve the Senate problem: the prime
minister. He can hit the Senate pinata with one blow if he
recognizes Senate elections. The prime minister needs to pull
off his blindfold so he can see what Canadians want from Andy and
his Senate muchachas.
1410
No more lying sedate. We want them to debate.
No more endless vacation. We want representation.
No more tropical showers. We want office hours.
No more beachside recreation. We want them to review
legislation.
No more lying on a cot. We want some sober second thought.
No more shopping in Mexico City. We want them on a
subcommittee.
No more playing and straying all day. We want them all to earn
their pay.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN NATIONAL
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was happy to learn this morning that Canadian National
and Illinois Central Railroad are engaged. CN's purchase of this
railroad will cost some $4.3 billion. More importantly, the
purchase should increase the number of CN employees.
No, it should not mean a cut in staff. This is great news for
the economy of the Montreal region. Canadian National, currently
the sixth largest railway company in North America will move to
fifth place.
We should all be delighted at this marriage, because it will
provide a significant boost to the economy of the Montreal region.
This is truly a love story. A toast to St. Valentine's Day.
* * *
[English]
RAILWAYS
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's rail system continues to expand in the wrong direction.
Yesterday CN purchased an American rail line. At the same time
small branch lines serving rural Canada continue to be abandoned.
Ottawa has abandoned the small family farms which cannot afford
to ship grains to market. Last week Saskatchewan lost the White
Fox line which served communities and farmers between Choiceland
and Meath Park. I hope they do not pull the rail lines out.
We demand an immediate review of the Canadian Transportation Act
to prevent the continuing loss of vital rail service in Canada.
We call for a national transportation strategy which will go
forward into the next century, not backward into the last.
This plan should address the issues of grain shipments,
environmental benefits, the deterioration of highways and
affordable rail transportation throughout Canada.
By the time the Liberals wake up to the national nightmare there
will be nothing left of our Canadian railroads.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the pro-democracy coalition is today going to unveil its strategy
in anticipation of the start of hearings on the reference to the
supreme court of the matter of a unilateral declaration of
independence by Quebec.
Quite frankly, there is nothing democratic about this
coalition, which resembles the sort of pre-referendum sovereignist
production we have all seen and which was tried out in the 1980 and
1995 referendums.
The Parti Quebecois is certainly working hard at courting
Quebeckers who have twice rejected Quebec's separation from the
rest of Canada to get them to change their mind the next time.
If the pro-democracy coalition really wants to be democratic,
it should inform people impartially about the game the
sovereignists are playing and let them know what democracy will
look like under the Parti Quebecois on the basis of questions as
vague as the ones put in the 1980 and 1995 referendums.
* * *
[English]
CORNER BROOK-CANADA WINTER GAMES
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in addition to the verbal gymnastics of the House
Canadians are intently watching the performances of Canadian
teams at the Nagano Olympics with some pride and satisfaction.
I want to introduce to the House another particular sporting
event in which I take considerable pride. That is the Corner
Brook-Canada 1999 Winter Games. Mr. Speaker, you are invited.
I want to introduce Corner Brook, Stephenville, Steady Brook,
Pasadena and Deer Lake to the House. Communities on the west
coast of Newfoundland are particularly ready to enjoy and to host
all of Canada in a celebration of sport, unity and youth.
We are ready for these games. I ask members of the House to
book their tickets early because it will be packed. We will see
them there.
* * *
JEREMY WOTHERSPOON
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the people of Red Deer and all Canadians I extend a sincere and
well deserved congratulations to Red Deer speed skater Jeremy
Wotherspoon.
We congratulate him on his recent silver medal performance in
the men's 500 metre long track event at the Nagano Winter
Olympics.
1415
In his pursuit of Olympic excellence Jeremy has become a role
model for young Canadians. As an outstanding ambassador for Red
Deer, Alberta and Canada we honour Jeremy's drive, determination
and success while wishing him the very best in upcoming events.
Knowing Jeremy and his family, I also want to congratulate them
because it is with them and their support that athletes like him
succeed.
I ask my colleagues in the House of Commons to join us in
congratulating this young Canadian on winning Canada's first
silver medal at the 1998 Nagano Olympics.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance department publishes a monthly newsletter
called the Fiscal Monitor. It is full of statistics,
including updates on the deficit.
According to the January 28 edition of this newsletter the
government has a public accounts surplus of $1.4 billion and a
financial surplus of $11.3 billion. Yet in today's newspapers
finance department spin doctors are estimating a year end deficit
of $2 billion.
What is the finance minister's explanation of the disappearing
surplus?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at budget time I will be delighted to report on the
state of the government's accounts.
The Fiscal Monitor to which the hon. member refers shows a
strengthening in the Canadian financial balance sheet. This is
certainly due to the efforts of Canadians and I must say to the
efforts of my colleagues in government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what Canadians understand from this publication and
elsewhere is that the minister has a lot of their money and they
want it back in the form of tax relief.
According to the Fiscal Monitor the government has a
surplus mainly because it is taxing the hide out of Canadians.
Who is the finance minister trying to hide the surplus from:
from his spendaholic friends in cabinet or from hard-pressed
Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is hard to understand how the Leader of the
Opposition could refer to somebody trying to hide a surplus when
what he is doing is quoting from a Department of Finance
document, the source of his numbers.
I am delighted to confirm to the Leader of the Opposition that
the numbers he is quoting out of our document are correct.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this surplus is not the finance minister's money. On
behalf of Canadians I want to tell him who this money belongs to.
It belongs to the hard-pressed Canadian taxpayers. It belongs
to Canadian families. It belongs to Canadian businesses and
entrepreneurs that create wealth.
Has the finance minister not heard that his budget will be
judged this year not by the hot air that surrounds it but by how
many dollars it leaves in the pockets of hard-pressed Canadian
taxpayers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we took office the deficit was $42 billion. The
surplus the hon. member is referring to is due to the efforts of
Canadians. He then goes on to ask whose money it is. Yes, it
is the taxpayers'.
I will tell him something else. Our social programs that his
party wants to gut, health care, education and old age pension,
also belong to Canadians and we will protect them for Canadians.
* * *
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
certain interest groups in Canada are having a field day with a
huge misinformation campaign about the multilateral agreement on
investment or the MAI. Canadians are concerned yet they have not
heard from the government what the MAI is or how it would be in
their interest.
We noticed the minister found time to go to sunny South America
in January but he has not found time to talk about the MAI. Why
has the minister allowed the left to dominate the debate? Why is
the minister not telling Canadians what this deal is all about?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where my hon. friend has
been. He must have been sleeping. We make no apologies for the
team Canada trip.
1420
It was the largest team Canada trip, over 524 business people
from Canada making record sales which create jobs and economic
activity.
Since assuming this portfolio I have been more than open and
public with the Canadian people on the MAI to the point where we
invited the committee to study this report. I am happy that it
was obviously an overwhelming endorsement.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is interesting that while the minister is going to places like
Uruguay to sign an investment agreement that represents one-tenth
of one per cent of Canada's investment, he has not got time to
talk to Canadians and tell them what it is all about.
There are people in Canada saying this agreement would be the
end of Canada, the end of Canadian sovereignty. Why is the
minister not responding to those concerns? Why is he not
travelling to places like B.C. and meeting this opposition head
on?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gets up and beats his
chest. It is probably his first question in over three months.
Then he has the audacity to say where this government stands.
This government needs no lectures on trade and investment from
that party and we have never be afraid of talking to the people
about the MAI, opening up the process, inviting members of
Parliament to participate in a committee.
I do not think that is doing things behind closed doors. I am
surprised the member is taking that position.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL DISASTER RELIEF PROGRAM
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
under the provisions of the federal disaster relief program, Ottawa
must pay 90% when amounts exceed a certain level, which in Quebec
is evaluated at $37 million.
Yesterday, however, the President of the Treasury Board told
us that Ottawa was agreeing to fund only 50% of assistance to small
and medium sized businesses.
Can the minister tell us why he will not apply the same
criteria as those used in 1987 after the tornado in Alberta, when
he funded 90% of assistance to small and medium sized businesses?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
are two programs: the usual disaster relief fund, which is the one
we apply to all provinces, including Quebec.
In the case of the Saguenay, we decided to introduce an
additional program for expenses not covered under financial
assistance agreements. In that case, at the request of Minister
Brassard himself, the costs were shared 50-50.
This was the same cost-sharing formula used in Manitoba, and
it is the one we are now offering to the governments of Quebec and
Ontario.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister might recall that he offered the same level of
compensation as for Alberta in a letter he himself sent to Minister
Brassard.
Hon. Sheila Copps: It was Lucien Bouchard.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: It was a letter from the present minister,
sent in 1996—
Hon. Sheila Copps: He was not even there then.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: —for the information of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage who probably does not understand because she is
not listening.
I would ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he
admits that, in 1996, he offered the Government of Quebec the same
type of program as Alberta had, five months after the disaster
however—a bit late therefore—and why he is not making the same
offer this time, when we are within the deadline?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois would have done better to check his
sources with Quebec's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr.
Brassard.
I have here a letter from Mr. Brassard replying to my offer to
share costs on a 90-10 basis in which the minister tells me that
such a percentage, using the criteria of the Alberta programs,
would not be equitable under the circumstances.
He writes: “I suggest there be an ad hoc agreement for
compensation of up to $50 million with costs borne equally by both
our governments and managed jointly”.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the President of the Treasury Board.
The fact is that the federal government is not acting in good faith
or making any effort to come to an agreement with Quebec. While it could
certainly come to an agreement with Quebec about businesses and the
power grid, it does not want to.
1425
My question concerns compensation for the power grid. Given the
fact that this network clearly constitutes an essential service and that
funding could easily be provided under the provisions of his assistance
program, for example section 5.5 of chapter 4, why is Ottawa stubbornly
refusing to help Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the current
rule came into force in 1988, the requests made by Newfoundland in 1994,
Manitoba in 1996 and Quebec in 1996 to compensate hydro companies have
been turned down.
This rule has been followed consistently since 1988, and Quebec
knew this and still does.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under a similar
provision, Newfoundland requested assistance to repair its power grid in
1984 and Ottawa said yes. When Manitoba requested assistance in 1984 for
its power grid, Ottawa said yes as it did again in 1996 for that
province's dikes.
Why is Ottawa now changing its tune for Quebec's power grid and
saying no to Quebec when it said yes to the other provinces?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague
knows full well that his statement is incorrect. The rule was changed in
1988. It was changed by a Conservative government in which the current
premier of Quebec was a minister, so he is aware of the rule.
Again, as I said, since 1988, we have denied Newfoundland, Manitoba
and Quebec funding for hydro companies. The precedent is clear, the rule
is clear and there have been no exceptions.
* * *
IRAQ
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of National Defence.
While Iraq is showing signs of openness, the U.S. insists on going
to war. Canada must not be so narrow minded. In order to get Iraq to
comply with the disarmament conditions, we must show good will and lift
the sanctions that are crushing civilians. We must avoid war.
Is Canada prepared to promote a diplomatic solution based on the
elimination of the sanctions?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada wants very much to have a diplomatic solution.
That is why the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in New York as we
speak. He visited the United Nations where he met
Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Richard Butler, head of the UN
special commission.
We believe efforts should continue toward a diplomatic solution.
But it must be recognized that unless there has been the threat
of force or use of force, Saddam Hussein has never agreed to a
diplomatic solution and we must continue with the pressure to
make sure he complies with the resolutions and gives up his
efforts to manufacture and store instruments of mass destruction.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we did
not get a land mine ban in Canada through the threat of force or
by falling in line with the U.S. Protest is mounting from
Canadians even within Liberal ranks. The former chief of staff
of the UN peacekeeping force in Iraq described Canada's yes sir,
yes sir, three bags full, sir as nauseating and nonsensical.
Bombing will not solve the problem. Why will this government not
uphold Canada's well earned reputation for creative diplomacy and
effective multilateralism instead of recklessly abandoning it?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution but, unlike the
hon. member, we are realistic enough to know that Saddam Hussein
must realize there is concerted action ready to be taken if he
does not live up to the UN resolutions to get rid of instruments
of mass destruction. Why does the hon. member not listen to her
colleague in Britain, Mr. Blair, the Labour prime minister who
believes that our position is the right one, the one he is
following and not the useless one she is promoting?
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, we do
want some information about the government's position. It has
now had the benefit of a debate in the House of Commons, a
cabinet meeting yesterday, a predictable announcement. Could the
Deputy Prime Minister now inform the House of Commons of the
exact objective being pursued by Canada and of the rules of
engagement?
Could he further elaborate by telling us under what conditions
does he now see Canadian troops withdrawing from this conflict
once we meet these objectives?
1430
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it very clear what our
objectives are, to have Saddam Hussein comply completely with the
UN resolutions, that he give up his efforts to manufacture and
store instruments of mass destruction and allow full UN
inspection.
This is our objective and that of other countries of the world
under the auspices of existing UN resolutions.
As far as commenting on rules of engagement, it is premature
unless it is determined that there has to be a military solution.
We are working very hard to avoid that. The burden of avoiding
that is on Saddam Hussein who must recognize that he has to obey
the UN resolutions which he signed on to do nine years ago.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, the UN
resolutions were adopted in 1991. We do not need the government to tell
us what resolutions were adopted by the United Nations.
I have a question for the government which, following a cabinet
decision and a debate in the House, embarked on a great adventure that
could lead to war, to military intervention.
What are the objectives
pursued by the government if there is a military intervention? What are
the rules of engagement for Canadians whose lives will be put on the
line, and what are the conditions for the withdrawal of our troops, once
the objective is attained?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
already mentioned our objective, which is to convince Saddam Hussein to
give up manufacturing and storing weapons of mass destruction.
Until Saddam Hussein is prepared to comply with this requirement,
why should we talk about withdrawing the forces of the United Nations,
Canada or Great Britain? In my opinion, Saddam Hussein's cause will be
helped if we start talking about the withdrawal of our troops before he
makes it clear that a diplomatic solution is not in the cards.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bruce
Starlight wrote to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development last fall a confidential letter alleging corruption
on his reserve near Calgary. That private letter was leaked to
the chief on the reserve who is now suing Mr. Starlight in court.
I just talked to the Starlight family before I came here and it
confirmed that it has never received a response from this
minister, not even an acknowledgement.
How is it that Mr. Starlight's letter got leaked to the chief
but the minister never extended him the courtesy of a reply to
his letter?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a good question
because I did sign a letter of response to Mr. Starlight.
If he has not received it I will have to investigate.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Starlight family confirms it never received even an
acknowledgement. The only response Bruce Starlight has to date is
a lawsuit by his chief. We know the minister has not contacted
Mr. Starlight.
I have another question motivated by concerns that the minister
may be trying to protect the chief who happens to be a prominent
Liberal. The minister has not contacted Mr. Starlight. What
contact has she had with the Liberal chief?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have met with Chief
Whitney on other occasions in his role as chief of the First
Nations.
With regard to this particular issue we have not discussed
anything.
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, we learned that the federal government is indeed
involved alongside the United States in setting up the strike force
against Iraq.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify the fact that Canada
is already jumping with both feet into the upcoming conflict
alongside the United States when most of Canada's international
partners are still seeking a diplomatic solution to this conflict?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are also seeking a diplomatic solution. That is why the Minister
of Foreign Affairs is in New York at the United Nations today.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister are singing from
very different song sheets.
In 1991, he wanted military operations to come under the
control of the UN. In 1998, he has changed his tune. Back in
1991, he wanted members to be able to vote on Canada's involvement.
In 1998, that too has gone by the boards.
1435
How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain this about-face
between the fine words of 1991 and the government's actions in
1998?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are working together not just with the United States, but with
Great Britain, Germany, Kuwait and Bahrain as well to find a
diplomatic solution.
We are guided in our efforts by UN resolutions that go back
many years and I wonder why the hon. member cannot accept the fact
that there are UN resolutions still in force.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
grassroots Indians need to know that they can write to their
minister in confidence about problems they are having. By
leaking Bruce Starlight's letter back to a chief with strong
Liberal connections, the minister seriously eroded the trust
between her office and grassroots Indians.
Four weeks ago the minister appointed a bureaucrat to look into
the leak. We still have not heard back from the investigator and
the minister will not even tell us who it is.
How can Indians trust her so-called investigator when they do
not even know who it is? Why will the minister not tell us the
name?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions I
have indicated to this House the importance I put on this very
issue.
To me it was critical that we have an investigation done to
follow the path of that letter. The letter is being tracked, the
investigation is under way and I am looking forward to receiving
direction from that investigation.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister's so-called investigation is starting to look a lot
more like an exercise in damage control than a true fact finding
mission. Indians on reserves everywhere want to know when this
investigation will be completed.
Will she release a report in the House by the end of the week or
will this drag on and be swept under the rug?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is important
to me to ensure that the investigation is done thoroughly and
completely and that I get good factual information on which to
make decisions and to take action.
That is the way it will be and we will proceed under that
direction.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
the opposition asked whether the new provisions in Bill C-28, which is
sponsored by the Minister of Finance, might benefit Canada Steamship
Lines, the Prime Minister replied “No”.
However, yesterday, a senior official from the Department of
Finance who is responsible for tax issues stated that Bill C-28 may
apply to a Canadian corporation with subsidiaries abroad and with the
exact same structure as the finance minister's shipping companies.
How can the Prime Minister be more categorical than the official in
the finance department who is responsible for tax issues?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact
is that all related research, discussions and decisions have always been
under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Financial
Institutions and have been conducted by officials from the Department of
Finance, and not by the Minister of Finance himself.
This is why we insist that the hon. member's insinuations and
allegations have no basis.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask the Deputy Prime Minister to take a look at the bill. It says
in the bottom right hand corner that it is introduced by “the Minister
of Finance”. The minister is the sponsor of the bill. He is the one who
referred us to the senior official, who said the opposite of what the
minister thought he would say.
Was the Prime Minister a little to quick to come to the defence of
his finance minister, considering that even tax officials say the
opposite of what he said, thus clearly putting the finance minister in
an apparent conflict of interest?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
is no conflict of interest. There is no apparent conflict of interest.
This was confirmed by the ethics commissioner, Mr. Wilson.
Again, all the minister's assets are in a blind trust. This is why
I urge the hon. member to retract himself, because his allegations have
no basis, no foundation at all.
* * *
1440
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister of Indian affairs has said that her investigator is
looking into this leaked letter issue. We appreciate that, but
there is something we would like to know. Who is he and what is
his name?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned on a
number of occasions, it is critically important for me to have
someone that has the calibre of the person that has been
identified to do this investigation. He is a man with
experience. He has had police experience. I know that he will
effectively provide us with the kind of advice I need to not only
deal with this letter but also to understand the implications in
procedures in my department.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is just getting more and more unbelievable by the day. She
thinks that there is somebody there. She says what a terrific
fellow he is. If she is so proud of the job that he is doing on
this botched investigation after a botched leak, who is he and
what does he know about this case? We want to know what his name
is and when he is going to report to Parliament. Who is he, what
does he know and when is he going to report?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the investigator will make
his report to me when he has completed it.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
Refusing to give us details about Bill C-28, the Minister of
Finance suggested last week, at the outset, that we talk with Mr.
Len Farber, who, he said, would help us understand.
Since this tax official from his own department stated, as we
have, that clause 241 could apply to companies with the same
structure as Canada Steamship Lines, who does the minister suggest
we consult next for an opinion that would finally be in his favour?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
premise of the member's question is erroneous, because I am told
that Mr. Farber did not say that. There is therefore no serious
grounds for the member's question.
* * *
JACQUES CHIRAC'S STATEMENT
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, could the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs inform the members of this
House of the important statement made on Monday by Jacques Chirac,
the president of the French Republic?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, here is what the French president said:
France is one country indivisible. It is indeed made up of
regions and provinces each different from the other, each with
its own population, customs, history and sometimes language.
This is especially true of Corsica, whose identity and
uniqueness are recognized by all. France is diverse and this
constitutes our wealth. But it is a single France, a single
national territory, with the same laws and rights throughout.
* * *
[English]
IRAQ
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Saddam Hussein has not hesitated in the past to use chemical and
biological weapons against his own people and also his
neighbours. In common language he is a thug and he will not
hesitate to use such tactics against the coalition forces.
Since Canada is sending approximately 300 Canadian forces
personnel into the region, will the defence minister inform
Canadians and in particular the families of our troops that our
forces are adequately equipped in the event of a chemical and
biological threat?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said
today, we are hoping that there will not be a conflict, that we
will still find a diplomatic resolution.
1445
However, if there is a conflict, given that we have
approximately 330 personnel in the area yes, I can assure the
hon. member they will be properly equipped. They will have
protective clothing, inoculations, appropriate training and
information to help counteract any possibility of those weapons
being used against them.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the HMCS Toronto has been serving for some time off the
coast of Spain in the Mediterranean. It has now been directed to
contribute to the coalition forces in the gulf. The two theatres
pose very different threats to the sailors aboard the ship.
I again ask the minister, is the Toronto currently
equipped to deal with the threat it will now face? Is the crew
properly trained in chemical and biological countermeasures?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of general training
these people have already taken part in. Any additional training
or equipment that is required in this particular case and under
these particular circumstances will be provided.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade and
concerns the MAI.
It is interesting to see that the Reform Party is worried that
the minister is not taking the opposition to the MAI head on. I
just want to let the minister and the Reformers know that I am
prepared to debate them anytime anywhere on this, in the House of
Commons or anywhere else for that matter.
In that respect, I have a question for the Minister of
International Trade. It is reported that he is going to be
making a policy statement on Friday morning to the centre for
trade policy. Why will he not make a policy statement on the MAI
in this House of Commons? Why is he afraid of the opposition on
this? Will he make his policy statement on the MAI in the House
of Commons?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic. It was this government
that asked that the MAI be studied by a parliamentary committee
which the hon. member is part of. We have given more information
to members of Parliament. We have conducted round tables across
the country. I have no problems debating with him anytime, any
place, anywhere.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we will be in touch with the minister's office after
question period and we can set that up. I am looking forward to
it.
The minister did not answer my question. Why is he ignoring
Parliament? He is a minister in Parliament. Can he tell
Parliament what he is going to say on Friday? Is he finally
going to abandon this MAI and say that the government is going to
seek a global economy that works for people instead of
corporations? That would be welcomed, however, we still want it
said here in the House of Commons.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to whom does he think a parliamentary
committee reports? The committee reported. We will be responding
to that. We are asking and answering questions in this House.
The first question in four months was asked by the Reform Party.
Obviously you have been agitated for the last number of days. We
are not afraid to answer.
As I said, we are encouraging more debate. We do not want
Canadians not knowing what is in the MAI because trade and
investment works for this country. It does not undermine the
economy.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, please do not incite yourselves
by using props.
* * *
[Translation]
ANTHRAX VACCINE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, noxious
gases were used against Canadian troops for the first time during World
War I.
Today, Saddam Hussein has stocks of anthrax. American troops have
been vaccinated against anthrax.
Is it true that the crew of the Canadian ship Toronto could not be
vaccinated because this vaccine has yet to be approved by Health Canada?
1450
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those discussions are under way with
Health Canada. We expect approval for the appropriate
inoculations to protect our troops.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister has just said that our troops will be inoculated,
but we have learned that the reason Canadian troops are not being
inoculated for anthrax is because the vaccine has not yet been
passed by Health Canada.
The Prime Minister is sending Canadians to the region precisely
because Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons. Will
the Prime Minister assure all Canadians that our forces will be
protected, including vaccination against anthrax, and order the
vaccine to be approved and made available?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to make it more clear
for the hon. member.
We want to protect our troops the best we can. We are providing
the necessary equipment, clothing and inoculations to make sure
they are protected against any threat in terms of exposure in
that area.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many of my
constituents, women in particular, have been waiting for quite some time
for the federal government and the public service alliance to come to an
agreement on pay equity.
Could the President of the Treasury Board apprise this House of the
status of these negotiations? Have there been any new developments?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to
answer my colleague's question, especially since we have offered the
union a settlement of up to $1.3 billion with respect to pay equity.
We have asked the union to submit this offer to its members because
we are confident the members will accept such a generous offer.
Unfortunately, the union has thus far refused to go to its members
and, therefore, we can only wait for the court to decide. But we still
favour a negotiated settlement.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs' performance on the
Starlight case is simply unacceptable. She had no problem
breaking the confidentiality of Bruce Starlight when he asked for
help, but she has no problem keeping the confidentiality of this
mysterious investigator she says she has. I will ask once again.
Who is it? Who is looking into the case? And why is she keeping
it such a secret?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two things. First,
I did not break the confidentiality. Second, it is amazing how
this system works very well when a minister forgets a name and it
can be found. The name of the investigator is Mr. Newman.
* * *
[Translation]
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Defence.
In his 1998 defence planning guide, the Minister of National
Defence proposes transfer of a significant number of positions
currently performed very well by civilian employees in the
department to the private sector.
Does the minister commit to putting an end to this
privatization policy, which cannot help but impoverish the workers
and will, once again, deprive certain regions of Quebec of millions
of dollars essential to their local economy?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, alternate service delivery is being
employed to provide services to the military in the most
efficient and effective manner possible. This is saving money
for the Canadian taxpayers.
At the same time it is important that we treat our employees in
a fair and humane way. We have put in place extensive
consultations. We have put in place packages which will help
ensure where our employees do not become part of the new service
that they are looked after in a fair and humane way.
* * *
RAILWAYS
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
CN Rail has caught the merger mania with its decision to take
over Illinois Central. At the same time CN is offering farmers a
nightmare service and is abandoning rail lines left, right and
centre across this country. It is using the profits made off
these same farmers to invest not in Canada but in the United
States.
1455
Canada is the only major economy whose rail policy is to destroy
the railways. I ask the minister, why is he willingly presiding
over the destruction of Canada's railways?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the National
Transportation Act amendments were passed a couple of years ago.
They have had a tremendous impact, a positive impact, on railway
service in Canada. They have allowed the railways combined with
the sale of CN to the private sector to compete in the North
American market.
The hon. member should be shouting from the rafters about the
fact that Canadian National Railways has now become the fifth
largest railway in North America. That is good for all of us in
Canada.
* * *
IRAQ
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, we do not
raise questions to frighten Canadians. We raise questions today
so that the Prime Minister will have the opportunity to reassure
our forces and their families that Canada's government has taken
the necessary steps to protect them.
When I heard the Minister of National Defence today state that
they are in discussions with the department of health with regard
to a vaccine for anthrax, I want to know how the crew of the HMCS
Toronto is going to be vaccinated. When is it going to be
done? When they get to Iraq? I would like to know. Those men
have not had their vaccination.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it will take up to 16 days for the HMCS
Toronto to get to the gulf. In that period of time there
are opportunities to provide for inoculations. The necessary
protection will be provided.
* * *
ICE STORM
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has been working with the province of Quebec on
further financial assistance for small and medium size businesses
and farmers affected by the ice storm. I applaud this
initiative.
I ask the Minister of National Defence, is there a similar plan
for eastern Ontario?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, absolutely. We want to make sure that
individuals, small business people and farmers are treated
equitably on either side of the boundary between Ontario and
Quebec, and in New Brunswick where they also suffered from the
ice storm.
Over 80% of the money that is going into the pockets of these
individuals to help them recover from that storm and to help
stimulate economic activity is coming from the federal
government. The federal government has already provided over $25
million under the disaster financial assistance arrangement.
There will be more programs to help those people.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
hundreds of foreign trawlers, better known as floating fish
plants, licensed by this government continue to fish in Canadian
waters while our plants and fishermen sit idle.
Our fishermen want access to these foreign quotas, not TAGS II.
Why does this government force thousands of Canadians on to
assistance while it watches foreigners fish in our waters?
I also want to remind the minister with respect to observer
reports to read the Access to Information Act because he does not
have a clue what it is about.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two accesses which the hon.
member does not understand.
The first is access to these stocks. Canadian fishermen have
access to these stocks. It is only when they choose not to fish
them that the offer is made to foreign fleets.
On the second issue, the Access to Information Act, I have said
as has been said by previous ministers of fisheries going back to
1977, that we will not release information that is contrary to
the law. Simply because the Reform Party has a member who has
been convicted under the law two weeks ago does not—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Repentigny.
* * *
[Translation]
MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENT
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of International Trade.
In a report tabled last December on the MAI and adopted
unanimously by the Liberal MPs, it was agreed that the wording of
that agreement ought to come back to the committee before any
negotiated agreement was signed. Now the Minister of International
Trade has recently refused to commit to bringing the agreement back
to Parliament.
Does the minister commit before the House to bringing the text
of the MAI back to the committee before it is signed, as
recommended—
The Speaker: The Minister of International Trade.
1500
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that was indeed one of the
recommendations included in the report. As the hon. member
knows, the government has about 150 days to respond to that
report. It is certainly our intention, given the discussion and
the debate on the MAI, that we will be responding to that report
in full before then.
I do not think it would be appropriate to try to pick one
recommendation at a time. We would rather do it once, do it
comprehensively and do it right.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence. I would like
to know when the minister will explain to Goose Bay Happy Valley
defence employees and their families why defence assigned a $1
million performance bond with a British company which is busy
slashing civilian workers' wages in half, a company which intends
to cut more than 100 positions and fill a few good remaining jobs
with retired military brass.
Was this the impact of a recent DND memo which stated
“privatization will mean we don't have to be encumbered by
national procurement policies”?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): I think the preamble and the question are rather
disordered, Mr. Speaker, but let me say with respect to the Goose
Bay base that we are trying to save that base. We have to cut
the costs if we want to keep our customers, the air forces of
foreign countries that use that base. We want to keep it open.
We want to keep providing that service and the job opportunities
for the people of Goose Bay Happy Valley.
I have met with them. I have heard their concerns. In fact, we
are looking into them and trying to bring some further resolution
to answer the concerns they have raised with the government.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, will
the Minister of National Revenue please tell us what he has
learned as he consulted Canadians on creating the Canada customs
and revenue agency?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently released a progress report on
the Canadian customs and revenue agency. I know Reformers do not
like to consult, but we on this side of the House consult with
Canadians, we consult with stakeholders and with the provinces.
The agency is about delivering better service to Canadians and
also making sure we work in partnership and co-operation with the
provinces. Together we are going to build an agency that can
truly provide lower cost and better service for all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIVILEGE
MR. JUSTICE LOUIS MARCEL JOYAL—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now prepared to make a statement on the
question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington
on February 3, 1998 concerning comments made by Mr.
Justice Louis Marcel Joyal.
1505
[English]
Let me start by thanking the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington, the hon. member for Fraser Valley, the
hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona and the hon. member for
Scarborough—Rouge River for their interventions in this issue.
As your Speaker and as a member of this House of Commons I
consider this to be a very serious matter. To say that respect
for our institutions is rapidly eroding is an understatement.
When it is being eroded by some who should set an example for all
Canadians it is even more damaging.
There is a necessary constitutional divide between our
legislative and judicial branches. That divide should be bridged
only when one institution seeks to vigorously support the role of
the other.
[Translation]
Citation 493 in the sixth edition of Beauchesne exists
precisely for the purpose of respecting this convention of the
separation of roles, and I quote:
493.(1) All references to judges and courts of justice of the
nature of personal attack and censure have always been
considered unparliamentary, and the speaker has always treated
them as breaches of order.
The House of Commons deserves at least the same respect from
the courts.
[English]
It is for that reason that I have taken some time to reflect on
this matter.
In his presentation on February 3, 1998, the hon. member for
Scarborough—Rouge River made what I think is a very useful and
insightful suggestion. He proposed that I direct the Clerk of
the House to refer this matter to the Canadian Judicial Council,
the body responsible to review the conduct of our judges.
As it turns out, the executive director of the judicial council
has written to the clerk to acquaint him with the fact that Chief
Justice Allan MacEachern, chairman of the judicial conduct
committee, has initiated formal proceedings under the bylaws of
the council concerning the statements attributed to Judge Marcel
Joyal.
While this turn of events in no way precludes a finding on my
part of a prima facie case of contempt, I have decided that it
would be wise to follow the advice of the hon. member for
Scarborough—Rouge River and allow the judicial council to
proceed with its initiative before I comment further.
I am tabling copies of the said correspondence so that all hon.
members may be aware of its content. I will keep the House
advised of all further developments in this matter.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the honour to
lay upon the table the report of the Parliament of Canada
delegation to the parliamentary conference of the Americas held
in Quebec City from September 18 to 21, 1997.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 54, I have the honour to
present to the House a report from the Canadian branch,
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, concerning a
parliamentary visit to the United Kingdom which took place
November 18 to 28, 1997.
* * *
1510
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-313, an act to amend the Young
Offenders Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence
thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House
today to introduce an act that would amend the Young Offenders
Act and other acts relating to that. The object of the act would
be to lower the age of accountability from its present age of 12
to 10. This intention is going to go a long way to improving the
perception of our justice system as well as improving
accountability for young people within this country. There is a
real problem with this and this bill goes a long way to address
that.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
IMMIGRATION ACT
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-314, an act to amend the
Immigration Act (persons without identification not to be allowed
into Canada as immigrants or refugees or under a minister's
permit).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that
only those persons who produce sufficient identification to show
that they should not be excluded will be allowed to enter Canada
as immigrants under a minister's permit or as convention
refugees.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved that Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act
(maritime liability), be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by 147 residents of the village
of Zeballos in my riding. They are asking Parliament to reinstate
the northern residents deduction guide for the 1996 taxation year
for the residents of Zeballos, as there is an unfair tax burden
due to the remote location of the village.
1515
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I present a petition signed by 50 residents of my riding
and neighbouring areas.
It indicates that 38% of national highway system is substandard;
that Mexico and the United States are upgrading their national
highway systems; and that the national highway policy study
identified job creation, economic development, saving lives and
avoiding injuries, lower congestion, lower vehicle operation
costs and better international competitiveness as benefits of the
proposed national highway program.
The petitioners call upon parliament to urge the federal
government to join with provincial governments to make the
national system of grading possible.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to present to the House, pursuant to Standing
Order 36, a petition on behalf of 41 petitioners from my riding
of Nanaimo—Cowichan and Vancouver Island. It concerns the
multilateral agreement on investment.
The petitioners indicate that they believe negotiations have
been conducted behind closed doors and that most politicians,
professionals and ordinary citizens in Canada know little or
nothing about the MAI.
They ask that parliament impose a moratorium on ratification of
the MAI until full public hearings on the proposed treaty are
held across the country.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present the following petition.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that
some individuals are marrying Canadian citizens for the primary
purpose of entering Canada as a member of the family class.
Therefore the petitioners pray and request that parliament
encourage the government to consider introducing a three year
conditional period for sponsored spouses.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition on
behalf of a number of Canadians including some from my own riding
of Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that police
officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at
risk on a daily basis as they discharge their duties and that
employment benefits to police officers and firefighters are often
insufficient to assist the families of those killed in the line
of duty.
The petitioners also raise that the public mourns the loss of
police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty and
wish to support in a tangible way those surviving families in
their time of need.
The petitioners therefore ask parliament to establish a public
safety officer compensation fund for the benefit of families of
police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On September 25, 1997 I
placed Question No. 18 on the order paper. It asks how much the
government has spent implementing the provisions of Bill C-68 and
for a revised estimate of the total cost of implementing that
piece of legislation. In accordance with Standing Order 39(5)(a)
I asked for a response within 45 days.
My constituents have been waiting 139 days. When can I tell
them to expect an answer to this straightforward question?
Back in 1995 the Minister of Justice made bold statements that
it would cost only $85 million over five years to implement Bill
C-68. News reports are now speculating that the cost is already
more than $200 million.
Could the government end the speculation and tell us how much it
has spent so far and how much it will cost taxpayers in the
future? When can I expect an answer to my question?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's
impatience. I will be glad to look into the matter and I will
discuss it with him shortly.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to withdraw order paper Question No. 6
in my name as it appeared in the September 24, 1997 issue of the
order paper.
1520
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, like my colleague in the Reform Party, we have been
waiting on this side of the House as well for an answer to a
question posed to the government on October 2, 1997. It appears
as Q-21 on the notice paper.
The question deals with a very straightforward issue as to what
government ministers visited Drummondville—Trois Rivières in the
vicinity of August 2, 1996 and June 2, 1997. It is a very
straightforward question.
We have been waiting a long time and would like to know when we
will get an answer.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, my reply to the two hon.
members is the same. I will look into the matters and get back
to them as soon as possible.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA EVIDENCE ACT
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill S-5, an act to amend the
Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in respect of persons
with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in
respect of persons with disabilities and other matters and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address
the House on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act,
the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of
persons with disabilities and other matters.
This is essentially the same bill as Bill C-98 which died on the
order paper with the prorogation of parliament last year. This
legislative package was brought back and introduced on a priority
basis in the Senate on October 9, 1997 as Bill S-5. The bill was
passed by the Senate on December 11, 1997.
[Translation]
This bill deals primarily with a number of problems related to
disabilities. Since over four million people in Canada are
disabled, many Canadians will benefit from the improvements to
accessibility contained in this bill.
[English]
The federal government has an important role to play in ensuring
that Canadians with disabilities are full and equal participants
in the mainstream of society. It has recognized this role for
many years, including back in 1991 with the announcement of a
national strategy for the integration of persons with
disabilities.
This five year strategy involved many federal government
departments and agencies working toward a common goal: the
integration of persons with disabilities in Canadian society.
An omnibus bill, Bill C-78, was one of the major achievements of
the national strategy. It amended six different federal laws,
the Criminal Code, the National Transportation Act, the Canada
Elections Act, the Citizenship Act, the Access to Information Act
and the Privacy Act, all with a view to improving the situation
of Canadians with disabilities.
The Department of Justice has continued to review legislation in
the area of the criminal law to find ways to deal with systemic
barriers to access that may affect persons with disabilities.
There have been extensive consultations involving all interested
stakeholders, including Canada's disability community.
[Translation]
In its fourth report tabled in the House in 1995, the Standing
Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons
recommended that there be legislative measures to reduce the
difficulties faced by the disabled.
1525
[English]
In addition, the federal task force on disability issues
presided over by my colleague, the Solicitor General of Canada
who is with me today in the House, released a report in October
1996 in which it was recommended that the federal government
proceed as soon as possible with relevant amendments to the
criminal law and to human rights legislation. The bill clearly
responds to these recommendations.
The bill is of utmost importance to every Canadian and deserves
no less than the utmost support of every member of the House. I
am pleased to say that I understand all members of the House are
supportive of legislation and therefore will facilitate its
speedy passage through the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you, as well as my
colleagues, for giving me the opportunity to introduce this
important bill in the House.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the bill we are discussing is entitled an
act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in
respect of persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act in respect of persons with disabilities and other
matters and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Interestingly the bill was tabled by the government in the
Senate.
The bill was originally tabled in the House by the former
minister of justice in April 1997 as Bill C-98 and died with the
dissolution of parliament in 1997.
Bill S-5 contains a number of provisions to remove barriers and
to ensure the equality rights of persons with disabilities. It
also includes some substantive changes to the federal human
rights act.
I will highlight some of the contents of the bill as the
substance is most worthy. It generally fits with the people
agenda of average Canadians that Reformers promote. Reformers
always look to expand the bounds of democracy, to help those who
need a hand up and may not be able to fully help themselves. The
bill largely says how the federal government will behave. It is
a statement that extends goodwill and mainstream consideration to
a larger group.
Three pieces of legislation will be amended by the bill. On
disability issues there is some background worth mentioning.
Today more than four million people in Canada, about 16% of the
population, have some disability. Canadians with disabilities
continue to experience some obstacles to daily living in areas
such as employment, transportation and housing where most of us
take full participation for granted.
Legislative reform has been advocated by the disability rights
movement for almost two decades. At the parliamentary level the
issue was raised when the former House of Commons Standing
Committee on Human and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
actively promoted the equality rights of persons with
disabilities. The committee made specific recommendations for
legislative reform requiring all federal departments, crown
corporations and agencies to review and reform legislation to
ensure the inclusion of persons with disabilities in federal
programs.
In response to the report the government agreed to undertake a
comprehensive review to identify the action required to eliminate
these barriers to the social and economic integration of persons
with disabilities.
The idea of an omnibus bill that would make simultaneous
amendments to a number of pieces of federal legislation to
address the concerns of Canadians with disabilities was promoted
by the disability community as far back as the late eighties and
early nineties.
Today we have that omnibus bill in Bill S-5. The goal was to
bring federal laws in line with section 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees the right to
equality for persons with mental and physical disabilities.
The Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted in 1977 to provide for
an informal process for resolving cases of discrimination in
areas of federal jurisdiction.
Like most provincial anti-discrimination laws, the act
establishes a specialized system of redress whereby
discriminatory actions are discouraged by means of education and
by ensuring that those who discriminate will bear the costs of
compensating their victims. The act applies to all federal
government departments, agencies and crown corporations as well
as federally regulated businesses and industries such as banking,
transportation and communications.
1530
The human rights system essentially operates on a complaint
basis. A complaint of discrimination must be lodged with the
Canadian Human Rights Commission before the process can go
forward. Moreover, the human rights system is self-contained in
that there is no direct right to seek damages before the courts
for acts of discrimination.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is the administrative
agency responsible for promoting an understanding of and
compliance with the act. The adjudicative function under the
legislation is carried out by human rights tribunals looking into
complaints of discrimination. They have the power to fashion
reasonable remedies to address the unique social problems
underlying these complaints.
In the Speech from the Throne on October 1, 1986 the then
government announced its intention to proceed with amendments to
the Canadian Human Rights Act. On December 10, 1992 the former
minister of justice, the Hon. Kim Campbell, tabled in the House
of Commons Bill C-108, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights
Act. That bill died with the dissolution of that Parliament.
In June 1996 during the last session of the Parliament, one
amendment to the human rights act was made, adding sexual
orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
This bill completes the long stated goals of inclusiveness that
I mentioned. For example, the removal of barriers to facilitate
equal access to the Canadian justice system. This has been a
longstanding goal of those with disabilities who have been either
labelled mentally handicapped or denied methods to assist them to
communicate in a court of law.
It was concluded that unless statutory provisions excluding the
evidence of these persons was improved, they would continue to be
discounted. These could include the removal of barriers to
receiving testimony from persons with disabilities; allowing
witnesses to use the medium with which they are most comfortable
in order to testify in court; allowing individuals with a
disability to use alternative methods, such as the voice, to
identify the accused; and eliminating discrimination against
persons with a disability in the jury selection process.
Certainly we have excluded many worthy jurors in the past.
There is particular concern about the people with disabilities
who are physically and sexually assaulted but who are unable to
obtain the protection of the criminal justice system. The
previous legislation I do not think went far enough and
amendments in this bill are in response to that.
The bill also amends the Canada Evidence Act. Clause 1 would
replace section 6 of the Canada Evidence Act which currently
allows witnesses who are unable to speak to give evidence by any
means that would make it intelligible. Clause 1 would extend
this allowance to persons who have difficulty in communicating by
reason of any disability. This change could require the use of
sign language or oral interpreters, assistive learning devices or
real time captioning.
According to clause 1, persons with mental disabilities who have
been determined to have the capacity to give evidence and have
difficulty in communicating because of a physical or mental
disability could give evidence with appropriate help.
Clause 1 would also allow a witness to give evidence about the
identity of an accused either visually or by using a sensory
method of identification. This new section would permit the
admission into court of voice and touch methods of identifying an
accused person. In most cases victims visually identify the
accused first in a line-up and then in the courtroom as part of
the evidence. However, persons who are blind or who have low
vision are often unable to identify an accused in this manner.
The bill also deals with the offence of sexual exploitation. The
child sexual abuse provisions of the Criminal Code, section 153 I
believe, make it an offence for a person in a position of trust
or authority to sexually exploit a young person. They also make
it an offence for a person to sexually exploit a young person
with whom he or she is in a relationship of dependency.
Clause 2 of this bill would apply the same prohibitions in
relation to persons with disabilities. Clause 2 would create a
hybrid offence punishable upon summary conviction for a term of
imprisonment not exceeding 18 months or upon indictment for a
term not exceeding five years.
Clause 2 would also create a new offence, sexual exploitation of
persons with disabilities, that would be separate from the
general offence of sexual assault.
1535
Part of the reason for creating a new offence separate from the
general offence of sexual assault is that specific recognition of
the various ways in which persons with disabilities can be
sexually exploited would allow individuals to be held criminally
accountable for a much broader range of damaging and sexually
intrusive behaviour. This proposed offence would be easily
recognizable on a criminal record as being one against persons
with disabilities in vulnerable relationships as opposed to a
generic charge of sexual assault.
The wording in subsections (5) and (6) removes the defence of
mistaken belief in consent where that belief was based on the
accused's self-induced intoxication or recklessness or wilful
blindness. Subsection (6) requires the judge to instruct a jury
presented with the defence of mistaken belief in consent to
consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that
belief.
Clauses 4 through 7 of the bill are designed to facilitate the
inclusion of persons with disabilities on juries. Clause 4 would
permit a juror with a physical disability who is otherwise
qualified to serve as a juror to be accommodated in order to
carry out their duties.
Clause 6 of the bill pertains to challenges for cause by the
prosecution or an accused. Currently section 638(1)(e) of the
Criminal Code permits a juror to be challenged for elimination
from the jury on the basis that they are physically unable to
properly carry out their responsibilities. Clause 6 would amend
this section to prevent disability in and of itself from being a
barrier to jury service, particularly if the person with the
disability had been accommodated and was able to carry out the
role of a juror.
However, disability could be a cause for exclusion where, even
with the aid of technical, personal, interpretive or support
devices the person was still physically unable to properly
perform the responsibilities of a juror. That makes sense. But
this could happen for example in a case where a significant
amount of visual evidence was involved and where the potential
juror was blind. The caveat is reasonableness.
Clause 8 deals with videotaped evidence. The child sexual abuse
provisions of the Criminal Code currently allow complainants
under 18 to give evidence of a sexual offence by way of videotape
so long as the tape has been made within a reasonable time after
the offence was committed and provided that the complainant
adopts the contents of the videotape during testimony. The
intention behind this section is to preserve the evidence of
children who might not otherwise recall events that took place
months or even years before, and to remove the need for them to
repeat their story many times both in and out of court.
Clause 8 of the bill would allow similar videotaped evidence by
persons with disabilities who might have difficulty communicating
due to that disability.
The next section deals with human rights and the human rights
system and clauses 9 and 10 amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Clause 10 would limit the factors for assessing undue hardship
for those of health, safety and cost in providing assistance in
those special circumstances. Accommodating special needs is not
an absolute right and may not be practical or it may be
unreasonably costly in certain circumstances.
These are the same three factors set out in the Ontario Human
Rights Code. It has been done in Ontario in this regard. Bill
S-5 would allow the governor in council to make regulations
prescribing standards for assessing undue hardship.
One or more of the contentious issues surrounding the duty to
accommodate is what is meant by cost in determining instances of
undue hardship. Some equality seeking groups would prefer not to
have any cost factors taken into a consideration of undue
hardship. They fear that doing so would create two classes of
human rights claimants, those we could afford to treat equally
and those we could not. Since cost is to be a relevant
consideration in assessing undue hardship, they would like to see
it limited to financial cost as is the case under the Ontario
Human Rights Code. There is controversy there.
The equality seeking groups find the whole notion of
accommodation itself offensive. In their view, notions of
accommodation and undue hardship promote a second class version
of rights. That is unacceptable to them. They suggest that the
idea that the needs of disadvantaged people are special and must
be reasonably accommodated presupposes that there is a norm to
which people must conform or be considered different or abnormal;
such a person's needs must be accommodated but only if they do
not cause undue hardship to accommodate.
Moreover, the accommodation approach to achieving equality
effectively leaves unchallenged the assumptions, institutions and
relationships underlying discriminatory rules themselves.
Accommodation permits an employer for example to avoid liability
for what otherwise would be held to be a discriminatory practice.
1540
While accommodation will reduce the effects of the same
treatment approach to equality in individual situations, it will
not alter the overall systemic impact of certain rules. It has
been suggested that a better approach might be to hold employers
and service providers under the federal human rights act to one
standard of equality and then ask them to justify any deviation
from that standard, rather than upholding discriminatory
practices in attempting to fit people adversely affected by them
into a general practice.
That has not been chosen in this bill and probably is too
idealistic.
Clause 27 of the bill would restructure the existing ad hoc
human rights tribunal panel under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The bill creates a permanent, smaller and expert Canadian Human
Rights Tribunal composed of a maximum of 15 members, including a
chairperson and a vice-chairperson. Temporary members could be
appointed to meet workload requirements.
Appointments to the tribunal would be made on the basis of
experience, expertise and interest in and sensitivity to human
rights, as well as with regard to the need of regional
representation. The chairperson, the vice-chairperson and at
least two other members of the tribunal would be required to have
certain legal qualifications.
The bill also would provide that the terms of office for both
the chairperson and the vice-chairperson could extend during good
behaviour for as long as seven years. Other members would
continue to hold office during good behaviour for terms not
exceeding five years.
Clause 27 contains provisions for remedial and also disciplinary
measures which could be taken against any member of the tribunal.
It is good to see some accountability measure built in.
Pursuant to clause 27, at any stage after a complaint of
discrimination was filed, the Canadian Human Rights Commission
could ask the chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
to institute an inquiry into it if the commission is satisfied
that such action is warranted. The chairperson would respond by
assigning a member of the tribunal to hear the case. In
instances of complex complaints, perhaps a three member panel
could be assigned.
Clause 27 would allow the chairperson to make rules of procedure
for tribunal hearings. These rules would cover such things as
the summoning of witnesses, the production and service of
documents, the introduction of evidence and time limits on
hearings and decision making. They could also deal with the
addition of parties and interested persons to the proceedings.
Finally, clause 27 would create a new section 52 of the act to
allow tribunal members or panels to take measures to ensure the
confidentiality of an inquiry where certain conditions existed.
Under section 53 of the current act, if at the conclusion of an
inquiry a tribunal finds that the complaint has not been
substantiated, it must dismiss the matter. Where however it is
determined that the complaint has been substantiated, the
tribunal may make an order against the person found to have
engaged or to be engaging in the discriminatory practice. This
situation would continue under the bill.
Section 57 of the act would also continue to allow any tribunal
order, including those newly added to the bill, to be enforced as
an order of the Federal Court of Canada.
The bill would repeal sections 55 and 56 thereby eliminating the
current review of tribunal structure.
Human rights tribunals may make such specialized orders as
compensating the victim of discrimination for any lost wages, for
the cost of obtaining alternative services or accommodations, or
for injury to his or her feelings or self-respect.
The sections of the act also permit a tribunal to make a special
order of compensation where a person is found to have wilfully or
recklessly engaged in a discriminatory practice or still to be
doing so.
Clause 27 of the bill would also continue to allow compensation
for pain and suffering or for wilful or reckless discrimination.
However it would increase the maximum penalty dollar amount to
$20,000 from $5,000. The rationale is that some provincial human
rights laws have no limits on how much money can be awarded to a
complainant while others have limits ranging from $2,000 to
$10,000. The raising of the limit under the Canadian Human
Rights Act would ensure that tribunals had enough discretion to
award an amount that was fair in the circumstances.
With respect to the issue of hate propaganda, section 13 of the
Canadian Human Rights Act makes it a discriminatory practice to
use the telephone or any telecommunications device undertaken to
communicate messages which are likely to expose a person or
persons to hatred or contempt because they belong to a group
identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground, such as race,
national or ethnic origin.
Under section 54 of the act a tribunal is currently restricted
to use cease and desist orders where it finds that a complaint
has been substantiated.
Clause 28 would expand the order-making powers of tribunals in
these cases. It would allow tribunals to compensate victims
specifically identified in the discriminatory communication up to
a maximum of $20,000 where the discriminatory practice was found
to be or to have been engaged in wilfully or recklessly.
The tribunal could also order the communicator to pay a penalty
of up to $10,000. In considering whether to order a penalty
payment the tribunal would be required to consider such factors
as the nature and gravity of the practice and the wilfulness or
the intent of the communicator. This would not be used lightly.
1545
Clause 28 is a response to the rising incidence of hate crimes
around the world. There seems to be a need to deter individuals
and organizations from establishing hate telephone lines. Victims
of such lines can apply for compensation and offenders can be
subjected to a financial penalty to accomplish this deterrence.
Clause 32 of the bill would respond to these requests for
accountability by requiring the commission to submit all reports
of itself to Parliament through the Speakers of both Houses. The
clause is significant in that it would require the new Canadian
human rights tribunal to report annually to Parliament on its
activities. This would provide some measure of transparency to
the tribunal process and would serve to ensure the independence
of the tribunal from the commission.
Other noteworthy amendments include the retaliation clause,
clause 14, which would make complaint retaliation a
discriminatory practice which would be dealt with under the act
like any other case of discrimination. The idea seems to be that
the anti-discrimination system created by the Canadian Human
Rights Act would be better suited than criminal courts to deal
with these types of cases.
The introduction of such long awaited amendments to the Canadian
Human Rights Act has not been met with unanimous applause as one
might expect. While many of the amendments are clearly perceived
as positive, in particular those pertaining to the creation of an
expert permanent tribunal, most attention seems to be focused on
what is missing from the package. The same appears to be true of
the reaction of the disabled community to the proposed amendments
to the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code.
With respect to the Canadian Human Rights Act, the bill does not
deal with the issue of same sex benefits or with the mandatory
retirement provisions in section 15(c) of the act. There are
calls for amendments to expand the jurisdiction of the Canadian
human rights commission to deal with dissemination of hate
messages in any form, telephone mail or the Internet whether
exported or imported. There are recommendations that the act be
updated to respond to the transmission of hate messages and
specifically that Holocaust denial be defined as constituting
hate propaganda under the act.
We need to continue our evaluation of the existing federal human
rights system's ability to promote and protect human rights into
the future. There will always be controversy on these matters.
The passage of this legislation is helpful but it is not the
whole answer. There is a cultural context of reasonableness,
tolerance, common sense and goodwill on which these measures
rest. The historical Judeo-Christian ethic of Canadian culture
is operative here. Good people can make poor situations work if
they want to. Where attitudes change and are adaptable, much can
be accomplished beyond mere rules of legislation.
To help the disadvantaged we need an economic engine that will
generate the wealth to pay for our desired social programs. The
good samaritan of the Bible could not have helped very much if he
did not have the money to put his concern into action. The
samaritan had his own financial resources which were not someone
else's taxes, unlike some of the others who passed by on the road
that day.
The point is that right thinking about economics creates the
economic engine to pay for the social programs and the very good
things that need to be done. We need to have balance and reason.
This is a lesson the NDP may never learn and the Liberals are so
reluctant to admit.
Reformers care about people. We make every effort to be the
voice of average Canadians as we bring the concerns of voters to
Ottawa rather than bringing a central Canadian, top down Ottawa
agenda back to the community.
Reformers are supporting this bill today. However, I need to
comment on the number the bill has been assigned because it has
an S in front of it. That means it went through the Senate
first, which troubles me.
The contents of Bill S-5 are satisfactory as far as they go and
we support the majority of amendments to the applicable acts.
However, it is not the contents that concern me as much as the
process through which this bill came to the House for debate.
1550
Peter Hogg in the Constitutional Law of Canada writes:
Although the Constitution Act, 1867 gives to the Senate the same
powers as the House of Commons (except that, by s. 53, money
bills must originate in the House of Commons), it has to be (and
usually is) accepted by opposition as well as government senators
that the appointive nature of the Senate must necessarily make
its role subordinate to the elective House.
Richard Van Loon and Michael Whittington in The Canadian
Political System state:
The Senate is not permitted constitutionally to introduce money
bills, and in practice it cannot amend or defeat money bills
either. (There is still some question as to the
constitutionality of Senate amendments of money bills, but in
practical terms the Senate does not even attempt to amend them
today). Because of the lack of government ministers in the
Senate, virtually all government bills are by convention
introduced in the House of Commons.
Bill S-7 was originally tabled in the House of Commons by the
former justice minister and the current health minister in April
1997 as Bill C-98. The bill died on the order paper with the
dissolution of the 35th Parliament.
The current minister could have easily introduced this bill at
the outset of the 36th Parliament, as there was not a great
amount of legislation for her to be responsible for at the time.
Instead the government, for reasons unknown, decided to introduce
the bill in the Senate.
We all know how the Senate is currently in a state of flux.
Canadians from coast to coast are wondering how effective the
Senate really is. Do senators truly understand the needs of
average Canadians? Who are they accountable to if they do not
represent a specific constituency?
Before I have senators calling me in an outrage at my office, I
want to make one point very clear. There are senators who take
their job very seriously, work hard for their province and region
and who want to make Canada a better place in which to live.
That is without dispute. We even have senators with commendable
attendance records. Those senators would probably have a good
chance of getting elected to that House and should have nothing
to worry about by a triple E Senate concept.
Reformers are not upset with the handful of hard workers. We
are upset with the majority who look at the Senate as a place to
simply collect a paycheque and then proceed to do work unrelated
to the Senate. It must be remembered that Reformers have not
abandoned their hopes of solving the historical national problem
of the Senate. It is unfinished business in nation building and
Reformers are committed to Senate reform, not abolition.
As members of the House of Commons, we are here because the
majority of our constituents want us to be here. If my
constituents are frustrated with my performance they will have
their chance to get rid of me. It is quite simple. However, look
at how difficult it is to get rid of an unpopular senator,
someone who has gone out of the bounds of rules. It is next to
impossible.
Members of Parliament do not want to become rubber stamps. We
do not want to rubber stamp Bill S-5. The House of Commons is an
elected House and legislation should go from here to the other
place. Senators who feel they too often rubber stamp bills from
here should perhaps line up and support the Reformers who want an
elected upper house.
The government House leader's office had indicated to me today
that the reason Bill S-5 was not introduced first in the House
was that the agenda in the fall was too busy. That stretches
credibility. It said that it was essential to get the bill
through as quickly as possible so it was started in the Senate.
The elected representatives of the Canadian people sit in the
House of Commons, not in the Senate. Canadians do not want their
elected representatives relegated to the house of sober second
thought. They want government legislation to begin in the House
of Commons and then proceed to the other place, not vice versa.
The issue here is the principle of democracy and of good
government. I think there is a ring of Liberal arrogance with
this move through the Senate with this bill.
I want to conclude that we are supportive of the components of
this bill. It will clearly provide the necessary changes to
enable persons with disabilities to play a more active role in
the justice process, something the disabled community has long
been calling for. It provides for ways of redress and is part of
a larger quest of Reform to change and update our government
institutions to better serve every Canadian.
I am glad to recommend this bill, whatever its shortcomings, to
my own community.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at second reading of Bill S-5,
an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in
respect of persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act in respect of persons with disabilities and other
matters and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
1555
I am speaking to this bill as the Bloc Quebecois critic on
human rights and the rights of the disabled. Before I begin my
speech on Bill S-5, I would first like to point out that it comes
to us from the Senate and that the House of Commons, the forum of
democracy that it is, occasionally debates bills from the other
House.
I should point out that this bill, S-5, is absolutely
identical to Bill C-98, which the former Minister of Justice now
Minister of Health tabled at the end of the last Parliament.
As the present government chose to allocate issues concerning
the rights of the disabled and human rights to both the Department
of Human Resources Development and the Department of Justice, I
think it would have been far preferable for the Minister of Justice
to reintroduce the bill in this House. This approach would
indicate the importance the government intends to give to these men
and women, who are full-fledged citizens.
The members of the House of Commons have been given a mandate
to represent the people and are accountable to them.
The practice of introducing bills in the Senate first and then
in the House is questionable to say the least. It could even tend
to increase the importance of the other chamber. If we are not
careful, we will be back into the whole discussion about the
existence of the other chamber, but that is not our aim,
particularly as the Bloc Quebecois' position on this is very clear.
Even though it has not come from the House of Commons, I have
no hesitation in emphasizing the great importance of this bill for
the many physically and mentally disabled members of the community.
In fact, four million individuals, 16% of Canada's population, are
disabled.
I will, if I may, briefly review what has been done, or rather
said, in this Parliament about the status of the disabled.
In 1990, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status
of Disabled Persons, which no longer exists, tabled a report in
which it recommended a broad legislative reform under which all
federal departments and agencies, and all crown corporations, would
examine and amend their acts and regulations so that the disabled
could benefit from existing federal programs. A number of other
consultations took place later, but did not result in significant
legislative changes.
In June 1996, a federal task force on disability issues was
formed. This task force, it should be recalled, was composed
exclusively of government members and reported to the justice,
human resources development, finance and revenue departments. We
should all admit and deplore the fact that little progress has been
made with respect to the status of the disabled.
The task force's main recommendations have never been followed up.
This bill is perhaps good news, because it could be seen as
marking a beginning. But it must not be forgotten that the status
of the disabled is the responsibility of several departments and
that action is required from each of them in order to implement the
task force's recommendations. Is this realistic?
Take, for example, the revenue department, which could
introduce legislation to improve tax credits for the disabled. But
that is another issue; I will focus for now on the bill before us.
1600
I will address the amendments to the Canada Evidence Act and the
Criminal Code, and then the provisions concerning the Canadian
Human Rights Act.
Clause 1 of the bill makes two amendments to the Canada Evidence
Act. First, it provides for the use of whatever means necessary to allow
a witness who has difficulty communicating by reason of a physical
disability to give evidence. The use of sign language interpretation is
a concrete example of clause 1 of Bill S-5 at work.
The second part of clause 1 adds a section 6.1 to the Canada
Evidence Act.
This provision would allow for witnesses to use any sensory means, their
sense of hearing for instance, to identify an accused. This way, a blind
person who witnesses a crime could help identify the accused.
Clauses 2 through 8 of Bill C-5 amend the Criminal Code. Clause 2
creates a new offence. Sexual exploitation of persons with disabilities
becomes a crime separate from the generic offence of sexual assault.
This provision specifically recognizes that any person who is in a
position of trust or authority toward a person with a disability and
sexually abuses this vulnerable person is guilty of an offence. A
parallel can be drawn between these provisions and those relating to
sexual violence against children, which also constitutes a specific
offence.
The purpose of clauses 4 to 7 of the bill is to make it easier
for the disabled to serve on a jury. Accommodation must be made to
enable a disabled person selected as a juror to discharge this
responsibility appropriately and fully like any other citizen.
Clause 8 would authorize video testimony for disabled
individuals who have difficulty communicating directly during a
proceeding.
To sum up, these provisions amend the Criminal Code and the
Canada Evidence Act and are designed to give disabled individuals
full access to the criminal justice system, something organizations
for the disabled have long been calling for.
The second aspect of this bill has to do with the Canadian
Human Rights Act.
First, clause 10 of Bill S-5 introduces what is commonly known as
the obligation of accommodation into the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Employers and providers of services governed by this act must
accommodate the needs of the disabled and of the other groups
mentioned in section 2 of the act, unless doing so would impose
excessive hardship.
If, for example, a complaint of discrimination is made against
a federal department for failing to accommodate the needs of a
disabled individual, that department must show that accommodating
those needs would have imposed excessive hardship with respect to
health, safety or cost.
These are the only three criteria of excessive hardship
mentioned in the bill. It would be interesting for the committee
to hear what federally regulated employers had to see about this.
I sincerely believe that these provisions will allow better
integration of the disabled in the working world.
Finally, Bill S-5 creates a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
Right now, there is a human rights tribunal panel composed of a
president and 43 part time members.
1605
The proposed tribunal would be made up of a chairperson, a
vice-chairperson and 15 members. Creation of a tribunal
specializing in human rights will certainly be greeted with
interest, since human rights is becoming an increasingly complex
area requiring particular expertise. There is already such a
tribunal in Quebec, as members know, and it has proven its worth.
I would, however, like to raise a few points into which we
will surely have time to go more thoroughly when the bill is
examined by the standing committee on justice after second reading.
The first concerns the tribunal's independence. As the
Barreau du Québec has already pointed out at a sitting of the
Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs, the question
of the tribunal's independence from the Canadian Human Rights
Commission would need to be clarified. At the moment, one could
assume that the tribunal would be only a component of the
Commission, not an independent body.
Clause 48.3 also raises some questions. It gives a great deal
of power to the Minister of Justice with respect to disciplinary
measures against a member of the tribunal. The fact that the
minister can be involved in a disciplinary measure against a member
of the tribunal raises questions about the independence of that
tribunal. This is a matter into which the committee must look
seriously.
As for clause 48.5, it reads as follows:
The full-time members of the Tribunal shall reside in the
National Capital Region, as described in the schedule to the
National Capital Act, or within forty kilometres of that
Region.
This gives me food for thought. People competent to sit on
such a specialized tribunal can be found anywhere in Canada or
Quebec. To accept this clause means choosing to deprive the
tribunal of persons who could well be living in Vancouver or
Toronto, Montreal or St. John's, Newfoundland. This, to my mind, is
a completely discriminatory rule, and one that is contrary to the
public interest.
To summarize my speech, the Bloc Quebecois supports all of the
principles of Bill S-5. This bill will provide persons with
disabilities with better access to criminal justice as witnesses or
jury members.
The obligation for accommodations responds to demands from a number
of organizations of persons with disabilities.
People with disabilities have all the rights of other
citizens. I trust that Bill C-5 will not be the only measure of
this legislature to meet their needs and expectations.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak today in the debate on Bill S-5. As critic for
persons with disabilities for the New Democratic Party, I am
committed to the legislative process for human rights protection
to be continually reviewed and updated due to evolving conditions
for the disabled. Bill S-5 is a step in the right direction in
terms of equitable treatment for the disabled.
Seventeen per cent of the population can identify themselves as
having a disability of one type or another. The amendments to
the Canadian Human Rights Act will work to prevent discrimination
against persons with disabilities within the federal sphere. A
key amendment adds a provision that requires employers and
service providers to accommodate the needs of people who are
protected under the act.
The duty to accommodate is a concept viewed by persons with
disabilities as essential to integration and inclusion in
society. The concept has been recognized and adopted
legislatively throughout all provincial human rights
jurisdictions.
The Canadian Human Rights Act is the principal vehicle wherein
the fundamental human rights of persons with disabilities and all
Canadians are guaranteed. Persons with disabilities are
recognized under section 15 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
Under this section are various human rights acts established
provincially and federally to ensure equal access and opportunity
for persons with disabilities.
1610
Duty to accommodate affects how we work, travel and communicate,
basically all the fundamental aspects of social, political and
economic life for persons with disabilities in Canada.
For the past 12 years disabled persons have been fighting for a
law that provides duty to accommodate in our federal human rights
act. It has taken so long probably and unfortunately, it would
seem, because government agendas have taken precedence over the
quality of life for persons with disabilities.
The bill is a start. It represents the perspective of persons
with disabilities. It provides for a positive duty to
accommodate subject to a standard of undue hardship. Undue
hardship is defined with respect to health, safety and cost.
It is important that undue hardship be defined. It is important
to have a human rights policy base for limitations on undue
hardship that will ensure a meaningful duty to accommodate
persons with disabilities. The undue hardship provisions must be
clearly defined so they do not marginalize nor diminish the most
fundamental rights of people with disabilities.
Without accommodation persons with disabilities will continue to
be denied access to employment and to the most fundamental
elements of our social being.
If enacted, this law will bring clarity to the area of the law
where the duty to accommodate applies equally regardless of what
kind of discrimination it may be. It is critical that people
with disabilities are consulted.
Another positive aspect of the bill is that the commission
cannot be a regulatory body. It will only provide consultation.
Input by disabled persons will also be included in the process.
This is critical. It is critical that people with disabilities
are consulted in a regulation making process, especially with
respect to undue hardship and limitation on accommodation. This
will help to further establish their needs to fully integrate
into society.
One issue that is not included in the bill and will hopefully be
included at a later date is the reference to income status as a
ground of discrimination. Also the bill needs to include
assurance that the human rights system at the federal level is
effectively working by ensuring that training of investigators at
the commission level happens. The tribunal process needs to
effectively meet the needs and concerns of the citizens of Canada
who are facing discrimination.
I endorse the content of the bill, especially with regard to the
duty to accommodate, but we need a broader review of the human
rights act and the human rights commission system.
The concerns of the disabled community are serious. We need to
provide answers and solutions to their needs. They have gone
unnoticed for so long and the bill will assist in addressing some
of the issues faced by persons with disabilities. As a
government and as a nation we need to ensure that persons with
disabilities are given equal opportunities, the same
opportunities share by all Canadians.
I would like to put forward at this time some of the comments of
a member of the disabled community, Ms. Lucie Lemieux-Brassard:
The duty to accommodate with regard to employment is critical.
Should an individual have their job changed or eliminated because
their wheelchair doesn't fit in regular cars or because there is
no weekend accessibility for a bus for the disabled? No.
We need to assess the needs of the individual. We need to look
at the abilities and disabilities of the person and then search
for a solution that will compensate for a functional limitation.
The solution must assist the disabled person to carry out his or
her job duties. This is about fairness and equity, not cost.
I have spoken with many members of the disabled community and
would like to raise a couple of other points. The bill is
important but it still needs work. There needs to be a broader
review of the human rights act to address disability issues.
The process at the present time is driven by an individual
complaint system and that is problematic. Accessibility
complaints usually take two years for resolution. Usually
resolution comes in the form of one person's complaint being
answered. It does not, however, address the same complaint that
many may have across the country. They are not resolved.
I will give an example. A person complains that there are no
TTY services in the Dorval airport in Montreal. To resolve the
issue a TTY service is installed in the airport. This is driven
by a single complaint.
Do we need to lodge a complaint for every single airport in
Canada? How do we ensure that all airports have a TTY? How about
the rest of the deaf communities across this country who will not
benefit from a TTY service because federal access standards are
not guaranteed?
1615
This is a perfect example of why disabled persons need full
accommodation across this country. In other words, the bill does
not deal with systemic problems. It is a complaint driven
process.
The disabled community is reasonable in their demands but they
do not want to have to wait years to make life more accessible to
all Canadians.
Bill S-5 is a step in the right direction in respecting the
rights and quality of life for disabled persons in our
communities. But there are still many more steps which need to
be executed.
I would like to draw attention to the fact that in October last
year a landmark decision occurred in the supreme court respecting
the rights of the deaf to have appropriate sign language
translation services available in hospitals and other public
institutions. I am still waiting to hear how this landmark
decision is going to work its way into the hospitals, schools and
other public institutions in this land. I think all members of
the disabled community are still waiting for that.
In Ontario right now there are great concerns among
post-secondary students who are deaf or hearing impaired. They
see that their funding is being jeopardized and made much more
complicated by the present process of moving jurisdictions for
their funding. They are being moved from the federal jurisdiction
into provincial loan jurisdiction. Instead of finding life
becoming a little easier to deal with, it is just simply one more
hurdle for them. It is time that we started eliminating hurdles
across the board for people with disabilities and not removing
one and adding another.
In closing, I support Bill S-5. It is our duty to accommodate
the dreams and the plans of our disabled citizens. They have as
much if not more to contribute to this country as any one else.
For that reason I am in support of this first step.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak at
second reading of Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada Evidence
Act and the Criminal Code in respect of persons with
disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect
of persons with disabilities and other matters and to make
consequential amendments to other acts.
As has been chronicled, this bill has been adopted with one
amendment from the Senate last December 1997. Before I delve
into the whole objective of this particular legislation I would
like to outline the principle of this amendment which was adopted
in our neighbouring house, the Senate.
This amendment was tabled by Senator Kinsella and dealt
specifically with clause 16 of the bill. Clause 16 of Bill S-5
would permit the information relating to the prohibited ground of
discrimination to be collected provided that this was done as
part of the adaptation of carrying out a special program, plan or
arrangement pursuant to section 16 of the Canadian Human Rights
Act.
It is an important distinction where special programs are
recognized by section 16 to prevent or reduce disadvantages in
employment or in the provision of goods and services that are
being suffered by a group of individuals on the basis of a
certain prohibited ground of discrimination. For one reason or
another, this original legislation did not address all of the
grounds of discrimination prohibited by section 2 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
For that reason this amendment to section 16 of Bill S-5 I would
suggest is a very positive motion brought forward by a senator in
the neighbouring house. Senator Kinsella therefore presented
this amendment to rectify the omission which was adopted by the
Senate. I congratulate the senators for their participation in
this legislation.
As a result, section 16 of Bill S-5 which is before us today has
been rectified and is consistent with all of the provisions of
the federal Canadian human bill of rights.
1620
I would like to move on to Bill S-5 as a whole. The preamble I
would suggest sets out a very, very important principle and a
philosophy that I am sure all members of the House would embrace.
That is the attempt to remove all barriers, “the removal of
barriers to their full participation in society” specifically
referring to those with disabilities. Certainly accessibility is
a noble goal and this legislation takes a giant step in that
direction.
This bill, like all Canadian anti-discrimination statutes at the
provincial, territorial and federal levels, has this preamble and
sets out this principle.
The second paragraph of the preamble also brings our attention
to the fact that for individuals and groups who are
disadvantaged, identical treatment does not always lead to
equality. Again this is a sometimes very difficult principle to
understand, but certainly it is an important principle for
identical treatment does not always lead to equality.
Many members of this House, and I would suggest unfortunately
many of them in the official opposition, will have difficulties
with this proposition because identical does not always mean
equal. I am curious to see how this reaction will be taken by
the members.
The Reform Party members are opposed to the principle of special
treatment. They do not seem to understand that equal treatment
does not always mean equal. They seem to have a hang-up with
definitions, as we have seen with the definitions of “distinct”
and “unique”. But surely all members must come to understand
that persons with disabilities in the absence of special measures
would not always enjoy equality. There is the rub.
This bill certainly is a good example of circumstances where the
principle of identical treatment versus equality as embraced by
the Reform Party simply will not work. If it does not work here,
there is perhaps a larger situation in this country where it will
not work as well, mainly the country of Canada.
The third preamble also speaks in a positive way of the
necessity of removing discriminatory barriers to ensure equality.
This again is in conformity with section 15 of the Canadian
charter of rights which provides for the possibility of
legislative assemblies to enact legislation to provide for
affirmative action programs. May I say that I fully support this
principle and I fully support this preamble in its entirety.
The Canada Evidence Act as addressed by Bill S-5 will provide
for communication assistance for persons with special
communication needs, whether it includes sign language, oral
interpretation, apparatuses such as a Bliss board, assistive
listening devices and the like. It also allows for persons to
have individuals present to assist in their use of these devices
when deemed necessary.
Witnesses with disabilities will then be permitted to identify
an accused for example by using auditory or tactile methods. This
is an important step forward and takes us again into the 21st
century with respect to the use and application of technology in
our criminal courts.
These aids were not always readily available. I would suggest
it is implicitly good that this legislation makes provision for
these devices. It will also of course increase the participation
of those who are visually challenged in the courtroom. I believe
this initiative to that extent speaks equitably to the needs of
persons with disabilities and I fully support this.
I also support the principle of the proposals to the effect that
they will assist persons in their ability to receive protection
from discrimination. Again this is an important aspect of the
bill. It stresses that those who may experience discrimination
will not experience further discrimination as a result of taking
actions to protect themselves. I would suggest that this is
something we should all fully support and embrace in this House.
The bill looks at the issue of making our courtrooms more
accessible and user friendly. That is a catch phrase that has
taken on a life of its own, but I think it adequately sums up
what this bill permits.
With respect to the amendments as they pertain to the Criminal
Code, Bill S-5 again has a very good principle behind it. The
summary that sets out these objectives will provide persons with
disabilities greater ability to give testimony in a courtroom
specifically by using videotapes.
This is presently available for some but this will expand the
parameters to allow persons suffering from disabilities to use
this method of testimony.
1625
Persons with disabilities would also not be excluded from jury
service. If by using assistance they can participate in our
criminal justice system as jurors, I believe that this is an
implicitly good principle and one which I again embrace fully.
There is also the issue of sexual exploitation of a person with
a disability in a dependent relationship. This bill makes
specific changes to identify this as a very important change to
the Criminal Code.
The Canadian Human Rights Act would be affected with respect to
Bill S-5 and adds to the human rights act the duty of
accommodation as an obligation to address the needs of persons
protected under the act, for example by ensuring that the
workplace is wheelchair accessible. I use that simply as one
example.
It also requires employers and the providers of services to make
accommodations for persons with disabilities unless they
demonstrate that this would cause undue hardship. I would
suggest that this is a common sense approach to make allowances
for persons perhaps in business who may have some reasonable
explanation for their inability to accommodate. However, at least
it opens the question and the avenue for both sides of the
equation.
As a principle I believe this is a good thing in and of itself
but there are some questions that this raises. For example, does
the provider of the accommodation have the opportunity to
establish that he or she has a reasonable justification for not
being able to accommodate? Why would he or she have to wait
until the complaint is tabled to try to defend this reason?
In essence it may create a reverse onus situation. I would
suggest that this may be something that needs to be tempered or
looked at at the committee level. The human rights commission
would basically be the court of final analysis.
As previously mentioned in my introduction, the bill also amends
the Canadian Human Rights Act to recognize that an individual may
suffer from discrimination on a number of different grounds at
once. These grounds of discrimination are listed at section 2 of
the act.
It ensures that all incidents of discrimination will be taken
into account by one tribunal and that each instance of
discrimination would not necessarily have to be considered in
isolation or separately. It would allow for one tribunal to hear
a case that pertained to one individual in its entirety. I would
suggest that this is a common sense approach.
Bill S-5 also provides for a number of administrative changes.
Among these the Canadian Human Rights Commission will report
directly to Parliament instead of to the Minister of Justice.
Once more I think this is in and of itself a good thing and a
great move toward accountability to the Canadian people through
through Parliament.
The ceiling for the maximum limit of compensation for pain and
suffering or for wilful or reckless discrimination has also been
raised from $5,000 to $20,000 in keeping up with the economic
climate of this country.
Bill S-5 also reformulates the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
Like my colleague Senator Kinsella who raised this matter in the
Senate, I have some concerns with section 27 of this bill,
specifically as it pertains to sections 48 to 53 of the Canadian
Human Rights Act.
These sections state that the tribunal will be appointed and
there will be a number of members who must have experience,
expertise, interest and sensitivity to human rights. This is
indeed a welcome suggestion but my concern lies in the fact that
the amendments will stipulate that members of the tribunal must
or should be members of a bar of a province or the Chambre des
notaires du Québec. I ask the question why.
We have seen many tribunals and governing boards. I even used
the example of a disciplinary committee of most bars where there
are lay persons who are participants and members of these
tribunals. I as a lawyer myself question why a person would have
to be a member of a bar to be on this tribunal. Surely there is
enough cynicism out there about lawyers having make work programs
for themselves. I see you, Mr. Speaker, may have some doubts
about that.
I think this limitation should be studied again at the committee
level. There are other administrative tribunals as I suggested
that have members who are not members of provincial bars.
1630
The amendment proposed to clause 14 of Bill S-5 modifies section
14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Specifically it adds an
anti-retaliation clause, something that is unfortunately absent
from the Canadian Human Rights Act in its present form. I would
say that it constitutes a weakness. An anti-retaliation clause
means that persons could be discriminated against if they have
filed a complaint and therefore would be open to retaliation or
threat of retaliation.
By a complainant not having protection from retaliation a person
would certainly be hesitant to file a complaint in some
circumstances. There may have to be some legislative fine
tuning to define the parameters. That is not to say that this
matter should not be approached very cautiously. There is always
the concern of false complaints being filed against individuals.
We want to be very careful before we tread into this area.
In conclusion, we in the Conservative Party are supportive of
this legislation. It seems that the bill deals particularly with
tribunals and with the provision of persons with protection from
discrimination. It is good to have an opportunity to discuss the
issue. Certainly the questions have to be studied at the
committee level. We need to hear from witnesses to discuss some
of the specifics of the application of the bill, the process it
will follow. Generally the criminal justice system and the
legislation the bill touches upon will benefit from this
initiative.
It further promotes the expansion of access, which is a very
important cornerstone of our criminal justice system. It
promotes access to the courts, which in many cases can be very
intimidating for both victims and members of the public as it
pertains to the jury system. It expands human rights which have
to be viewed as an implicit good in and of themselves.
For these reasons and the reasons I have stated throughout my
remarks, I am as supportive of the bill as I am sure all members
of the House will be.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to add a comment to the remarks that have already been
made in respect of the bill, an act to amend the Canada Evidence
Act and the Criminal Code and an act to amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act. The topic that is being discussed is very
important, particularly with respect to persons with
disabilities.
My hon. colleague mentioned earlier in his remarks the work of
Senator Kinsella with respect the bill. I have known Senator
Kinsella for many years, going back to when I was first with the
Human Rights Commission in Nova Scotia. At that time Senator
Noel Kinsella was one of the leading people in the field of human
rights in New Brunswick. I think he was the chairperson of the
New Brunswick Human Rights Commission for a number of years.
It is very good at a time when we often hear negative remarks
about senators to know that we should not jump too quickly to
paint everybody with the same brush and to see that people like
Senator Kinsella is carrying forth an interest in which he has
been involved for many years in a way that is producing some
positive results.
I add my support to the bill. The remark made by my hon.
colleague about members of the board being required to be lawyers
is a very valid concern. I have been involved for many years
with administrative law and was not a lawyer. I have known many
people who have been involved in tribunals and administrative
boards. It is very important to recognize that another
perspective can come to issues from people who are not lawyers.
Quite often that perspective that is very useful in determining
issues of importance.
With that reservation I my support to the remarks made by both
the preceding speaker and the hon. member for Dartmouth.
1635
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Halifax West on behalf of Senator Kinsella for his kind remarks.
I know mutual admiration and respect flow back and forth between
those two individuals.
I also commend the member for Halifax West for his continuing
and past work in the area of human rights. He will do a great
job for his constituents in that and other areas. His comments
are very telling and very relevant.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Halifax West—education; the hon. member for
Churchill—pay equity.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Southeast.
Our critic, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
outlined our position on Bill S-5. I will take a different tack
and explore where the bill has come from. It has come from the
Senate. The Reform Party position is that it should not be
coming from there.
Let examine the history of the Senate. In the British system it
is the House of Lords. Legislation went from the Commons up to
the Senate and then on to royal assent. My party believes it is
not correct to have legislation originating in the Senate.
The Senate only represents two of the five parties in the House
of Commons. There is not fair representation in the Senate.
Senators are appointed as opposed to members of the House who are
elected. Legislation should originate in the House and then
proceed through.
The Senate does not represent the people or the regions as it
was meant to do. Senators represent the parties that put them
into place. It is unlike members of the House who have to go
back to their constituents. Should introduce legislation or
represent a view our constituents do not like, we do not get
re-elected. Senators are there until 75 years of age. They are
not accountable for the positions they take. There are no
constituents to say they did not represent them and they want
them out of there. That does not happen.
The bill by originating in the Senate is flawed. We support the
legislation. We are not talking about the legislation. It is
the concept or the principle as to where the legislation is
coming from. We believe it should be coming from the House. We
are all accountable. We are all elected. We represent our
constituents as opposed to those in the other place.
I believe I have made my point. I wanted to get it on record.
There are a number of other bills like Bill S-5. We will
continue to push the line of thinking that bills should originate
from elected representative in the House of Commons.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the comments of my Reform
colleague.
Bill S-5 demonstrates that the Senate can have a significant
amount of input. It has moved a very meaningful and important
piece of legislation which all members of the House seem very
keen to support. Could my friend comment on that?
1640
I would be very interested to hear his comments with respect to
whether his party, if it were ever in a position to appoint
members to the Senate, would have the same opinion that they do
today?
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, there
are only two parties represented in the Senate, the Liberals and
the Conservatives. When legislation is brought into the Senate,
the NDP, the Reform and the Bloc do not have representation. At
the beginning of the legislation they are not represented. We
have the views of two parties as opposed to five. That is
unfair.
On the second question, we have already had an elected senator,
Senator Waters of Alberta. We would like the people of Canada in
all provinces to be able to elect their senators. Right now B.C.
and Alberta have senatorial selection acts in place which allow
senators to be elected. Stan Waters was elected in 1989 in a
municipal election. A lot of people say the costs are
horrendous. The election can be tagged onto an municipal,
provincial or federal election, so the costs are not huge.
The concept is that the people of Alberta chose Stan Waters. We
think the people of all provinces should choose their senators so
that they then represent the people that sent them and not the
party that put them in place.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak briefly to Bill S-5, notwithstanding my
displeasure with the fact that the bill originated in the Senate,
an issue that I will address in a moment.
I have some personal background working with persons with
disabilities, particularly the severely handicapped in Canada. It
is a constituency that I am deeply concerned about because the
handicapped, particularly the severely disabled, are the most
disadvantaged and disenfranchised when it comes to being able to
express themselves and to participate fully in political life as
well as in the judicial system. These are people who we often
forget about because their voices are in many cases quite
literally silent, people who have no voice.
For that reason I am delighted with the intent of the bill which
is to provide special access to those who are disabled, those who
are handicapped, to our judicial system. It is a very worthwhile
objective.
I worked with an organization called the Neil Squire Foundation
which develops technology for those who are disabled to better
communicate and interact with the world. Technology such as the
ability of high stem non-verbal quadriplegics through complicated
robotics to type out words and express themselves through
computer technology is revolutionary technology which is giving a
voice to those who are quite literally voiceless.
The conventions of our judicial system do not always permit
people who are physically disadvantaged to participate in giving
evidence at trial and so forth. For that reason I am delighted
the government has taken steps after extensive consultation to
make such provisions in this act.
In reading the act there are one or two particular provisions I
am concerned with under the section 2 amendments to the Canadian
Human Rights Act. I notice that section 48(1), under the
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, states:
The Tribunal which will be appointed and established—the
members appointed to that Tribunal will be persons who must have
experience, expertise, interest in and sensitivity to human
rights.
That seems on its face to be a harmless and sensible provision.
1645
One thing that concerns me in creating criteria for the
appointment of people to government bodies is that these criteria
ought to be open to all Canadians, regardless of their religious
or conscientious beliefs, to serve on such bodies.
This may seem like a bit of a stretch, however, given the recent
amendments to section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which
inserted last year the enumeration of sexual orientation under
the purpose clause of the act, I can imagine the situation where
a person deeply concerned about human rights may not agree with
the principle of sexual orientation as an enumerated ground for
protection.
I simply raise this question because it is conceivable that
under section 48(1) such an individual could be prohibited from
taking a seat on the Canadian human rights tribunal. It is
conceivable that the appointment of a minister of a particular
religion, for instance, with certain convictions about the
question of sexual orientation but who is still deeply dedicated
to the principles of human rights protection in general could be
objected to on the basis that human rights, as now defined by
this act, includes sexual orientation.
This is one of the issues in which we find a potential tension
between freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, and
freedom from discrimination based on the grounds enumerated in
the act.
I simply raise that as something for consideration. Perhaps as
we proceed with this bill the government could address whether or
not the criteria for appointment to the tribunal could
potentially prejudicially affect those who do not agree with all
the enumerated protections under section 2.
Having addressed the substance of the bill, I would like to
speak to the process which is before us today, as has my hon.
colleague from British Columbia.
It is no secret that the Reform Party opposes the current
operation of and the system of appointments to the Senate.
However, of course, it is an established part of our
constitutional framework. It is something we recognize. It is
something we have to work with. However, there is a longstanding
convention in this place and in our mother Parliament, a
convention which is respected by all parliamentary governments,
that the lower house, the elected house, the House of Commons, is
the place where legislation ought to originate.
This is an important principle. We are the commons. We sit in
this place representing the people of Canada with a democratic
mandate. We are accountable. Quite frankly, the members of the
other place are not accountable. They are accountable to no one
but themselves. Witness the atrocious antics of Senator
Thompson.
Other parties may disagree with whether and to what extent the
Senate should be reformed. But surely we can all agree that the
government should do everything within its power to cause all
legislation to originate in this place, in the democratic house
of this Parliament.
The people in this House belong to five recognized political
parties. The people in the Senate belong to only two recognized
political parties. That means there are three distinct
perspectives which have gained substantial support from the
Canadian people, perspectives which are represented and
articulated in this place every day, which have no presence, no
representation and no articulation in the Senate. For that
reason alone I think it is atrocious that this government would
ride roughshod over our conventions, over our traditions and over
the democratic legitimacy of this House by allowing such
legislation as this worthy bill to originate in the other place.
I simply want to put myself on the record as saying that I
believe close to 100% of my constituents believe that the other
place should either be reformed and elected or, if not,
abolished.
They do not, I believe, want to see that place legitimized
through the introduction of government legislation. And so I add
this caveat. While I am pleased with my colleagues to support
this bill, I am displeased, to say the least, that we have to
continually fight against this government's effort to legitimize
this unelected and unaccountable Senate.
1650
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred
to a committee)
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I
seek unanimous consent that the House see the clock as standing
at 5.30 p.m. and that we proceed with Private Members' Business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just for the
edification of those in the public galleries and watching on
television, in order to proceed to the next order of business,
which is timed to begin at 5.30 p.m., we have unanimous consent
to see the clock as 5.30 p.m. We have not magically done it.
What we have done is said we are going to continue on with the
business of the House by going directly to Private Members'
Business.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
BILL C-4—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be
reached under provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with
respect to report stage at second reading and to the third
reading stage of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat
Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I therefore give
notice that a minister of the crown will propose, at the next
sitting of the House, a motion to allot a specific number of days
or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the
said stages.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House will now
proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CHARLOTTE COUNTY PORTS
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this
House, the government should undertake a review of the
Federal Department of Transport's role in the Charlotte
County Ports Inc. quarry project.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a continuation of debate that we
have had in this House on this particular project. I think the
last time we spoke in this House on this project was in December
when the marine privatization bill was before this House.
I guess it would not be an overstatement for me to say that I am
upset with this quarry project in the province of New Brunswick
and some of the inconsistencies that have been exercised on
behalf of the governments involved.
1655
I am going to attempt to be as fair as I can to the federal
government. To a large extent, the government's involvement up
to this point has been marginal. I think it has been marginal
for a number reasons, the biggest one being that the provincial
government has never basically kept the Department of Transport
abreast of what has been actually happening in that area.
To provide the House with an overview of what has been
happening, the Saint Croix River is an international heritage
river. It was designated a heritage river by the Government of
Canada back in the early 1990s. A plan was submitted by the
province of New Brunswick to ensure that this heritage river
designation was in place. I was part of the process of
designating that river a heritage river.
Now what we have is a group of individuals from the United
States coming up with a plan to create one of the most offensive
environmental undertakings that one could imagine on that river.
They have basically been given a blank cheque by the province of
New Brunswick to do so. Again, there has been a lot of debate in
New Brunswick on this very project. In the summer months of 1997
it was front page news in all the provincial newspapers in New
Brunswick for a number of weeks.
Recently I wrote a letter to the premier of New Brunswick
stating some of our concerns, my concern as a member of
Parliament and the concerns of others who are doing business in
that area. Landowners and a group of international citizens
called the Saint Croix River citizens committee have taken
offence to what the government in the province of New Brunswick
wants to do there.
This story goes back a number of years to when a company from Nova
Scotia, related by the way to the leader of the NDP, the L.E. Shaw
group of companies, a very reputable company I might add,
proposed doing a similar type of business, a quarrying business
on the banks of the Saint Croix River in the Bayside Ports area.
The company, Shaw Industries Limited, is a very respected
company. At the time, it stated that if the citizens of the area
were against this type of project happening it would abandon all
plans for that type of development. Mr. Ken Hardy, speaking on
behalf of the company, stated publicly that it was no the way
they did business. If the people in the area did not want this
type of development he was not going to do it. He kept his word.
The company in question, the Shaw company, originally had to
spend $250,000 to develop a plan for this quarry. It had to go
through a public tendering process, a call for tenders, to come
up with a plan for this. So there was a public involvement or a
public tendering process so that all companies in Canada could
bid on that project.
However, when the Shaw company decided not to do the deal, aside
from the fact that it honoured its commitment to not do the deal
if the people were against it, it also could not secure markets
in the United States. This can be verified by the Shaw group.
The United States aggregate market is a very tough market to
break into. The company could never penetrate the U.S. market
for aggregate materials. It also had the problem, if it had
proceeded, that it did not have a market. However, it did not
proceed because it was sensitive to the public outcry.
What we have now is a company from the New York-New Jersey
waterfront entertaining doing the same thing. Lo and behold, it
did not have to go through any public tendering process. It did
not have to submit a proposal. It was invited to come up and
take a look at the project by none other than the former minister
of economic development in the province of New Brunswick, Al
Lacey, obviously a former cabinet minister in the government of
Frank McKenna.
He was a minister at the time the Shaw group proposed doing this.
He was looking for business interests. His job was to secure
business interests. He was a paid lobbyist on behalf of the
group out of New York and New Jersey. He went down there with a
magnificent plan for these people to move into Canada and do a
piece of business.
1700
Lo and behold he was successful at bringing them into New
Brunswick without having to publicly tender or submit proposals
on anything. Those doors were all knocked down for the Waterman
group. They simply came and said what they would do. Mr. Al
Lacey was to lead their cause. Obviously they would get the type
of co-operation they needed from the province of New Brunswick,
and they have.
What is disturbing to the folks living along that international
body of water on both sides is that the proponents lied publicly about
what they want to do. I mentioned this in the House before. This
is where Transport Canada, led by the former minister, had a proposal to
take over, to assume ownership of that port and that quarrying
facility. It was a document that the premier of the province of
New Brunswick actually denied existed.
The chief spokesman for the company, Al Lacey, the paid
lobbyist, a former minister of the crown in the province of New
Brunswick, lied publicly. He lied to the media. He lied to
business interests. He lied to me as member of Parliament on
their true intentions of taking over that port. Lo and behold
lies will eventually catch up with you. We know that.
A 40 page document was leaked to me indicating step by step,
inch by inch, how the group would take over the port, the group
out of New York and New Jersey, and owned by a man by the name of
Randy Waterman. When that document surfaced they all scurried
like rats trying to get away from it, but they could not. They
were videotaped on national television lying through their teeth
on what were their true intentions.
The government continued its sort of conspiracy of silence.
There is no transparency at all in this process. It simply
pursued the course it was intent on pursuing and not deviating
from to make sure that this group out of New York and New Jersey,
led by Mr. Waterman and represented by Mr. Al Lacey, would get
their way.
They lied on their intention to take over the port. Their 40
page document amounts to nothing more than what I call economic
blackmail. I will table it in the House for all to examine. They
state that unless they get full and complete ownership of the
port they will abandon their plan to take over the port. That
amounts to economic blackmail.
The local people were absolutely outraged when that secret
document surfaced, indicating that they wanted to take over the
port. It did not end there. What has happened in the meantime
is that they went after the provincial government. They said
that maybe they would not abandon their plans to assume
ownership of the port if they struck a better deal. The better
deal was to give them the land. They would do the job and
compete with other American interests located in other parts of
North America.
They have actually achieved what I call the ultimate in economic
blackmail. Now the province is entertaining selling them the
lands. The lands in question are not federal lands. They would
be provincial lands that would be handed over to the company for
a 40 year project. In other words, the life of this project
would be 40 years.
1705
This sounds quite bizarre but it is accurate. Two weeks of
mining this aggregate at the price they would be receiving for
the aggregate in the United States would actually pay for the
cost of the entire package of land on which they want to do the
40 year deal. That is absolutely bizarre. This is better than
giving them the land. They are selling it to them at what we
would consider a bargain basement price. It is a deal made in
heaven for these people.
How do these people get their foot in the doors of government in
the province of New Brunswick? It still has a democratic process
where things like this have to be debated and talked out in a
public forum. There was a complete conspiracy of silence in the
province of New Brunswick.
The minister of economic development refused to provide me with
information. He does not correspond with a member of Parliament
representing people living in that area. A brick wall has been
put up between the government of the province of New Brunswick
and me and the citizens group representing citizens up and down
both sides of that international water. There is something wrong
in the process when that happens.
Who are these people? That is a big question. I had serious
discussions with the FBI and the RCMP. There are a lot of
unanswered questions about these companies as represented by Mr.
Randy Waterman and owned by Mr. Randy Waterman. They are big and
they are powerful. They operate out of New York and New Jersey.
That should tell us something.
They basically have a cartel. They actually control the
aggregate business in the east coast of the United States. It is
impossible for foreign interests to import aggregate into the
United States. Hence, the inability of the Shaw group to
establish markets there.
We have a fellow by the name of Al Lacey. I would not consider
Al to be a stupid man. He is certainly not stupid. He heard the
bells and whistles and immediately said he knew a group
that could do this deal. They can establish markets. They can
make this thing profitable but they happen to live outside
Canada. They happen to be one of those families down in the
United States that have been very successful in the aggregate
business.
The worst of all deals possible is taking place at the moment in
the province of New Brunswick because its government does not
care about transparency when it comes to business with
individuals, in many cases individuals of ill repute. If we look
at the legacy of the government of the province of New Brunswick
in the last 10 years, a number of deals have gone flat, have gone
belly up, because it had not done its homework. The FBI and
other police officials in the area have suspicions about these
people and what their true motives might be in Canada.
I suggested that the premier of the province of New Brunswick
should undertake a full scale investigation which the citizens
committee has demanded from day one. The government has been
reluctant to do that. I do not think it wants to know the truth.
The people in that area demand to know what is going on. They
deserve full and complete transparency in that entire piece of
business.
It is incumbent upon the Government of Canada, the Department of
Transport and the minister to say there are a lot of unanswered
questions, some of which were recently brought to their
attention, that need to be complied with. As I said at the
outset, I do not think the province of New Brunswick has been
full and complete in the information provided to the minister and
the department.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important that I address
the matter raised by the hon. member for Charlotte.
1710
In my nine years of serving the constituents of Hamilton West in
the House of Commons I have never heard a more self-serving
speech than the one just enunciated by the member for Charlotte,
than the previous questions asked and the past speech made by the
hon. member.
This reminds me to ask the hon. member how his relationship is
after his recent foray into the role of mudslinger. His
constituents should know via the news media in the New Brunswick
area that the member for Charlotte has cast a lot of innuendo
around this project. He has degraded the personal and business
ethics of respected individuals who have taken an interest in
developing this port improvement project at Bayside.
The project responded to a request from the province of New
Brunswick. It would have created much needed jobs and economic
activity in New Brunswick. It has received environmental
approval.
I was halfway expecting the member for Charlotte to apologize
today to the federal government, to the province, to the
companies and to the individuals he brought into disrepute. I
expected him to ultimately admit his conflict of interest in the
matter and to explain to his constituents and people across the
country that his home is situated on a piece of land located next
to the port property he is so concerned about. Imagine that. No
conflict there. Regrettably the hon. member chose not to
withdraw his motion today. That is why I have to say what I have
said here today.
Let us address the motion by the hon. member who is so concerned
about the involvement of Transport Canada in a quarry development
project adjacent to the port of Bayside, New Brunswick. The
entire quarry project as proposed by Charlotte County Ports
Limited would be situated on land owned by the province of New
Brunswick and not by Transport Canada. Approvals for such
development fall under the jurisdiction of the province of New
Brunswick and not the federal government.
The only involvement by the government is that Transport Canada
is presently the owner of an adjacent facility that could be
utilized for shipping the quarry products to international
markets. In that regard Transport Canada has accepted for
consideration an application for a remission of rates on the
applicable wharfage tariff. That is as far as our involvement
goes.
Transport Canada received a request to lease a section of land
that would permit the stone to be loaded directly on to ships for
transportation to market. Regulations require that such requests
be submitted to the department for consideration.
Both these requests have been reviewed in the context that they
would expand the existing private-public partnership and would
ultimately benefit the port through substantially increased
revenues and the creation of badly needed additional outside
storage area.
However, due to the significant divestiture process being made
under the national marine policy, the request for the lease has
been put on hold. The application for a remission of rates has
been denied as it did not meet the criteria specified in the
remission of or substitution of rate regulations.
Transport Canada is currently negotiating the transfer of the
Bayside port facilities under the national marine policy and its
divestiture program. The national marine policy will ensure
Canada has the modern marine transportation it needs to compete
in the 21st century. It will help to ensure that shippers have
access to safe marine transportation, that the service levels
reflect realistic demand and that the users who pay have more say
in the future of their port.
In the past Canada's port system was heavily subsidized by
Canadian taxpayers. It suffered from overcapacity and too much
bureaucracy. Under the national marine policy the government
will no longer dictate port operations or local business
decisions. At the same time the Government of Canada will
continue in a regulatory role its commitment to a safe marine
transportation system and a clean environment.
1715
The Government of Canada is commercializing public ports using
criteria applied coast to coast. National ports, such as
Vancouver port, will be managed by Canada port authorities, or
CPAs as we call them, made up of representatives nominated by
user groups and governments.
A second category of ports, regional and local ports, like the
port of Bayside, is being transferred to provincial governments,
municipal authorities, community organizations or other groups.
The Port of Bayside Steering Committee Inc. has established a
local group representing the community and the port users. This
steering committee is presently negotiating with Transport Canada
for the transfer of ownership and management of all the port
facilities.
Given that Transport Canada officials believe that negotiations
with the potential new port operator can be concluded quickly,
the Minister of Transport will not pursue any further action on
the two requests from Charlotte County Ports.
Once the port has been transferred, the new port owner will be
in a better position to make decisions, such as the setting of
wharfage fees as well as other decisions that will shape the
port's future.
In closing, I must reiterate that Transport Canada's involvement
in this proposed project is very minimal. I think we heard that
from the hon. member when he first spoke. It is limited to being
the existing owners of an adjacent facility that could be used to
export the material.
Given that decisions on the port's future will be left up to
local operators, I cannot support the member's motion.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are today reduced to debating
one isolated example of insider lobbying in a proposed
divestiture deal because the problem is pervasive. It almost
invariably accompanies any sort of privatization negotiations in
this country.
That is why Reformers temper our firm belief in the benefits of
privatization with a demand that safeguards be legislated which
are applicable to all privatization deals, not only to control
lobbying, but to prevent the improper disposal of public
assets to clients or cronies of powerful politicians.
Last summer Doug Young's successor as defence minister
criticized Somalia inquiry commissioner Peter Desbarats for
writing a book on his experiences with the inquiry. Apparently
the minister found it unseemly that Mr. Desbarats would profit
from information gained, as the minister put it, “at public
expense and as part of the performance of a public duty”.
Yet scarcely a month after leaving office Mr. Young was doing
exactly that. He was selling his experience. On the night of his
electoral defeat a reporter asked Doug Young what his plans were
and he said “I can tell you one thing. I am not going on EI”.
Indeed, Mr. Young and fellow defeated New Brunswick Liberal Paul
Zed set up shop in Ottawa under the name of Summa Strategies
Canada Inc. as Sparks Street lobbyists. Between the two of them
they have racked up an impressive number of clients.
This is very interesting. When they were in power, neither
Young nor Zed had anything good to say about lobbyists. In fact
they declared war on the profession. Canadians were assured that
the Liberals would just say no to lobbyists. The current Prime
Minister said that during his tenure nobody would need to hire a
lobbyist to press for access to his government.
Young denounced the Conservative government's Pearson airport
contract as the work of lobbyists. With a bit of deeper digging
they found some Liberals in the pile and they backed away from
that.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like to understand how it is that this member's
intervention has anything to do with private member's Motion No.
282.
The Deputy Speaker: It sounded to me like the hon. member
was reciting a chronology of events which was discussed by the
two members who spoke previously in this debate. I am reluctant
to interrupt the hon. member. He may not be addressing the
motion directly, but I am sure he is about to.
As I said, the point of his debate has been similar to the points
raised by other hon. members in the debate already, so I am
reluctant to intervene.
1720
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your
intervention. I assure you I am leading to the heart of the
matter.
Once the government's hearings on lobbying got started, the
complexity of the lobbying activities became very apparent. Then
despite all the strong words promising to clean up the system,
the Lobbyists Registration Act failed to live up to expectations.
Once installed on the other side of the House, the Liberals
decided that not all lobbying was a bad thing. The final
legislation avoided issues such as restricting frequency of
contacts or limiting fund raising activities.
As I mentioned earlier, Young is prohibited for two years from
meeting with officials in the departments of defence and human
resources development because he presided over them during his
last year in government. He is however free to lobby officials
in other departments, including transport where he spent most of
his tenure here in the last Parliament.
The rules also prevent Mr. Young from discussing the business of
his clients with any minister who handles the same portfolio that
he or she held as Young's cabinet colleague. Therefore, the
industry and finance ministers are off limits but there is
nothing to stop Mr. Young from approaching the ministers of
transport or trade on behalf of a client.
Young is also restricted to giving advice on matters already in
the public domain. Theoretically he cannot make use of specific
knowledge of programs or policies he might possess by virtue of
previous positions.
Of course, none of these restrictions apply to Mr. Zed because
he served as a mere parliamentary secretary in the last
government and he is available for front man.
One of Summa Strategies' first clients was very familiar to Mr.
Young, CNR which he privatized in 1995. The president and CEO of
CN, Paul Tellier, was the former Clerk of the Privy Council, one
of the most powerful people in Ottawa. I cannot help
but wonder what he could possibly learn or gain from hiring Mr.
Young. Other Summa Strategies clients include the RCMP, the
Prince Rupert Grain Company, and SNC-Lavalin.
Interestingly, a company called Defence Remediation Inc. which
is a land mine clearing company is listed as a client of Summa
Strategies. I guess it will have to wait until June 1999 before
Doug Young with all his department of defence expertise can
represent it personally. Right now he can only deal with
transport matters.
Let us talk about Charlotte County Ports Inc., a front company
which wants to acquire control of one of the few profitable local
ports in Canada, Bayside port, on behalf of a very muscular New
Jersey based supplier of construction aggregate. The only thing
Canadian about Charlotte County Ports aside from its registration
is another ex-politician, a former New Brunswick Liberal cabinet
minister.
To digress momentarily, it is impossible to talk about Doug
Young's post-parliamentary activities without touching on the
very smelly Maritime Road Development Corporation's New Brunswick
highway deal. In this instance, he was not representing a client
but a consortium which he himself was the head of, at least until
he realized that a former federal minister cannot work for a
company or project that had been directly affected by his
decisions as minister until two years after leaving office.
Because MRDC will be collecting tolls on a stretch of highway
built under the 1995 federal-provincial highway agreement which
Young oversaw as transport minister, he changed hats. Instead of
being president, he is now chairman of the board since January
22. Obviously switching positions is not the answer.
Nevertheless, the federal ethics commissioner does not believe
that Mr. Young's highway activities violate the code of ethics
because Ottawa is not in charge of the project. Just as it does
not own the land surrounding Bayside port, because Ottawa is not
in charge of the project and did not select the contractors who
would build it. I feel a lot better.
1725
The term lobbying comes from the lobby outside the House of
Commons in the British parliament buildings. It was there that
interested parties and petitioners would try to capture the
attention of members of Parliament before they went in to cast
their votes.
It is a sign of the diminishing role of Canadian members of
Parliament that we do not find any lobbyists in this lobby.
Everyone in Canada knows perfectly well that the real government
decisions take place far from the House of Commons so lobbyists
concentrate on people in the PMO, key cabinet ministers and
senior bureaucrats.
If nothing else, the large number of lobbying firms in this
town, even though they do not ever appear in the lobby, is a
testament to how far our system has moved away from control by
the ordinary citizens. The influence on public servants is
particularly disturbing as they are out of the public eye and not
subject to elections.
Firms like Summa make their money by trading on knowledge and
contacts of their principals about the inner workings of
government. They tend to be providing advice to clients and
opening doors or making representations on their behalf.
The question we must ask ourselves which should make the
government squirm is could Doug Young and Paul Zed be successful
lobbyists if the Liberals had not won the election? What exactly
do they have to sell?
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I could
say ditto and you would have heard much of what I am going to
say, but there is a saying that it takes three times to make a
bad habit and twelve repetitions to break it. I think we are
going to need 12 times a lot to break the bad habits that the
Liberals have gotten into.
I rise today to support the private member's motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
undertake a review of the federal Department of Transport's role
in the Charlotte County Ports Inc. quarry project.
During the debate on C-9, I listened with great interest to the
speech from the member for Charlotte on the Bayside port in New
Brunswick. I have actually had the opportunity to be there and
it is a beautiful area.
The Bayside port is a small port on the Saint Croix River, an
international body of tidal waters. It is very well situated for
shipping with close access to U.S. markets. It is one of
Canada's most profitable ports but the Canadian government wants
to privatize the ports. The Bayside port makes a significant
contribution to the continuing regional and economic growth in
New Brunswick. It is a vital element in the communities in
southwestern New Brunswick.
I find it somewhat insulting to have the parliamentary secretary
suggest that the area where the port is located has no real
aspect in this whole deal of the Charlotte quarry.
The member for Charlotte has made interesting remarks during his
speeches concerning the group from New York and New Jersey
wanting to take over the Bayside port. No point getting into
that because we should not be worrying about what the Americans
do. What we need to worry about is what our government is not
doing. It is not protecting Canadians.
Let us go back to 1994 when the quarry project was first
proposed by L.E. Shaw. That company had to drop its plans
because it could not break into the sand and gravel market in the
U.S. The only way to get into that business if one wants to ship
to the U.S. is to be owned by the Americans. Surprise.
Now we have an American company, a large American conglomerate
whose plans are to take over the Canadian port. This by itself
is something but add the fact that this American company hired
two former members of this House, one of them being the former
transport minister, to lobby the federal government to allow the
transfer of the Bayside port into their hands, and now we really
have something.
This is why I am supporting this motion. Doug Young as former
transport minister initiated the national marine policy which
calls for the divestiture of our Canadian ports. Now that he has
put the privatization process in place, he and ex-MP Paul Zed are
going to personally profit from it.
1730
Calling for a review of Transport Canada's role in the Charlotte
County Ports Inc. quarry project is reasonable when a former
transport minister is involved in lobbying his ancient colleagues
in Ottawa or his Liberal friends in power in New Brunswick.
There has been a lack of transparency in the quarry project.
Were other companies allowed to bid? Have there been independent
environmental studies? The people of New Brunswick deserve
better than this.
On June 2 last year the voters of Acadie—Bathurst decided not
to send Doug Young back to Parliament. That should tell the
government something. When the voters in someone's own area know
enough not to put him back here, nobody should be listening to
him.
But it seems, as the Globe and Mail put it, Doug Young has
remained in the power game. The knowledge he got while at
Transport Canada is proving to be very profitable for him because
the Bayside Ports situation is not the only situation. While
transport minister Doug Young finalized the privatization of
Canadian National railway, guess who was his first client at the
consulting firm, as the House heard from my colleague from the
Reform Party: Paul Tellier, chairman and chief executive officer
of CN.
That is not all. In 1995 Doug Young, while he was in the federal
cabinet, made a deal with the province of New Brunswick, a
federal-provincial highway agreement. Have I got a deal for
you. Now Doug Young heads the international consortium
Maritime Road Development Corp. which was awarded a contract to
build a four lane divided highway in southern New Brunswick. The
province of New Brunswick will then lease the road from the
private owners and travellers will have to pay tolls on the 195
kilometre stretch, including the 23 kilometre section built as
part of the highway agreement signed by Doug Young in 1995.
During the next 30 years it is estimated New Brunswick taxpayers
and the travelling public will pay out $2.6 billion in lease
payments and tolls. They are going to pay tolls to a company
headed by Doug Young, former transport minister, to drive on a
section of highway that was funded by the federal and provincial
governments.
It is hard to believe this is not a conflict of interest. Doug
Young will be benefiting at the expense of New Brunswickers. We
could have read in the newspaper that the present Minister of
Transport has asked the deputy minister to begin discussions with
provincial counterparts to find ways of protecting future public
investments in highways when they are transferred to private
hands. If that is not reason enough to question Doug Young's
credibility, nothing is. I commend the Minister of Transport for
his action but we need to go further.
Let us go back to the member for Charlotte's motion. That lack
of transparency in the Charlotte County Ports Inc. quarry project
is also often lacking in the public partnership deals. The New
Brunswick minister of justice acknowledged the need for both
government and business to understand these transactions require
greater transparency in order to ensure public trust as well as
guard the public interest. That is a very important point
because politicians do not have public trust.
The New Brunswick auditor general's report called for a halt to
these projects until there is genuine analysis of the real
benefit to the province's citizens from this approach to the
delivery of government services.
The federal government should take note of these words of
caution too, as there are more and more public and private
partnerships happening. Just last evening I met with people in
Happy Valley, Goose Bay, Labrador regarding the alternative
service delivery in the privatizing of that base. I heard
concerns from that community very similar to the questionable
actions in my aforementioned statement.
To conclude, I reiterate my support for the member's motion.
There has not been enough transparency in the Charlotte County
Ports Inc. quarry project and I believe a review would be
advisable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we carry on
with debate, I apologize to the hon. member for Churchill again
for missing her constituency.
Since there is no further debate, as is customary in Private
Members' Business on a non-votable motion, the member raising the
motion is given five minutes to rebut. But it is clearly
understood that when the member has his five minutes that is the
end of the debate.
1735
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. speaker, I
appreciate the members who spoke on behalf of my motion. I do
want to take the parliamentary secretary to task for some of the
things he said. I can understand, coming from the Hamilton
harbour area, how he might have dredged up some of his remarks.
It would not be uncommon. The member has engaged in that type of
activity many times in this House.
In his remarks it was only when he deviated from the written
word prepared by the minister's department that he got in
trouble. When he speaks off the top of his head and he has to
speak on his own, he always gets in trouble.
I am going to take him to task on some of the things he said in
this House which are not accurate. He buys into every single
thing the people from New York and New Jersey have said about
this project. Shame on him.
I think it is time he did his own investigative work on this
project. What he talked about is the number of jobs that would
be created in this deal. Do you know what it would be? Five
jobs, as indicated by the first spokesman for the group as
represented by the Randy Waterman interests. His name was Wayne
Lockhart. In a public meeting he said to a citizens group there would
be five jobs. Why? Because it is not labour intensive. It is
done by the use of the biggest equipment known to mankind, so
there are not a lot of jobs.
That was not good enough. How are five jobs going to get the
interest of any community? How is a community going to get
excited over five jobs given the fact that they could decimate a
pristine historic river? They went back to the drawing board.
When they presented their papers to the province of New Brunswick
for submission for the project, the five jobs had suddenly grown
to 50 jobs on the same project.
This is where the parliamentary secretary should have done his
work. The investigation of any quarry site, any aggregate site,
based on the amount of volume they are going to do out of this
quarry, in North America would be five jobs. They used an
exaggerated number of jobs to gain the attention of the province
of New Brunswick.
When the loudmouth from Hamilton speaks and claims that I have a
conflict of interest because I live in the area, he is absolutely
correct. I carried this fight on long before I arrived in this
House. I am working on behalf of my constituents. I am not going
to lay over and play dead because of the big boys from New York
and New Jersey.
I do not know where this guy is getting his information, but I
will tell members one thing. It is not coming from the citizens
of the area that I represent. He is being fed information
directly out of New York and New Jersey to support their case.
There is a direct funnel into the heart of the government of the
province of New Brunswick via Al Lacey, a former member of the
crown.
In this particular case, as the Reform member mentioned, Doug
Young, a paid lobbyist, is on the record as working on behalf of
these people. A former minister of the crown actually was the
architect for the privatization act. If he is going to speak
about the project, if he is going to speak about individuals, he
should get his facts right.
The environmental process used in the province of New Brunswick
is a flawed process. The citizens of the area asked for a full
scale independent environmental assessment of the project. That
is all they asked for.
What do they have? They have an in-house process that actually
flies in the face of scientific information provided. In fact,
the citizens of the area hired two certified geologists to
examine the area in question. Do members know what they found?
Three fault lines in the area, two of which run through the very
businesses in the area, which the province of New Brunswick or
the proponents of the project have never declared publicly. Why?
Because they would upset the very businesses in the area, one
being owned by Moore Clark, one being owned by a company
called Woodstock Cold Storage, and others.
It is documented by two certified geologists that this project
would endanger those very businesses and the infrastructure in
the area, information absolutely overlooked by the parliamentary
secretary and all the environmentalists on the payroll of the
province of New Brunswick.
1740
That tells me there is something wrong when the transparency we
are asking for is not evident anywhere in the process. It is
absolutely bizarre.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no other
members rising for the debate and the motion not being designated
a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
EDUCATION
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
literary critic Northrop Frye stated: “If Canadian universities
are underfunded so badly they can no longer function effectively,
Canada would disappear overnight from modern history and become
again what it was at first, a blank area of natural resources to
be exploited by more advanced countries”.
Our youth deserve a quality, accessible educational system. I
will soon be visiting students in my riding at Sir John A.
Macdonald high school and I wish I could bring them encouraging
news about the future of education.
Our youth are increasingly faced with a deteriorating, less
accessible education system. It is a crisis that the people in
my riding of Halifax West, people throughout Nova Scotia and
people across the country will increasingly suffer from.
This is not a mysterious complex problem with unknown elaborate
solutions. This Liberal government has cut federal funding from
post-secondary education by $1.5 billion since 1995 alone. The
average student debt is $25,000. Shame on this government for
trying to dig the country out of debt by dumping the problem on
to the backs of our youth.
The Liberal government cannot hide the truth from Canadians, that
it is pushing for the privatization of our post-secondary
institutions.
I asked the Minister of Finance about this. I informed him that
Human Resources Development Canada predicts that by the year 2000
45% of new jobs will require 16 years of education. I also
referred him to a government study which shows that since 1980
public transfers for education have been cut in half, from $6.44
for each dollar of student fees in 1980 to less than $3 in 1995.
Perhaps the government thinks that youth today are more wealthy
than the youth of the early 1980s. If so, I invite the Minister
of Finance and his staff in Halifax to show me where these hoards
of youth with excess wealth are hiding.
The minister, in his response to my question, began talking
about how parents could save more through RESPs. Then he went on
to talk about tax credits to help pay tuition. Again I wish to
refer the minister to all of the people in my riding without work
who, whether parents or children, cannot bear the thought of
mounting $25,000 in student debt.
The youth of Halifax West deserve the opportunity to learn and
to develop skills to build a future, as do all the youth of
Canada. We cannot afford to risk their future or ours by wasting
their talents or by creating more financial barriers to
education.
I wish to go on record as challenging the Minister of Finance
and the Liberal government to adopt the following principles.
Accessibility should be a new national standard in higher
education.
Post-secondary education is a right, not a privilege for the
declining number of people who can actually afford it.
The principles of accessibility and affordability should guide
any reforms.
Student aid should be based on need rather than merit.
A national system of grants for post-secondary education should
be a priority.
Tuition fees should be frozen.
It is high time to move to a system involving grants for
post-secondary education and to ensure that eligibility for
grants is based solely on need and not the short term demands of
mega corporations which are increasingly driving our research and
development.
As a first step of goodwill toward the future of our youth, and
thus of the country, the government should immediately commit to
reinvest in education, starting with this year's drastic and
hurtful cut of $550 million.
This reinvestment should be over and above the Canada millennium
scholarship fund, which itself should be based on need.
1745
The youth and their families of Halifax West and the rest of
Canada deserve no less. It is time to say yes to Canada—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's commitment to
the economic future of Canadians is clear. Assistance to those
who need it in order to prepare for the jobs of the future is the
linchpin of our policy.
This year provinces will receive $25.2 billion under the Canada
health and social transfer, which covers federal contributions to
post-secondary education.
As promised in the recent election, the government will increase
cash transfers to the provinces so that over the 1997-98 to
2002-03 period provinces will receive nearly $7 billion in extra
cash compared to the previously projected levels. This was only
possible because the government had already taken tough decisions
on the deficit and the Minister of Finance had met the targets
set out in successive budgets.
The 1996-97 budget increased tax assistance to higher education.
The measures included the extension of the tuition tax credit,
enriched treatment of registered education savings plans, and
allowed single parents attending school to claim the child care
expense deduction.
By 1998 the average post-secondary student will receive about
$1,200 in combined federal-provincial tax assistance each year,
in effect an increase of 30% from the $900 received before these
measures were put in place.
These are significant changes. In the Chamber hon. members
recently heard the Prime Minister announce the creation of the
Canada millennium scholarship fund. The fund will provide
assistance to Canadians pursuing education and skills upgrading.
We will be giving a helping hand to low and middle income
Canadians who are eager to meet the challenges of the 21st
century labour market.
As I said in the opening remarks, the government's commitment is
quite clear. The measures that we have and will put in place
will give Canadians the tools to build a better future. We are
certainly committed to ensure that Canadians and young people
have an opportunity to improve their skills and access to
education. We have committed to that before. We will continue
to do so as we move forward.
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
December 1, 1997 I asked the President of the Treasury Board
whether the government would settle the pay equity dispute
fairly, once and for all, or signal to the public that pay equity
dead.
Under federal jurisdiction section 11 of the Canadian Human
Rights Act provides that it is discriminatory practice for an
employer to establish or maintain differences in wages between
male and female employees who perform work of equal value.
In 1984 the Public Service Alliance of Canada filed a pay equity
complaint on behalf of its members. They are still waiting for
their money in 1998. We have all had the honour of listening to
every excuse imaginable as to why it has not been done.
In the past 14 years the Public Service Alliance of Canada and
the Treasury Board have been through four years of joint
union-management pay equity study, almost six years of hearings
before a Canadian human rights tribunal and months of fruitless
negotiations.
In the 1993 federal election the Liberals promised that if
elected they would stop the stalling tactics of the Conservative
government and work on an acceptable solution. I guess that was
just another one of those promises the electors need to forget
once the polling stations close.
The Liberals' idea of a solution was to continue the stalling
tactics before the human rights tribunal. When that did not work
they put some money on the table. The money is an amount which
only partially closes the wage gap between male and female
salaries for work of equal value. They are hoping that time will
be on their side and that their employees will be forced to wait
so long for pay equity that they will agree to any amount.
There is a perception that big business and the wealthy can tie
things up in court through appeals for so long that it either
breaks the small business or an average person runs out of money
or dies. I do not think Canadians ever expected this to be the
tactic of our government.
We see it with the Singer workers in Quebec. Government members
do not care that they will be in their graves before that is
settled. If they did they would have resolved it by now. We are
still seeing it with the workers affected by the human rights
decision.
Did Mr. Mulroney have as much trouble getting his money? Did
the government wait 14 years to pay $474 million in cancellation
fees to get out of the EH-101 helicopter deal? Will it take 14
years to finalize the Pearson International pay up? I think not.
Why are they being paid and not the workers? Because government
workers are ordinary Canadians, low and middle income Canadians.
In December the President of the Treasury Board misrepresented
facts. At the same time that PSAC representatives were meeting
with Treasury Board officials to continue the talks on pay
equity, the President of the Treasury Board was conducting a
press conference announcing that the negotiations were to end.
1750
The government did not want to find a way to settle the dispute.
The offer put forward by the Treasury Board fails to comply with
the Canadian Human Rights Act and pay equity guidelines.
Have we reached a point where we have to go to the Department of
Justice to encourage the government to comply with the law? Can
Canadians trust that the government will comply with the decision
of the human rights commission and pay the people all they are
owed now?
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is time to set the
record straight. We have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes
to pay equity. We have made a firm offer of $1.3 billion to
settle this longstanding dispute.
The union hides behind a smokescreen of rhetoric and refuses to
have its members vote on this offer. The union leadership
demands are in excess of $5 billion. The PSAC leadership says
that it cannot in good conscience present the offer to its
members. We believe its members should have an opportunity to
decide on their own what is a fair and equitable settlement.
The government has the responsibility to protect and balance the
interest of all Canadians. As such we must ensure that pay
equity payments respond to legal requirements. The government is
firmly committed to a principle of pay equity and wants to have a
fair and equitable solution to this dispute with PSAC.
Treasury Board has shown considerable flexibility in its
negotiations. In April we tabled an offer valued at $843
million. In August we enhanced it to $1.3 billion in a further
effort to reach a negotiated settlement with PSAC. The
government believes a negotiated settlement will be in the best
interest of all parties and would end the uncertainty for
employees.
The tribunal decision will most likely leave some issues
unresolved which will require further discussion with PSAC. This
means further delays. It may require that the parties file for
judicial review on the decision.
Negotiations allow the employer and PSAC to resolve this matter
and show that it must be accomplished to resolve these issues. A
joint resolution would get the cheques in the hands of employees
sooner and would be in everyone's best interest.
Give the workers a vote. Let us not hide behind rhetoric. Let
the workers decide now.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 5.52 p.m.)