36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 214
CONTENTS
Friday, April 23, 1999
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA TRAVELLING EXHIBITIONS INDEMNIFICATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-64. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1010
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1025
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA TRAVELLING EXHIBITIONS INDEMNIFICATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-64. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SIKH COMMUNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA BOOK DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAR
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DENTAL HEALTH MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
1100
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PATRICIA PICKNELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACADIAN VILLAGE IN WEST PUBNICO
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derek Lee |
1105
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORGAN DONATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARMENIA
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1110
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FATIMA BASIC
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROSEMARIE KUPTANA
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD BOOK AND COPYRIGHT DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NISGA'A TREATY
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1115
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PICTOU COUNTY
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1120
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
1125
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1130
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard M. Harris |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN HOCKEY ASSOCIATION WOMEN'S NATIONAL TEAM
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1135
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1140
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1145
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1150
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE HOMELESS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1155
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1200
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1205
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-499. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of Grandparents
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1210
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA TRAVELLING EXHIBITIONS INDEMNIFICATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-64. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1215
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORKPLACE SAFETY
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1220
1225
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-78—Notice of time allocation
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORKPLACE SAFETY
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1310
![V](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 214
![](/web/20061116181518im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 23, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
CANADA TRAVELLING EXHIBITIONS INDEMNIFICATION ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-64, an act to establish an
indemnification program for travelling exhibitions, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at first glimpse Bill
C-64 looks like a relatively small technical piece of legislation
of apparent interest only to people who work in Canada's museums.
However this legislation has tremendous potential. It has the
potential to affect the heart, soul and mind of every Canadian
now and in years to come.
With this legislation in place every Canadian will be that much
closer to seeing and experiencing many of the world's treasures
that are all too often inaccessible except to a fortunate few.
[Translation]
Canada has museums, art galleries, libraries and archival
depositories that are renowned throughout the world. They house
treasures that belong to all the people of Canada. Many of us,
if not most of us, have never had an opportunity to admire them.
For someone living in Red Deer, in Moose Jaw, Trois-Rivières,
Corner Brook or such small places as Howe, Saskatchewan, which I
have had the opportunity to visit, Mattawa, where I was born, or
Saint-Eleutère-Pohénégamook in the lower St. Lawrence region of
Quebec, it is not always possible to get to Vancouver, Ottawa,
Montreal, Quebec City or Fredericton to see exhibitions.
The entire world is full of wonderful things which Canada's
children and youth will probably never get to see, for most
people cannot afford to visit Rome, Paris, Beijing or
Johannesburg.
But what if these treasures came to Canadians, instead of
Canadians having to travel to see them?
What if the world's greatest works could be brought here to
Canada, and if Canada's art works could be seen by people the
world over?
Far more Canadians would then have an opportunity to learn more
about their history, their heritage, their identity, and the
world's masterpieces.
This is precisely the essence of Bill C-64: to give Canadians the
chance to know Canada, to open up the world to Canadians, to
open up Canada to the rest of the world.
[English]
The bill deals with a major roadblock in putting exhibitions on
the road. One solution is to get rid of the high cost of
insurance. That is what the bill will allow us to do, to greatly
lower the cost of insurance by covering loss or damages to an
exhibition through an indemnification program: no money up front,
only after the fact, only if needed.
Fourteen industrialized countries including the United States,
Great Britain, Australia and France have have had their own
government sponsored indemnity programs for years. Do they work?
They more than work. In 23 years of operation the United States
indemnity program has received only two claims at a cost of just
more than $100,000 U.S. out of a total annual indemnification
value of $3 billion. It is a similar story for the other 13
countries with similar programs. The precedent has been set.
Risk for Canada would be minimized by stringent eligibility
criteria in a number of areas, including plans for security,
environmental control and artefact handling.
[Translation]
Having a sliding scale will do away with requests for relatively
minor indemnification.
1010
It also means that insurance companies will not be excluded,
because they will continue to supply insurance policies.
Exhibitions valued at less than $500,000 would not be eligible
for this program, and the maximum indemnification per exhibition
would be $450 million.
The risk to government could be further reduced by setting a
maximum of $1.5 billion for all exhibitions indemnified during a
fiscal year.
With this bill, we want first and foremost to circulate Canadian
heritage and to put it within the reach of all Canadians. We
also want it accessible to visiting tourists.
We want to make the wonders of the world more and more
accessible to the people of Canada.
We must not ignore the economic impact of visitors to a
province, a region or a city anywhere in the country. The
Barnes exhibition at the Art Gallery of Ontario alone generated
$38 million in consumer spending, much of which comes from the
some 65,000 foreign visitors to Canada. The same phenomenon
occurs pretty well across the board in other cities in Canada.
Last summer, I had the honour of visiting the Rodin exhibit in
Quebec City. The exhibition was thronged and beautiful. The
same phenomenon is happening with the Monet exhibit in Montreal,
which I have also had the opportunity of seeing, and it occurs
in the rest of the country as well.
[English]
Consider also last fall's Renoir exhibition at the National
Gallery in my own backyard: $6 million in restaurant sales, a
quarter of a million room nights in Canadian hotels and motels,
80,000 more people visiting Parliament Hill, and $25 million
spent by visitors from abroad.
Exhibitions are about culture. They are also about jobs,
manufacturing, consumption of goods and services, and tax
revenues for all levels and orders of government.
I am honoured to have the National Gallery in the riding of
Ottawa—Vanier that I represent. I know families from St.
John's, Victoria, Whitehorse or Val d'Or cannot take a walk or a
mere drive to the National Gallery as can my constituents and
those in the national capital region.
I would like the wonders of that gallery, the Group of Seven
paintings, the Emily Carr paintings, the modern sculptures and
the antique artefacts, to travel to all Canadians. The bill is
one big step in making that happen. As a proud Canadian, as all
of us here, I think that is fantastic.
[Translation]
If our museums, art galleries, archives and libraries are to
compete with institutions in other countries in order to borrow
the world's most prestigious collections, we must pass this
bill.
If we want a greater share of tourist revenues, we must pass
this bill.
[English]
If we want our kids to see more Canadian art firsthand, we need
this legislation. If we want our kids exposed to the greatest
works of art in the history of humanity, we need this
legislation. A vote for this bill is a vote for the achievement
of Canadians and for our national identity. It is a vote for
opening up the world to our children. It is a vote for culture
and the power it brings to the human mind, the human soul and the
human heart.
I am delighted from preliminary conversations with
representatives of the opposition parties that there seems to be
a substantial amount of support for the legislation. I encourage
speedy passage at second reading so that the committee can be
tasked with dealing with the bill and report as early as
possible.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-64 this morning.
The Reform Party, the official opposition, certainly supports
Bill C-64, the Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act.
The bill would in effect make the Government of Canada the
underwriters for travelling international exhibitions under the
auspices of public institutions up to a maximum of $450 million
per show and up to an aggregate of $1.5 billion for any given
year.
1015
Before I begin to tell the House why we support Bill C-64, I
want to say that this is another good example of Reform's support
for legislation put forth by the government. It makes sense and
it will ultimately provide better service to all Canadians.
Our record shows that almost half of the time we do support
legislation from the government side. We support legislation
when it is well thought out, when the people have been consulted
and when we know the impact that it will have on the country.
This side of the House would support more legislation if the
government would be more transparent and take its time when it is
putting together its legislation.
I will now tell the House why the official opposition believes
Bill C-64 should be supported. By serving as underwriter to the
public travelling exhibitions, the government potentially saves
taxpayers the cost of paying a premium for private showings. For
example, insurance on a recent travelling exhibition valued at
$1.5 billion carries a premium of $1 million. Under the current
circumstance, how can anyone afford to pay those types of
premiums? Without this legislation, the premium is certainly a
barrier to museums and other organizations that would like to
bring in international and national exhibits and have them
circulated throughout the country.
As long as standards of security, care and transportation are
maintained at a high level, it seems unlikely that a potential
liability would turn into an actual liability. Under a federal
United States identification program, with a ceiling of $5
billion, in the last 25 years of operation only two claims were
filed totalling $100,000.
I had the opportunity to meet with the Canadian Museum
Association this past year to discuss Bill C-64 in-depth. This
indemnification program was requested by the museums and by the
Canadian Museum Association. They want the bill amended so that
the maximum aggregate liability of $1.5 billion in any fiscal
year be changed to $1.5 billion at any time.
However, section 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 require
that supply be specifically proposed by the crown and
specifically authorized by the House of Commons. From a
constitutional point of view, $1.5 billion at any time is
disallowed. There is provision in the subclause for the amount
to be raised or lowered by an appropriation act for a given year.
There is no minimum exhibition value set for participation in
the indemnification program by the governor in council, but the
governor in council is authorized to make regulations for setting
a minimum. The government intends to set the minimum at $500,000
in order to maintain standards sufficiently high that losses are
highly unlikely. This is a good approach.
It has been mentioned by the parliamentary secretary that there
will certainly be a spillover of economic impact from major
exhibitions. This could run into the tens of millions of dollars
and would have a huge impact on local governments, provincial
governments, local chambers and local small business because it
would generate economic activity.
People from many miles away will literally flock to these
exhibits. This will give the people of this country an
opportunity to see world-class exhibits which would otherwise not
occur. From that point of view, there are a lot of pluses with
Bill C-64. This program will keep costs low. Decisions as to
what kind of exhibitions will travel would be left up to the
museums.
The Reform Party supports the freedom of Canadian culture in
communities to grow and develop without needless protection and
government regulation, encouraging a cultural free market which
offers choice while lowering costs to consumers as services are
provided by those sectors which are able to do so most cost
effectively.
1020
The indemnification in Bill C-64 is the kind of program that
all governments can do with little cost to the taxpaying public.
It brings sufficient economic as well as cultural benefits to the
citizens of the country. Therefore, the official opposition
supports the bill and also supports all stage consideration by
the House on Bill C-64.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address Bill C-64, an act to establish an
indemnification program for travelling exhibitions, at second
reading.
This bill seeks to establish a program of indemnification for
international exhibitions, and for domestic exhibitions that are
shown in at least two provinces. It will empower the Government
of Canada to assume the financial risk, and provide
compensation, for damage to or loss of an item that is part of
the exhibition.
The program's main feature is that it will allow museums to save
several hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance, which is
a very significant amount of savings for the arts world, as the
hon. member pointed out.
Let me say from the outset that the Bloc Quebecois supports the
principle of the bill. Indeed, we fully agree with the idea of
helping museums by assuming a financial burden, which they
certainly could do without. However, we would like to see some
amendments to the bill. I will elaborate on these in the second
part of my speech.
First, let us take a look at how this legislation came to be.
The facts to which I am referring are taken from a report
prepared in February 1997 for the Canadian Museums Association.
Canada once had an indemnification program for exhibitions.
That program was established in 1985, but abolished in 1995, as
part of the program review. During its 11 years of existence,
the program was used to insure 157 travelling exhibitions
sponsored by 50 museums, for an estimated total value of
$6 billion.
The program had been set up to help museums deal with the huge
increase in the value of works of art and, consequently, in
insurance costs, which had become prohibitive. Today, these
costs have not diminished, far from it.
At the international level, various studies, some dating back to
1974, concluded that the establishment of government sponsored
indemnification programs was more effective than commercial
insurance for travelling exhibitions.
Not only is this method more economical, because breakage is
very limited, but it also has the advantage of eliminating the
problems associated with legal interpretations of the policies
and legislation of various countries, which is reassuring to art
lenders. During the 1980s, studies done in Canada reached the
same conclusions. It so happened that in 1981 the Art Gallery
of Ontario was to host a Van Gogh exhibition. Shortly before
the opening, one of Van Gogh's paintings was auctioned off for a
very large amount. As a result the owners of the items on loan
demanded that coverage be increased accordingly. The insurance
premium went up so much that the federal government had to step
in.
The following year, in 1982, during the annual federal-provincial
meeting of ministers of culture, a resolution was passed to set
up a task force to examine the details of an indemnification
program for exhibitions, in consultation with representatives of
federal and provincial museums. This task force pointed out the
savings that such a program would produce.
In fact, according to the task force's figures, claims for
breakage during travelling exhibitions from 1972 to 1982, a ten
year period, were slightly higher than $300,000, half of which
represented a single claim. The task force therefore
recommended an indemnification program for exhibitions worth
over $5 million.
In June 1985, the federal government announced the introduction
of an insurance program for travelling exhibitions so that
Canadians would have access to exhibitions that would otherwise
cost too much, and so that Canada could host major exhibitions.
1025
During its lifetime, the indemnification program cost the
federal government and the museums $6.6 million, and insured 157
exhibits by 50 museums, for a total coverage of $6 billion.
Claims made over the 10 years of the program's existence
totalled $550,000, which I would point out is far below the
claims average for the Canadian insurance industry.
In 1995, 15 countries were offering support to museums in one
form or another, in order to insure travelling exhibits.
The program implemented in the United States allowed eligible
museums and galleries to save some $90 million U.S. in insurance
premiums between 1975 and 1977. Over that same period, claims
totalled only $104,700 U.S. This shows how low the costs of
such a program are.
In introducing this bill today, the federal government is merely
catching up with other countries in the world that already have
similar museum support programs.
Now that we have examined the background to this bill, I would
like to set out the points which are, in my humble opinion, the
most problematical. In fact, what I am doing is passing on to
the House comments that are supported by the people who work in
museums.
Although the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of the bill,
we would like to see certain essential changes made to it.
First of all, the definition of travelling exhibit ought to be
amended to include those not presented in at least two Canadian
provinces; second, the annual eligible limit needs to be raised
substantially; third, the two subjective criteria for
eligibility of travelling exhibits, namely educational and
professional quality of the exhibition, and significance and
relevance of the theme and content to Canadians, ought to be
changed.
First, the requirement to show the exhibition in at least two
provinces is found in clause 2, which sets two conditions for an
exhibition to be considered a travelling exhibition, namely that
the total fair market value of the objects in the exhibition
that are borrowed from outside Canada exceed the total fair
market value of those borrowed from inside Canada, or that the
exhibition be shown in at least two provinces.
The problem with the second condition is that international
exhibitions are rarely shown in more than one province. In fact,
they rarely shown on more than one continent.
Also, a more modest exhibition may be of interest to a province,
but not to the other regions of the country. The Bloc Quebecois
feels that the residents of one province are taxpayers just like
the residents of two different provinces, and must be entitled
to the same services.
This provision will also have a greater impact in Quebec, where
exhibitions are often shown in French only and can therefore not
be presented in English speaking provinces.
As for our second point, which is to raise the annual maximum
liability, we are not the only ones to raise this issue. Indeed,
all the museum officials to whom we talked unanimously condemned
the indemnification program's annual maximum liability, since
that maximum can be reached with three major exhibitions.
This ceiling is all the more unacceptable because experience has
shown that claims by museums are below the insurance industry's
average, and that an authorized maximum is set for each eligible
exhibition.
However, this measure coupled with clause 5(a), which limits
accessibility to the program to exhibitions valued at $500,000,
will restrict the bill's application to big exhibitions and the
major facilities.
Need we remind you that the major exhibitions—Picasso, Renoir,
Daumier and Van Gogh—at the National Gallery of Canada alone
represent a total value of several billion dollars.
Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois would like the Minister of
Finance to raise the annual ceiling for eligibility to the
indemnification program considerably.
I would remind the hon. members that clause 3 of the bill
provides that the government's liability cannot exceed $450
million per exhibition and $1.5 billion annually for all
exhibitions.
1030
Furthermore, clause 5 permits the governor in council to make
regulations for the purpose of, first, limiting the minimum
value of eligible exhibitions and, second, establishing the
criteria for the conclusion of indemnification agreements.
We have been told that the minimum value of eligible exhibitions
would be $500,000. This minimum is way too high for small
travelling exhibitions. The Société des musées du Québec, for
example, is asking for a limit of $200,000. The Bloc Quebecois
supports its recommendation.
Finally, the criteria to be considered in the conclusion of
indemnification agreements provided in the bill include, in
subparagraphs 5(b)(ii) and 5(b)(iii), and I quote:
(ii) the educational and professional quality of the exhibition,
(iii) the significance and relevance to Canadians of the
exhibition's theme and contents,
The Bloc wants these overly subjective criteria deleted. Why
does the government want the privilege of deciding on the
educational quality of exhibitions and their significance for
Canadians? Does it hope to use travelling exhibitions for
propaganda purposes? I put the question.
Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois is not alone in its
reservations. They are shared by the president of the Société
des musées du Québec, Hélène Pagé. She made her views known at
the hearing held at the head office of Radio-Canada in Montreal
on February 25 by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
I should begin by pointing out that the Société des musées du
Québec is made up of 250 museums in Quebec, which, according to
a recent survey, were visited by some 14.8 million people in
1997-98.
So as to clearly convey Ms. Pagé's thoughts to members of the
House, I will read what she said:
—we have seen the draft bill and it is quite worrisome because
there does not seem to be an understanding of what a travelling
exhibit is. There are two conditions. The travelling exhibit
must contain more foreign objects than Canadian objects, whereas
we know that an exhibit that comes from abroad does not include
any Canadian objects, or else it must travel in two provinces.
The great international exhibits are presented once on the
European continent, once in the United State and in one Canadian
province. They don't go to two provinces.
She states further:
Secondly, the regulations are worrisome because here again, it
is somewhat coloured by politics. A regulation will decree what
makes an exhibit have educational value and interest for
Canadians.
I don't understand that this can be done by regulation. There is
no trust in the museum professionals. Who will decree that this
exhibit interests Canadians or not; that the Monet exhibit in
Montreal is not really interesting for Canadians? There is truly
a problem there, and a connotation of political intervention in
a bill for which we had high hopes.
Another thing is worrisome. We have learned that it would only
apply to exhibits of a value of $5,000 and up. Only the large
national museums are able to present that kind of exhibit. The
others only present that kind of exhibit on an exceptional
basis. If a small museum in Newfoundland or Quebec presented an
exhibit worth between $90,000 and $200,000 and an unfortunate
fire occurred, it would be a total catastrophe. The museum would
not be compensated.
Therefore, this is a bill that will be useful to the big museums
but not the small ones. Right now, throughout the country, the
smaller museums are experiencing a great deal of difficulty.
That was a long quote, but an interesting one. As members can
see, there are very clear concerns among museum directors about
this bill, and the government needs to be attuned to them. The
professionals working in this field, those who are knowledgeable
about it, need to be trusted. If competent people like Mrs.
Pagé voice reservations, the government needs to heed them, and
to make the changes they are asking for.
It would be a great disappointment if we were to feel obliged to
oppose this bill on next reading just because the government's
intent was to make political hay from an indemnification
program.
It has been clearly demonstrated that this program was a highly
economical one with great advantages for the museums.
1035
Why should the program not be expanded to include more museum
exhibitions, since this is easily done? I would remind this
House that every possible precaution is taken by museums. Every
possible effort is made to protect exhibits and to ensure that
they are not damaged. Hence there are virtually no losses and
very few accidents.
In conclusion, the federal government has a duty to demonstrate
its confidence in the museum community, by amending the bill as
requested, solely in order to include as many exhibitions as
possible. I trust that the government will be responsive to the
real needs of the museum community.
* * *
[English]
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the
honour to inform the House that a message has been received from
the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed
certain bills to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
* * *
CANADA TRAVELLING EXHIBITIONS INDEMNIFICATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, an
act to establish an indemnification program for travelling
exhibitions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
NDP is pleased to speak in support of Bill C-64, an act to
provide for the indemnification of travelling exhibits. It is
easy to see what the motivation was for the introduction of this
bill given the research we have been doing.
Currently for museums to field travelling exhibitions they have
to undertake commercial insurance offset by help from the federal
government for a total of $6 million per year. In order for
Canadian museums to tour shows we are paying up to $6 million a
year to commercial insurance in the event that they may suffer
damage or loss to some of the artefacts or exhibits, whereas the
empirical evidence shows it can be far more cheaply undertaken by
a socialized system. If the government undertakes the risk and
the liability, it will cost far less.
In the United States the American government undertakes the risk
for $3 billion worth of artefacts touring the U.S. In 23 years of
operation there have only been two claims amounting to payouts of
less than $100,000. The American model underwrites a far greater
amount of value in artefacts and the empirical evidence has been
that only two claims were made for less than $100,000.
We are spending $6 million a year to the commercial insurance
industry. It is only common sense that this is one of those good
examples of where government can do it better. Rather than have
this insurance product contracted out, if we keep that work in
house, we all reap the savings and the museums can feel more
comfortable in taking their exhibits on the road.
Many of us undervalue the role Canadian museums play and the
level of interest in the community for Canadian museums and the
good work they do. According to our research there are over
24,100 employees of Canadian museums, a figure that may surprise
many members here. There are also 55,000 volunteers which
indicates to me huge interest and support in the community for
the work they do.
An even more telling figure of the value of our Canadian museums
and why we should support them with this bill is that 54.9
million people visited museums last year. In a country of 30
million people that means almost every Canadian went twice to a
museum, or some people went an awful lot. That is all the more
reason to share the wonderful products, the message, culture and
heritage Canadian museums hold with more Canadians by taking
their shows on the road.
Museums have not been so inclined to get involved with
travelling exhibitions, whether of their own artefacts or of
touring international shows, because of the terrible risk they
face in terms of loss of artefacts. They are dealing with
priceless products, absolutely world class items in many cases.
There is no possibility of ever replacing them accurately. As a
result the commercial insurance industry has no choice but to put
a very high value on those products.
1040
I was involved recently with a travelling show at the Museum of
Man and Nature in Manitoba. I was very pleased to take part in
it. I raise this only as an example of the value of taking shows
out of the museum and into the communities so more people can see
them.
Museums can actually play a role, and always have, in shaping
social policy through education. This one example was the very
pressing and timely issue of child labour.
The Museum of Man and Nature to its credit put together an
exhibit of photographs by David Parker called “Stolen Dreams”.
It dealt with this man who travelled all throughout the world and
found examples of child labour. It did not stop there. The
museum put together a multimedia interactive exhibit. There
would be a photograph of a child working in a brickyard in India
and a lever next to it. Some kid looking at the picture could
push on that lever and actually feel how heavy it is to carry a
load of bricks for 12 hours a day.
This exhibit will be taken beyond Manitoba. I know it is going
to Vancouver and all around the country. CIDA has helped to put
this show on the road. By travelling, this show will expose and
sensitize far more kids than could possibly have been exposed to
this very real and pressing international issue. It is very
important.
I raise that as one example of the importance of museums
ignoring their physical barriers, the walls of their own
buildings. Rather than trying to take Mohamed to the mountain,
the mountain will be taken to Mohamed.
It makes sense to do this internally. We can look at socialized
auto insurance. No one who has ever lived in a province that is
lucky enough to have government run auto insurance would ever
argue that we should go back to the commercial carriers because
we were simply paying too much.
The Government of Canada was paying too much to insure these
artefacts. Now we know. All we have to do is look to our
neighbours to the south. We did not have to spend $6 million a
year to underwrite some of these touring exhibits. It is $100,000
a year in the United States to insure $3 billion worth of
products. We are talking about a maximum value of $450 million
per exhibit.
There is one thing I would criticize about Bill C-64. I would
hope people would review it when it gets into further debate.
Exhibitions under Bill C-64 must have a value in excess of
$500,000 to qualify for the program. I am a little suspect of
that. I wish that could be altered because in the example I
gave, whether it qualified or not, we would have been dealing
with photographs and with relatively inexpensive materials. The
artefacts were not as important as the interactive value. Really
$500,000 would preclude a lot of valuable exhibits from being
underwritten and taken on the road.
I hope that the figure could be brought down to something more
realistic. I am not sure why there has to be a minimum dollar
value unless there is a breaking point where it simply is not
worth the paperwork. If the exhibit was only worth $500, there
may be more than $500 worth of administration to register the
articles and so on. A realistic figure would be $100,000. If the
exhibit has a net value of $100,000, it should qualify under this
otherwise very worthy program.
Museums need a break. The Government of Canada should not be
paying more than it needs to but neither should the museums.
Look at what they have been facing in recent years.
There has been a huge escalation in the number of museums and
related institutions in the country. In 1972 the Canadian
Museums Association listed 838 museums, galleries and
institutions. As of 1999 there were 2,271 listings in the
directory. It has expanded 200-fold.
1045
Going back to 1990-91 the total museum funding was $210 million,
give or take. It went to a high and spiked at almost $220
million in 1995. In the year 1999-2000 it will go down to $193
million. They have actually seen quite a cutback in their
overall budget funding in a period of time where the number of
institutions was escalating. I would assume the burden then
falls to more volunteers, more community input or other levels of
government funding museums. Many of them are still operating in
a very healthy fashion.
The museum in Dawson City where I used to live had quite an
impact on the community. It helped to shape and save the whole
community. When I moved to Dawson City it was a ramshackle town
of falling down buildings. Nobody cared a hoot if Dawson City
washed away into the Klondike River because it was an old ghost
town with a couple of leftovers still hanging around from an old
time.
In 1970 or so Parks Canada had the common sense, prior to all
this stuff slipping away, to try to hang on to some of the
artefacts that were disappearing like crazy. The museum got
going and started to give value to these products which otherwise
had no value; they were junk. Tourists could pick up an artefact
and take it home, resulting in the history of the place
disappearing. It was truly the people with the foresight to
start the museum who saved the town by giving value to articles
which otherwise had no value.
Dawson Creek has now been rebuilt. It is a tourist destination,
a mecca. The real catalyst was the people, including the Parks
Canada people to their credit, who had the foresight to start to
catalogue and chronicle the wonderful rich history of Dawson
Creed.
Bill C-64 recognizes the value of Canadian museums and the way
Canadians feel about their museums. It does not go as far as
talking about restoration or overall museum funding—that is not
the nature of the bill—but it does help and speaks to the value
that Canadians give to their museums. Our caucus is proud to
support Bill C-64.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise before the House to debate Bill C-64 at second reading,
the Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act.
Ever since the Liberal government discontinued its cost sharing
insurance arrangements with our Canadian museums, curators across
the country have been struggling with the high cost of insurance
premiums on travelling exhibitions.
Depending on the quality of the exhibition in question,
insurance premiums can cost thousands of dollars. These high
costs are a serious deterrent to our museums which are striving
to provide Canadians with the broadest possible collections of
art and artefacts. Without these exhibits Canadians throughout
the country will be losing out on a very important aspect of our
cultural heritage.
[Translation]
One of the main shortcomings of our education system is that it
does not make full use of our museums as a teaching tool for our
children. Reading history or art books cannot replace the
immediate joy that comes from being in direct contact with
objects or works of art from the past.
It is especially important for young Canadians to be able to see
what life was like for those who worked hard to build this great
country of ours so we can reap the benefits today.
Children must understand what life was like before this era of
high technology to better understand the supreme efforts
everyone must make to be successful in this complex world in
which we live.
[English]
What is indemnification for travelling exhibitions? In essence
it means that the Canadian government will assume financial risk
for damages to contents contained within travelling exhibitions.
This means that the government will pay for loss or damage to
objects in these exhibitions.
Not only will this indemnification program relieve some of the
financial burden that is affecting most of Canada's museums. It
will also help them negotiate the loan of other prestigious
foreign exhibitions.
Having Canada's financial resources to back up foreign
exhibitions should make it a lot easier to access some of the
major cultural exhibits from other nations.
1050
As I mentioned previously, the federal government withdrew its
support for cost sharing of insurance in 1995. In the 10 years
prior to 1995 the federal government invested approximately $6
million in premiums for commercial insurance.
By creating a government sponsored indemnification program
Canada will join 14 other industrialized countries that presently
offer such a program to their respective museums. Countries like
the U.S., Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia and France have
recognized the advantages that such a program has for the
enhancement of one of their major cultural industries. The
eligibility requirements to receive the indemnification program
will be determined by the value of the individual exhibitions.
At present the bill requires that the total value of objects
must exceed $500,000 to qualify for coverage. I am concerned
that by establishing a benchmark of $500,000 for qualification,
many of the smaller museums in the country will not be able to
access this funding and will miss out on the intended benefits of
the program. I would suggest that we revisit this figure to see
if we could not arrive at a more reasonable figure that will
benefit both our small and large museums alike.
The total coverage allotted within the bill would be limited to
$450 million for exhibitions. Perhaps this figure could also be
re-examined when the bill comes before committee.
For years our Canadian museum representatives have been lobbying
government to implement an effective government based
indemnification program. During meetings in Ottawa of the
Canadian heritage committee we have had the occasion to meet with
a number of very distinguished individuals from across the
country representing our museums, libraries and public archives.
It was during these hearings that I heard firsthand of the
significance that such an indemnification program would have on
our museums. Subsequently this message was repeated on many
other occasions as our committee crossed the country to meet
directly with interested groups and organizations.
Mr. François Lachapelle, directeur general corporation du Musée
régional de Rimouski, was the first to focus my attention on
this issue as he discussed possible government initiatives that
would be very beneficial for our museums. Allow me to quote Mr.
Lachapelle:
[Translation]
You will understand that moving a national treasure from one
province to another or to another country is going to be
extremely costly in terms of insurance because of its great
value or of the high risk involved in transportation, etc.
Therefore, the premiums charged by insurance companies will be
extremely high. That is why this program is very important so
exhibitions can travel outside Canada.
[English]
This sentiment was further supported by Ms. Candace Stevenson,
executive director of Nova Scotia Museum. She represents the 25
provincial museums in my home province. Ms. Stevenson believes
this indemnification program will be a tremendous boost for many
of our institutions, although it is questionable whether any of
Nova Scotia's museums will actually be able to benefit from it.
It does not take away from the benefits the program, however,
will have on Canadian museums in general.
[Translation]
Although the government seems to be responding to the concerns
expressed by our museums, let us not forget that it is the
government itself that put Canadian museums in a critical
situation by making significant cuts to their budgets over the
last few years.
[English]
In 1972 the initial budget for museum assistance programs
hovered around $8 million per year. By the early 1990s their
budget was increased to a maximum of $15 million despite a
Canadian Museum Association recommendation for a budget of $25
million per year. Last year the Liberal government reduced this
amount to a paltry $6.5 million, leaving the museum industry
reeling to try to find alternative financial resources.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has since announced subsequent
increases to the MAP of $2 million and $1 million respectively,
putting the 1999 budget at $9.4 million. This amount does not
come close to responding to the grave concerns expressed by our
museum representatives.
1055
As it stands now our museum directors barely have the resources
necessary to maintain their present exhibits, no less try to
expand their collections. Not only must a museum be concerned
with preserving valuable artefacts, in many instances they must
invest enormous resources in maintaining their buildings
themselves, which are often historical landmarks.
[Translation]
Each time we neglect archaeological finds for lack of funding,
we lose an important part of our country's history. Artefacts
are impossible to replace once they are lost. It is high time we
started focusing our energy on the preservation of our cultural
heritage for future generations.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
for West Nova would forgive me, I think we will interrupt
proceedings a little early to see if we can get more Statements
by Members in today.
There will be time for questions and comments when debate
resumes and the hon. member for West Nova will have approximately
9 or 10 minutes remaining with the resumption of debate.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
SIKH COMMUNITY
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Monday the Government of Canada unveiled a 46¢
stamp to honour one century of contributions to Canada by the
Canadian Sikh community. In unveiling the commemorative stamp
the Prime Minister said:
This celebration is very much what Canada is all about. As
Canadians, many of us today take it for granted that this country
values equality and fairness. The experience shows us that was
not always the case.
Indeed the history of the Sikh community in Canada left a scar
in our nation's past when the Sikhs on the Komagata Maru
were refused entry and sent back to India. Canada has now buried
the lingering memories of the Komagata Maru.
Last Monday's occasion reminds us that out of a people's
struggle emerges the strength of a nation's citizenship. We can
all be proud that Canada is a nation of people who have brought
to this land diversity, values and honour.
* * *
CANADA BOOK DAY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
Canada Book Day and to mark the occasion Canadians are invited to
celebrate books and the love of reading by participating in
Canada Book Day activities.
Canada's vital cultural legacy is reflected in its literature.
On this day Canadians are encouraged to buy books, attend
readings, receptions, book giveaways, and participate in contests
in celebration of our literature and the rich cultural heritage
it represents.
Through its support of the book publishing industry the
Government of Canada will strive to ensure the continued
rejuvenation of Canadian literature and the continued enrichment
of our country's social and economic life. The future of our
book industry, however, lies primarily in the hands of all
Canadians.
We therefore encourage Canadians everywhere to take part in
Canada Book Day activities and to support this important national
resource by rediscovering Canadian books. Information about
activities in various communities can be found on line at
www.canadabookday.com.
* * *
WAR
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we were
honoured yesterday morning to hear Kim Phuc at the parliamentary
prayer breakfast.
She was burned by a napalm bomb during the Vietnam war and
suffered terribly with burns all over her body. The picture of
Kim running and crying became the symbol of the horrible
suffering that children endure in war.
However she has found in the Christian faith the ability to
forgive her attackers and tormentors. Her presentation was truly
inspirational. She exudes grace.
Seeing the families of Kosovo on TV these days reminds me that
my family escaped under similar circumstances. War and expelling
citizens from their country is never an answer to problems. I am
very grateful that my family also chose to exercise forgiveness.
Even though my family lost everything in the old country, we had
the opportunity to make a peaceful living in Canada.
* * *
DENTAL HEALTH MONTH
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to remind members that April is Dental Health Month, a
time to celebrate the smile.
The Canadian Dental Association and its provincial counterparts
use Dental Health Month for promotions to raise our awareness of
dental health issues. Some dental associations host public
lectures on important subjects like oral cancer and mouth care
for the elderly. Many groups mount mall displays and sponsor
contests; others co-ordinate free dental clinics for the needy.
These are just a few examples of the efforts undertaken during
Dental Health Month.
They all have a common purpose: to reinforce the elements of
prevention, from brushing and flossing, to visiting the dentist
for regular checkups and eating a healthy diet. Dentistry's
commitment to prevention is to be commended. It is a commitment
that is celebrated during Dental Health Month, but practised all
year round.
* * *
1100
[Translation]
PATRICIA PICKNELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next Saturday I
will have the great pleasure of taking part in the official
opening of the Patricia Picknell Elementary School in my riding
of Oakville, in Ontario.
[English]
After numerous years of lobbying, the francophone community of
Oakville can be proud of its achievements.
Jointly selected by the school board, the students and the
faculty, the school is named in honour of Patricia
Picknell-Arseneault, who regrettably passed away last July.
A tireless defender of francophone rights, Mrs. Picknell's
legacy to the Franco-Ontarian landscape will endure for
generations. To her family and friends, she will be remembered
as the very embodiment of French Canadian joie de vivre.
As a former school board trustee for Halton, Waterloo and
Wellington, Mrs. Picknell promoted and defended the francophone
rights to a quality education in their mother tongue.
[Translation]
I am sure members of this House will join me in congratulating
the Franco-Ontarian community in Oakville.
* * *
ACADIAN VILLAGE IN WEST PUBNICO
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
congratulate the people in West Pubnico who, for the past nine
years, have been working very hard to recreate a 17th century
Acadian village.
The village, which should be opened to the public this year, is
located on the very spot where the first Acadian settlers
probably settled.
During the first stage of the project, four old buildings will
be moved from West Pubnico to the village. Two houses, a
blacksmith shop and a fish shed will be carefully restored.
Visitors will have the opportunity to take part in various
activities such as cooking a typical Acadian meal, tending to
livestock, salting fish and much more.
The Acadian village will be an authentic representation of a
culture that has survived the 1755 deportation and the many
English influences surrounding us.
I am proud of my Acadian heritage and happy to see people in
Pubnico West take the initiative of celebrating our past, thus
helping to preserve our future.
* * *
[English]
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
all too frequently humanity sinks to such depravity that it
wreaks death and destruction on its own.
What motivates and drives such diabolical crimes against
civilization might only be the understanding and the purview of
the insane and the almighty.
Tens of millions have died in genocide this century alone; in
the Ukrainian famine, the holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, Armenia
and now possibly Kosovo.
Over seven million Ukrainians perished in the famine brought on
by Stalin's Russia in the 1930s. Over seven million starved to
death under the dictate of a man gone mad. Tomorrow in Calgary a
monument will be unveiled on Memorial Drive to bear witness to
this calamity.
Civilization's failure must be put on public display so that we
can all see the dark side of humanity and hopefully learn.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the House and
Canadians the announcement today by the solicitor general, and my
support for his decision to reinvest $115 million in upgrading
and modernizing the RCMP's CPIC computer system.
The Canadian Police Information Centre was created following
federal-provincial meetings in 1966 to increase information
sharing in the fight against organized crime. I am proud to say
that my father played a prominent role in those meetings some 33
years ago.
Today CPIC is operated by the RCMP on behalf of all Canadian law
enforcement. It contains millions of records on criminals,
missing persons, vehicles, stolen property, registered firearms
and crime scene information. It is the primary tool used to
identify suspects, to access outstanding warrants and restraining
orders, to screen out sex offenders from jobs involving contact
with children and to flag files of dangerous offenders. It
annually handles over 100 million enquiries from 15,000 points of
access.
This investment will enhance speed of access, data bases, allow
transmission of digital photographs and fingerprints. This means
better crime prevention—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Matapédia—Matane.
* * *
1105
[Translation]
ORGAN DONATIONS
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with 14
donations per million inhabitants, the rate of organ donation in
Canada is among the lowest in the world.
As a consequence, only one person in two will benefit from an
organ transplant and have a longer life expectancy as a result,
while 140 less fortunate persons will die.
In 1989, the rate of organ donation in Spain was comparable to
the present Canadian rate. It is now at about 30 per million
inhabitants.
Besides ranking first in the world for organ donations, Spain
also has the lowest mortality rate in the world for people
waiting for an organ transplant.
National Organ Donation Week, which is coming to an end, allowed
us to raise public awareness, but we must also give ourselves
the means to identify rapidly potential organ donors.
This social issue must be supported by real political will. We
must be responsive to all those people waiting for a transplant,
because the gift of an organ is a gift of life after life.
* * *
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning the Leader of the Bloc entered into the
fray on the issue of a step-by-step referendum process, by taking
position against this trick of Guy Bouthillier and Denis Monière
with respect to the separation of Quebec from the rest of
Canada.
Indeed, there was enough for everyone last weekend. The Bloc
Leader joined the hardline separatists by opposing a scenario of
asking Quebeckers to vote on a special status for Quebec.
The Bloc takes a radical stand on the future of Quebec. It
advocates the independence of Quebec, which was rejected twice
by Quebeckers: first in 1980 and again in 1995.
While those academic discussions are going on, our Liberal
government opted for a practical solution and is dealing with
one issue at a time to improve Canadian federalism.
Vive le Canada.
* * *
[English]
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
more the years pass, the more things remain the same as far as
Liberals are concerned.
One hundred years ago, newspapers in western Canada were
complaining about the indifference of the Liberal government to
the needs of the west.
Wilfrid Laurier, against the wishes and advice of western
Canada, reduced the ranks and efficiency of the mounted police.
Unlike more recent Liberal prime ministers, at least Laurier had
the integrity to admit he had made a mistake.
What was the concern expressed by westerners 100 years ago? That
cattle and horse thieves would run rampant without effective
policing. What are the concerns of the west today? That drug
dealers, criminal refugee claimants and organized crime is
running rampant without effective policing.
History shows time and time again that the Liberals do not care
what happens in the west just as long as we keep sending our tax
dollars to Ottawa.
They made the point 100 years ago, and it is still valid. The
Liberals do not have, and never had, the interests of the western
half of the nation at heart.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Waterloo
and the Elora Centre for Environmental Excellence for a recent
funding announcement made by the Ministers of the Environment and
Natural Resources.
The announcement gives $220,000 in funding under the climate
change action fund to implement the Residential Energy Efficiency
Program, REEP.
It is through the climate change action fund that the federal
government is taking concrete steps to engage and inform
Canadians in partnerships that will lead to a greater
understanding of climate change.
The REEP is a community-based program set up to inform
homeowners on energy efficiency and the importance of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Using the “EnerGuide for Houses”
rating system, REEP will conduct audits to determine energy
performance of homes in the area. This information will help
identify how to improve a house's energy efficiency. Four
thousand audits, representing 5% of the detached homes in
Kitchener—Waterloo will be completed.
Again, congratulations to the University of Waterloo—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Winnipeg Centre.
* * *
ARMENIA
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
April 24 Armenian Canadians and Armenians everywhere will
commemorate the 84th anniversary of the 1915 Armenian genocide.
As an expression of solidarity, I offer my deepest sympathies to
the Armenian people and I share their grief.
Far too often in this century, we have witnessed the incredible
cruelty that humans can inflict on one another. The Armenian
genocide of 1915 at the hands of the Ottoman Turks was the first
genocide of the 20th century but certainly and sadly not the
last.
Modern Turkey has yet to recognize this serious crime, which has
already been recognized by the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights, the European Parliament, and several other countries.
Here at home this genocide has been formally recognized by the
Quebec National Assembly and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
It is far overdue that this Liberal government do the same in the
House of Commons.
1110
I urge all hon. members of the House to recognize the Armenian
genocide. I extend my most heartfelt wishes to the Armenian
people on this tragic anniversary. Let every one of us
recognize—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, several
thousand Quebec volunteers make a significant and constructive
contribution to the community. I am pleased to recognize the
invaluable work of these volunteers within organizations that
are essential to our society's well-being.
I am very grateful to those people of all ages and from all
walks of life for the unassuming work they do with non profit
organizations, citizens groups, schools, sports organizations
and numerous associations.
The number of volunteers in my riding and throughout Quebec is
impressive. They respond generously to the ever increasing
demand for their services. Today marks the end of National
Volunteer Week, and I want to take this opportunity to thank,
congratulate and pay tribute to these people.
In particular, I want to recognize the exceptional work
volunteers do with the disadvantaged in my riding of
Louis-Hébert. With very limited resources, they manage to help
children, teenagers, mothers, those who are hospitalized,
persons who are losing their autonomy and those who are
abandoned.
Their salary is the smile they get from the people they help.
Congratulations—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Catharines.
* * *
[English]
FATIMA BASIC
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to honour a citizen of St. Catharines who has
truly made a difference, an individual who has dedicated her life
to helping others and specifically, to helping children around
the world.
This tireless volunteer and dedicated Canadian is Fatima Basic.
Fatima is presently the president of the Bosnian Children Relief.
Created in 1992, Bosnian Children Relief is a Canadian
humanitarian organization dedicated to relieving the suffering of
children and their families in war-torn Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Most recently, Fatima Basic has issued an urgent appeal for
food, medicine, blankets, hygienic products and financial
donations for the refugees fleeing Kosovo.
Fatima Basic recently received the International Helen Prize for
her work to promote harmony and understanding around the world.
This award is a well deserved honour that recognizes her many
years of tireless dedication to the children and people of former
Yugoslavia.
Today it is my honour and pleasure to share the work of Fatima
Basic with my colleagues in the House and to congratulate her on
her award. I thank her for her dedication, her spirit and the
many lives she has aided over the years.
* * *
ROSEMARIE KUPTANA
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate a
constituent, Rosemarie Kuptana, who was promoted within the Order
of Canada to the position of officer for her continuing work to
advance Inuit culture and her leadership on human rights. She
played a significant role in securing for Aboriginal peoples an
equal participation with other Canadians in national
constitutional and political processes.
As president of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, she worked with
other leaders to advance self-government for aboriginal peoples.
She has represented her people internationally and distinguished
herself as an effective organizer, spokesperson and advocate.
Congratulations.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD BOOK AND COPYRIGHT DAY
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today is World Book and Copyright Day. Proclaimed by UNESCO in
1995, this day is inspired by a wonderful Catalan tradition
dating back to 1926. On April 23 of each year, people exchange
books and roses.
Honouring in its own way this wonderful tradition, the Liberal
government persists in maintaining a 7% tax on books, even
though the Liberals promised to abolish the GST on reading
material during the 1993 election campaign.
On this day celebrating books and authors, the Bloc Quebecois
wants to remind the government that books are invaluable
treasures for Quebec and Canadian culture. They are also the
best way to pass on our knowledge to the next generations. Books—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
* * *
[English]
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to give the government fair warning not to use its
majority in the House to invoke closure or time allocation in
order to pass the Nisga'a treaty, trashing democracy like the NDP
government has done in B.C. this week.
This Liberal government had better not slam the door on
Canadians who want to debate this treaty. It should at least
listen to its B.C. Liberal cousins.
The government should not even introduce the Nisga'a treaty in
the House because the people of B.C. have not had a democratic
say on the treaty.
For over 100 years the Nisga'a people have been waiting for fair
and equitable compensation. Let us do it right and in the right
way. Why the big rush?
1115
The official opposition challenges the government to have a free
vote in the House on the treaty because it is a precedent that
will have national implications.
We do not want one problem solved and 10 more problems created.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in September
1995 Dudley George was killed. The United Nations calls it an
extrajudicial killing and recommends a public inquiry.
First nations people are homeless, die on the streets and are
crowded into ramshackle houses. Chiefs have to go on hunger
strikes for medicine and doctors. The UN calls on Canada to take
our commitment to human rights seriously.
When it comes to Canada's commitment to NATO, we respond
quickly, politically and with money to back it up. But when it
comes to the United Nations call to protect our own citizens, we
do not respond with the same force.
* * *
PICTOU COUNTY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge the exemplary efforts of
the Pictou Regional Development Commission in my riding of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
The goal of PRDC is to consolidate Pictou county as one of the
leading commercial and industrial areas of Atlantic Canada. It
does this through its highly qualified team of professionals who
strive for corporate success.
Several international corporations earning billions of dollars
in annual revenues have found Pictou county to be an excellent
and profitable base for their operations. These same industries
have been responsible for generating a diverse range of
opportunities for businesses of all sizes.
Geographically, Pictou county is ideally situated for businesses
that rely on effective distribution networks. The county
contains links by sea, road, rail and air that connect directly
with destinations across North America. A number of commercial
and industrial properties in Pictou county have on-site rail
access providing access and efficient transportation to
destinations throughout North America.
I congratulate PRDC for its valuable community contributions. It
is organizations like that which continue to work toward the
betterment of our area and our province. Their work is noticed
and appreciated.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today it has been reported that Slobodan Milosevic has made a
hollow offer to end the crisis in the Balkans that does not live
up to the NATO conditions.
It is clear that Canada's resolve on the NATO campaign must
remain absolute and that we must continue to adequately prepare
our military. Has the government set aside the necessary funds to
properly equip our troops for the escalating NATO campaign? Will
the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House today that the already
cash strapped defence budget will not be completely tasked with
this increase in commitment?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government will have the funds available to carry
out the obligations we have and whatever obligations which may
come along later with respect to our involvement in the NATO
initiative to return the Kosovars safely to Kosovo.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I will take that answer and put it in my expanding this
government has no plan file.
At today's NATO summit in Washington, Canada will be asked to
escalate its military commitment to the campaign. Since the
government has no plans for new funding for our troops and our
military is already cash strapped, how exactly does the
government expect our military to carry out a campaign that could
be bigger than the Korean conflict?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is totally
wrong. We are looking at whatever hypothetical possibilities
might arise. Funds will be assigned as required to carry out
what the ultimate decisions will be.
Canada is an active participant in the discussions taking place
at NATO. We will participate in the consensus. Whatever the
obligations will be on Canada as a result of that renewed
consensus, the funds will be there.
We will not be aiming at cutting expenditures, as was the case
in the Reform budget put forward as part of its platform in the
1997 election.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister knows full well that statement is 100%
pure balderdash.
The vague answers to critically important preparedness and
funding questions raise more and more doubts about the
government's commitment to our troops.
Last April the auditor general pointed out that the government
has failed to give our ground forces adequate funding to
modernize equipment. He said that our infantry and armour could
be detected, engaged and defeated long before our troops even
knew that the enemy was present.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister stand in his place today and
pretend that our troops are being properly equipped when the
government has not announced a single funding measure—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
1120
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's question shows how empty and
ridiculous the Reform position is. How can we talk about the
funding that is required before we know exactly what further
activities we may have to be engaged in as part of the NATO
alliance?
We are proceeding in an active and vigorous way to support our
troops and to be part of the alliance. We should not be throwing
around numbers before we know exactly what further activities we
may be called on to carry out.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the B.C.
Liberals walked out of the provincial legislature yesterday in
protest over the NDP's unprecedented move to cut off debate on
the Nisga'a treaty. Liberal leader Gordon Campbell called the
NDP's strong-arm tactics “exceptional in the extreme and an
assault on our democratic institutions”. Liberal MLA Mike de
Jong blasted Clark's government for imposing a “draconian and
sinister closure motion”.
Will the government commit here and now to tell Glen Clark that
ratification in this House will not proceed until the democratic
institutions of British Columbia have been respected?
The Speaker: Order, please. That question is out of
order. The hon. member may wish to go to his second question.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, B.C.
Liberals have walked out of the legislature in protest over the
NDP strong-arm tactics in invoking closure and time allocation on
an unprecedented treaty that is going to affect the entire
country.
We want to know is this government going to respect the
democratic institutions of British Columbia and the democratic
wish of the people of British Columbia to have a say on this
treaty and a full debate, or is it going to bring in the treaty
in lockstep with Glen Clark's government?
The Speaker: On the first part of the question, it is not
within the purview of this parliament to make a statement with
regard to what goes on in the British Columbia house. However, on
the second part of the question, I find that it is in order and I
will permit the Deputy Prime Minister to respond, if he so
wishes.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our obligation is to respect the democratic procedures
of the Parliament of Canada. That is what we are doing. That is
what we are going to do.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the NATO secretary general called on the allied
countries to update their ground intervention plans for Kosovo.
In order for these plans to be updated, they have to already
exist, naturally. And so the probability of operations
increases daily, and we have here a government that appears to
be being dragged along.
Does Canada have ground intervention plans for Kosovo and, if
so, does it plan to update them as requested by the Secretary
General of NATO?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have policy objectives to pursue at the NATO
discussions at the present time. They involve support for the
five NATO conditions.
We underline the importance of a creative diplomatic solution.
We maintain support for the air campaign. We affirm the
readiness of Canadian peacekeepers to support a peace settlement.
We have a definite position that we are bringing forward at the
discussions at NATO. I hope we continue to have the support of
the House of Commons for this sensible and important position.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
if I understand properly, the Secretary General of NATO will get
no answer. Once again, the information we get comes from
sources outside Canada.
In 1991, we voted on sending in troops, while the war was being
carried on television. Is the government not running the risk
of putting us in an even worse situation than in 1991, as we
would be debating, without the opportunity of voting this time,
the deployment of troops to Kosovo and watching the war and the
lives of our soldiers put in danger on television?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
this point the hon. member's questions are entirely speculative
and hypothetical.
The Prime Minister said that the situation was changing, there
would be other debates in the House of Commons and that he might
reconsider the matter of a vote.
For the moment, the situation raised by the hon. member is
totally hypothetical.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Russia attempted a
diplomatic breakthrough with the Milosevic government, with a
plan that provides for the sending of a civilian peacekeeping
force under the UN.
1125
However, the terms set by Belgrade do not meet NATO's minimum
requirements to end the air strikes.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does Canada intend to use
that opportunity created by Russia to resume diplomatic efforts,
or has the government given up any hope for a peaceful
resolution of the conflict?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we certainly welcome the efforts of Russian special
envoy Viktor Chernomyrdin. We have always said that the Russians
should be part of the solution to Kosovo.
We have yet to see the full details of what was discussed
between Mr. Chernomyrdin and President Milosevic. Indications are
that what has been discussed falls well short of what is
required. I think that has to be taken into account in
considering the reports of what was discussed between
Chernomyrdin and Milosevic yesterday.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since Canada is a
member of NATO, the G-8 and the security council, why is it not
the one showing leadership and innovation on the diplomatic
front?
Why do we look like we are following everyone as regards this
conflict, whether it is in terms of humanitarian, military,
political or diplomatic initiatives?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a
member of the UN security council, we undertook discussions with
the permanent members of the security council, to try to find a
diplomatic solution. At this point, it is obvious that any
initiative from the security council would be vetoed by one of
its permanent members.
This is why we must continue our active participation in NATO's
efforts.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are hopeful that the Russian initiative will lead to an
exchange of proposals and ultimately a diplomatic solution to the
Kosovo crisis.
My question is simple and straightforward. Does Canada support
the Russian initiative and if so, is that the message that Canada
is taking to NATO this weekend?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already said that we welcome the efforts of
Russian special envoy Chernomyrdin but we have to look at the
proposal in detail.
At the moment the reports as to what the Russians understand the
proposal to be and what the Serbians understand it to be are
contradictory. Indications are that the proposal falls well
short of what is required.
We are going to carry forward in our discussions at NATO the
importance of creating a diplomatic solution. The hon. member is
wrong in asking us to rubber stamp what may or may not be the
Milosevic proposal.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
not talking rubber stamping.
The Prime Minister has stated again and again that Russia's
participation is key in finding a diplomatic solution. There is
now an initiative from Russia on the table. Russia is eager to
discuss that initiative with NATO. Is Canada urging NATO to
respond positively to the Russia's invitation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already said that Canada will be actively
participating in the discussions at the NATO summit. We will be
stressing the importance of creating a diplomatic solution.
I do not know what more the hon. member expects from us. She
seems to be pushing for a rubber stamping of this initiative by
President Milosevic. That does not make any sense.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals' 50/50 release plan for prisoners
rolling along and a plan to release more prisoners this year than
ever before, Tuesday's auditor general's report made startling
revelations of lengthy delays in processing, senior corrections
officers who are not performing their case management and
offenders programming failing to meet expectations. With public
safety at risk this is disgraceful.
It appears that Corrections Canada has cut corners in its haste
to meet this 50/50 quota deadline. If rehabilitation is the
priority, will the solicitor general please explain why
Corrections Canada has received a failing grade?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that any
human system can be improved on, and I am pleased to see that
the hon. member is prepared to help us in that regard.
1130
But if the member wants to quote the auditor general, he should
also mention the positive comments made by the auditor general
about our efforts, including improved training for officers,
information on program costs, program effectiveness evaluation,
surveillance in the communities, risk assessment in the case of
offenders, lessons learned and shared, and the management of
social reintegration activities. These are the good things that
are done by Correctional Service Canada.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I guess the response is that we take the good with
the bad.
Employment programs are crucial to the reintegration of
offenders into society. According to the auditor general,
Corrections Canada is not offering proper employment
opportunities that will achieve that goal. In fact CSC cannot
even manage its own finances. It receives $18 million annually
yet continues to be a money losing venture.
What steps are the solicitor general's office taking to
alleviate this and other glaring problems outlined in this
scathing report from the auditor general?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that
less attention is being paid to the answers given that to the
upcoming questions.
To answer my colleague's question, I just want to go back to one
point. In his report, the auditor general deals primarily with
the management of social reintegration activities, and he
acknowledges the very significant and impressive progress made
by Correctional Service Canada.
* * *
[English]
PENSIONS
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, first the government pirated the worker's EI fund for
$26 billion and now it has its sights set on the $30 billion
public pension fund surplus.
Is no fund safe from the government? Does it not realize the
dangerous precedent it is setting with these moves?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are not setting a precedent; we are merely following the law.
We have a legislative plan where all the benefits are guaranteed
to the employees. We are not only guaranteeing the benefits to
the employees in terms of their pension plans but we are
increasing these benefits.
Over the years it has only been the taxpayers who have shared
the risk and who have paid for it. When the plan was indexed
there was an additional liability of $8 billion. Every cent of
it was paid for by taxpayers, so there is no doubt, no legal
doubt and no accounting doubt, that the surplus belongs to
Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal law is pay more, get less. That is their
law. They have scooped $26 billion from the EI surplus and now
they will raid another $30 billion surplus from the public
service pension fund. It is not their money.
Why are the Liberals so intent on destroying the security of
Canadians' pension plans by constantly raiding surpluses? And
they have their eyes on another $30 billion. It is not their
money.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am surprised by the position of the Reform Party. I am more
than surprised; I am sad. I am really sad because this money
belongs to Canadian taxpayers.
This is the party that has been telling people that it will
defend their interest. This is the party that has been telling
people that it would try to reduce the debt. The government is
doing what is right and what is legal by giving back to Canadian
taxpayers what belongs to them, and the Reform Party of all
parties has the temerity and the audacity, which really makes me
sad, to try to steal that money from the Canadian taxpayer.
The Speaker: Order, please. We are getting new words
today like pirated, raided, scooped, and now I draw the line at
steal. I would prefer we do not use that word in the House of
Commons.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN HOCKEY ASSOCIATION WOMEN'S NATIONAL TEAM
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to general
surprise and for no discernable reason, the Canadian Hockey
Association Women's National Team's head trainer, Danièle
Sauvageau, who led the Canadian team to a gold medal at the
world championships, has just be replaced, for no good reason,
by a westerner.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us whether she is
comfortable with the association's decision, which looks, once
again, like discrimination against athletes and trainers from
Quebec?
1135
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the organization to which
the member refers is an independent one that makes its own
decisions, and I am surprised that the member would call for the
government to interfere.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that does
not usually stop the government from interfering.
Women's hockey is the most recent example of practices that look
like discrimination against Quebeckers: there is handball,
synchronized swimming, and the exclusive use of English in
sports federations and in presentations by the Canadian Olympic
Association.
Will the minister at least demand an explanation from the
Canadian Hockey Association Women's National Team, which
receives public funding, part of which, I would remind her,
comes from Quebec?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's position
on official languages and linguistic duality is very well known.
Unfortunately, on a number of occasions, some organizations
that receive federal government funding have not shown all the
respect they should for linguistic duality and the official
languages.
If this is the point the member opposite is raising, we will be
pleased to look into the matter and to remind these
organizations of their obligations.
* * *
[English]
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, another
day, another ACOA scam. TAGS and ACOA dole out $310,000 to Roger
Birmingham for a meat store in St. John's, Newfoundland, and he
goes bankrupt. Then he reopens his doors and picks up a new
partner, former Mayor Bob Whiffin. Surprise, he gets hundreds of
thousands of dollars more. The same location, the same business,
the same old sad story.
Was it right to use taxpayer dollars to restart this failed
business? Yes or no.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again the Reform has it all wrong. First, there is
no relationship of one money to the other. Second, the money was
indeed used to expand on a smokehouse operation. It looked good
at the time.
As the hon. member knows ACOA does have less than success in
some of its operations, but I have to tell him that our failure
rate in ACOA is less than 9%, which is lower than they are in the
polls, which is very low.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I can
let the hon. minister know what their relationship is. They all
have to do with the waste of taxpayer dollars, clear and simple.
We have heard it before from him, but something is rotten in
that meat store. Birmingham and Whiffin are getting another
$100,000 and they are waiting for two more grants.
There is something the minister can do right here and now. He
can stop the $100,000 and deny the other applications. Will the
minister cut the fat?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is something the hon. member can do
and that is stop criticizing an organization that produces in
excess of 10,000 jobs a year for Atlantic Canada. Will he do it?
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Quebec Minister of Justice, Linda Goupil, spoke
out against the punitive character of the federal Young
Offenders Act, because it threatens the preventive approach
developed by Quebec and because the Quebec model, with its focus
on rehabilitation, might be forced unwillingly into becoming as
repressive as the prevailing legislation in Canada.
Since there is a consensus within Quebec that young offenders
need help rather than punishment, does the government intend to
respond favourably to that consensus and to exclude Quebec from
application of its bill?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by making
the same statement I made in committee. The situation in Quebec
with respect to young offenders and the province's
accomplishments in preventing youth crime are totally
remarkable.
That said, the bill before us at this time contains all the
flexibility necessary to both pay tribute to what Quebec is
doing and ensure that the public is better protected everywhere
in this country.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this flexibility is just a charade. In actual fact, the effect
of this bill will be a gradual and inevitable undermining of the
foundations of the Quebec system for young offenders.
1140
Does the government realize that the philosophy of its bill runs
counter to, and in fact is even a threat to, the Quebec model,
which works best of all the systems in Canada and which has made
the most reduction in youth crime, as my hon. colleague has
acknowledged?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I am asked questions based on
facts, then I can respond with facts. If I am asked questions
based on speculations, then I have no answer at all.
They presume that the courts will decide. They presume that the
Quebec program will be undermined. They presume that we will
abandon prevention to focus on cracking down on crime. I cannot
provide any answer to that.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health said that he would wait
until the end of the year before he responded to the health
committee's report on organ transplantation. If he waits until
the end of the year, 100 Canadians will be dead.
Will the minister show leadership and implement the constructive
suggestions in the report within the next three months, before
these people die?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would say to the
hon. member that the minister said nothing of the sort.
What the minister said yesterday was that because of his
personal commitment he was the one who asked the committee to
undertake this mandate to determine how Canada could raise its
organ donation rate so that all those people who are anxiously
awaiting organs in this country would have hope that organs would
be available for them when they need them.
The committee spent very valuable and important time over a long
period working hard on the committee report. Part of the
recommendations is that the minister work in co-operation with
his provincial colleagues. I would say to the member—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the last two years the government has not delivered the funds
to the RCMP in Surrey that it said it would.
The government is underfunding the RCMP and that is why it is
refusing to divulge the figures. This has seriously reduced RCMP
services and destroyed morale.
Will the solicitor general immediately provide the city of
Surrey with a detailed and accurate accounting of the
government's funding before that city files a lawsuit against the
government?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): I could not dream of any better question and I
will take advantage of it to reinforce the announcement that has
just been made by the Solicitor General of Canada.
He has just announced $115 million to reinforce the Canadian
Police Information Centre, commonly called the CPIC. I thank my
colleague for giving me this opportunity.
* * *
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Madeleine Albright
agreed on a 120 day period of reflection to review the American
decision on our aerospace and defence exports.
Is the Minister for International Trade prepared to consult and
involve the Government of Quebec in its discussions and
considerations, given that Quebec will be severely affected if
the Americans carry out their trade restrictions plan?
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly the
Government of Canada welcomes the decision by the Government of
the United States to sit down and talk about this issue.
It is the government's intention in doing this to consult the
industry and all those involved in Canada that have an interest
in it. We will certainly put forward a united position on this
issue.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, many farmers in western Canada suffered a dramatic
downturn in their incomes last year and are looking forward to
receiving help from the agriculture income disaster assistance
program. However, they will have to fill out the application
forms by June 15, right in the middle of seeding.
What can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food do to help
out these farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out the other day, the forms
are only seven pages long and can be filled out reasonably
quickly by farmers or their accountants.
We have had 43 training sessions in Saskatchewan and Manitoba
alone. Over 1,400 farmers have attended. Over 200 accountants
have attended information sessions as well.
Today I have announced that we will be extending the deadline to
July 30, because we do know that it is a busy time of year.
* * *
1145
JUSTICE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, as the justice committee completes its review of the
victims rights bill, a piece of legislation premised on
compassion and closure for all victims of crime and their
families, the supreme court yesterday rejected an anguished plea
by the family victims of the Bernardo murders and is allowing the
videotapes of those brutal murders to be viewed by the public.
Will the government add one clause to Bill C-79, to put these
videotapes under lock and key and show the supreme court that
parliamentarians have compassion for victims, even if it does
not?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the supreme court decided on
these video tapes. The decision does not mean that the tapes
will be made public. They are considered evidence in the
matter.
Accordingly, the tapes are being kept in a sealed container, and
there was never any question of their becoming public. It would
be a mistake to do either of two things. The first would be to
assume that, because of the decision, they would be made public.
The other would be to want to use something as tragic as what
befell these people and their families for political gain.
* * *
[English]
TOBACCO INDUSTRY
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
tobacco executives in the United States have recently been
convicted and fined huge sums of money for helping to smuggle
cigarettes back into Canada through the Akwesasne reserve.
With the case already proven in the United States, and plenty of
evidence that RJR was involved in Canada, Canadians do not want
to be told that the RCMP are still investigating the matter. They
want action.
Why have Canadian tobacco executives not been charged? Why is
the government negotiating a cash settlement behind closed doors
with executives who are golfing buddies of the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Finance?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members will permit my not
commenting on the tone of the question, but going rather to the
substance of the matter.
The substance of the matter is as follows. The RCMP negotiates
nothing. It accumulates evidence it will subsequently pass on
to the crown, which then decides accordingly.
So it is time to stop implying that the RCMP is negotiating. It
gathers evidence for the crown.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, government reports have finally confirmed that women and
young people have been hit the hardest by the changes to the EI.
The government's own figures show EI claims by women are down
20% since the last changes. They also show only 44% of Canadian
women are now eligible for maternity benefits. More than half of
Canadian women do not qualify.
If the government is not interested in changing the EI
legislation, what will it do to address the discrimination
against women that it created and that its report has now
acknowledged?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are as
concerned as the member opposite about these findings from the EI
monitoring and assessment report. That is why officials of HRDC
are now investigating the situation to try to gain a clear
understanding of the reasons for these numbers.
We have also accepted the generous offer of the Canadian Labour
Congress to help us by bringing to us some of its frontline
examples and stories to assist officials to get to the bottom of
this issue. We do not want to start making changes until we
really understand the whys and wherefores of these numbers.
* * *
PENSIONS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
human resource minister does not care if EI changes have hit
women the hardest.
Women are also the biggest losers in the government's pension
plan grab. There are women who have worked for 20 years and
receive less than $10,000 a year in pension. Now the finance
minister says “I want their pension surplus”. Does the
government have no shame?
The pension surplus grab is at the expense of seniors, RCMP
members and military personnel, government workers who have
served our country for years. They are taxpayers. Money they
receive is spent in their communities. Why is the government
taking it away?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again this is money that belongs to taxpayers. The
government guarantees all pension benefits of all public
servants, everything they have earned and everything they have
bargained for. Everything that was in their contract with the
government will be implemented.
1150
These people, the seniors, men and women, will receive the exact
benefits they were promised under the law. The law guarantees
them these benefits and the surplus, as the lawyers, the
accountants, the auditor general and the actuaries say, belongs
to taxpayers.
* * *
GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, when the
Canadian Coast Guard decides to decommission a lighthouse, Public
Works Canada must offer the structure first to another federal
government department, followed by the provincial and then
municipal governments, before it is opened to public tender.
My question is for the minister. Could non-profit organizations
interested in lighthouse preservation be offered these abandoned
structures prior to their being opened to public tender?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the policy is very
clear. When we decide that we have a property we do not need any
more, we have to offer it to the provincial authorities and then
the municipal authorities. If there is no demand from that side
then we have to offer it to the public.
If the hon. member has some other organizations that are
interested, I am sure we could negotiate and through the
tendering process look at their offers as we usually do.
* * *
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, last summer
during a visit to my riding the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
promised that local DFO officers would be receiving two new jet
boats to help them in their fight against illegal lobster
poaching operations in St. Mary's Bay.
Could the minister tell us when we can expect these vessels to
arrive?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of
the specifics of that particular case. I do know that we are
increasing enforcement officers in some areas and trying to
ensure that the fishery is there for the future.
I will check into the specifics of that case and get back to the
member.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday was Earth Day. We know that if we do not work together
to protect our planet many species will reach extinction, the
earth's climate will warm up, and the health of humans will be
put into jeopardy.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment tell the House what she is doing to make sure that
the earth continues to be a healthy place to live for all of us
and for the generations to follow?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each day the Minister of the
Environment and everyone in the government are working hard to
protect the environment for Canadians for today and for the
future.
This particular week, together with her cabinet colleagues, the
minister announced several important initiatives. Canada signed
the ozone annex with the United States. We announced 55 recovery
projects for endangered species, the most ever announced in one
year, and funding was announced for a grassroots campaign, the
ABCs of climate change.
All Canadians are invited to join with the Minister of the
Environment in celebrating the first ever Clean Air Day Canada on
June 2.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a huge threat to Canadian jobs as a result of
renewed protectionist measures by the U.S. to reclassify
specialty wood products away from free trade.
There has been no visible political action on this issue.
Canadian trade officials have been meeting in Washington since
Wednesday, but the government has known about this threat since
early March.
How long do concerned forest workers and their families have to
wait for the government to act?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
knows, these issues are bilateral issues and issues on which we
take very great care to consult with not only the industry, not
only the provinces involved, but certainly with the workers and
those affected by such industries.
The Government of Canada has taken full action on all these
different attacks by the American government. I can assure the
hon. member and the people of British Columbia, with whom we
sympathize with the downturn in the economy there, that the
Government of Canada will continue to fight on their behalf.
* * *
[Translation]
THE HOMELESS
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to a recent study by Santé Québec, approximately
28,000 people have used the system of shelters for the homeless,
and attended soup kitchens and drop-in centres in 1998, and that
was just in Montreal. Clearly, the numbers of homeless are
unprecedented.
Is the minister prepared to entertain the request from the
Réseau d'aide aux personnes seules et itinérantes de Montréal to
transfer funds to the provinces so that they can provide social
housing with community support, yes or no?
1155
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I would like to inform the hon. member that I am
not the minister for the homeless.
I am the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister has asked me
to examine federal programs with a view to finding solutions to
the problems of the homeless.
I also wish to inform the hon. member that I intend to meet with
the mayor of Montreal to see exactly what sort of program he
would like, and how federal programs can help.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of the Environment when she said what were the
achievements of her minister.
It has been almost eight months since the minister came to
Sydney, Nova Scotia, to sign a memorandum of understanding to
clean up the tar ponds in Cape Breton. Since then and during
those eight months not a single thing has been done by the
government.
Why was there no specific commitment in the recent Liberal
budget to clean up the tar ponds? Why was it not one of the
initiatives that the Minister of the Environment announced which
were just referred to? When will the government honour its
commitment to the people of Cape Breton, to the people of Canada
and to the environment?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there were several
initiatives in the last budget specifically for the environment.
We were one of the only departments that got special funds
specifically for toxic substances.
With regard to the tar ponds, we are actively negotiating a cost
share agreement with the municipal and provincial partners. We
are working with a joint action group to identify the solutions
and to implement those solutions so the people who live there
will have healthier lives.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
we heard the startling revelation yesterday that Canada Post,
which already has a massive presence in the courier industry, has
just gobbled up what was left of Purolator Courier.
This means that the Government of Canada now owns more than 50%
of the courier industry in Canada. Before the government buys
out or puts out of business the rest of this industry, will the
minister encourage the Competition Bureau to review this further
intrusion into the private sector?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me inform the
hon. member and the House that most international postal
organizations have over the past few years acquired courier
companies, whether it is in France, in Germany, in England or
elsewhere.
Canada Post and Purolator Courier operate in total independence
with two different boards of directors. In 1998 the Competition
Bureau assessed the situation and said that there was no
cross-subsidization. Every year the government requires Canada
Post to hire an auditing firm to conduct an audit to certify
every year its financial statement. There is no—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Toronto
Centre—Rosedale.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development. Canada's response to the RCAP
report “Gathering Strength” notes that building strong first
nations requires good governance practices that are open and
accountable.
What progress are the first nations and their partners making on
ensuring the implementation of these important principles?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, building accountable and
sustainable first nations communities is a priority for the
government as it is for first nations themselves.
Of particular note is a two day symposium that will be held next
week in Saskatchewan hosted by the Federation of Saskatchewan
Indian Nations precisely on this topic. There will be officials
from the federal and provincial governments there, as well as
chiefs and members from first nations communities across the
country.
Most interesting is the fact that the auditor general has been
invited and I believe he plans to attend. It is this kind of
partnership that will allow us to continuously improve
accountability in first nations and ensure they have
sustainability into the future.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another question of the
parliamentary secretary, a very dedicated member and a gentleman
I have a lot of faith in. In his last answer he said that these
tapes were locked up. I would like to advise him that the
lawyers on the case yesterday before the supreme court said “the
tapes could potentially crop up again”. That does not treat
victims well.
Will the government add one clause to Bill C-79 to put these
videotapes under lock and key so we can show the supreme court
that parliamentarians care about victims, even if it does not?
1200
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject outright the
statement made on that side of the House that unless we agree
with them we do not care about victims. I reject that
allegation.
The supreme court has made a decision. I trust the text of that
decision more than I trust the hearsay of any lawyer or
especially any politician trying to make political gains on
something for which I feel sorry.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
in order to justify the government's failure to do anything
about the troubling issue of air transportation, the minister
announced that the Transportation Safety Board was now
conducting an investigation into the situation. We checked and
found out that the results of this investigation will not be
available for at least a year.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. How many planes
will have to crash before the minister realizes that his
cost-benefit approach to Nav Canada is endangering people's
lives?
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member
and other members of the House of Commons that the ministry of
transportation is putting safety factors as a top priority within
the department and is investigating all crashes. To date, we
have not received any report from the Transportation Safety
Board. However. when we receive those reports we will definitely
share them with all members of the House of Commons.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is interesting to hear members of the Reform Party asking the
government to overrule a provincial legislature. These are the
same people who portray themselves as defenders of provincial
rights.
Will the minister of Indian affairs commit to the House today
that the government will not be intimidated by the Reform Party
or, for that matter, by the actions of its provincial cousins and
bring in the legislation to implement the Nisga'a treaty, live up
to the signed commitment that she made on behalf of the people of
Canada and see that justice is finally done and soon?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take note of the support
that the NDP has for the Nisga'a treaty. It understands that it
will bring certainty to the lands in British Columbia. It
understands that it will bring significant investment not only
for the Nisga'a First Nation but for the communities around it.
It understands that, through this very historic treaty, 100 years
of history, not necessarily good history, can be reconciled.
Together we are welcoming the Nisga'a First Nation into Canada
as true and full partners.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in 1996 the Liberal government's own Canada Post mandate review
recommended that for the good of the industry Canada Post should
sell off its ownership of Purolator Courier and get out of the
courier business.
Why is the Government of Canada involved in an industry that is
already well served by the private sector?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a study
done and it made lots of recommendations. One of the
recommendations was not to close the post office.
Does the member now advocate that we should close the rural post
offices so that we can sell Purolator? It is very important for
Canada Post to have a commercial mandate so that we can keep our
postal system intact in every community.
The Speaker: That would bring to a close our question
period today.
While it is not the custom of the Chair to give reasons for
decisions taken in question period, I did rule a question out of
order today.
If memory serves me correctly, I would refer the hon. member for
Skeena, who asked me about it via a note, to Beauchesne's fourth
edition, 171(y) and Beauchesne's sixth edition, 409(b) for the
answer to his question.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1205
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the government's response to seven petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 31(4), I have the honour to
present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association (OSCE)
to the meeting of the Parliamentary Association of the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe held in Paris,
France on March 5, 1999.
* * *
WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-499, an act respecting the protection of whistle
blowers and to amend the Auditor General Act, the Parliamentary
Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Staff
Relations Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, the bill that I have introduced today
deals with whistle blowers protection for public service
employees.
Workers in the public sector who may have some knowledge of
wrongdoing are often reluctant to come forward for fear of
experiencing some discipline from their employer. This bill
would protect those who have good reason to believe in good faith
that there is some wrongdoing perhaps taking place in their
workplace. These employees would be able to feel comfortable in
reporting this suspected wrongdoing without any fear of
reprisals.
Reports would be made to the auditor general who would then
evaluate the merits of the case to see if the complaint had any
substance, and also to make sure that the complaint was not made
out of malice but made out of good faith so as not to be a
nuisance complaint.
The bill would in no way diminish the common law principle of
the obligation of loyalty to the employer. In fact, most good
employers would welcome having this opportunity to gain inside
knowledge of their workplace and, especially as government, real
cost savings may be involved.
I would hope to get broad support in the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as a
consequence of death, separation or divorce, grandparents
sometimes have difficulty having access to their grandchildren by
the guardian.
1210
Many jurisdictions have allowed provisions where grandparents
could have access to their grandchildren without having to go to
court.
The petitioners want parliament to amend the Divorce Act to
include the provision, as supported in Bill C-340, whereby
grandparents do not have to go to court in order to have access
to their grandchildren.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): The following questions will be answered
today: Nos. 166, 167 and 216.
.[Text]
Question No. 166—Mr. Rick Casson:
With respect to the fifteen Distant Early Warning, DEW, Line
radar sites in the Nunavut Territory, could the Minister of
National Defence provide: (a) the structure of the
environmental framework for cleanup; (b) the accumulated and
estimated cost of cleanup; (c) the source of environmental
contaminants which have contributed to any environmental
degradation; (d) the health hazards caused by the
environmental contamination; (e) the list of companies which
have received federal government contracts for cleanup, and for what
amounts; and (f) the structure of the process used to award
contracts?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
(a) The structure of the environmental framework for cleanup:
The framework for the cleanup will be in accordance with
the agreement between Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Her
Majesty in the right of Canada as represented by the Minister of National
Defence for the cleanup and restoration of Distant Early Warning
sites within the Nunavut settlement area. This agreement was
signed in Cambridge Bay on September 1, 1998 and details the
environmental provisions to carry out the cleanup.
(b) The accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup: The
estimated cost for the sites in Nunavut is $200 million, a figure
established in May 1997 which takes into account escalation
according to the economic model established by the Department of
National Defence, DND. The accumulated cost is $14.2 million,
actual expenditures April 1, 1996 when the first site cleanup was
started until September 30, 1998. The latter expenditures
include project overhead and administration. They also include
project management costs that are not part of the contract values
listed at (e). For example, some of the major costs included in
the accumulated cost total, and not in the contract values, are
the scientific delineation of contaminated soil, engineering
survey of upcoming sites and project administration costs.
(c) The source of environmental contaminants which have
contributed to any environmental degradation: Scientific studies
carried out between 1989 and 1994 showed that the environmental
contaminants at the sites are the result of waste disposal
practices that followed the standards of the day. PCBs and
inorganic elements such as copper, lead and zinc, are the
contaminants of primary concern in soils and surface waters.
Copper, zinc and cadmium are found in sewage outfalls and
landfills. Lead is found in petroleum and oil spills. Although
PCBs are detectable in virtually every sample collected in the
vicinity of the sites, they are present at elevated
concentrations primarily in outfalls and to a lesser degree in
landfills and stained areas near pallet lines, storage areas, and
site buildings. Leachate waters and soils near the base of some
landfills contain detectable concentrations of contaminants,
indicating drainage from a more concentrated source within the
landfill. The remaining contamination is restricted to isolated
spills within the area of station operations.
(d) The health hazards caused by the environmental
contamination: The cleanup strategy places special emphasis on
preventing the movement of chemical contaminants from sources at
the DEW Line sites into other parts of the Arctic ecosystem.
There are no immediate health risks. The cleanup is designed to
prevent migration of contaminants into the arctic food chain and
is therefore more stringent than normal protocols in the south.
The work will prevent any potential chronic or long term impact
on human health and the environment.
(e) The list of companies which have received federal
government contracts for cleanup, and for what amounts: Cape
Hooper, FOX-4, was awarded to Qikiqtaaluk Corporation of Iqaluit
and the value of the contract is $6.8 million. In 1998 the
cleanup of Cambridge Bay, CAM-M, was awarded to Kitikmeot
Corporation of Cambridge Bay and the value of the contract is
$7.3 million. The contract value of $6.8 million for cleanup of
Cape Hooper, FOX-4, has been spent. The contract for cleanup of
Cambridge Bay, CAM-M, was awarded in late summer of 1998 and
only several months of a projected two year cleanup have been
completed.
(f) The structure of the process used to award contracts: The
contracts awarded in Nunavut were negotiated with regional
aboriginal development corporations. This was done to build
confidence in the cleanup standard and to develop the expertise
of local business so it can compete for future DEW Line cleanup
contracts. This practice is in accordance with the spirit and
letter of the Nunavut land claims agreement. Future contracts
will be conducted in a competitive manner if industry shows
sufficient interest in the process by which this is carried out.
Should industry not be interested, contracts will be negotiated
with the designated Inuvialuit-Inuit firm in such a way as to
arrive at a price satisfactory to all concerned parties. The
department will strive for openness, fairness and best value in
contracting in a matter consistent with the land claim agreements
and negotiated co-operation agreements with the aboriginal
development corporations.
Question No. 167—Mr. Rick Casson:
With respect to the six Distant Early Warning, DEW, Line radar
sites in the Inuvialuit region in the Western Artic, could the
Minister of National Defence provide: (a) a progress report
on the cleanup of the sites which are covered under a separate
co-operation agreement reached in February 1996; (b) the
accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup; (c) the source of
environmental contaminants which have contributed to any
environmental degradation; (d) the health hazards caused by the
environmental contamination; (e) the list of companies which
have received federal government contracts for cleanup, and for
what amounts; and (f) the structure of the process used to
award contracts?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
(a) A progress report on the cleanup of the sites that are
covered under a separate co-operation agreement reached in
February 1996: The cleanup of Tuktoyaktuk, BAR-3, and of Cape
Parry, PIN-M, is substantially complete. The cleanup of a fuel
farm and two landfills in the Tuktoyaktuk area is planned to
begin in 1999. The cleanup of Nicholson peninsula, BAR-4, started
in 1998 and will continue in 1999. The cleanup of Komakuk beach,
BAR-1, is planned to begin in 1999. The progress of cleanup in
the Inuvialuit settlement region has met the work start-up and
completion dates shown in the co-operation agreement.
(b) The accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup: The estimated
cost for the sites in the Inuvialuit settlement region is $73.4
million, a figure established in May 1997 which takes into
account escalation according to the economic model established by
the Department of National Defence, DND. The accumulated cost is
$24.3 million, actual expenditures April 1, 1996 when the
first site cleanup was started until September 30, 1998. The
latter expenditures include project overhead and administration.
They also include project management costs that are not part of
the contract values listed at (e). For example, some of the major
costs included in the accumulated cost total, and not in the
contract values, are the scientific delineation of contaminated
soil, engineering survey of upcoming sites and project
adminstration costs.
(c) The source of environmental contaminants which have
contributed to any environmental degradation: Scientific studies
between 1989 and 1994 showed that the environmental contaminants
at the sites were the result of waste disposal practices that
followed the standards of the day. PCBs and inorganic elements
such as copper, lead and zinc, are the contaminants of primary
concern in soils and surface waters. Copper, cadmium and zinc
have been generally confined to sewage outfalls and landfills.
Lead has been found in petroleum, oil, and lubricant spills. PCB,
although detectable in virtually every sample collected in the
vicinity of the sites, are present at elevated concentrations
primarily in outfalls and to a lesser degree in landfills and
stained areas near pallet lines, storage areas, and site
buildings. The source is transformer and hydraulic fluids.
Leachate waters, and soils near the base of some landfills,
contain detectable concentrations of contaminants, indicating
drainage from a more concentrated source within the landfills.
The remaining contamination appears to be restricted to isolated
spills within the area of station operations.
(d) The health hazards caused by the environmental
contamination: The cleanup strategy places special emphasis on
preventing the movement of chemical contaminants from sources at
the DEW Line sites into other parts of the Arctic ecosystem.
There are no immediate health risks. The cleanup is designed to
prevent migration of contaminants in to the arctic food chain and
is therefore more stringent than normal protocols in the south.
The work will prevent any potential chronic or long-term impact
on human health and the environment.
(e) The list of companies which have received federal
governement contracts for cleanup, and for what amounts:
Tuktoyaktuk, BAR-3, has been cleaned up by Inuvialuit Projects
Incorporated of Inuvik. The value of the contract is $2.8
million. Cape Parry, PIN-M, has been cleaned up by Inuvialuit
Projects Incorporated of Inuvik. The value of the contract is
$6.2 million. In 1998 the cleanup of Nicholson peninsula, BAR-4,
was awarded to Inuvialuit Projects Incorporated and the present
value of the contract is $9.5 million. The contract value of $2.8
million for cleanup of Tuktoyaktuk, BAR-3, and the contract value
of $6.2 for Cape Parry, PIN-M, have been spent. The contract
total of $9.5 million for cleanup of the Nicholson peninsula,
BAR-4, has not been completely spent as another year of cleanup
through 1999 remains.
(f) The structure of the process used to award contracts: All of
the contracts have been publicly tendered through MERX, formerly
the open bidding system. Economic provisions form part of the
co-operation agreement for the project and are included as part of
the contracts. Within the terms of the Inuvialuit final
agreement and the co-operation agreement for the project the
department will strive for openness, fairness and best value in
contracting.
Question No. 216—Mr. John Solomon:
With regard to Bill S-9, an act to amend the Canada-United
States Tax Convention Act, 1984, passed in the 35th Parliament,
how much has been paid for each of the last 11 years by the
government of Canada to those who have claimed: (a) retroactive
benefits for estate taxes paid in the United States; (b) tax
deductions for contributions to United States postsecondary
institutions; and (c) tax deductions to United States-based charitable
institutions?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): The Department of National Revenue does not record income
tax data in ways that would provide the information requested.
Foreign tax credits, tuition and charitable donation
non-refundable amounts claimed by clients are not segregated by
jurisdictions, educational institutions or specific charitable
organizations.
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Madam Speaker, I ask that the
remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA TRAVELLING EXHIBITIONS INDEMNIFICATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, an
act to establish an indemnification program for travelling
exhibitions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, as I was
saying prior to question period, museums are more than just an
historical account of a time and place within Canadian history.
Museums contribute enormously to our local economies.
According to Mr. Robert Janes, president and chief executive
officer of Glenbow Museum in Calgary, museums in Canada
contribute $1 billion annually to the gross domestic product
which includes 35,000 jobs, directly and indirectly, as well as
$650 million in labour income. These figures suggest that this
particular cultural industry is a very significant contributor to
Canada's economy.
The Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification act could be a
very effective tool in helping Canadian museums bring in more
attractive exhibitions enticing a greater participation from both
Canadian and foreign audiences.
Already, current statistics indicate over 55 million visitors a
year enter Canada's approximately 2,000 museums. This is a very
impressive number of visitors. The credit for this success
belongs to our dedicated museum staff along with the 50,000
volunteers who devote their time and energy toward helping
maintain an important element of Canadian history.
As I mentioned previously, the bill responds to a certain need
within our museum industry. However, much more needs to be done.
I am encouraged by this government initiative. I believe it is a
step in the right direction. I therefore support sending the
bill to committee for further review.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee
on Canadian Heritage.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I think that if you would seek it, you would find that the House
is prepared to call it 1.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House prepared
to call the clock as being 1.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 12.15 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1215
[English]
WORKPLACE SAFETY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Criminal Code or other
appropriate federal statutes should be amended in accordance with
Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's Public Inquiry
into the Westray disaster, specifically with the goal of ensuring
that corporate executives and directors are held properly
accountable for workplace safety.
He said: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester, my neighbouring member of parliament, for
his seconding of this motion.
Motion M-455 pertains particularly to one terrible moment in
time, almost seven years ago in the small community of Plymouth
in Pictou county, Nova Scotia when a terrible explosion ripped
through the Westray coal mine. I will reiterate the motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Criminal Code or other
appropriate federal statutes should be amended in accordance with
Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's Public Inquiry
into the Westray disaster, specifically with the goal of ensuring
that corporate executives and directors are held properly
accountable for workplace safety.
I would like to take a brief moment to thank the draggermen who
were involved very much in the marvellous and incredible efforts
that were made to attempt to locate the 26 men who lost their
lives underground that tragic day on May 9, 1992. Many of those
draggermen came from Cape Breton. Surely Cape Breton is a place
unlike any other in this country. It has had more than its share
of tragedy.
The overriding attempt behind this motion would be to remind
government and in fact all parliamentarians that we in this place
and in provincial legislatures throughout the country must do
everything in our power to ensure that there is a safe workplace
for those who are engaged in labour activity. I speak not only
of mines. I speak of fish plants. I speak of fishermen, of
course, fisherpersons on the water. I speak of any factory and
any situation where workers might find themselves encountering
danger.
The method to do this is through enactment of legislation. As
we are all aware, that is sometimes a very daunting prospect to
put somehow into law provisions that will encourage those in the
industry to abide by these legislative initiatives to ensure
safety.
I suggest quite strongly that knowing criminal sanctions or
other disciplinary acts of retribution exist is the most direct
way to ensure that those with the implicit responsibility for
ensuring safety will abide. This would lead to a higher level of
accountability among executives, CEOs and management in companies
that directly benefit from what might be phrased expediency over
safety in the workplace.
This motion is based upon a recommendation, historically for
reference purposes, that came from the Westray mine public
inquiry which was conducted by Mr. Justice Peter Richard, a very
prominent judge in the province of Nova Scotia. It was tabled in
1997 after a very lengthy public inquiry into the explosion at
the Westray mine in Plymouth, Nova Scotia.
It is also important to note that for a partial period of time
simultaneous to this public inquiry, a criminal prosecution was
proceeding through the courts at various levels and eventually
went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The prosecutors
in this case had a very difficult time presenting evidence. There
was much procedural interference, one might suggest, in terms of
the presentation of evidence to the courts.
I knew many of the prosecutors who were involved in that case.
Peter Rosinski, Herman Felderholf, Andrew MacDonald and others
worked extremely hard, very diligently to present the evidence on
behalf of the crown. Similarly, I acknowledge the work of the
defence counsel who, in fairness, were presenting evidence to the
contrary and certainly doing their very best to defend their
clients, as is their lot.
1220
However, one might suggest because of the interpretation of the
Criminal Code provisions, particularly those that refer to
criminal negligence and manslaughter, these are provisions of the
code that anyone having practised law will be quick to
acknowledge are sometimes very blurry in terms of the evidentiary
proof that is required to obtain a conviction.
I am not at all suggesting the Criminal Code provisions are the
only provisions that should be examined in the context of
improving these situations for workers in the workplace. However,
this is certainly the starting point and one would suggest it is
in keeping with the recommendations of Mr. Justice Richard.
Section 220 of the Criminal Code refers specifically to criminal
negligence causing death; similarly section 234 refers to
manslaughter. There may be the need as well to introduce
amendments to these sections that would broaden the scope of
culpability, or perhaps even go so far as to make specific
reference to executives, directors, persons in management
positions, persons who, one could draw the inference, are in a
position of trust when it comes to the supervision of a
workplace.
I brought this motion forward with the hope that the explosion
at the Westray mine in Plymouth will not be forgotten. I can
assure the House and Canadians generally that those in Pictou
county and in all of Nova Scotia certainly recall with horror
that period of time in May 1992 when this terrible tragedy
occurred.
More important I think at this time the recommendations of the
inquiry themselves should not be forgotten so that this tragedy
would not have been in vain. It is in the hope that we in this
place would learn lessons from what occurred at the Westray mine
and we might somehow go forward from this point in attempting to
prevent something like this from ever happening again. Surely
when it comes to the criminal law, in fact when it comes to the
passing of legislation, one of the first and foremost obligations
that should be in the minds of legislators is that of prevention
and that of improving the quality of life of those affected.
The devastation of that Mother's Day nearly seven years ago has
left a long and painful memory in the hearts and minds of miners
in the province of Nova Scotia. The explosion at the Westray coal
mine sent a very chilling message to persons. The message was
that haste and sometimes political expediency and sometimes the
pursuit of financial gain can often put persons in danger when it
comes to this type of enterprise.
The death of the 26 coal miners was so foreign and unexpected to
a peaceful community like Plymouth that from the very second that
those fathers, brothers and sons were taken away from their
families, people were left immediately thinking of ways that such
a tragedy could have been prevented.
I can only add to that the feelings the recent shooting in
Colorado conjured up for me and others, the harsh reality of how
quickly an entire community can be affected in such a way. I am
sure the people of Littleton, Colorado are feeling some of the
same emotions, although on a different level and certainly a
different level of criminal act. However, I would suggest the
immediacy and the sudden impact is similar to what was felt in
the community of Plymouth.
It alarms us all to no end that such tragedies can occur and
that no change results. The circumstances of the Westray mine
cannot be forgotten and the lessons learned. To take it one
extension further, the efforts made with respect to the tabling
of the Westray inquiry only to sit idle on a shelf and to not be
adopted or at least examined further, taken that one step further
by the Department of Labour, is again an abdication of a
responsibility that exists within the federal parliament. It is
painful and I would suggest puzzling to suggest that we will do
nothing further at this time.
Westray was the only operating underground coal mine in Pictou
county at the time of the explosion. Although Pictou county
itself has a long and rich tradition of coal mining, this Pictou
coalfield had been mined for nearly 200 years. The elements of
the disaster that rest in the nature of coal mining with thick
and gassy seams is something that Pictonians have become very
familiar with.
1225
The Foord seam itself, which was being mined by the Westray
corporation or Curragh Inc., has hosted at least eight mines.
The Allan shaft, the most productive and the one that lay just
northwest of the Westray workings, finally closed in the 1950s.
During its 40 year lifetime it experienced no less than eight
methane explosions which on many occasions it is suggested were
the result of unsafe working conditions.
There is a chilling foreshadow that existed in this community.
One would draw the conclusion that proper research conducted into
those dangerous conditions might in some way have entered into
the preventative efforts that should have been made. It is easy
to look back on it and to perhaps have 20/20 vision in hindsight.
I reiterate that the gist of this motion is to not let lie that
report to gather dust on some shelf somewhere in this precinct
when we can gain knowledge and insight into what hopefully could
be prevented in the future.
The fundamental and basic responsibilities for the safe
operation of an underground coal mine and indeed any industrial
undertaking rests very much with owners and managers. Westray
management, starting with the CEO, was required by law and
certainly by good business practices and good conscience to
design and operate a mine safely. Westray management after the
fact certainly came under attack for shirking that
responsibility.
The significance of that failure cannot be overstated or
mitigated. Simply because others were also abdicating their
responsibilities is not an answer. Shared responsibility can be
said to be implicit in the recommendations that came from Mr.
Justice Richard's report.
As in the criminal context, in the civil context as well we are
certainly aware that shared responsibility is something that can
be encompassed by the law. There was plenty of blame to go
around in the Westray report. That statement itself is
reflective of the findings of Mr. Justice Richard.
Not only in the mining industry but in any business venture,
corporate executives sometimes seem less interested in the merits
of workplace safety and simply in the pursuit of profit. This is
a very dangerous situation that can exist. We must be mindful of
this. This mindset itself is precisely what sets a dangerous
tone in a workplace where tragedies and the creation of unsafe
working conditions may exist.
Business executives and corporate executives should be prepared
to seek input from front line workers and allow them as employees
to be part of the management scheme to a degree when it comes to
safety. They should be relied upon to lend their knowledge to
create the maintenance of a safe work environment. That is
something that was also acknowledged in the report.
It is not a politically popular thing to say, but there was an
element of culpability and responsibility on the workers
themselves. This has to be taken into the entire context of what
should occur as far as legislative initiatives to ensure
accountability and responsibility is held by all.
Businesses must also ensure that they have sufficiently trained
employees in that area. This is where the top down and bottom up
approaches must be encompassed in any legislative initiative
aimed at workplace safety. I suggest and emphasize that
particularly when it comes to the operation of a traditionally
dangerous work environment where equipment, often heavy
equipment, is being utilized in the operation of that enterprise.
Businesses must also ensure that their employees are adequately
supervised and constantly updated on safe work practices. Part
and parcel of that of the companies, the executives and the
workers, there is also a strong need for bureaucratic
responsibility and bureaucratic supervision.
1230
Mine and labour safety standards were ignored, sadly, in the
case of Westray, or at least not adhered to to the extent they
should have been. Looking at this issue in the larger context
there must also be attachment of responsibility to government
officials who are negligent in the performance of their duties
that result in such horrific outcomes.
Sadly in the past we have all witnessed poorly trained
individuals on the job where proper training had perhaps not been
offered that sometimes resulted in injury or loss of life. Not
only is that practice bad for business but it has the
incalculable human consequence. It is also unsafe for people on
the job where they are operating equipment. They are not only
endangering themselves but also their fellow workers are at risk
if the person is not properly trained.
In the overall context, this goes right to the top and is
something that management has to be made aware of, constantly
reminded of. I look forward to hearing from the minister on this
point. There have been efforts made in the past but this is a
continuing process that will have to be revisited. We hope it
can be revisited or that this motion may in some small part help
in the impetus of looking for ways to legislate safety in the
workplace.
It is essential that companies take the time to train employees
so that additional risk is limited for employees and those around
them. Management must ensure that the employees have an
appreciation for any special dangers that may be inherent on a
job site.
In the case of the Westray coal mine, many tradespersons were
prone to perform unsafe tasks or take dangerous shortcuts in
their work, never once being told differently by management of
the huge potential that did exist in a mine as gassy and as
potentially explosive as the Foord seam. In many cases there was
no question that management may have been aware, or ought to have
been aware, that safe mining practices were not being performed
by the workers.
As stated in Mr. Justice Richard's report, there was a strong
indication that Westray management was aware that levels of
methane underground to which the coal miners were exposed were
very hazardous and potentially explosive. Under section 72 of the
Coal Mines Regulation Act such conditions mandated the withdrawal
of workers from affected areas, and that of course is what one
must presume prevented management from acting quickly.
It stands to reason that when weighing business goals versus
those of safety, sometimes businesses find themselves on the
horns of a dilemma. They have to make production deadlines.
They have to produce and shutting an operation down obviously has
huge financial consequences. That is where the human element and
the safe discretion must be exercised.
If we need to remind executives and management and CEOs of this
through legislation, I say we do it. It is implicit upon us that
we act. Far too often businesses, and indeed heads of
corporations, may be tempted by that financial gain and therefore
put the safety of workers second. That type of short term gain
could be for long term pain as we saw in the case of Westray. Of
course I speak of the injury or death that can result. It is a
very sad scenario.
Tough economic times that exist in the country put further
pressure on workers. That is why this is so timely. The
economic impact of having to shut down a corporation affects
everyone in the company. The employees, the management, the
board of directors, anyone associated with that business is going
to feel a negative impact if there has to be an operational
shutdown as a result of a potential breach of safety. But that is
the cost of doing business and we have to do everything to ensure
that those safe practices will be followed.
1235
Companies must ensure that to avoid practising hazardous or
illegal practices these acts cannot be condoned in any capacity.
In some instances they are acts of omission that can result in
the greatest harm as opposed to acts of commission. Companies, if
they have not already done so, should do everything within their
power to implement safe, ethical work practices.
Ethics such as this should be studied and followed everywhere in
places of employment, even in upper management. If this is not
the case, action must be taken to demonstrate the importance and
the seriousness of the issue. Business executives must promote
and nurture safe work ethics and have an open and approachable
attitude toward their employees. No one ever wants to feel the
effects we felt in Plymouth with the Westray mine.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion. I
appreciate the attention and the support this motion should
receive from all members of parliament.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would first like to say this.
I can certainly relate to the victims of Westray. My father and
my uncle once worked in mines in the United States. Fortunately,
they were never victims of a tragedy.
My father-in-law was a mineworker in Belgium and he survived the
two worst disasters—explosions—that ever struck Belgian mines. In
the early fifties, he was decorated by the Belgian government
for his acts of heroism. He had saved victims of explosion in
one mine. I am only too aware of what a tragedy this is.
The motion brought forward in the House deals with the safety of
Canadian workers. Since this government has always been
concerned with the safety and welfare of workers, I am happy, as
a government member, to have this opportunity to comment on the
motion.
First I want to tell the member who moved the motion that I
share his concerns about safety in the workplace. The Westray
tragedy, which the motion refers to, brought back to the
attention of Canadians the issue of occupational safety. This is
a very important issue that our government is taking very
seriously.
We are very much aware of the high costs of work accidents, in
terms of human suffering in particular, as well as financial
hardship, because of the substantial expenses incurred as a
result of accidents and occupational diseases.
Every year, many workers die in work related accidents and
thousands of others suffer from work related injuries and
sickness.
Every year, millions of workdays are lost. The human cost is
extremely high. The cost to the Canadian economy is about $10
billion a year. The human and economic costs are way too high
and something must be done soon.
[English]
I commend the member for bringing this issue before the House.
He has identified an issue that should be of concern to all
members. Although I do commend the member for raising his
concerns with respect to workplace safety, I want to look a
little more critically at the recommendations for legislative
change that the motion includes.
Motion No. 455 asks that the House amend appropriate federal
statutes, including the Criminal Code. These are far reaching
recommendations. I think it is appropriate that we look at them
more carefully.
[Translation]
First of all, while the Criminal Code is under the jurisdiction
of the federal government, which can amend it to make sure it
applies to the responsibility for occupational safety, the
provinces and territories consider that this type or amendment
would erode their right to legislate on occupational safety.
1240
We all know very well that the issue of federal and provincial
jurisdiction in many other areas of economic and social policy
is very delicate. We do not want to open up a whole new can of
worms. I certainly do not.
In other words, while the intent of the motion is very laudable,
the proposed changes could have constitutional implications,
which, though not intentional, could be very unfortunate.
Moreover, the Canada Labour Code already provides for
occupational safety and imposes fines and sanctions against
those who are convicted of an offence under the code.
[English]
As anyone who follows labour legislation in Canada knows,
legislation concerning occupational safety and health in the
federal jurisdiction is consolidated under the Canada Labour
Code. The code has jurisdiction over a broad range of industries
under federal jurisdiction, but only those which operate under
federal jurisdiction.
What are these industries? Typically these are businesses whose
operations are interprovincial or international in nature. Some
examples that I can cite are railways, highway transport,
telecommunications, pipelines, shipping, radio and TV
broadcasting, banks, and other areas which I will not name. In
addition the occupational safety and health provisions of the
code cover employees of the federal public service including
employees of some 40 crown corporations and agencies.
As we debate the motion, it is very important to look at where
we are starting from with respect to the Canada Labour Code and
specifically with respect to part II of that code.
Part II of the Canada Labour Code is the legislation that is
already in place to govern occupational health and safety in
federal works, undertakings and businesses. This legislation is
intended to prevent accidents and injuries arising out of, linked
with, or occurring in the course of employment which is subject
to federal jurisdiction.
The legislation is based on three fundamental rights for all
workers who come under federal jurisdiction. These fundamental
rights are: the right to know about known or foreseeable hazards
in the workplace; the right to participate in identifying and
resolving job related safety and health problems; and the right
to refuse dangerous work if the employee has reasonable cause to
believe that a situation constitutes a danger to himself, to
herself or to another employee.
This code also includes a set of occupational safety and health
regulations that prescribe standards and procedures for both
employers and employees to follow.
[Translation]
If these standards are not met, by virtue of part II of the
code, senior managers and directors of federally regulated
companies can be held responsible. If found guilty of a code
offence, senior managers and directors are liable on summary
conviction of a maximum fine of up to $100,000.
Under the code, an individual found guilty by way of indictment
is liable to a maximum fine of $1 million and a maximum prison
term of two years.
Next Wednesday, April 28, to mark the National Day of Mourning,
the Canadian flag will be flown at half mast on Parliament Hill
in memory of all those who where killed or injured at work.
1245
The purpose of this special day is to heighten our awareness of
our tremendous responsibilities regarding health and security in
the workplace. Moreover, the North American Occupational Safety
and Health Week, which will be held in May, will help raise
awareness of this issue among Canadians.
In Canada, partners of the annual awareness campaign include the
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety and the
Canadian Society of Safety Engineering, which co-operate with the
labour program.
[English]
In the federal jurisdiction we already have a set of standards
and sanctions in place which govern workplace safety issues and
hold corporate officers and directors liable for their actions in
case of negligence or wrongdoing.
However, it is fair to say we still have a problem in the case
of all those workers who are outside federal jurisdiction and who
therefore are not covered by the Canada Labour Code. It is this
question we must examine.
We must also examine the part of the motion which concerns
recommendation no. 73 that the province of Nova Scotia made
following the public enquiry. It requests—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the hon. member. Her time has expired.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
BILL C-78—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached
under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with
respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-78, an act to
establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend
the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces
Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation
Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act,
the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada
Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to
another act.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a
motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the
consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
WORKPLACE SAFETY
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Motion No. 455. The
potential exists in terms of corporate responsibility.
One of the most dramatic examples of negligence on the part of
corporate Canada was the 1992 Westray explosion which killed 26
miners. It was a disaster that did not need to happen, but it
did. My hon. colleague from the Conservative Party should be
commended for putting this motion forward.
Motion No. 455 deals with some very hard questions. It states
very clearly that corporate executives cannot hide behind their
titles when they engage in behaviour that has proven to be
negligent or harmful to the people working under them.
We must also ensure that Motion No. 455 is not used as a cudgel
to slam on the head of the executive world when it is not
negligent and not responsible. In other words, we cannot use it
as an action to make the corporate world responsible for things
when it is not.
We want to ensure that individuals, inside and outside corporate
Canada, are dealt with equally and fairly under the law.
Executives will not be able to hide behind their job titles in
the commission of their duties.
1250
We are also looking at a larger paradigm shift. We should look
at the issue of corporate responsibility and the opportunities
that exist. Historically, we have not examined the enormous
opportunities the corporate world has for social good.
Some companies have done an incredible job, such as Ben &
Jerry's in the United States. It is a great giver and has an
enormous amount of social concern and responsibility. Through
its company, it has managed to improve the health and welfare of
those people who are less privileged than most of us. There are
many examples of companies in Canada that have used their powers
as corporations to help individuals in our country.
Corporate Canada has two roles: to make a profit, which is
extremely important, and to provide jobs and such that makes our
country run. Profit is a good thing but a balance has to be
struck between making a profit and the cost that is sometimes
incurred by the behaviour of those companies.
We have not looked at the balance between making a profit and
ensuring that a company is ethical and is not engaging in
activities which could hurt the collective good and the people.
We must have a balance between making a profit and the actions of
the company and the costs.
Southwest Airlines in the United States is thriving and making a
huge profit, but it is also very socially responsible. It treats
its employees fairly and does an incredible social job within its
region. This company has managed to strike the balance between
profit making and corporate responsibility.
Rather than sacrificing profits, Southwest Airlines is one of
the healthiest airlines in the United States. It is healthy
because it managed to marry corporate responsibility with profit
and managed to ensure that its employees bought into this
exciting paradigm shift.
Profit sharing on the part of the employees and the owners is a
very good thing. It actually ensures that their employees will
derive benefits from their actions. This tends to make employees
work harder and more effectively, which would benefit the
company.
This change or paradigm shift in our thinking of corporate
responsibility does need to be applied just to the private
sector. It can be applied to government. Why not have public
service employees deriving financial benefits from doing their
jobs. If a department was able to meet or cut its budget then a
percentage of that could be shared by the employees of that
department. Right now we do not have that.
Today, when a government department sees it is going to have a
surplus at the end of the year, it tries to spend the surplus so
it will not have its budget cut in the next year. Why not give a
percentage of that savings to the people who have, through their
actions of wise spending and through their responsible actions as
employees, managed to save money for the taxpayer. The taxpayer
would still derive the benefit because their money would not have
been wasted. The people who made sure that they spent wisely
would also derive a financial benefit. It is a win-win
situation. It would also ensure that the public sector would be
working more effectively, which we would all applaud.
1255
The issue of corporate responsibility can also be applied to the
actions of corporations internationally. Actions by corporations
have destroyed environments and decimated social structures
abroad. We mentioned the issue of the Sydney tar ponds where
actions by companies clearly poisoned the surrounding
environment. We cannot allow this to happen.
Motion No. 455 brings up a very exciting point about making
those people who engage in that type of behaviour responsible.
It also provides a window for the other side of the coin which is
to use the private sector for the public good. The beauty of
Motion No. 455 is that it deals with both sides.
The explicit part of Motion No. 455 is a punitive one which must
be done and should be looked at least. We believe in studying
this to ensure that companies cannot compromise the health and
welfare of their employees and other people. Also there lies an
opportunity to do public good.
Some companies that work abroad work in very impoverished lands.
We must also consider those companies that work in impoverished
lands or in countries where a despot is abusing the people, such
as what occurred in Nigeria in the past. Canadian companies
working in those areas should have an obligation to invest part
of their profits into social programs for the people, basic
programs such as health and education. Companies must also
ensure that their employees are paid fairly, not on a Canadian
wage basis, but in terms of the country in which they are
operating.
That is a very powerful thing for the surrounding people in that
country. Canadian companies working abroad can be used as a
powerful tool for ensuring social stability and improving the
social structures within countries which in many cases are some
of the most impoverished lands in the world.
I have to wrap up so I will summarize by saying that Motion No.
455 has some excellent points. I commend the member from the
Conservative Party for putting it forward. We need to study this
to ensure that those in corporate Canada do not hide behind their
titles and abuse the people. The other side is to use this as a
window for corporate Canada to engage in public good not only
within our country but also abroad.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to take part in the first hour of debate on Motion
M-455, moved by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough,
which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Criminal Code or other
appropriate federal statutes should be amended in accordance
with Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's Public
Inquiry into the Westray disaster, specifically with the goal of
ensuring that corporate executives and directors are held
properly accountable for workplace safety.
Let us first look at the facts surrounding the Westray mine
tragedy and all the proceedings that led to the commission's
report.
On May 9, 1992, an explosion occurred at the Westray mine,
killing 26 workers. On May 15 of that same year, the Government
of Nova Scotia appointed Mr. Justice Peter Richard to head a
commission of inquiry established under the Public Inquiries
Act. Mr. Justice Richard was also appointed special investigator
under the Coal Mining Regulation Act.
The commission had a very broad mandate, so as to shed light on
the explosion and all the related circumstances. In fact, Nova
Scotia's premier at the time, Donald Cameron, was very clear
about that mandate:
[English]
Mr. Justice Richard's inquiry will not be limited to the events
of the early morning of May 9. Nothing and no person with any
light to shed on this tragedy will escape the scrutiny of this
inquiry.
[Translation]
The commission's work thus began immediately, to prepare for the
public hearings set to begin on October 19, 1992.
Curragh Resources Inc. and Westray's management challenged the
validity of the order in council establishing the commission of
inquiry, and this, as members can imagine, led to numerous legal
proceedings.
Because of these delays, the Richard report was tabled only five
years later, in November 1997.
1300
The report, entitled “The Westray Story: A Predictable Path to
Disaster”, contains 74 recommendations. It concluded in general
that this tragedy could have been avoided if minimal
occupational safety standards had been met.
As we know, the employers' obligations in terms of occupational
health and safety fall under provincial jurisdiction. So, before
determining if the employers were negligent or made a mistake,
it is important to find out what their obligations are pursuant
to the relevant legislation.
In Nova Scotia, mining is regulated by three pieces of
legislation, the Mineral Resources Act, the Occupational Health
and Safety Act and the Coal Mines Regulation Act. Mr. Justice
Richard reviewed all of these provincial acts and concluded that
their main purpose was to ensure the safety of the workers.
Unfortunately, we have seen many examples of occupational safety
in the workplace taking second place behind the bottom line,
especially in the mining industry, where the very nature of the
work involves a lot of risk. So, it is the duty of company
officers to ensure that the work is done in the safest possible
conditions. We need only think of the tragedy that occurred in
the 1980s at the Balmoral gold mine in Abiliti, killing eight
workers.
Frédéric Le Play, a 19th century French sociologist, wrote “The
most important thing that should come out of a mine is the miner
himself”. Mr. Justice Richard therefore concluded that Nova
Scotia should revise its legislation on occupational health and
safety in order to make coal mining safer.
Our main concern today is recommendation 73 of the report. It is
addressed to the federal government and deals with Criminal Code
amendments on the responsibility of directors for safety in the
workplace.
The commissioner made this recommendation because of the
criminal proceedings undertaken while Mr. Justice Richard's
public inquiry was underway. On April 20, 1993, the RCMP
announced that charges were being laid against Curragh Resources
Inc., as well as Gerald Phillips and Roger Parry, two members of
the mine's management. !gerald sur le net
They were charged with criminal negligence and homicide under
sections 220 and 222(5) of the Criminal Code.
Since the court found that those charges were too vague for the
accused to be able to put up an appropriate defence, other
charges were laid, based on infractions under provincial laws on
occupational safety.
This is why Mr. Justice Richard made recommendation 73. If we
are to understand clearly the meaning of the motion before the
House, we should first have a look at recommendation 73 of the
Westray mine public inquiry:
The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice,
should institute a study of the accountability of corporate
executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of
the corporation and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada
such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that
corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable
for workplace safety.
The current effectiveness of the provisions of the Criminal Code
dealing with the accountability of corporate executives with
regard to workplace safety is of concern to us. This is why we
believe this issue should be looked at from a general
perspective and not solely within the context of the Westray
mine.
In our view, criminal proceedings against Westray mine officers,
which have proved fruitless so far, were affected by the climate
created by the public enquiry. Therefore, the study should
ensure that the provisions of the Criminal Code complement the
provisions in the various provincial statutes dealing with
workplace safety.
We support the member's motion. An in-depth and thorough review
of the issue must take place before any legislative changes are
introduced. Recommendation 73 clearly proposes that a study take
place prior to making any such changes. We believe, and I hope
my colleague who is sponsoring this motion will agree with me,
it would be more appropriate for the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights to undertake this study.
1305
This is why I am proposing the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by adding after the word “amended”
the following: “, following a study by the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights,”
In our opinion this amendment clarifies the motion and is in
keeping with recommendation 73. With this amendment, the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would be charged
with carrying out the study referred to in recommendation 73 by
the commission of inquiry. We could then have clear reason to
amend the Criminal Code.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the amendment
is in order.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise today to address the motion of my
colleague from Nova Scotia, the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It is also my pleasure to
indicate that he will have, as he knows, my support on the
motion. He will have the support of our party as well.
His motion calls for the government to act upon recommendation
No. 73 of the public inquiry of the province of Nova Scotia into
the Westray disaster and to amend the Criminal Code accordingly.
It mirrors very much a bill that was introduced by the leader of
our party in relation to the Westray disaster in January 1999.
Our bill details the specific changes to the Criminal Code
required to address the concerns of corporate liability and
workplace safety as indicated in the Westray report.
I began by saying the hon. member knows he will have my support.
I come from the same province. I come from a coal mining
community. I remember well the Westray disaster because that day
I was not in Nova Scotia. My wife and I had taken some time and
were outside the province. When we called home and spoke to the
caregiver who was looking after our children we did not talk
about the weather. We did not talk a whole lot. The first thing
we were apprised of was the situation in Westray.
It is perhaps difficult for those who do not live in mining
communities to understand the impact of that news. Coming from
Cape Breton we knew that it would be our friends and colleagues
who would volunteer to go into those mines to find the bodies of
the 26 coal miners who were killed, and they did.
For those who live in communities where there are coal mines,
for those who live in industrial communities, it is difficult to
describe how ingrained and how we know that disaster lurks around
the corner. When a whistle blows, when there is the sound of an
explosion from the blast furnace, when we look at the changing
colour of the sky and the fishermen are out on the water, we know
that there will be disaster.
We live with that reality every day. The miners in Stellarton
live with that. The miners in Sydney mines and New Waterford
live with that and the fishermen live with that. It colours the
way we react.
There is some romance around that but it leads to certain harsh
realities. It leads to some good realities. It leads to the way
we share things. It leads to a sense of community. It leads to
a sense of humour that is mirrored in the works of our poets and
artists and in the songs of our musicians.
1310
We live with the frustrating knowledge that corporations which
exploit workers in areas of high unemployment in dangerous
settings literally get away with murder. It is that reality
which the motion and the New Democratic Party's bill seek to
address.
I say this having listened to the speaker on the government
side. I will not dwell on it, but one of the real concerns we
have as the government dismantles the Cape Breton Development
Corporation is that it will move to a private mine without a
union under provincial jurisdiction, without the protections we
now have, which were the very circumstances that led to the
disaster at Westray. I urge the government to bear that in mind.
There are ways to prevent this. One way is to accept the motion
and the New Democratic Party's bill. I will read from the
wording of Justice Richard in the Westray report:
The Westray Story is a complex mosaic of actions,
omissions, mistakes, incompetence, apathy, cynicism, stupidity,
neglect—Viewed in context, these seemingly isolated incidents
constitute a mindset or operating philosophy that appears to
favour expediency over intelligent planning and that trivializes
safety concerns. Indeed, management at Westray displayed a
certain disdain for safety and appeared to regard safety
conscious workers as the wimps in the organization. To its
discredit, the management at Westray, through either incompetence
or ignorance, lost sight of the basic tenet of coal mining that
safe mining is good business.
The tale that unfolds in the Westray report is a story of
incompetence, of mismanagement, of bureaucratic bungling, of
deceit, of ruthlessness, of cover-up, of apathy, of expediency
and of cynical indifference. It is a tragic story with the
inevitable moments of pathos and heroism. The Westray story
concerns an event that in all good common sense ought not to have
occurred. It did occur and that is our unfortunate legacy. It
is in fact our unfortunate tragedy.
There are ways to stop this. There are ways to stop criminal
murder by corporations of their workers. That is what our bill
will seek to address and that is what the motion seeks to
address. There are ways it can be done by amending the Criminal
Code.
In that report Justice Richard pointed out those ways. He
suggested that there be a new criminal offence that would impose
criminal liability on directors or others responsible for failing
to ensure their corporation maintains an appropriate standard of
occupational health and safety in the workplace, a criminal
offence of corporate killing.
Justice Richard said “in the context of Westray these deserve
consideration”. They deserve more than consideration; they
demand action. Recommendation No. 73 states that the Government
of Canada through the Department of Justice should institute a
study of the accountability of corporate executives and directors
for the wrongful or negligent acts of corporations and should
introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to
legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives
and directors are held accountable for workplace study.
The only disagreement I have with this is the call for more
study. We do not need more study. We need legislation. That is
why we intend to introduce a bill complementing the motion of my
colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough which will amend
the Criminal Code to make this law.
This is not the first time it has been raised. I quote from the
Law Reform Commission of Canada back in 1976 which stated:
“While the goals of many of our corporations, profit and growth,
spur important advances in the technologies of production and—”
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that the
time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business
has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the
order of precedence on the order paper.
The hon. member will have about three minutes left the next time
this is brought back to the House.
[Translation]
It being 1.15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.15 p.m.)