36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 217
CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 28, 1999
1400
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CITY MUSICAL THEATRE COMPANY
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1405
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH ENTREPRENEURSHIP
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JAM DES NEIGES
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FEDERATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1410
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORK ACCIDENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gérard Asselin |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHARLOTTETOWN ABBIES
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPERATION RESPOND
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIGHLY INDEBTED POOR COUNTRIES
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1415
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1420
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1435
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1440
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AMATEUR SPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1445
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1450
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OCCUPATIONAL ACCIDENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AMATEUR SPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1455
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS BILL
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1500
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Member for Provencher
|
1505
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Heritage
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
1510
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Heritage
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1515
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1530
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1535
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1620
(Division 390)
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-66. Report stage
|
1625
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6
|
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1700
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1705
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1710
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1725
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1730
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASSOCIATION'S ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-25. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1735
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEROIN PRESCRIPTION TRIALS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1740
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1755
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1830
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Defence
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1835
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1840
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1845
![V](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 217
![](/web/20061116194654im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 28, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Thunder
Bay—Atikokan.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is the National Day of Mourning and I would like
to remind my colleagues and Canadians everywhere of the role we
can play in preventing work related accidents and occupational
illnesses.
As a reminder of and in tribute to those who have lost their
lives, the Canadian flag will be flown at half-mast today on
Parliament Hill. The importance of protecting the health and
safety of all Canadian workers must never be forgotten,
especially given the recent tragedy that occurred at VIA Rail.
On behalf of the federal government I extend my deepest
sympathies to the victims and to the families of those injured
and killed in work related accidents. Together we can work to
prevent future tragedies through increased awareness of the need
for accident prevention measures. After all, occupational health
and safety is everybody's business.
* * *
ROYAL CITY MUSICAL THEATRE COMPANY
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Royal City Musical Theatre Company is
alive and well in my riding of New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.
Unlike the big production theatres, the Royal City Musical
Theatre Company is primarily made up of volunteer talent. The
theatre is celebrating its 10th anniversary with a lavish
production of Rogers and Hammerstein's classic The King and I.
My wife and I had the privilege to see this production. I can
say that it is visually stunning, with colourful costumes,
exquisite dancing and wonderful music with singing to match.
The spin-off to businesses that the Royal City Musical Theatre
Company brings to New Westminster is worthy of accolades, but it
is the quality and professionalism of the productions which have
earned this amateur group the respect of patrons from all over
British Columbia and the United States. It is estimated that
over 19,000 patrons will see The King and I this year in
New Westminster between now and May 2.
The theatre is certainly fit for a king and is testimony of what
a community can do without much government help. Congratulations
to director Ed Harrington, choreographer Dolores Kirkwood and
musical directors James Bryson and Lloyd Nicholson for giving
opportunity for Canadian talent and for New Westminster to shine.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta will serve as the
stage for the RCMP's 125th anniversary of its historical 1874
March West.
From May 8 to July 25 the RCMP, with hundreds of volunteers,
will re-enact their first crossing of the prairies by the
frontier police and celebrate the contribution to the settlement
of Canada.
This event will create the opportunity for citizens within the
prairies and beyond to travel together the beauty of Canada's
western landscape, thereby enhancing the RCMP's tradition.
The positive influence of the RCMP officers on the Canadian west
has truly extended to include the whole nation. By their
commitment to serve and protect they provide a symbol of pride
and security for all Canadians.
Indeed, this anniversary, which is not merely of the past nor
the present but of the future, deserves the jubilation of all
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the new guru of the Bloc Quebecois, Jacques Parizeau,
continues to discredit himself and to blow with the wind.
A few years ago, this wise economist swore only by a Quebec
currency. During the last referendum, he placed all his faith
in the Canadian dollar. Now, or the past two weeks, he has been
proclaiming his faith in the U.S. dollar. He said “When one has
set an objective one wants to attain, one pushes any obstacles
out of the way. I will become an advocate of the U.S. dollar
just as I was before of the Canadian dollar”.
Seeing the flip-flops he is capable of, I would recommend he join
the Cirque du Soleil.
This same man claims that Canada is becoming centralist and
refuses to allow Quebec to be part of Canadian delegations.
Nothing could be more incorrect, as the Minister of Canadian
Heritage has shown with her invitation to the Quebec Minister of
Culture to join in the Canadian delegation for the next meeting
in Mexico, and to speak there.
Once again, Mr. Parizeau has shown himself for what he is: a bad
prophet and a bad adviser.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian flag flies at half-mast on Parliament Hill
today as we observe a day of mourning for workers killed or
injured in the workplace.
According to the Canadian Labour Congress, nearly 1,000 workers
die each year because of their workplaces. Another million are
injured or acquire an occupational illness.
On this day of mourning I would like to pay tribute to all those
who attempt to build safer and healthier workplaces. In my
riding of Sault St. Marie, employers and employees of many
companies have recognized that by working together in the spirit
of co-operation and mutual responsibility they can help to
prevent workplace injury and deaths and that they can together
make healthier workplaces.
As we enter a new millennium let us renew our commitment to the
safety and health of Canadian workers.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today is the
anniversary of a vote in the House on hepatitis C.
We listened to the excuses of the health minister, excuses that
this would set a precedent, that it would break medicare and that
there were too many victims.
1405
Ontario, however, decided to compensate and now Quebec is moving
down that same road. Over 60% of the victims of hepatitis C in
this country will therefore receive some sort of compensation.
The Prime Minister says that everyone has forgotten about this
issue. I want to let him know that victims have not forgotten,
their families have not forgotten, the opposition has not
forgotten and Canadians have not forgotten. Hepatitis C lives
on.
* * *
YOUTH ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as chair of the Prime Minister's task force on youth
entrepreneurship, I have had the privilege in the past few months
of meeting some very creative and determined young Canadians.
They are entrepreneurs, they are techno-wizards, ice cream
makers, wedding planners, private detectives and animators. Some
of them were actually youth at risk who are now making positive
contributions to their country and to their communities.
They have come before our task force, not with their hands out
for cash, but with good suggestions on how we can encourage more
youth to join their ranks.
They are our future and I want the young entrepreneurs of Canada
to know how impressed we in the task force are with their
accomplishments. We know that members in this House will look
forward to our report to the Prime Minister this fall in
celebrating youth entrepreneurship in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
JAM DES NEIGES
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to announce that, to mark the arrival of the third millennium, a
scouting jamboree will be held from December 27, 1999 to January
5, 2000. The Jam des Neiges will bring together in the capital,
Quebec City, on the Plains of Abraham, 10,000 scouts, both boys
and girls, aged 14 to 18, from all over the world.
The scope of this winter camping event is a world first. We
will be paying tribute to the world scouting movement by hosting
young people from Europe, Africa, the United States, South
America, Canada and Quebec.
The Jam des Neiges will house participants in five huge
villages, each accommodating about 2,000. The scouts will be
involved in some one hundred different activities, games,
workshops, presentations, exhibits and exchanges.
Every day for 10 days, more than 45,000 meals will be served,
and nearly 15,000 participants and volunteers will visit
museums, movie theaters, observatories, outdoor centres, ski
centres and other sports facilities.
The Jam des Neiges will be a unique event, and a major
challenge. Let us prepare to welcome it.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's economy continues to grow under the strong leadership of
the Liberal government.
Over half a million jobs have been created since December 1997.
Nine out of ten of these new jobs are full time. Over 140,000
jobs have been created for youth. More Canadians over 15 years
of age are now working than at any point in almost 10 years.
Short term and long term interest rates remain close to their
historic lows. Inflation remains near its lowest rate in three
decades. Also the unemployment rate has fallen to 7.8%, its
lowest rate since June 1990.
Continued fiscal responsibility by this government and its
Minister of Finance will mean one thing: Canada will continue to
be an economic powerhouse.
* * *
NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, April
28 has been designated as the national day of mourning to
recognize workers who have been injured on the job and to honour
those who have lost their lives in work related accidents.
The importance of this day becomes clear when we learn that on
average three workers are killed every day and hundreds of
Canadians are injured on the job each year.
Despite new age technologies and an abundance of safety first
warnings, there was a 50% increase in fatalities in the federal
jurisdiction in 1997.
As we approach the new century, new challenges will arise and
new diseases and workplace illnesses will emerge.
The unprecedented rise in workplace violence requires special
vigilance. We cannot ignore the sufferings of our colleagues and
we must learn to recognize the danger signals.
Let us use this national day of mourning as a wake-up call to
identify and eliminate potential hazards. Workers help to make
this country productive and we have a responsibility to ensure
that workplace health and safety are a priority.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN FEDERATION
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again the future of the federation will be the focus of
major debate in the coming months.
My message will be a positive one. I want simply to mention
that Canada includes all Canadians in a land whose wealth and
resources we share in order to ensure an ever better quality of
life for the present generation and for future ones.
1410
In short, the Canadian federation offers Quebec every
opportunity to occupy its rightful place. We must hope that
governments will work in a spirit of co-operation to enable
Quebeckers to enjoy all Canada has to offer. Long live Canada.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on behalf of my party in respect of working people in
Canada and around the world to mark the international day of
mourning for workers who have been killed at work or suffered
work related accidents and illnesses.
Over one million work related deaths occur annually, while
hundreds of millions of workers suffer from workplace accidents
and occupational exposure to hazardous substances worldwide.
In Canada, a thousand workers are killed on the job annually and
close to one million will suffer some form of injury or illness.
Many members of our federal public service still remain without
even basic workplace health and safety protection.
On this national day of mourning, the NDP joins with workers and
their families nationwide in urging the government and members of
the House to stand up for working people and put an end to
workplace tragedies.
* * *
[Translation]
WORK ACCIDENTS
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this
national day of mourning for people who have been killed or hurt
at work, the Bloc Quebecois would like to point to the amount of
progress that has been made in recent decades in work accident
prevention and victim compensation.
However, accidents of varying degrees of seriousness continue to
occur often. These accidents are always dramatic.
The measures and actions taken to prevent such accidents must be
strengthened. In this regard, the wind of deregulation blowing
across the world, including Canada, should give us cause for
concern.
As regards financial compensation to accident victims, we regret
that the federal government has yet to adopt a fairer universal
system, like the one adopted by Quebec a long time ago. An
effective prevention policy and a fair compensation system are
the solution for the future.
To the families that have lost one of their members and to
workers who have been in an accident and their families, we
offer our sympathies.
* * *
[English]
CHARLOTTETOWN ABBIES
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to congratulate the Charlottetown Abbies on their
recent victory at the Fred Page Cup in Charlottetown.
As a result of their victory at the Fred Page Cup, the Abbies
earned the right to represent eastern Canada at next week's Royal
Bank Junior A hockey championship in Yorkton, Saskatchewan. The
Charlottetown Abbies eliminated the Hawkesbury Hawkes 2-0 last
Sunday before a crowd that packed the Charlottetown Civic Centre.
A first period goal by Randy Taylor, a third period goal by Ryan
Maxwell and the shutout goaltending of Mark Cairns propelled the
Abbies to their first ever Fred Page Cup victory.
This marks the first time that the Charlottetown Abbies have won
a chance to go to the Royal Bank Cup. It is the culmination of
years of hard work and determination, and a coaching staff that
is second to none.
I was reminded how thrilling Junior A hockey can be and it is a
great honour to have a championship Junior A team within my
riding.
I congratulate all members of this organization on their fine
job and wish them the best of luck in Yorkton, Saskatchewan.
* * *
OPERATION RESPOND
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the transport minister stated that of the 27 million shipments of
hazardous goods travelling through Canada annually, less than 1%
is a problem. That would mean that approximately 270,000
shipments are dangerous to Canadians.
Firefighters who saw MPs on the Hill this week, who visited me
yesterday, stated that to implement Operation Respond across
Canada, the cost would only be $236,000. I believe that the
lives of our firefighters are well worth that cost. These brave
men and women need to have information before going into
situations that can jeopardize their lives, as well as the lives
of other Canadians.
Operation Respond will get that information to them quicker and,
in conjunction with CANUTEC, will give our firefighters the
necessary data to do their jobs.
We know through results in the United States that the system
works well. I ask the minister to give these brave people the
tools they need to survive and to do their jobs.
* * *
HIGHLY INDEBTED POOR COUNTRIES
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
poorest countries in the world are being made poorer because they
are increasingly having difficulty servicing their debts owed to
developed countries such as Canada.
I was pleased to take part in the 101st conference of the
Interparliamentary Union in Brussels. It dealt with this very
point. The most highly indebted poor countries, or HIPCs as they
are known, are increasingly redirecting their expenditures away
from their own domestic populations in areas of health care and
education in order to service their debts.
Canada put forward a resolution requesting that debtor and
creditor nations quickly convene a meeting to work out an
accountability framework which would see an enhanced acceleration
of the forgiveness of these debts.
1415
The gap between rich and poor nations is greater than ever
before. Citizens of the richest countries, the top 20%, consume
86% of the world's goods. The poorest 20% consume a mere 1.3%.
The ability of these nations to lift themselves out of poverty is
being choked off by massive debt.
Early action on this recommendation is required to—
The Speaker: Order, please.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, one year ago today the Prime Minister crushed the hopes
of thousands of hepatitis C victims. He did this by forcing his
members to vote against a motion calling for compensation for all
victims of the tainted blood scandal.
It has been one year. What does the Prime Minister have to say
to the families of the 800 hepatitis C victims who have died
during the year without any financial help?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the court will shortly have before it for approval an agreement
reached by representatives of those with hepatitis C and the
governments, all governments, which will provide payments to
those persons over many years to come.
In addition, of course, last September I proposed to my
provincial colleagues that the Government of Canada share half
the costs of medical expenses beyond what are provided by
insurance over the lifetime of those with hepatitis C.
The government has responded in a way that is important. We
have offered care to those who are ill.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after that vote a year ago the Prime Minister fell back
on the two tier approach to caring for hepatitis C victims.
He promised financial compensation for those who got sick from
tainted blood between 1986 and 1991, and he ruled out
compensation for anyone outside those years.
Why has the Prime Minister broken even his limited promise and
failed to pay out a single cent in compensation to any hepatitis
C victim?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
those who will receive payments will receive payments over their
lifetime if the court approves the agreement, depending on their
level of sickness, which is exactly what they should receive.
The cornerstone of our approach to this tragic and difficult
issue has been to respond to the medical needs of those who were
infected, to make sure that everybody infected by hepatitis C as
a result of the blood system will have access to the medical
services and the care they need without making payments from
their own pocket.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we do not want to hear from the government's lawyer on
this case. We want to hear from the Prime Minister.
Over the last year the Ontario government set up a program and
started compensating victims of hepatitis C. The Government of
Quebec is contemplating the same thing.
How much longer will victims of hepatitis C have to wait before
the government calls off the bureaucrats, calls off the lawyers,
and does something to compensate these hepatitis C victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is an example of why our caring approach is far better than
the political approach taken in Ontario.
Ontario offers $10,000 per person once in their lifetime. Ten
thousand dollars is the approximate cost, if they are not covered
by insurance, of one regimen of Interferon which the victims
sometimes take for their treatment.
We have offered to provide care for their lifetime, for their
whole lifetime. That is the approach Canadians want to see us
take.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, behind
closed doors here is the Prime Minister's response to the
hepatitis C anniversary. He told Liberal MPs that they should be
grateful to him for imposing the party line, because after one
year nobody remembers what is going on.
Joey Haché remembers what went on. The victims of hepatitis C
whom I met in Montreal on Monday know what is going on.
Why does the Prime Minister not just admit that he hopes
everybody will forget what happened one year ago on hepatitis C?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let us put aside the political approach to these victims and let
us look at the care that those who are sick really need. Let us
focus on the medical care and attention those who are ill will
need. That has been our focus.
1420
We have offered the provinces a way to ensure for all the years
of their lives that those who were infected with hepatitis C can
have access to medical services and care without paying from
their pockets. That is the humane approach to this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
is proud of having denied compensation to all the victims of
hepatitis C. He boasts that, after a year, no one remembers
this tragedy. The victims and their families remember.
Canadians remember. And we remember.
Is the Prime Minister proud that 800 victims have died,
abandoned by his government? Is he proud of that?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Yes, Mr.
Speaker. The point is that if those who are infected with
hepatitis C need care they ought not pay out of their own pockets
for that care, for the cost of drugs that are not within
insurance or for nursing services that they may need as their
lives go on.
We have proposed to the provinces a way to pay these expenses so
those who are ill need not pay from their own pockets. We
believe that is the right approach to this issue.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after
36 days of air strikes, newspapers are carrying photographs of
mass graves on their front pages. Eight hundred thousand
Albanians are facing famine. Refugee camps are overflowing.
This conflict must end as soon as possible and perhaps the most
effective way of achieving that is to deprive Milosevic's war
machine of oil.
With Canada increasing the number of diplomatic missions, has
the Prime Minister been assured that all NATO countries are not
at present supplying oil in a roundabout way to Milosevic's regime?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that was the decision taken by government representatives in
Washington on the weekend. They decided to ensure that, while
the refineries are being bombed, oil is not shipped through
other provinces of Yugoslavia.
That was the decision taken and Canada intends to participate
fully in this embargo.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's position is clear and is to its credit.
However, we have learned that Texaco supplied 65,000 barrels of
oil on April 10, two weeks after air strikes began, at the very
time the refineries were being bombed and our planes were in the
area. Such an attitude is wrong and, to date, only Texaco has
said that it will not supply any more oil.
Is it not time the Prime Minister called President Clinton and
made sure that no American oil company supplies Milosevic's
regime? Unless he does, we are shooting ourselves in the foot
and endangering the lives of troops, in addition to completely
missing the boat.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the decision was taken by Canada, as well as by the U.S.
government. American companies have been accused of not
respecting the embargo. If this is true, it is deplorable,
because President Clinton gave an undertaking to the 18 other
heads of state present in Washington that the U.S. would fully
support the oil embargo.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in addition to the
diplomatic measures that must be intensified, one way to put a
quick stop to the conflict is to paralyze the Serb war machine
by depriving it of oil. Without oil, even the best tank is
worthless. It is easy to understand.
In its diplomatic efforts, has the government taken steps with
the leaders in Montenegro to discuss ways of cutting supplies to
Serbia without paralyzing Montenegro?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the way to go about it is to not let oil into Montenegro. It is
part of Yugoslavia, not a foreign country. It is a province of
Yugoslavia.
I hope we will take steps to prevent oil from entering through
Montenegro. One way to do so would be to cut the roads or the
railroads that might be used to carry oil from Montenegro to
Serbia. I think this is part of future military plans.
1425
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime
Minister of Montenegro has said he has oil reserves to last two
months approximately and that he would fight to defend them,
should Belgrade try to get around a blockade by raiding
Montenegro's oil supply.
As NATO made a commitment on the weekend to protect all the
countries around Yugoslavia in the event of Serb aggression,
what has the Prime Minister to say to the Government of
Montenegro, which is saying it is prepared to take up arms
against Milosevic to protect its oil reserves?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the Deputy Prime Minister of Montenegro said that, so much
the better. However, Serbian soldiers are in Montenegro. It is
a province of Yugoslavia.
So, it is preferable to prevent oil from entering Montenegro
than to send it back there. Part of the population in this
province is Serb, as is the army.
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the
respected Russian envoy, Viktor Chernomyrdin, said “Ending or
even temporarily suspending NATO's missile and bomb strikes would
open up a good chance of settlement”.
Will the Prime Minister urge our foreign minister to take this
proposal in the context of a mutual ceasefire to Moscow, to NATO,
to clear the way for negotiations for peace talks and for an end
to the human and environmental tragedy of the war in Kosovo?
Will he put that on the table now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very clear the position of NATO is that if Mr.
Milosevic withdraws his troops we will immediately stop the
bombing.
We have clearly put the condition that if he stops and takes
away his troops, we will be able to move with peacekeepers to
guarantee the freedoms that are needed for the people in Kosovo
and we will stop the bombing.
It is up to Milosevic to take away his troops who are doing the
cleansing and the murdering and all the atrocities that we still
hear about every day. Some new ones were reported today. If he
wants to stop the bombing it is very easy. If he takes his
troops back to Belgrade then we will stop bombing.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday Canadian General Henault said that the 800 Canadian
troops in Kosovo will do “whatever NATO supreme command
identifies as the mission”.
Will the Prime Minister now tell Canadians why our forces may be
sent into combat duty in Kosovo when U.S. General Wesley Clark
wants them but why the House will not be allowed to vote on this
life and death issue affecting Canadian men and women in the
armed forces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very clear that they are going there to be
peacekeepers. In the meantime they will be helping with the
tragedies that are occurring on a daily basis in Macedonia and in
Albania. They are there for that.
If ever the mission were to be changed I said that we would come
back to the House of Commons.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, a
government is about leadership and yesterday the Liberal
government showed its lack of it by refusing to answer my
question about passing an order in council to provide the proper
benefits for our brave soldiers serving in the Balkans.
Canadians want to know if the minister of defence and his
government will show true leadership and pass the necessary order
in council to provide pay and veterans benefits to our troops
serving in the Balkans.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we will certainly
provide the appropriate pay and benefits.
In fact the area was declared back in 1992 to be a special duty
area. That included all parts of what were then Yugoslavia,
including the area where our troops would be deployed for
peacekeeping purposes and where they will be stationed in
Macedonia. That clearly covers them.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, as I
stated yesterday in the House, we checked with the legal counsel
of the House of Commons and they stated it does not cover them.
My question is about leadership. The minister of defence and
his advisers know that they do not have these benefits secured
for our troops.
1430
Once again I am going to ask him: Will the government show
leadership and pass the appropriate order in council and make it
retroactive to ensure benefits for our brave soldiers in the
Balkans?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, we believe we
have it covered. However, because of the hon. member's concern,
I am having the matter double checked with our lawyers to make
sure that in fact we are covering all of our troops. I think
that is one thing we would agreed on. We want to make sure that
we treat them in the proper way.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
NATO sends in ground forces to Kosovo our troops will likely be
asked to help. Unfortunately our equipment is limited to
peacekeeping roles only.
The auditor general has pointed out that the new Coyote
reconnaissance vehicles are not able to take enemy fire. I was
in a Coyote last week and they still have the old VHF radios.
That makes them sitting ducks.
Why will the Prime Minister not just admit that our troops do
not have the equipment they need to engage in a ground war?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they are being authorized to go for a
peacekeeping mission and they are being deployed for that
purpose. They are combat capable. That is part of their general
training. The equipment they are taking is among the best. The
Coyote has in fact state of the art surveillance capability. It
is well protected and has all of the things needed. I think the
hon. member must have outdated information.
In fact, all of the vehicles, the Coyotes, the Bisons and the
Griffons, that are going are all less than nine years of age,
each one of them.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general takes some exception to the minister, and I
know who I would believe in a pinch.
The auditor general has also made comments about the Griffon
helicopters. They have a limited reconnaissance capability. Both
the Coyotes and the Griffons are only suited for peacekeeping
roles. It is one thing for the minister to say it is only going
to be peacekeeping, but once they are on the ground there and if
it heats up, I think the minister knows that they may be in for a
bigger battle than they expect.
Can the Prime Minister guarantee—hello—that our troops and
equipment will not be sent into the ground war, yes or no?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member needs a big
wake-up call because she does not understand the fact that we are
ensuring that our people have the proper equipment they need to
do the job.
The Griffon is a very good utility helicopter. It has proven
its benefit in Haiti. It has proven its benefit in Honduras
during hurricane Mitch. It proved its benefit during the ice
storm here. It does a very effective job. All of the equipment
that is going with these people is among the best. It is totally
interoperable with our allies.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government has established a shared-cost program with the
provinces for the victims of tainted blood. But, when it comes
to the cost to the provinces of looking after all victims, the
Minister of Health would have us believe that the special $300
million contribution is not a new shared-cost program.
Why is the federal government using semantics to deny Quebec its
fair share of this new shared-cost program, as it promised to do
in the 1996 throne speech?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government's position is very clear. Eight or nine
months ago, we offered $300 million in order to share with the
provinces the cost of medical services required by those who
were infected.
I hope that Quebec will accept this offer. Quebec's health
minister, Ms. Marois, has not yet replied to my letter. I
therefore have my own question for the hon. member: Will Quebec
accept our offer?
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the last
budget was brought down, the federal government's contributions
to social assistance, education and health programs have no
longer been based on the number of recipients, but on the
demographic weight of the provinces. In the case of hepatitis C,
however, the federal government is reverting to the number of
recipients.
Why is this government using demographic weight in its
calculations only when it suits it, when this penalizes victims
in Quebec?
1435
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
position is very simple. We want to help victims. To that end,
we have offered money. Will Quebec accept our offer, yes or no?
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
hockey clubs, high tech companies, small businesses and families
are now calling for across the board tax relief. The line of
people is getting longer and much louder.
Yesterday the president of Canada's largest high tech company,
Nortel, said his company is ready to pull up stakes and move to
the United States unless the government gets real and starts to
lower income taxes.
How much more evidence does the government need? How many more
reports does it need? How many more jobs must be lost? How many
more hockey clubs have to threaten to pull out before the
government gets real and starts to cut taxes?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in every one of
our six budgets we have recognized the need to bring down taxes.
We have done so. We started, even when we were in deficit,
bringing down taxes for the voluntary sector, for working
families and for Canadians with disabilities.
In the last two budgets we have introduced $16.5 billion in tax
cuts over the next three years. This is our commitment to tax
cuts.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
will be two minutes for roughing the taxpayer and a five minute
major for high taxing.
The fact is that for six years the government promises and tells
us how concerned it is about taxes. For six years all these
people I have just mentioned have been waiting patiently. They
are tired of waiting.
Can the minister not understand that tax relief delayed is tax
relief denied?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government
has and is committed in the future to bringing down personal
income taxes but in a way that does not rip apart the fabric of
this country. If personal income taxes were the sole determinant
of where a business sets up, the Cayman Islands would be the
industrial mecca of the world.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 50,000 students
will not be getting $3,000 scholarships because that money will
be going instead to the creation of a new federal bureaucracy,
which will duplicate what is already in place for administering
student loans and bursaries.
Since Quebec has already agreed to having the maple leaf on all
the cheques, why is the Minister of Human Resources Development
stubbornly insisting on creating another costly structure which
will not give students anything more?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the Bloc
Quebecois getting stirred up about the duplication that exists
between the two levels of government. I see this as just one
more criticism of the Government of Quebec, which is putting up
embassies here and there all over the world, choosing to open
still more of them while international affairs are doing just
fine.
There is much that could be said of this, but I can tell members
one thing, we have—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois
takes it for granted that there will not be any agreement with
the Government of Quebec, since he refers to duplication.
Yet I can assure hon. members that the National Assembly has
unanimously passed a resolution, which would avoid any
duplication, and that the foundation is perfectly capable of
coming to an agreement with the Government of Quebec on this.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it takes some
nerve to give us such an answer, at a time when there are Quebec
students here in Ottawa.
It would be so simple for the federal government to pay Quebec
its fair share of the funds, so that the scholarships could be
distributed through the existing structures. The bureaucratic
costs would be lessened and, as well, the money would end up
going to the students.
If the minister really wants to help students, let him give us
one good reason for being as stubborn as he is right now.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we can avoid these
administrative costs. All that is needed is a workable
agreement. And all that this requires is for representatives of
the foundation and the Quebec ministry to sit down together and
ensure that what is arranged is in keeping with the National
Assembly resolution, which the Bloc Quebecois and the Government
of Quebec are in the process of denying. They are denying the
Quebec National Assembly itself.
1440
The proof that we have the good of students at heart is that we
have chosen to celebrate the millennium by putting $2.5 billion
on the table to help them.
* * *
[English]
PENSIONS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is rushing a bill through the House that will raid the
public service pension plan to the tune of $30 billion, and the
taxpayer will not see one penny of tax relief out of that $30
billion.
If the government is so comfortable with this record-breaking
pension rate, why the rush and why the closure? What is it
trying to hide as it rams the bill through this place?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a sufficient amount of time was taken to fully discuss this.
I would remind the official opposition members that they are the
ones who introduced dilatory discussion for the hours that they
had. Obviously they did not need all that time.
What is important is that we have a good bill that gives back to
taxpayers what is theirs.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government thinks four hours is too much. When we think that it
did not cancel GST and kept $20 billion of taxpayers' money, it
did—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for St.
Albert.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, the government only gave
us four hours of debate before it brought in closure. Let us
look at the record: $20 billion in GST that it did not give back
to taxpayers; $26 billion in employment insurance that it has
kept from the taxpayer; and now it will take $30 billion from the
employees.
What is the government trying to do? Why the rush? Will it
ensure that the employees have a say in what is happening to
their pension plan?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is the party that tried to delay needed legislation for six
months. Obviously we have to question whether its members have
the interests of the taxpayers at heart.
We have at heart the interests of the taxpayers. We are giving
the civil servants every benefit that is guaranteed in the act.
We want to give back to Canadian taxpayers the $30 billion that
is due to them.
* * *
[Translation]
AMATEUR SPORT
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in her
reaction to the report on sports in Canada, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage ruled out the essence of the specific measures
intended to support amateur sport. At the same time, the
Minister of Industry is preparing to come to the aid of
professional sport.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why it is his government's policy
not to invest a cent more in amateur sport, but to invest in
professional sport, when we all know that the athletes and the
team owners are millionaires for the most part?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's response
has not been tabled in the House yet. We hope to do so in about
twenty minutes. We therefore ask the member and other
colleagues to wait until the government has tabled its response.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian national highway system requires repairs and expansion.
Can the Minister of Transport tell Canadians what he is doing to
provide leadership for a national solution to this ongoing
problem?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that there seems to be
unanimous approval on both sides of the House for improving
Canada's highways. As I have said in answer to questions from
hon. members before, it is all a question of financing.
I am meeting with my provincial counterparts on May 14 to look
at these issues and to develop a national program. This is a
continuation of what we have done since 1991. We will also look
at the policy on tolls.
I would be very grateful for the continued support of members
both on this side and on the other side.
I should say that there was a successful conference hosted by my
colleague from London North Centre a couple of weeks ago that
highlighted the urgency of this problem.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
minister admitted in the House that aboriginal women do not enjoy
the same rights as all other Canadian women in this country. She
admitted that in the event of a marriage breakdown, aboriginal
women most often do not have access to the matrimonial home
She admitted that the Nisga'a treaty does nothing to redress
this. As a matter of fact it slams the door on Nisga'a women
ever having these rights.
1445
Why is the minister prepared to ratify this treaty when it slams
the door on Nisga'a women having the right to matrimonial
property as all other Canadian women enjoy?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact I said no such
thing. When it comes to matrimonial property in the Nisga'a
agreement, provincial laws will apply.
I note that a couple of days ago the hon. member was also
talking about the Nisga'a treaty and the issues regarding the
labour provisions and he had his facts wrong there.
I suggest before the hon. member asks any more questions about
the Nisga'a treaty that he do what I suggested a few days ago
which is to go and talk to his constituents, the Nisga'a people,
and find out what the treaty is really all about.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps if
the minister would talk to the grassroots Nisga'a people instead
of the chief, she would get the real story. Those people are
concerned about their rights. Those Nisga'a women are concerned
about their matrimonial rights. The minister by this agreement
is slamming the door on the possibility of their ever having
equal rights that all other Canadian women have.
I ask the minister again, why is she prepared to enter into an
agreement that is going to rob these Nisga'a women of their
rights that all other Canadian women enjoy?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me point out yet again
that the hon. member has his facts completely wrong. In the
treaty, provincial laws associated with matrimonial property will
apply.
When it comes to talking to grassroots Nisga'a, I have probably
been in Nisga'a lands more often than the hon. member and it is
his constituency. I suggest that maybe he meet with the chiefs
and with the Nisga'a people so he really understands why this
treaty is so very important.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, a year has passed since this government ignored its
legal and moral responsibility to compensate all victims of
hepatitis C. Still nothing for those who were arbitrarily left
out after a year. Not a penny of the limited $1.1 billion
compensation package has flowed. He cannot even get his meagre
$50 million community support program up and running.
Yesterday in the House the parliamentary secretary said that
these issues will be resolved in the tradition of moderate
compromise. Does the Liberal government not get it? It is
Liberal compromising that has caused this mess in the first
place. Will the Minister of Health stop compromising and start
living up—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in fact the Government of Canada has committed $1.3 billion to
those who are infected with hepatitis C: $800 million to settle
the class action lawsuits from the period 1986 to 1990; $300
million to ensure that those infected with hepatitis C have
access to medical services without paying out of their pocket;
$125 million to help Canada's blood regulation to prevent another
tragedy; $50 million for research; and $50 million for trace
back. The point is to provide for coverage for those who need
care.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, what the minister does not say is that none of that
money is flowing and there is no care for the people who need it.
For a year now we have heard these hollow words about care, not
cash. After a year we have no care and no cash.
Does the minister not realize that in the past year 200 victims
have died? Has he not read his own study showing that hepatitis
C victims are experiencing eight times the normal number of
health problems?
Will the Minister of Health finally acknowledge that his plan
has utterly failed to improve the lives of hepatitis C victims,
and bring forward a just and fair compensation package for all
those infected because of government—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the victims themselves have been at the table this last year
arguing for and working on an agreement that is soon going to go
before the courts for approval. Once agreed, the payments can
begin.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the government spent $1 billion to cancel a helicopter
deal. That was just the legal fees, no helicopters were built.
This is bizarre but the government just spent half a million
dollars to help produce a dumb blond joke book. It is
unbelievable. But it cannot find 50 cents to help those
hepatitis C victims outside that 1986 to 1990 package.
Why can the government not find money to help those innocent
victims? Let us see the Prime Minister answer that one.
1450
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member could not have been listening when I responded to the
member's question about the amounts we have committed to help
those who have been made ill with hepatitis C. We are committed
to providing the care they need in the future.
* * *
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on the front
page of this morning's Globe and Mail it is reported that
Canada and the U.S. are nearing an agreement on the magazine
dispute. According to the article, Canada is willing to allow
existing split-run magazines to operate while opening the door to
a limited number of new subscriptions. Canadian ownership
requirements are also being sacrificed in the deal.
Can the Prime Minister tell this House whether this article is
accurate and does he personally support such a settlement?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed.
The bill that has been approved by this House is under scrutiny
in the other place. It is proceeding at pace. There is no
agreement. We have said and continue to say that we are open to
suggestions, that we will respect the spirit of the bill this
House has approved. That is the way things stand now.
Discussions are continuing.
* * *
[Translation]
OCCUPATIONAL ACCIDENTS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
occupational accidents and disease in Canada continue to be a
very serious problem.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. In this day of
national mourning, what is the government doing to remember
people who have been killed or wounded at the workplace, and,
more importantly, to correct the situation?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
occupational accidents and disease continue to be a very serious
problem in Canada.
In 1997, accidents on the job resulted in over 817 deaths and
800,000 injuries. I am concerned by the number of accidents
occurring at Canadian workplaces and their harmful effects on
the families concerned.
In order to remedy the situation, I intend to table an
amendment, shortly, to the Canada Labour Code for which I seek
your support and that of all members of this House.
* * *
[English]
DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
good old Robert Hawryshok was sent all alone on a Greyhound bus
from Grand Cache prison in Alberta to be detained at Sumas
corrections centre in Abbotsford, British Columbia, and guess
what? Robert, who is considered a danger to the public, got off
the bus somewhere and went astray.
I ask the solicitor general to tell the House, when did it
become government policy to give a dangerous criminal a bus pass
to get from one prison to another?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these issues are handled by Correctional
Service Canada and it decided this was how this individual would
be transported.
* * *
[Translation]
AMATEUR SPORT
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
said that, even though federal funds are used to pay for
training trainers—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Longueuil.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that, even though
federal funds are used to pay for training trainers, the
government does not intend to meddle in the internal
administration of national teams.
Are we to understand that the government's official position on
the serious injustice done Danièle Sauvageau is simply to say
that it will not meddle, and to wash its hands of the whole
business?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before complaining about
unfairness and discrimination and making unsubstantiated
charges, the member would perhaps do better to get the facts.
Twice in the last seven years, the team was headed by Quebeckers.
Even team members supported the decision that was taken.
That having been said, I repeat that it is not up to the
government to select trainers. The government's role is to
create programs and ensure that they run properly, and that is
what we are doing.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
few moments ago the minister of Indian affairs told this House
that she understands the historical significance of the Nisga'a
treaty, but it will mean nothing unless the federal government
makes it clear that it is willing to live up to its commitment to
approve and ratify this agreement.
1455
I ask the minister, when will the legislation be brought
forward? There should be no stalling, no excuses and no delays.
The Nisga'a have waited far too long for justice. We want a
clear answer from the minister. When will the legislation come
to the House?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislation will come to
the House when we are ready.
I will reiterate the strong commitment the government has, and
it is a proven commitment to this treaty, to ensure that it is
passed into legislation in Canada.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
on Monday the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that public works
unfairly adjusted its bidding rules so that it could award an
$8.5 million software contract to U.S. based Microsoft over Corel
of Ottawa.
We already know the government does nothing to help Canadian
high tech companies keep Canadian graduates working in Canada,
but when will it stop its illegal bidding practices that
discriminate against Canadian companies in favour of American
ones?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the
judgment. My department, in co-operation with the justice
department, is analysing the judgment. Whenever we complete the
analysis we will make our decision known.
* * *
SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State
for Western Economic Diversification.
The Prime Minister's task force on the four western provinces
heard from a number of small businesses and business groups
during its recent meetings in Manitoba. These groups consistently
called for additional federal support for small and medium size
businesses.
Will the secretary of state tell the House what his department
is doing to meet the needs of small businesses across western
Canada?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development) (Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I was in Edmonton. On behalf of the
Government of Canada I had the honour of announcing $90 million
over five years in operational funds for 90 community futures
development corporations that cover virtually the whole of
western Canada.
These organizations are run by local volunteers. They work with
partners in assessing the community and economic development
needs of their communities. They provide a wide range of
services to the private sector, particularly the small
businesses. This is good—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
* * *
DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am not through yet. I have heard it all in my area: golf
courses in prisons and a first degree murderer bringing in a
horse to ride in prison. Now a man considered dangerous by
police who is doing five years for armed robbery got a bus ticket
from an Alberta prison with a request to go to another facility
unescorted.
I would like the solicitor general to tell the House that under
no circumstance will prison inmates receive unescorted bus passes
to go from one prison to another.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague really wanted an
answer on a specific issue, he would give me notice. The fact is
my hon. colleague just wants to put on a show with his question.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS BILL
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
flexibility of the new young offenders legislation is a myth.
In fact, under the legislation, Quebec's courts will have to
hand down sentences similar to those given adolescents elsewhere
in Canada for the same offence.
When will the Minister of Justice wake up and realize that
Quebec's approach is seriously threatened, particularly by the
principle of harmonized offences in the bill?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would
wake up and stop spreading these misrepresentations and half
truths.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1500
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon.
minister to withdraw the word misrepresentations.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw those words.
In fact, what I would do is call upon the hon. member and all
those wherever they live in the country who care about the
challenges of youth justice to understand that the proposed youth
justice legislation represents a balanced approach, understands
the diversity of approach in the country and will permit Quebec
to continue to deal with young offenders in the way it always
has.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Last summer Joey Haché travelled across the country collecting
over 35,000 signatures asking for fairness in compensation for
victims of hepatitis C. Joey Haché was with us today in Oral
Question Period and a lot of people who have hepatitis C are
watching what is happening here.
I want to give the Minister of Health an opportunity to speak
directly to Joey Haché and others who suffer from hepatitis C and
to tell them why they have not been fairly compensated with a
just compensation and why it has not been done over the last
several months.
The Speaker: The hon. minister will of course address
himself to the Chair.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I said earlier in Oral Question Period to anybody who is
listening, the government has acted on something that perhaps the
opposition does not recognize.
We acted on a principle. That principle was that those who are
ill deserve care, not cash but care. Those who became ill
because of the public blood system will get the care they need
for their whole lives if the provinces will accept our offer.
We have offered to share the costs for the whole of their lives
to make sure that any medical service they need, whether it is
drugs that are not covered by insurance or nursing care, is
provided without those people paying from their own pockets.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
MEMBER FOR PROVENCHER
The Speaker: Earlier this week one of our colleagues in
the House, the hon. member for Skeena, raised a question of
privilege wherein he alleged that another of our colleagues whom
he mentioned in his statement, the hon. member for Provencher,
evidently made a statement in the House and the information could
only have been forthcoming, as I understand the allegation, from
a meeting which was held in camera.
1505
We heard the hon. member's allegations to the House and I
decided that I would wait to hear from the hon. member for
Provencher himself on these allegations. The member for
Provencher is with us and I recognize the hon. member for
Provencher.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
April 22, 1999, in responding during question period to the hon.
member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, I made reference to
remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena at the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
In making this reference, without malice to the hon. member for
Skeena and completely unintentionally, I overlooked the fact that
the proceedings to which I referred were in fact in camera
proceedings. I now of course fully recognize that I absolutely
should not have made reference to such in camera proceedings. To
have done so was a serious error that should not have occurred
even in passionate debate during question period.
When the matter was brought to my attention by my House leader,
I resolved immediately to set the record straight and address the
matter on my first day back in the House. I have great personal
respect for the dignity of the House, its traditions, practices,
proceedings and, most of all, its members.
I therefore offer my apologies to the Chair, to members of the
House, to members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
and Northern Development and, most important, I offer my apology
to the hon. member for Skeena. Now, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully
submit this to your hands.
The Speaker: There are times in the House when we do
say things. The hon. member not only has made a withdrawal to
the House, to the hon. member for Skeena and to the members of
the committee, but he has also offered an apology which is even
one step beyond.
I accept, in the name of the House, this apology. This matter
is now closed.
* * *
[Translation]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour, pursuant to section
38 of the Access to Information Act, to lay upon the table a
special report of the information commissioner.
[English]
This report is permanently referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today
to table, in both official languages, the government's response
to the sixth report of the Committee on Canadian Heritage,
entitled “Sport in Canada: Leadership, Partnership and
Accountability; Everybody's Business”. The response will be
available on the Canadian Heritage and Sport Canada web sites.
I would like to congratulate all of the members of the
subcommittee who prepared this report. It will most certainly
advance the cause of sport in Canada.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to 11 petitions.
* * *
1510
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage presented on Thursday, December 3, 1998, be
concurred in.
It is important to note that there were some issues from the
particular report tabled in the House. One of the issues is
televised committees, which I want to address through this
discussion.
Hon. members will find that the people who were travelling on
this report need not have done so, had the particular committee
televised its proceedings. I do not believe the committee could
have televised its proceedings because the rules are such that
they do not permit it, and I will tell hon. members why.
We have gone through this issue in the House and we will
continue to go through it in the House until we find some way to
deal with it properly.
We had a report come from the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs, for instance, that dealt with televised
committees. I will read one of the recommendations of that
committee: “Members feel that it would now be appropriate to
extend the coverage of committee proceedings. To permanently
equip another room for broadcasting committees, however, is not
feasible or desirable at this time, both because of the cost
involved and the ongoing renovations on Parliament Hill”. This
issue was unanimous in that committee.
I guess what I want to talk a bit about is what exactly is wrong
with committees in the House of Commons. I have my colleagues
here going from—
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon.
member. I know that a general discussion on committees might be
of great interest, but the report that the hon. member is
debating is one on sport in Canada, and I know he will want to
bring his remarks within the tenor of the report.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I did and I am. I am
telling the House—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I tend to do that, I am
sorry.
I am trying to express to the House what is in this report on
sport in Canada. I am trying to express to the House what the
problems are with that report.
There are two problems with that report. One of the problems is
that members in the House have a great deal of difficulty
understanding why it is we go into a committee meeting, a report
comes into the House and it is not dealt with.
The other difficulty I am having with it is: Was it necessary
for the committee on sport in Canada to travel to Toronto when in
fact if it were televised it need not have made the trip?
Therefore, I am trying to express to the Chair how it is that we
do not have televised committees. If we had had televised
committees, we would not have had to travel to Toronto to talk
about sport.
1515
The difficulty the House is having on this side, and I know the
government has had this difficulty before, is that when members
of the House of Commons go to a committee, for instance the
committee on sport in Canada, they expect two things: first, to
have good debate on the issue, and second, that something will
happen on that issue when a report is tabled in the House. We do
not expect it to go into the dustbin of the House of Commons, and
that is what is happening. The report on sport in Canada has
gone to the bottom of the hockey bag, as my hon. colleague says.
This is much more serious than may be understood by the other
side. The problem in the House of Commons is relevance. We are
in the House today, and I see five members across the way—
The Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. House leader of
the official opposition is doing his best to remain in order, but
he knows it is quite contrary to the rules to refer to the
presence or absence of members of the House and I invite him to
refrain from that sort of comment.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. There are
six. I will not do that again.
We are talking about the relevance of members of parliament. We
on this side expect to attend committees, we expect work to get
done, we expect a report to be produced or legislation to be
returned to the House, and we expect something to be done with
it.
It is no different than issues like petitions. Most people in
this country understand that when a petition comes into the House
of Commons virtually nothing is done with it. We have time and
time again gone across the way and said “Listen, 100,000 people
the other day signed a petition”, but all they get back is one
letter. There is no action. We have to make changes.
The committee process is the same. We tried to make changes.
We tried, for instance, to get television coverage of committees.
That was one example and it could have been done at the
committee on sport in Canada, but it was not.
This is what we want. It includes this particular report I am
talking about. We want, as does the media, equal access to
committees; not to show members' faces, but there is more work
done in committees than all of the work done in the House of
Commons in a week.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: That is why we are not here.
Mr. Randy White: I hear that one member is finally
backing us up. It is too bad this would not come to a vote. We
could get her to vote for it. She is saying yes, and that is
where they are today.
The problem is, when members go to committees and get unanimous
consent on an issue, like this televised issue, they get
unanimous reports, they get all-party agreement, but it comes
into the House of Commons and it sits and gathers dust. That is
the problem.
How do we rectify it? There are several things we could do. We
could do what the media has asked. We could stand today to vote
for that. If we all agreed we could allow television cameras
into committees.
We had a discussion the other day at the committee on procedure
and House affairs. We were discussing leaked reports, when a
report had already been leaked on the leaked report.
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the House
leader again. I know that whatever discussions happened in the
procedure and House affairs committee would be of great interest
to all hon. members, however, I hope it has something to do with
the sports committee, which is, after all, the subject of this
report. I know he will want to draw us back to the report. I
steer him in that direction with all enthusiasm.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I am getting to that, but I
have to set the stage, lay the foundation, by explaining what is
wrong with the report on sport in Canada. What is wrong with the
report on sport in Canada, in part, is that the report on
televised committees has been ignored just as much as the report
on sport in Canada.
1520
What happens when the report is tabled in the House on sport in
Canada? Where does it go? Who implements it? What standing
order is changed? What legislation is changed? What is changed?
We discussed leaked reports in committee the other day. How do
we get that into the House of Commons so that it means something?
It is not brain surgery that we are talking about. The people
on this side of the House are frustrated that the House does not
work when it comes to committees. It does not work when it comes
to petitions. It does not work when grassroots Canadians want
some say in things.
My colleague from Fraser Valley and I spent about a month on one
report in the procedure and House affairs committee. It was on
televised committees. Nothing happened with the report and we
are frustrated by that.
I put this question to the government, to the one member who is
here. Where are these people when we want to talk to them? The
lights are out over there.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. House leader promised me a
few minutes ago that he would not do this again. I hope he will
refrain from referring to the absence of members of the House.
He knows it is against the rules. If we did this all the time
there would be constant battering and bickering back and forth,
and that does not lead to good debate. I know the hon. member
will want to control his urges in this regard and perhaps refrain
from that kind of reference.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, we could call quorum, but
we do not want to.
If the minister, who has now come in, is all ears, I am going to
repeat a couple of things for his information.
There are members of the House, including backbench members on
that side, who are very concerned about the output and the
genuine integrity of committees in terms of whether or not action
will be taken when a report is developed in committee. These
things are getting buried in the House of Commons.
We do not understand whether it is the cabinet saying “Nice
report, but it is not in our interests, so go away”, or whether
it is “That is busy work in a committee. You keep busy there,
but do not produce anything. Just stay there and we will ignore
it”. That is the concern. That is what this is all about.
I know that I have to get to sport. I am on sport, Mr. Speaker.
I am telling the government that this report means zero in the
House of Commons. It is going nowhere. I am trying to get
through to members over there that this cannot continue to occur.
I will give one example. There was a report developed on
televised committees on which all parties were in agreement. It
came into the House of Commons—
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I believe the hon. House leader of the opposition may
have mistaken the day of the week. I think he is debating the
motion that he moved yesterday, not the motion he moved today.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has been fearful that this
appears to be the tenor of the debate. I have done my best to
steer the hon. House leader for the opposition to sports and the
subject of the report by various means. I know he will want to
perhaps use as a for instance the sports report and talk about
that since that is the subject of the debate.
There is a motion for concurrence before us on that particular
report and I know he will want to address it.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I realize the members
across do not like the fact that I am trying to give relevance to
a problem in committees, but you have to be a bit more patient
with the issue. I cannot just stand here and talk about sport in
Canada, everybody's business, leadership, partnership and
accountability, without telling you what our frustration is.
This report hits the House of Commons floor and it collects dust
until the government leaves office. Nothing gets done. All of
those people who attended as witnesses from across the country on
sport in Canada, everybody's business, think that something is
going to get done and it is not. It is just a report. These
folks bury it.
Our concern is for this report, the report on televised
committees and the report on leaks in the House of Commons. All
of those are serious issues.
1525
The government seems to think that it is A-OK to keep our
members busy in committees and, when all of their productive work
is done, it can just shove it off, throw it in the garbage and
say “Let us carry on with something else”. It will write a
little press release if it is in its favour and that is it. It
is not going to work that way any more.
The Reform Party whip, my colleague from Fraser Valley, and I
are already looking at possibilities as to what we can do with
committees to make them relevant.
Had the government taken the initiative from one committee, and
one committee only, where there was unanimous consent on a report
and done something with it, we might not be here today. We are
getting darned sick and tired of busy work going on in the House
of Commons when Canadian people think there is something going
on. We are getting darned sick and tired of it going nowhere.
We are equally sick and tired of petitions coming into the House
of Commons with 100 to 300,000 names on them and going nowhere.
This might be a majority government that can pass legislation
through the House of Commons because it has more members who
stand to vote, but we want more than that. We want input. We
want input from grassroots Canadians to go somewhere and to be
meaningful, not to be buried in committees.
Why can members across the way not get it through their thick
skulls that there is more to democracy in Canada than the people
who sit across the way? Only 38% of the population wants them in
office and they think they can run the whole darned thing without
asking anybody for any input.
I can only say this, Mr. Speaker. You can count on this issue
coming up again. We are not going to let it go until we can get
some changes made across the way. Either this place gets more in
tune with democracy or there are going to be a lot of debates in
the House on the issue.
Which is it going to be? Is it going to be the cabinet running
everything, while backbenchers do as they are told? Is it going
to be the committees, which bring in witnesses from right across
the country and develop reports, which deal with these things, or
is the government going to shove them in the garbage like it
usually does? Which way is it going to be?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to commend my hon. colleague from
Langley—Abbotsford for his thoughtful remarks on sport in
Canada. This is an important issue to all Canadians. It really
brings to mind the question of the function of committees in this
parliament.
There was once a tradition in this place that committees, such
as the committee on sport in Canada, were considered to be
somewhat independent. They had the ability to operate with some
degree of independence from the executive, from the cabinet and
from the Prime Minister's office, which, as Professor Donald
Savoie recently pointed out in his book on Canadian governance,
really runs the entire cabinet as though it is just a focus
group.
If the cabinet is merely a focus group, then the committees
dominated by the government's majority are just pure optics and
have little or no relevance to the actual policy making function
of this parliament, as witnessed by this committee decision on
sport in Canada.
I would ask my hon. colleague why he thinks it is that
committees, such as the one on sport in Canada, have continued to
see their importance and independence diminished and marginalized
by a government that centralizes all power in the hands of the
cabinet and the Prime Minister.
1530
Does my colleague agree with the famous aphorism of Lord Acton
that power tends to corrupt and that absolute power tends to
corrupt absolutely?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, that was a good question
from my colleague. That is what we are dealing with today.
Some people might ask what televised committees has to do with
all of this. Televised committees is just a typical example,
such as the report on sport in Canada.
The power of the House rests with a few people on the front
benches. The backbenchers may think they have input, but we know
full well that is not the case. The backbenchers go to
committees and talk a great storm. They talk a great deal about
what things have to change. However, they know as well as we
know that once their discussions formulate into a report it comes
into the House of Commons, the minister looks at it and says “I
do not like this”, and it goes in the garbage and is gone.
Some of these committees work for five and six months on an issue,
like the committee on drunk driving. What is the government
going to do at the end of it? We have a suspicion that it is
going to table these reports and leave them there to die, like
the report on sport. That is what will happen to this
report, like the one on televised committees.
Speaking about televised committees, we want that report dealt
with. If it is a vote in the House and the government says no,
so be it, but we should not leave it in the dust pile. That is
what is wrong here.
In answer to my colleague's question, the problem is that this
is all about democracy. This is all about Canadians who come
into the House thinking they are going to have great input and
change the laws of our lands through reports. They go home
thinking that since they were at a committee things are surely
going to change.
We had Lee Ellen Carroll and Craig Oliver at a televised
committee. They thought something was going to change but it did
not. The only thing that happened was that the government House
leader came into a meeting that I was at and said that he would
make me a deal. I asked him what kind of deal he wanted to make.
He said he knew that the report on televised committees had a
whole lot of recommendations but that he did not like them. What
he wanted to do was make me an offer to set up another room.
When he did that we asked him why would he do it. The committee
met for six weeks and the first recommendation was not to do
that. It states:
To permanently equip another room for broadcasting committees,
however, is not feasible or desirable at this time—
We got that offer for several reasons. I doubt the government
House leader ever read the report. He did not attend any
committee meetings. He was probably told by a minister to have
somebody look at the report, even though he did not like it, and
then threw it in the garbage. That is where it sits today.
I can tell the House that there will be a lot of discussions
on this until we get some action on it. There will lots of
discussions on all other reports. There will be lots of votes
in the House of Commons on these issues until we get some
satisfaction. That is what is going to happen.
Either we get some satisfaction or the government will have to
live with a lot of discussion on the issue. What is it going to
be? Are we going to listen to Canadians or are we going to
listen to the cabinet over there? Instead of sitting on the
backbench, we should be speaking up for Canadians.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to ask the opposition House leader a
question pertaining to this report that has been tabled by the
Minister of Industry on the study of sport in Canada.
As many people know, the Liberal government has provided huge
tax breaks in this year's budget to millionaire hockey players.
For example, an average hockey player in the NHL makes about $1.8
million Canadian and the recent budget has given these
individuals a tax cut of over $13,000. The Reform Party has been
fighting for tax cuts for these individuals for a long time.
1535
The other point I would like to make is that this country has a
significant tax expenditure, that is, a tax supporting system at
the federal level for our professional sports franchises. For
example, a hockey box that a business would buy at a hockey arena
for the Ottawa Senators, the Montreal Canadians or the Toronto
Maple Leafs costs a business person about $100,000. He or she
gets to write that off against taxable income which costs the
taxpayers approximately $25,000 to $30,000 per box. This is not
for the whole arena but per box per year. We are looking at
literally tens of millions of dollars of tax supported sports
franchises currently.
Does the Reform Party continue to support those great tax breaks
for the wealthy? Does the hon. member intend to keep pushing for
additional tax breaks for the NHL franchise teams which are in
jeopardy in Canada right now?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good
question. I think virtually everyone in the country knows where
the Reform Party stands on taxes. Lower taxes are an absolute
must for everyone. A flatter tax would help.
We know that taxes of all kinds kill jobs. We have sons and
daughters today who are waking up to that. I have two myself. On
just got a job as a digital animator in Vancouver. He has had
the job for nine or ten months. He phoned me the other day and
said, “Dad, there is something wrong here. I make x
dollars and I am not getting much back in return”. I said,
“Welcome to the real world, son”. He had an offer from Seattle
for a job, making about the same amount of money with a tax rate
almost half of ours.
What is wrong in this country is that the tax rate is too high.
In particular, we need a flatter tax rate to address that
particular issue. What can we say? The taxes the Liberals have
put on this country since 1993 are oppressive. Young people are
hurting with the tax rates.
An hon. member: They are strangling our economy.
Mr. Randy White: That is right.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in debate on this most
important motion. I move:
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1620
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
Davies
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Earle
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Lill
|
Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 152
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Epp
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harris
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lowther
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 72
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Carroll
| Debien
| Duceppe
| Folco
|
Graham
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Loubier
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Normand
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Perron
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Speller
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-66, an act to
amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to
another act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
1625
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There are 37
motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report
stage of Bill C-66.
Motions Nos. 3, 26 and 37 are the same as amendments presented
and negatived in committee. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing
Order 76.1(5) they have not been selected.
The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
[Translation]
Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1, 2, and 4 to 6.
[English]
Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 7 to 10, 13 to 24, and 35.
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 11, 12, 25, 27 to 34, and 36.
[Translation]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table.
The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of
voting.
[English]
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-66, in Clause 3, be
amended by deleting lines 8 to 12 on page 4.
That Bill C-66, in Clause 3, be
amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 5 with the following:
“8. (1) The Corporation may insure housing loans.”
That Bill C-66, in Clause 3, be
amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 7 with the following:
That Bill C-66, in Clause 3, be
amended by replacing line 10 on page 7 with the following:
“18. (1) The Corporation may, subject to regulations made
under section 465 of the Insurance Companies Act which
regulations shall apply to the Corporation with such
modifications as are necessary, obtain reinsur-”
That Bill C-66, in Clause 3, be
amended by replacing lines 21 to 23 on page 7 with the following:
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to debate
various amendments to Bill C-66 this afternoon. At the end of
each of grouping will there be a vote, or will the votes be
deferred until all the groups have been heard by the House?
The Deputy Speaker: In accordance with the standing
orders all votes will be deferred at the end of each group until
all have been completed and then all the votes will be held
together.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address
the amendments in Group No. 1 and put a title upon the five
amendments that have been accepted by the House. These motions
come to grips with the role of the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation as a financial institution. What the bill does in
many ways is create a new crown corporation.
We all know that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is
actually a crown enterprise corporation, which makes it a little
different from other crown corporations. One of its mandates is
to be sure it makes money. In other words, it is not designed to
take money from the consolidated revenue of the Government of
Canada.
1630
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, through the
provisions made by Bill C-66, becomes actually a financial
intermediary in the financial marketplace. I ask why a crown
corporation should become a financial intermediary in the
financial marketplace. We have such institutions as the banks.
We have trust companies. We have credit unions. We have
insurance companies. We have various kinds of mortgage
companies. And here we have a crown corporation which is given
the powers under this legislation to borrow money, to lend money,
to insure mortgages and things of this sort.
This principle of whether the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation should in fact become an institution that intervenes
or that it become an intermediary in the financial marketplace is
a very real question. I submit that the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation was set up to perform a function, and that
was to make housing possible for Canadians.
Over the years the purpose of the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, which is there to bring into practice and to
implement the provisions of the National Housing Act, was to make
housing available to ordinary Canadians who would otherwise not
be able to afford to do so. Many, many people, and that includes
myself, were able to purchase their first house because of the
provisions of the National Housing Act. Millions of Canadians
have benefited from this.
The recent amendments that have come into place allowing people
to mortgage a house with only a 5% down payment has opened the
market tremendously to a large number of people. This is a very
commendable thing. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
insures the mortgages for the financial institutions.
We can debate for a long time whether in fact the financial
institution should be protected to the point where it does not
have to worry about the prudence of a particular mortgage. After
all, if the mortgage goes down, the bank will never suffer,
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will simply pay it off.
In one way it is actually a subsidy to the banks and allows them
to give money away without incurring any risk on their own.
While I have some difficulty with that, I also know that there
are some people who would never ever be able to buy a house
unless the mortgages they sign were supported and insured by
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I think that is a
wonderful move.
There are some provisions in this bill though that cause me
severe difficulty. One of these is the provision that dividends
are considered for the purposes of this act to be expenses for
the corporation. Any other corporation that pays dividends to its
shareholders is not allowed to consider them as expenses. They
are indeed a draw on the cash reserves of the company, but they
are not expenses. There are other expenses like the payment of
rent, utilities, salaries and things of this sort, but this bill
allows the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to somehow
consider dividends as an expense. I think that is fundamentally
wrong.
One of the amendments we are proposing is that these payments,
in this case the dividends, would be paid to none other than the
consolidated revenue fund, which is really the Government of
Canada. Since the Government of Canada is the sole shareholder
of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, it in fact is paid
these dividends. Those are not expenses. Those are clear
outright payments to the Government of Canada.
There are other provisions in this legislation that we have to
look at in some detail as well.
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is able to perform
its functions of a financial nature, insurance, reinsurance,
borrowing and issuing securities, outside the provisions of the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
One of the purposes behind this legislation, we were told, was
to make Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation a more commercial
enterprise. The suggestion was that it should compete on a more
or less fair and level playing field with other competitors in
that particular field.
There are three things that are complicated by the way in which
OSFI does not govern or does not in any way have any say about
what Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation does.
1635
The major competitor to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
is GE Capital which also insures mortgages. This company with
which CMHC competes must abide by the rules of the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
Here we have two companies, one a crown corporation and one a
private corporation, both performing a function and a service for
the people of Canada. The people of Canada can choose one or the
other. To that degree it is okay and everything is level, except
that the operation of the private company is under a different
set of regulations from those of Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation. It must have certain requirements in terms of
reserves and certain ways and places where it can invest money
that the Canada Mortgage and Housing does not have.
I ask is it fair and reasonable to expect an honest competitive
field to exist between the crown corporation on the one hand and
the private enterprise on the other? Both serve the public and
the public can choose which one they would work with in terms of
insuring their mortgage, but in fact one is at a clear
disadvantage to the other one. That is only one area.
The other area is the requirement by the financial institutions,
and I have to go back a little bit here. Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation has 100% backing of its full mortgage. If it
issues an insurance policy for a particular mortgage, it is
totally 100% guaranteed by the Government of Canada or by Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation. A financial institution runs
absolutely no risk. It will always be able to look to the public
treasury. If for some reason Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation should have difficulty, the consolidated revenue fund
is there to back up completely, 100 cents on the dollar, whatever
shortfall there might be by Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
Such is not the case with a private insurance company that also
insures mortgages. The government as well has an agreement here,
which is commendable, where it underwrites up to 90% of the
mortgages that are insured by an organization such as GE Capital
or any other company that would come on the scene.
That difference of 10% is a pretty significant factor in terms
of the particular financial institution that wishes to do
business with a company like GE Capital, for example. It now
puts GE Capital in the position of having to deposit additional
moneys with the financial institution, or the financial
institution has on its own right to commit a reserve against this
exposure.
I submit that one of the major purposes behind the amendments of
the bill is defeated by creating Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation into a new creature, a financial institution that
competes directly in the marketplace and as an intermediary in
the financial marketplace.
The amendments that have been proposed by myself in the name of
the Reform Party in fact come to grips with rectifying that
situation and making it a better piece of legislation. I humbly
submit that all members of the House support the amendments that
have been proposed.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to address the House and the issues raised by the
member for Kelowna concerning mortgage insurance in Bill C-66.
I would like to respond at the beginning by asserting that the
government is against Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 proposed by
the member opposite.
I would like to stress that Bill C-66 supports the Government of
Canada's efforts to make government more efficient and provide
better service to Canadians. The changes to the mortgage
insurance and guarantee legislation put forth by the member for
Kelowna would put at risk the benefits Canadian families gain
from CMHC's work in housing finance and threaten chances of
progress.
Through CMHC's mortgage insurance and mortgage backed securities
program, the Government of Canada has important levers to promote
housing affordability and choice, to ensure access to mortgage
funds as well as competition and efficiency in housing finance,
to protect the availability of adequate housing funding at low
cost, and to contribute to the well-being of the housing sector
in the national economy.
Mortgage loan insurance and mortgage backed securities have been
important public policy tools of the Government of Canada, tools
which have made it possible for millions of Canadians to realize
their dream of owning a home, and this at no cost to the
government.
1640
The hon. member for Kelowna would have us throw away the
benefits of bringing in more funds from the capital market by
limiting mortgage backed securities and proposes uses for
mortgage insurance that could stifle our country's ability to
improve the availability and affordability of housing.
The new section 3 of the National Housing Act clearly sets out
the mandate and limits of CMHC's functions in housing finance:
The purpose of this Act, in relation to financing for housing, is
to promote housing affordability and choice, to facilitate access
to, and competition and efficiency in the provision of, housing
finance, to protect the availability of adequate funding for
housing at low cost, and generally to contribute to the
well-being of the housing sector in the national economy.
How much clearer can one get? Why would this government give
CMHC the uninspired and limited means proposed by the member for
Kelowna when its mandate is much more compelling and much more
clear? Why would the House regulate CMHC's activities in the
same way it oversees privately owned financial institutions when
it can govern more directly with the input of Canadians?
The dream of owning a home is one shared by a great many
Canadians. Unfortunately, many are unable to buy a house despite
the fact they can afford monthly mortgage payments. The reason
for this is that many families find it hard to save the money
required for the down payment on a conventional loan.
Mortgage loan insurance has provided many Canadians with the
opportunity to own their own home. In some cases it allowed them
to buy sooner due to the lower down payment. In other cases it
opened the door for people who would have otherwise never been
able to buy a home.
I would like to give an idea of just how many Canadians depend
on mortgage loan insurance in order to fulfil their dream of
owning a home. In the past year CMHC has helped Canadians gain
access to over 300,000 homes with the use of mortgage loan
insurance, and this was done at no cost to the government.
The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that mortgage
insurance is available to homebuyers in all regions of Canada.
The proposed amendments would allow CMHC to operate its mortgage
insurance program on a more commercial basis. This will ensure
that CMHC is able to compete on an equal footing with any private
mortgage insurer. This means that all mortgage insurers, both
public and private, are subject to the same regulations.
By guaranteeing competition in this sector, we can ensure that
Canadians are able to have access to the best possible price and
a greater number of choices in home financing products. Besides
helping Canadians to become homeowners, CMHC mortgage insurance
has also been key to the health of the housing industry in
Canada. By fully protecting lenders against default on the part
of borrowers, mortgage insurance encourages investment in
residential construction. As a result, CMHC plays a central role
in creating numerous jobs in this key sector of our economy.
In recent years CMHC has been approached to support many
innovative products. With the new National Housing Act, CMHC
will be able to bring the benefits of some of these new types of
home financing products to the marketplace.
By simplifying the National Housing Act, CMHC would have the
flexibility to consider products such as insurance for a reverse
equity mortgage to enable older homeowners to use the equity in
their home to obtain funds while allowing them to continue to
live where they have lived for a long time.
CMHC would also be able to consider such ideas as non-mortgage
financing for remote areas where the land registry system does
not facilitate mortgages, or financing arrangements on Indian
reserves where restrictions exist on providing land as security
for mortgages.
Any new products to give Canadians increased opportunities for
housing choice and affordability would be developed after careful
consideration of their potential success in the marketplace.
The failure to remain competitive could reduce CMHC to a
residential insurer with riskier loans. This would jeopardize
mortgage insurance, self-financing and create the need for public
subsidies.
Passing this legislation would equip CMHC with the necessary
financing tools required to continue to provide Canadians with
the opportunity to own a house. Bill C-66 will also strengthen
CMHC's capacity to accomplish its goal of contributing to the
well-being of the housing sector and our nation's economy.
In summary, the new National Housing Act will improve the
service CMHC provides to Canadians and support the housing
industry. Why would the hon. member for Kelowna want to
jeopardize the viability of CMHC's mortgage loan insurance?
Mortgage loan insurance is a service that has made a difference
to over three million Canadian families since 1954.
With Bill C-66, we want to ensure that the benefits governments
provided to past generations will continue to be available to
Canada's future generations.
1645
Canadians across the country will benefit because of Bill C-66.
Consumers will benefit in the area of mortgage financing. The
housing industry will benefit through increased promotions of
Canadian products and services at home and abroad. Canadians in
general will benefit from new jobs created by the housing
industry and enhanced service from CMHC.
The mandate of the national housing act is clear: to promote
affordability and choice in housing while facilitating access to
financial sources and encouraging competition and efficiency in
this area. The legislation will ensure that this mandate will
continue to guide housing policy implementation and future policy
development.
Since its creation more than 50 years ago, CMHC has been
involved in every aspect of housing. Its contribution to helping
house Canadians is unequalled.
I hope that the members of the committee will support Bill C-66
so that CMHC can continue to make its contribution to improving
the quality of life for all Canadians. I appeal to the members
of the whole House to vote against the amendments and vote for
the bill in its current form.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Halifax West, National Defence; the hon. member for
London West, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, Fisheries and
Oceans.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the proposed amendments. I would first
remind those joining us that the subject of the debate is
housing. I thank the member for Québec for giving me a hand in
difficult circumstances.
It is paradoxical, to say the least, that we have before us a
bill such as this one, because it has two major flaws. First,
it helps to further privatize the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
Let me make myself clear.
We do not think privatization should be avoided at all cost. We
think there is a room in the mortgage market for private
enterprise. However, we do not understand the government making
it a priority in the area of housing.
We would have been happier if the government had succeeded in
the negotiations it began with the provinces. It made a
commitment in the throne speech in 1996 to transfer $1.9 billion
to the provinces. This is something extremely important to
Quebec.
There are a number of Reform amendments to privatize the
corporation. What we would like for Quebec, if we must talk
privatization, is to have the federal government not run the
show and not be involved in housing, because the Government of
Quebec is prepared to assume all responsibilities inherent in
this area. This includes public housing, land use and,
naturally, management of housing inventories.
It is paradoxical, to say the least, that since 1996,
negotiations with the Government of Quebec have not been
entirely successful. We have introduced more specific
amendments in this regard. However, members should know that
federal spending on housing in Quebec for 1996-97 amounted to
$362 million.
This corresponds to roughly 18% of the CHMC's spending.
However, both the PQ government and the government led by Robert
Bourassa have admitted that Quebec was not receiving its fair
share of housing dollars. Quebec should receive almost 29% of
what the CHMC spends on housing, since 29% of those with urgent
housing needs live in Quebec.
1650
We would have liked to see the government tackle this problem
rather than launch into what is more of an administrative
reform. The public should know that the proposed reform is
essentially administrative in nature. In fact, its purpose is
to give the CHMC more powers and to amend the legislation such
that, in many circumstances, the CHMC will be able to take
decisions without going through parliament.
Members of the Reform Party, the New Democratic Party and the
Progressive Conservative Party should know, and the member for
Chambly will agree with me, that we will support any amendment
giving parliament a greater decision making role. We feel it is
important for parliamentarians to play their role of debating
issues, taking decisions and, of course, understanding the
decisions made by crown corporations.
With the member for Québec, who is the critic for issues related
to poverty, early childhood and the family, present, I would
like to take this opportunity to say again that we believe that
poverty cannot be eliminated without a housing policy.
This conviction is shared by all Bloc Quebecois members.
Why? Because very often the main cause of poverty is, of
course, the excessive amount that has to be allocated to rent.
At the present time—one cannot predict the future—I know that
there is a debate going on, to which the hon. member for Québec
has referred, which may lead to a redefinition of poverty.
Nevertheless, as we speak, although there is no official index
for assessing poverty, the low income cutoff level is one
indicator which shows us just how much poverty there is in
Canada and Quebec.
The Progressive Conservative Party whip, whose sensitivity on
this issue is well known, shares my conviction that we must do
something about of poverty. I imagine that the hon. member for
Chicoutimi shares my analysis that the government we have in
Quebec City is working hard every day to do so, but the same
does not go for the federal government. The government in
Ottawa is not one particularly concerned with these matters.
I would even go so far as to call it rather heartless, rather
indifferent, with a few exceptions. Some of the ministers are
less so. I would acknowledge, at any rate, that the Minister
responsible for Human Resources Development is sensitive to
these matters.
I would ask him to put out a little more effort, because his
government, it must be admitted, does not have a very good track
record in the matter. I think his sensitivity is real, and with
his great intellectual capacity he will certainly make a
positive contribution to the debate. However, the policies of
his government are pitiful.
Let us take, as an example, the UN's evaluation of the
government's policies. The UN was concerned, and members will
recognize that the UN has no representation within the parties
in this House. They are people who work for various commissions
set up under this organization, often they are experts not bound
by the imperatives of party life.
In fact, I have a major grievance against the government on this
score. Canada is a signatory to the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified in 1996. Since
1994, we have been waiting for Canada's report, which was tabled
only this year.
1655
On a similar matter, when it comes to poverty, we cannot permit
such inaction. If parliamentarians had taken the trouble to
read the report, as did I, the member for Québec, the member for
Chambly and the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, they would have
realized that poverty has increased in Canada in the past ten
years.
The United Nations focused on this. It appears there is a link
with the dismantling of the public sector.
I do not know where the minister was in 1992. Perhaps he was
working very successfully with Minister Ryan, perhaps he was an
international affairs consultant. The long and the short of it
is that he was not in this parliament. The fact is that, since
1992, the Canadian government has not put one red cent into
developing social housing. In fact, the government began
pulling out of various areas, particularly social housing, under
the Progressive Conservatives. Facts are facts. The government
began pulling out of such areas as social housing in 1992.
With a few exceptions for RRAP, the Canadian government has not,
to all intents and purposes, put one red cent into developing
social housing since 1992. This is not good enough.
Two provinces are developing social housing: British Columbia
and Quebec. Quebec has invested $43 million.
If Quebec were a sovereign nation, we would be far more likely
to have a cogent policy specifically directed at housing.
My time is up, but I will be back, by popular demand, for the
second group of amendments.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to comment on the amendments
to this legislation, Bill C-66, dealing with the mortgage
insurance function of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
put forward by my hon. colleague from Kelowna.
As we debate the legislation, it is important to remember the
original reason for CMHC's existence. It was at the height of
the depression in 1935 that the federal government got involved
in housing with the Dominion Housing Act. This involvement
continued during the second world war with the Wartime Housing
Corporation which was set up to address the housing needs of war
workers. The CMHC was created in 1946 to address the housing
needs of returning soldiers. The CMHC enabled thousands of
Canadians to live in decent, safe, affordable housing by building
housing or providing mortgage insurance.
Today, if one believes the government, CMHC's role in making
housing affordable for Canadians is no longer required. The
Conservatives got CMHC out of building new social housing in
1991. More recently, the Liberal government has tried to
download its responsibilities for social housing to the
provinces. Now, with this legislation, the role of CMHC in
providing mortgage insurance for social housing or to people who
may not otherwise be able to buy a house is under attack.
In the past, CMHC has been able to offer insurance on 100% of a
mortgage loan for co-operative and non-profit housing. Without
this support, there would have been very little co-op or
non-profit housing for low and moderate income Canadians built in
Canada, according to the Co-operative Housing Federation of
Canada.
CMHC programs have also meant that many Canadians who could only
dream of buying a house have become homeowners. It has played a
particularly important role in areas which may be ignored by
private insurers, remote and rural areas and first nations.
Now with this bill, which we in the New Democratic Party feel
commercializes CMHC, the role it played in the past, financing
the construction of social housing and opening up the possibility
of homeownership to Canadians of modest means, may be lost.
In the past, when CMHC suffered a loss in underwriting a
mortgage, the federal government absorbed that loss. Under this
legislation, CMHC will have to absorb any losses from
underwriting itself. Absorbing losses may force CMHC to deny
mortgage insurance to high risk applicants such as people with
limited means.
1700
How can the government justify reducing the role of CMHC? If
all Canadians had access to decent, safe and affordable housing I
would see the sense in the bill. If the provinces had sufficient
resources to meet the housing needs of Canadians I could accept
that there were other governments or agencies that could fill the
gap. However, that is not the case.
We have recently seen the government give the responsibility to
the Minister of Labour to look into what we feel in the New
Democratic Party is a national disaster; that is, homelessness in
the country.
The generation entering the workforce today knows it is the
first one in decades that will have lower real income than the
generation that came before it.
Is the government trying to tell us that people in their
twenties will not need the support their parents did? If members
of the government are doing that, then I can assure them they
will not be believed. Are they telling people trying to find a
way to afford to buy their own home that there are agencies other
than the CMHC which will offer service to higher risk customers?
I would hope the government has more respect for the intelligence
of Canadians than to try to suggest that.
The role of the CMHC as a bulwark against recession is also
threatened. Currently, because it can underwrite mortgages in
poor market conditions without risk, the CMHC can encourage
housing development at a point in the market cycle when the
market discourages it.
Commercializing CMHC's mortgage insurance will force it to weigh
risk according to market cycles. Thus, it will no longer be able
to play a valuable counter-recessionary role in the economy.
I realize, and this might explain the attitudes of some of my
colleagues, that in relatively prosperous urban areas the loss of
the service that the CMHC has been able to provide may not be
noticed. However, in many of the communities I represent in Cape
Breton, and thousands of similar communities across Canada, it
would be a very serious blow. That is why I am disappointed to
see the amendments put forward by the member for Kelowna. The
amendments the member has moved do nothing to ensure that the
CMHC is able to meet the housing needs of all Canadians. What
they do is respond to the concerns of GE Capital, a large
American owned multinational which is in competition with the
CMHC.
When we vote on these amendments the decision we have to make
is who comes first, a foreign owned multinational or Canadian
families?
My party members know which side they are on. We will be voting
against these amendments.
We should be ensuring that the CMHC is able to do what it was
set up to do, that is, to work to improve the availability of
decent, affordable accommodations for all Canadians. It is not
only our responsibility, it is our duty to Canadian families.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to share a few brief thoughts on the group
of amendments proposed by the member for Kelowna, for whom I have
great respect.
Generally, I do not share the member's concern over the
expansion of CMHC's insurance products. As a homeowner I can
understand and appreciate the value of being able to buy
insurance to protect my mortgage against any wild fluctuations in
interest rates.
Yes, the financial institutions will benefit because the loan
will be insured. More importantly, homeowners who hold mortgages
will be protected against financial hardship. This is no
different than any loan insurance. Car insurance, for example,
protects the car owner as much or more than the bank that holds
the car loan.
Regarding this group of amendments, I would specifically like to
zero in on Motion No. 6, which proposes to amend the new section
18 of the National Housing Act. This section authorizes the CMHC
to pay fees to the federal government in return for the crown
backing of CMHC's loan insurance and guarantee operations. The
principle of this change to the act is simple. GE Capital and
any other private sector provider of mortgage insurance which may
join the industry have to pay fees to have the crown back their
insurance products, but the CMHC has not been required to do
that. This meant that the CMHC had an unfair cost advantage to
provide insurance products over private sector competitors.
This provision in the bill changes all of that. Now the CMHC
will have to pay fees equivalent to those paid by the private
sector. That only makes sense and I agree with the intent of the
bill on this matter.
1705
Motion No. 6, if I understand the member for Kelowna correctly,
deals with what we should call this payment; whether it should be
called a fee or a dividend. I really do not care what the
government calls this payment in the end, but I would point out
that it is the intention to create a new expense for the
corporation, just as the private sector companies have an expense
involved in providing their insurance products. Therefore, the
payment should be reflected on the government's accounts as such.
The Financial Administration Act recognizes payments to the
government from crown corporations that are fees in exchange for
services. To be consistent, these payments should be treated as
a fee as opposed to a dividend.
If I may speak to this amendment more broadly, what the member
is missing in his motion and what the government has missed in
this section is the effect this change will have on the books of
the corporation.
According to the CMHC corporate plan, between 1997 and 2002 the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will have paid $198
million to the receiver general in fees under this new section of
the bill. This money will be paid out of the mortgage insurance
fund and put into general government revenues. In other words,
this money will be lost to the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation forever and cannot be used by the corporation to
increase its investment in the social housing portfolio.
Because this money will be dumped into general revenues, it
could be used for any scheme the government might cook up. It
could be used to redecorate the offices of the public works
minister. It could be used to fly the finance minister across
the country so that he can speak at fundraising dinners to pad
his own leadership campaign fund. It could be put in some
government slush fund to dole out grants to companies with
devious connections to the Liberal Party, based on the flimsiest
of criteria, not that we have ever seen that happen before.
Where the government has missed out and where the member for
Kelowna has missed out with his amendment is that neither has
addressed the concern about what to do with the money generated
by this new fee.
I suggest to the member that we should take that money and put
it back into social housing under the minister's account. This
money will be generated by the commercial activities of the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and should remain with
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
As I stated earlier, I agree that there must be a fee paid in
order to put the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on a
level playing field with its private sector competitors.
However, having said that, there is an opportunity here, which I
am sure the hon. member will recognize, to put that money to good
use.
The member proposed in his amendment that this payment be called
a dividend. I say, let us give a dividend to the 1.2 million
Canadians who lack affordable and adequate housing. Let us give
a dividend to the tens of thousands of Canadians who are homeless
in this country. To make this happen, all the government has to
do is make a policy change in cabinet to return this money to the
minister's account at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
so that we can increase and fund the supply of affordable housing
for all Canadians.
I know that $198 million does not go as far as it used to when
it comes to housing, but if the government is truly determined to
make a dent in the problem of homelessness in this country, this
would be a good place to start. I am sure the member for Kelowna
would agree with me.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened to
the comments of my colleague, the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, and it was music to my ears.
1710
The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has consistently
demonstrated his concern with poverty, an issue to which
ministers of the party in power have been completely and totally
insensitive for a good long while. One example of this is the
EI reform, which has left many in abject poverty. The minister
responsible for this aspect of the legislation and for
government management is unbelievably insensitive to the straits
people are in.
Because of the misery that he is causing, his fellow minister
sitting just two seats from him has a poverty problem on his
hands, given that he has to provide housing for these poor
people. Every human being must, at a minimum, have a roof over
his head.
The minister responsible for the National Housing Act and the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act is faced with
responsibilities that he may not have anticipated. He did not
expect it would turn out this way.
In Montreal alone, 500,000 people are living below the poverty
line. The number may actually be higher, because I am quoting a
figure that is at least a few months old already.
I am trying to figure out the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
I heard the parliamentary secretary praise the CMHC earlier. I
a, familiar with this corporation, since I used to work in the
real estate sector. As I mentioned in a previous speech, the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation met the expectations
that people had when it was first created, at the end of World
War II, when Canadian troops back from the front were settling
massively in cities. They settled in cities upon their return
from Europe. People were leaving rural areas to settle in
Montreal, Toronto or elsewhere. The CMHC was responding to a
need.
Today, that need still exists. I am thinking of my young
daughter who wants to buy a house—in fact she will do so next
week—and would really have appreciated benefiting from the
legislation, in the sense that, right now, the initial or
minimal downpayment to buy a house is 10% of the total price. It
used to be 5%.
The minimum down payment has been changed to 10%. There are
strings attached; CMHC does no one any favours. It charges for
the services it provides and the guarantees it gives.
I have been asked to comment on this matter. When someone
borrows $100,000 from a bank, CMHC tells the bank “If the
borrower does not make his payments to you, then we will”.
For this service, a certain amount is charged, according to the
size of the loan. Often the amount charged by CMHC for its
services is greater than the minimum down payment required to
purchase the property, in absolute terms.
This is rather odd. They get involved because the borrower does
not have a lot of money, and then they hit him with higher
charges than the amount required for the down payment in order
to have a secured loan.
There is something unclear about this, something that is hard to
understand, a question to which no one has given any answers,
particularly not the minister sponsoring this bill.
The CMHC makes loans. The risk it assumes is estimated at 5%.
In the past, I have seen CHMC repossess properties and lose its
shirt. Loans have been made on which the payments have not been
kept up, and then the lending institution, the bank or caisse
populaire, tells CMHC “Give us our money, and take back the
house”. So CMHC repossesses it and sells it for a fraction of
the value it had guaranteed.
1715
All this because the CMHC, for a long time now and for reasons
of economy, no longer evaluates houses or the risk it is taking.
It goes by statistics. They can often be very precise.
However, it is a good idea to at least superficially look at the
risk being taken, so that the fees charged those who have no
other way of obtaining housing are reduced because the CMHC is
taking fewer risks. Everyone would be delighted, and those who
turn to the CMHC would be the first to benefit.
However, the minister prefers to act on statistics, even if they
are not always true.
If we take as an example a country where the population averages
three feet tall and another where the population averages seven
feet, I, who make suits for people five feet tall, would have no
clients. It is a bit like that. The statistics and the
standards sometimes mislead us.
I wanted to take this opportunity in my speech to remind the
minister that, even if he is hiding behind statistical
arguments—a lot of things can be proven with statistics—but in
truth, he can cause hardship and move the CMHC away from its
prime objective, which is to provide access to property, but not
just any property, decent property.
There is also a danger in this bill, which I cannot let pass,
and that is regulation.
The bill says that the governor in council may make, amend, add
or remove regulations at any time. It does not say “by order”,
meaning after consulting with parliament or cabinet. In other
words, without consulting anyone about government policy, the
minister will now be able to publish regulations in Part II of
the Canada Gazette, obviously in the interests of speed.
When I co-chaired the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of
Regulations, this was the argument used by departments. They
thumbed their noses at democracy as it were, but said it was in
the interests of speed and efficiency. There is no denying that
democracy always costs a little bit more.
It is easier not to have to be accountable, not to have to
justify an action or a position, and to do as one pleases.
But members of the public are already paying so much in taxes
that, when all is said and done, they are entitled to a minimum
of respect. They are entitled to be informed that regulations
will be amended, that the rules of the game will change and that
things will be different. In this case, however, regulations
will not be published anywhere but in the Canada Gazette.
Often, they will be published after they have taken effect.
That is even worse, and often happens.
In conclusion, I wish to applaud the efforts of the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, and those of the New Democratic Party
member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, who participated in the debate
on this bill to try and make it more humane and sensitive to
poverty, unlike the Reform Party members, who saw it as an
opportunity to reward private enterprise, which is in
competition with the CHMC, and as a good business opportunity.
1720
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate
on Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.
The general purpose of the bill appears to be to place the CMHC
on a more commercial footing, particularly in terms of its
mortgage insurance business. That in itself is certainly a
commendable objective but, as we will see, there are certain
problems with it.
As with much that has gone on in the House during the current
parliamentary session, the significance of the legislation will
likely be noticed by few in the media or the public. It so
happens that the bill involves the most extensive changes in
nearly 15 years, since 1985, to the National Housing Act and to
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Act.
It was in the 1980s, as pointed out by my hon. colleague from
Kelowna during his speech on second reading, that CMHC accorded
greater priority to social housing needs. The position of the
government is that these legislative changes are in keeping with
the enhanced role of CMHC in facilitating home ownership, even
though it is a crown corporation as an agent of government with
respect to social housing concerns. For example, the government
has made CMHC a missionary to the homeless through adding $50
million to the CMHC's home renovation program.
Some see a contradiction with the federal government bent on
downloading responsibilities for social housing to the provinces
at the same time as favouring an enhanced social role for CMHC.
Others believe that the very existence of the CMHC illustrates an
all too familiar pattern of federal government encroachment on
areas of provincial jurisdiction, doing so either directly, under
the guise of an issue being of national concern, or indirectly
through the use of federal spending powers, in this case federal
spending powers to facilitate home ownership with 5% down.
With regard to social housing the CMHC has played a pivotal role
with respect to the expansion of co-operative housing. It is
through the CMHC that mortgage interest subsidies are provided to
these housing co-operatives. Some people argue that it is not
equitable to provide mortgage interest subsidies based solely on
the fact that a building is collectively owned by a non-profit
corporation.
The profit to those living collectively in a supposed non-profit
context is the shield from interest rate fluctuations which CMHC
provides. In the longer term the profit to those living
collectively is a mortgage free environment with the mortgage
having been rapidly paid off due to taxpayer subsidies.
People living in non-profit housing co-ops never acquire any
equity in the property though they acquire equity in other ways,
some argue, based on taxpayer generosity with respect to the
co-op mortgages. Some people question why several individuals
cannot simply go to a financial institution and ask for financing
through a collectively signed mortgage or by way of pooled funds
and individual mortgages. To what extent should people who wish
to live collectively be treated any differently in terms of
government housing assistance than those who purchase homes
individually?
Much of the debate on the bill has so far concerned whether it
is appropriate for the CMHC to be competing with other financial
institutions and whether expanded quasi-privatization of the CMHC
is of general economic benefit.
In my riding there is a significant co-operative housing
component. In addition, with respect to social housing,
generally my hon. colleague from Kelowna mentioned during his
second reading speech that as of 1992 an amendment to the British
Columbia municipal act requires that municipalities include
housing policies in their official community plan.
It may be said that in British Columbia social housing issues
were being addressed far earlier than before they became
politically fashionable in other provinces or even in the House.
I note that pursuant to the bill CMHC will be able to provide
interest rate relief. However, such relief is regarded as only
applicable to individual borrowers due to the competing
provisions in the Interest Act. Many people understand that they
can generally get out of an onerous mortgage interest rate by
paying a three month penalty. These provisions are designed to
protect consumers who may not appreciate interest rate
fluctuations to the same extent as corporate borrowers.
Corporate borrowers generally are stuck with the mortgage
interest rates they initially agreed to. This obviously causes
problems with long term high interest rate debt in circumstances
where, as now, mortgage interest rates have been low for quite
some time. One sector that is disadvantaged in this respect is
the co-operative housing sector. Many housing co-operatives are
tied to high interest rate, long term mortgage obligations.
1725
They would prefer to be able to pay an interest rate penalty and
to refinance. Their mortgage lenders would obviously prefer
otherwise. The taxpayer through CMHC would appear to end up
paying a higher interest rate subsidy to housing co-operatives
than would otherwise be the case if they could refinance their
mortgages at current rates.
In the same way people choosing to live collectively perhaps
should not be accorded greater government housing assistance than
those who prefer to purchase housing individually. People who
choose to live collectively should not be treated any differently
from individual purchasers in terms of mortgage prepayment
privileges.
My point is that whatever one thinks of financial institutions,
housing co-operative borrowers are really no different from
individual borrowers in terms of sophistication and social need.
Therefore I want to use this opportunity to put on the
Hansard record my concern that mortgage prepayment
privileges be made available to housing co-operatives.
I know that the government has been lobbied on this issue but
has yet to see fit to act. Quite apart from this being the right
direction to take, it cannot prejudice the government's
relationship with the financial institution sector any more than
the government has already managed to do.
Another issue I would like to address has to do with an issue
that was raised by Ms. Janice O'Brien, executive director of the
B.C. Association of the Appraisal Institute of Canada, who noted:
These amendments are designed to allow Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation—to operate in a commercial manner. The
Appraisal Institute's experience shows that they raise serious
public policy issues.
In particular, the Appraisal Institute of Canada noted:
Bill C-66, amendments to the National Housing Act—is designed
to allow Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation—to operate its
mortgage insurance business “on a more commercial basis”.
However, as long as CMHC is a crown corporation, parliament has
responsibilities to act as a watchdog.
The Appraisal Institute of Canada asks members of parliament to
examine Bill C-66 to ensure that it doesn't provide CMHC with a
licence to operate in a more commercial manner by compromising or
sacrificing its responsibilities for public federal housing
policy.
The concern is that we do not repeat the mistakes that were made
in the U.S. While CMHC moves away from appraisals, federal
housing officials in the United States are strengthening
appraisal requirements for all federal mortgage insurance.
Computerized underwriting is not replacing appraisals. Instead
aggressive new consumer oriented standards are being prepared for
all federal mortgage insurance appraisals. U.S. appraisals would
be required to provide more detailed disclosures to the consumer
about the condition of an appraised property. The U.S.
experience by itself suggests the need to review CMHC's current
practices.
As with opposition to any legislation, the fact that parts of a
bill are objected to and the bill voted against does not mean
that one is opposed to the direction of the bill.
The official opposition supports the principle that Canadians
should have access to affordable housing in order to acquire
housing and recognizes the role that public mortgage insurance
plays in supporting it. However, in keeping with the general
view of the official opposition that private sector options
should be explored, it is suggested that greater private sector
competition in the provision of mortgage insurance should be
encouraged.
What the legislation does is further entrench government
intervention in the housing market, an area of provincial and
municipal jurisdiction. The prejudicial impact on existing
financial institutions is largely unknown.
For these reasons, among others, the official opposition will
oppose the legislation in its current form but nonetheless remain
pleased to have had an opportunity to place the concerns of
Canada housing co-operatives, which I fully support, on the
record.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions
and I understand you would find unanimous consent for the House
to deal at this time with Bill S-25 at second reading, in
committee of the whole, at report stage and at third reading,
without debate and with any time consumed by this bill being
added on to this private members' hour.
For the information of the House, Bill S-25 is essentially a
housekeeping bill. It modernizes existing legislation to provide
the certified general accountants—
1730
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the hon.
member could explain the purpose of the bill at second reading if
we get consent to proceed with it.
Does the House give its consent to proceed as outlined by the
deputy government whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
ASSOCIATION'S ACT
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) moved
that Bill S-25, an act respecting the Certified General
Accountants Association of Canada, be read the second time and
referred to committee of the whole.
She said: Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is essentially a
housekeeping bill. It modernizes existing legislation with
respect to the Certified General Accountants Association of
Canada, to provide the association with a French name,
Association des comptables généraux accrédités du Canada, and
with an officially recognized short form name CGA-Canada. It
clarifies the definition of the association's activities and
powers to make the legislation fit the reality of the
organization in its current form.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we of course agree that there is unanimous consent for
this. It is a bill that is routine in terms of being accepted by
all parties of the House.
However, I did want to register, on behalf of my party, an
objection to the fact that this originated in the Senate. This
appears to happen more and more often with this government. It
is not elected, it is not accountable and it is not democratic.
The bill should originate in the elected House of Commons
representing the people of Canada. I am sure the member for
Sarnia—Lambton would agree with that.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as a
member of the Certified General Accountants Association, I am
pleased to see this bill receiving unanimous consent to move
through the House quickly. It is a housekeeping bill, as the
deputy whip of the government said, and I am glad to see it
proceeding quickly.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in
committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and
passed)
* * *
1735
HEROIN PRESCRIPTION TRIALS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House,
the government should, in co-operation with the provinces,
implement clinical, multi-centre heroin prescription trials for
injection to opiate users, including protocols for rigorous
scientific assessment and evaluation.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House
today to debate my private member's Motion No. 454. I would like
to spend a few minutes detailing why the issue is very important
not just to my constituents but to people across Canada.
When I was first elected in the riding of Vancouver East in
1997, the first event I attended, before I actually arrived in
the House of Commons, was a very tragic community gathering in
Oppenheimer Park. The neighbourhood people, who were very
concerned about the number of deaths from drug overdoses, had
gathered to put up 1,000 crosses in the small park in the middle
of this very low income community on the east side of downtown
Vancouver. The 1,000 crosses were put up to represent the very
tragic lives and deaths of people who had died from drug
overdoses.
I have the sad duty to report that in British Columbia the
leading cause of death now for men and women between the ages of
30 and 44 is actually from drug overdoses. In fact, in 1998 the
number of people who died from drug overdoses was 371, which is
an astounding number when one thinks about it.
I thought a lot about this issue and about what we needed to do
to come to grips with a very serious health problem. Our local
Vancouver-Richmond Health Board was so concerned about the issue
of HIV, AIDS and hepatitis C infection among injection drug users
that in October 1997 it actually declared a state of health
emergency in the community on the downtown east side. This has
caused me to bring the issue forward to the House of Commons.
I met with the Minister of Health on several occasions and have
raised this previously in the House. I wanted to bring this
motion forward to draw attention to the tragedy of what takes
place in too many communities in Canada where, because we have
had an emphasis on the criminalization of illicit drug use, we
have seen many people become further marginalized in society.
The purpose in bringing this motion forward today is to have a
debate in the House of Commons on the importance of what is
called a harm reduction approach when it comes to drugs. The
purpose of Motion No. 454 is to reduce the harm associated with
obtaining drugs on the street. The purpose of the motion is to
look at how we can protect the community, reduce crime and also
save lives because too many people are dying.
In bringing forward this motion, I really wanted to make it
clear that the motion simply states that a medical approach to
heroin maintenance is one alternative that should be explored.
The motion is clearly not about the legalization of drugs or
heroin. The motion does not encourage condoning heroin use. It
is aimed toward facilitating the research needed to implement an
effective alternative regulated treatment option for heroin
addicts.
The research I have done has led me to the conclusion that we
need to have health intervention. We need to focus on harm
reduction. We need to have a medicalization of addiction that
allows us as a society to say that the answer is not just to
throw people in jail or to criminalize them. We need to provide
support, treatment, education and, in some instances, help to
people who are facing a chronic addiction because treatment may
have failed.
We are now learning from other models, particularly in Europe,
where they have been very successful in enrolling volunteers,
hard core addicts, who become part of a heroin maintenance
program. It is a very well controlled, scientific program which
has actually reduced the amount of criminal activity taking
place.
It has actually reduced the amount of activity that takes place
in terms of buying drugs on the black market. It has improved
peoples' health status. In some cases, it has allowed people to
go back to work, find jobs, be in better housing and basically
put their lives together.
1740
This motion is about opening up a debate and saying that our
approach to illicit drug laws in the past has been based on views
that do not make sense today. If we are really serious about
saving lives, protecting the community and reducing the crime
that comes about as a result of obtaining drugs on the street,
then we need this kind of medical intervention.
There is no question that there is a growing number of health
care professionals, people in the justice system and recently the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, who have been calling
for the decriminalization of small amounts of illicit drugs, and
for better treatment, better support and better education. The
list is growing of people who recognize that the approaches we
have had in the past simply are not working.
I would like to detail some of the support that is out there.
The most notable one is the Canadian Medical Association. At its
board meeting last December 1998, it passed the following
resolution:
The CMA recommends to the federal Minister of Health that the
investigation of prescription of heroin for opiate-dependent
individuals follow the same approval protocol in practice for the
use of any therapeutic drug in Canada; and that the CMA recommend
that methadone maintenance and counselling programs be more
widely available across the country with appropriate education
and remuneration of professional delivering such programs. This
recommendation applies also to correctional institutions.
That is from the Canadian Medical Association.
The former B.C. provincial health officer, Mr. Millar, in his
1998 report “HIV, Hepatitis and Injection Drug Use in British
Columbia—Pay Now or Pay Later”, also recommended that
controlled legal availability of heroin, in a tightly controlled
system of medical prescription, should be pilot tested as an
option, as part of a comprehensive harm reduction program.
In 1997 there was a federally funded national task force on HIV,
AIDS and injection drug use. It included representatives from
the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Bar
Association and the Canadian AIDS Society, among others. The
task force recommended a continuum of treatment options and also
called on the federal government to conduct clinical trials of
prescription morphine, heroin and cocaine as alternative
approaches, such as is being done in other countries.
Even a high ranking Health Canada official, Mr. Rowsell of the
Bureau of Drug Surveillance of Health Canada, has been reported
in the media as saying:
The list goes on. We had a chief coroner's report in 1994 in
B.C. that came to the same conclusion. The Canadian Psychiatric
Association has encouraged Health Canada and the government to
look in this direction. The Canadian Addiction Research
Foundation is on the list.
Organizations around the world are beginning to recognize that
this kind of approach is something that will produce an overall
benefit, not just in terms of individual users who are leading
very desperate lives and are very marginalized, but in terms of
the benefit to the community and to society as a whole.
This is a controversial issue. I have had people come up to me
and say “You are just talking about legalizing drugs”, or
“This is something that we could not do”. I believe that if
the federal government and the Minister of Health were committed
to working with some of these organizations, like the Canadian
Medical Association, then we could set up the appropriate
protocols that are actually being developed by the Canadian
Addiction Research Foundation in consultation with other
professionals and scientists.
The protocols are now being developed, but it requires leadership
from the health minister and from the Canadian government in
co-operation with the provinces to say that this is a pilot
program.
1745
The notion of multi-centre clinical trials for a heroin
maintenance program is something which we should set up as there
would be a great benefit. We can learn from other countries
which have already done this. We would not be carving out new
ground.
Information from the Swiss program, for example, has told us
that when nationwide heroin trials were implemented in 1994
there was overwhelming support for the program. Criminal
offences and the number of criminal offenders dropped 60%. The
percentage of income from illegal and semi-legal activities fell
from 69% to 10%. Illegal heroin and cocaine use declined
dramatically. Stable employment increased from 14% to 32%. The
physical health of people dramatically improved and most
participants greatly reduced their contact with the drug scene.
By making contact with people who are marginalized, who are
living on the edge of society because we force them to do so by
our laws, we can bring them into an appropriate model of health
care, into an appropriate setting for social support, for housing
and for counselling. People can then begin to put together the
pieces and make choices in their lives.
I have been very honoured in my riding to meet quite frequently
with drug users. Perhaps not many members of parliament have
been able to do that. These individuals have their own
organization in the downtown east side called the Vancouver Area
Network of Drug Users, or VANDU. These people are trying to
assert their own rights. They are trying to find their own voice
to tell those of us in positions of responsibility and authority
that they matter. Their lives matter. Because they have such
difficulty in accessing the health care system, many of them live
in slum housing, inappropriate housing, and most of them do not
have access to adequate and proper services.
The injection drug users are calling on us to take responsible
action. They have done a huge amount of very important work in
my community in bringing forward to our local health board and to
other bodies the fact that they have rights and that, in many
ways, the health care system has failed them.
This issue generates a lot of debate. It deals with our mindset
around illicit drugs. However, my interest is to bring forward
the desperation and the urgency that exists, not just in my
community in the downtown east side, but in many urban centres.
People are dying on the streets from drug overdoses because they
cannot get the help they need, the housing they need or the
medical support they need.
We have a responsibility to look at this issue seriously. I
encourage members of the House to be supportive of modernizing
and updating Canada's drug laws. I encourage members to promote
harm reduction strategies. I encourage members to continue that
work and to impress upon the Minister of Health that we will
support any initiative he takes to bring this forward. The
minister will have support from the medical community. He will
have support from the association of Canadian police chiefs and
he will have support from the coroners who see the bodies that
come in as a result of drug overdoses.
There comes a time when we have to have the courage to stand and
say that we have to have change, that what we have done in the
past is not working, and that we need a new approach.
1750
I ask members of the House to look at the evidence. Look at
what happened in Switzerland. Look at what happened in Europe.
Look at our communities and see the people who are suffering and
consider this motion as a way of bringing forward a program that
will save lives, protect the community and deal with this very
urgent health matter.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the devastation of heroin
addiction is of great concern to the government. We want to
ensure the health and safety of all Canadians. It is our goal to
prevent and eliminate the suffering that heroin addiction causes
to individuals, to their families and to their communities.
Heroin addiction, however, is not straightforward. It is a
serious and complex issue. Accordingly, the treatment of this
terrible addiction requires a thoughtful, considered and
sophisticated approach.
The motion put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver East,
while well intended, would make clinical trials of using heroin
to treat heroin addiction a priority. The success of such
treatment is not well established and would not only be
controversial, it would have uncertain outcomes. Before any
risky clinical trials are embarked upon, all alternative
treatments of heroin addiction should be given thorough and due
consideration.
Simply put, I believe we need to walk before we run. That is
because a number of alternatives for the treatment of heroin
addiction are already in existence and are proven to work. I
strongly believe that rather than chasing after risky treatments,
our time, efforts and resources would be put to much better
effect pursuing viable, well-established strategies.
That is why Health Canada is a strong advocate of increasing
access to existing successful treatments, in particular methadone
maintenance, as well as supplementing medical treatment with
counselling and social support programs. Methadone maintenance
is the most effective, proven and well established treatment for
those who suffer heroin addiction.
Under Canada's drug strategy, any treatment or rehabilitation
program must address all underlying factors associated with
substance abuse. It must also meet the needs of drug users, many
of whom unfortunately use more than one drug at a time. Any
treatment that is chosen should strive to meet the basic
principles, and methadone maintenance does that. Canada's drug
strategy endorses its use to combat opioid dependence.
While on methadone addicts are able to improve their lifestyles,
social health, functioning and productivity. Many are able to
recover and continue with their lives, such as living with
families, completing education or training and remaining
employed.
It is Canada's stated priority to increase access to methadone
maintenance. To this end Health Canada has streamlined the
authorization program and the authorization process, allowing
doctors to treat patients quickly and more effectively. The
number of physicians using methadone in the treatment of their
patients has also increased in this country. Furthermore, the
department has undertaken consultation with stakeholders to find
ways of increasing access to methadone treatment programs, and we
are continuing to do so.
As mandated in Canada's drug strategy, Health Canada is
continually working to improve the effectiveness of and the
accessibility to an array of safe and proven substance abuse
interventions.
It is also true that methadone cannot help all of those who
suffer from heroin addiction. However, there are even more
alternatives, with equal promise, to methadone that are already
in existence. I am speaking specifically of buprenorphine, levo-
alpha-acetylmethadol, better known as LAAM, and naltrexone.
These alternatives could bring greater flexibility in combating
this terrible and costly epidemic, especially to those patients
who do not tolerate or do not respond to methadone.
Clinical trials in other countries which were referred to by the
member opposite, particularly in the United States and Australia,
have shown these other medications to be safe and effective. In
addition, there is a ready, safe and secure supply of these other
alternatives.
1755
Let us also remember that medical treatment alone is not enough
to fight drugs. Canada's drug strategy states that we must
consider the determinants of health and address the underlying
factors associated with substance abuse.
Many addicts feel a sense of hopelessness and helplessness that
is not solely attributable to their habits. This is usually just
a symptom of many of the larger issues they are dealing with,
such as other health problems, poverty, lack of housing, poor
education or a history of abuse.
Governments need to devote significant resources and energies
toward providing greater and earlier access to conventional
addiction counselling and social support programs, professional
psychotherapy, education, vocational training and residential
care. The delivery of these health services is the
responsibility of the provinces.
This government sympathizes with the many Canadians caught in
the trap of heroin addiction. We want to reduce the toll of this
terrible affliction. We want to reduce the toll that it takes on
individuals and on all Canadians. It is clear that the best and
most effective route is to pursue existing treatments that are
known to work. As I have said, Health Canada wants to expand
access to well-established and proven treatments like methadone,
as well as giving a chance to the newer treatments which I
mentioned, LAAM and others. It is the course of action that we
believe makes the most sense in terms of time, cost, resources,
effectiveness and, most importantly, safety for the patient and
for society.
Our goal is to prevent the harm this terrible addiction causes;
the harm it causes to individuals, their families and our
communities. While the member's proposal is well intended, we do
not believe it is supportable at this time.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Motion No. 454 states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in
co-operation with the provinces, implement clinical, multi-centre
heroin prescription trials for injection to opiate users,
including protocols for rigorous scientific assessment and
evaluation.
This is a complicated, tongue twisting motion that I am sure no
one understands. We are talking about free heroin for addicts.
What the NDP is proposing is a recipe for disaster. This is the
kind of solution that was adopted in Switzerland. Addicts from
all across Europe went to Zurich to live with their addiction and
it created a mess. The same thing happened when Denmark tried
the heroin trial solution.
It is no secret that there is a terrible drug problem, in
particular on the east side of Vancouver. In fact the lower
mainland of B.C. has the highest incidence of intravenous drug
use in North America. This drug abuse problem is extensive
throughout the region and extends to Surrey, Burnaby, North Delta
and other suburbs. I have even seen videos demonstrating how
easy it is for undercover police officers to purchase heroin.
There is no real government involvement in the solution to the
problem. By that I mean that there needs to be an integrated
approach which includes the federal, provincial and municipal
levels of government.
The motion tries to address problems associated with heroin
addiction, including social and family problems, health and crime
related issues and high cost.
Many Canadians ruin their lives with heroin use. The problem
extends much further in terms of people, the addicts. We need to
do something to help these people. These people are our brothers
and sisters, our children, our friends and neighbours who want to
come home to recover.
1800
We need to be compassionate, to deliver the health care remedy
necessary to solve the problem. When addicts finally try to
recover and kick their bad habits, they try to return to the
suburbs or quiet towns in and around the lower mainland.
This problem needs a two pronged approach. First, we need to
deal with the problem of heroin entering Canada. If we could
stop the drug from coming into our country we could stop
producing addicts. I know our law enforcement agencies are
trying to do the best they can with limited resources at their
disposal.
Second, we have to help the addicts. They need medical help,
all sorts of help. We need to stabilize the addiction and then
integrate them back into their families and home environment so
that we help them return to the community where they can pursue a
healthy life. We need to support the addicts at every stage.
Far from freely giving out heroin to addicts, we need to have
them voluntarily return to a stabile environment where they can
begin a medical program that will lead to their recovery.
The drug abuse problem affects all surrounding communities in
the lower mainland including residents of Surrey Central. I have
been made aware of the success we have had dealing with heroin
addiction by using methadone in heroin addiction treatment. In
Surrey we are leaders in dealing with heroin addiction. The
federal government has been of little assistance, not that there
is any co-ordination between different levels of government.
Our local medical community is on its own in struggling to save
the program and the process. According to my information there
are physicians all across the United States who have come to our
province to learn about how we use methadone to treat heroin
addicts. We teach these physicians what they need to know in
order for them to return to their communities and establish
methadone treatment programs within their own medical practices.
United States Drug Enforcement Agency members came to Vancouver
to study our intravenous drug use problem. They did not go to
Chicago, New York or Los Angeles. They came to Vancouver because
the IDU problem is so large there.
We need to have the government support our own efforts in this
regard. It is a well known fact in our health community that for
every dollar spent fighting illicit drug use there is an $11
saving to be realized.
Surrey Methadone Treatment Centre Ltd. and Renaissance
Foundation have a successful program in Surrey which I visited
last summer. I can cite many examples after talking to patients.
One of the patients I talked with said he had seen his daughter
after 12 years. Because he was a drug addict he never went to
his family, community or home. After receiving successful
treatment his family visits him at the clinic. Now he is looking
forward to rejoining his family.
Another addict told me he used to snatch purses and steal to
support his addiction but now after receiving this successful
treatment he is relieved. He is thankful to the organizers and
owners of the clinic, those who offered him help. That is what
we need in the community.
We in the House should consider expanding this program, sending
it across the nation and exporting our expertise to fight this
problem around the world.
I am not talking about legalization or decriminalization of
drugs. Let me make that clear. The NDP would have us use the
concept known as heroin trial that allows physicians to dole out
heroin to addicts who are receiving treatment. Support must be
provided for the injection drug use addict who chooses recovery
instead of active addiction.
I have been assured that a heroin trial prescription program is
the wrong way to go. Furthermore, the methadone treatment has
already been proven to be successful. It is the one that has
been drawing the medical community to British Columbia to learn
about it.
1805
The free drug program on the other hand presents us with a
defeatist attitude. We are beaten before we start, so we give in
and give away heroin to those addicts. In my view this is not
helping the addicts or the problem.
The Liberal government has a national drug strategy. We know it
does not work. It is just full of Liberal rhetoric. A reduction
in the illicit drug problem, as we know, is a reduction in our
crime problem and a reduction in the drain on our limited health
system resources. Therefore we must tackle the roots of the
crime and not focus always on the punishment aspect.
As a society we continue to push for these kinds of changes, but
the Liberal government on the other side does not listen. The
government has cut $23 billion in health care and education since
it came to power. One year ago today Canadians witnessed a very
important vote in the House on a matter that can only be
described as a tragedy. The official opposition forced the House
to vote on whether or not to compensate all victims of hepatitis
C.
It is the federal government that controlled the Canadian blood
supply that infected about 60,000 Canadians. Today, after a year
of holding the minister's feet to the fire, he is willing to
compensate only about 20,000 of the victims of tainted blood. In
the last year 1,200 of these victims died while waiting for
compensation.
Since my time is over I emphasize that the Liberal government
lacks compassion and vision. Still, the member introduces the
motion we are debating today as if there were the remotest
possibility that the government would listen to her and take
action. How sad.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise to speak on Motion M-454, introduced by the hon. member for
Vancouver East.
The purpose of her motion is to make sensible and regulated
treatment options available to health professionals and the
injection drug users under their medical supervision.
With Motion M-454, which calls for the implementation of clinical
trials of prescription heroin, the hon. member for Vancouver
East hopes to get parliamentarians to give serious thought to
the extent of the drug addiction problem in Canada, with the
ultimate goal of reducing street drug related crime, protecting
the community, and saving lives.
As part of its national action plan submitted in May 1997, a
expert task force on HIV/AIDS and drug issues gave a status
report on the situation in Canada. At present, Canada is
experiencing a true public health crisis as far as HIV/AIDS and
injection drug use is concerned.
The age of those infected is constantly dropping; the average
age of new HIV-positive people has gone from 32 years to 23.
Since the penal system has not taken any remedial action, it has
become one of the places the virus is being spread. The
over-representation of aboriginal people among the groups at risk
is of the greatest concern.
Because of this, there are several underlying principles against
which the steps to be taken can be assessed. There are several
different approaches.
In the past, the favoured approach in treating drug addiction
was abstinence, or a total break with the substance being abused.
While this approach is perfectly valid, more and more experts
recognize that this is not always the best solution.
Abstinence, in the case of drug addiction, is not always a
realistic objective achievable in the short term. It would be
better, in the interest of public health, to consider other
solutions.
1810
There is also the harm reduction approach. This approach
neither tolerates nor condemns the use of drugs. In fact, it
allows the user to continue to consume, but at the same time
encourages the taking of various steps to reduce the harm of
consuming. This approach therefore does not rule abstinence out
as the ultimate goal of an individual wanting it, but it takes a
more progressive approach with the aim primarily of minimizing
the negative effects of the use of drugs.
Needle exchange and condom distribution services, instruction on
safe injection methods and the provision of locations for
injections are part of the harm reduction approach. More and
more studies are concluding in its favour. Motion M-451 is right
in line with this thinking.
Long term treatment with methadone is used for people with a
heroin dependency of over 30 years. With the emergence of the
HIV epidemic among intravenous drug users, there is more
interest in methadone or other opioid agonist treatment. Long
term treatment is associated with a reduction in risky behaviour
associated with injection, a reduction in new cases of HIV
infection in treated populations, reduced consumption of
opiates, lower crime and death rates and rehabilitation in the
community.
In the Vancouver area, a health emergency has been declared
because of an epidemic of HIV infections among intravenous drug
users. This health emergency affects all large urban centres in
Canada, particularly those where drug use is on the increase.
Faced with this situation, we must lay all possible options on
the table. We must also take a look at what is being done in
other countries, such as Switzerland, Germany, England and the
Netherlands.
When the Swiss government decided to issue heroin prescriptions
on a trial basis throughout the country in 1994, the social
advantages of keeping people on heroin were amply demonstrated.
The results were as follows: a 60% reduction in criminal
offences; a 60% drop in revenue from illegal or semi-legal
activities; a spectacular reduction in heroin and cocaine use; a
14% to 32% increase in the number of participants holding down a
steady job; a considerable increase in their physical health
and, in most cases, a noticeable drop in links maintained with
the drug world; no deaths attributable to overdoses and no
prescription drug sold on the black market; a net economic
benefit of $30 per patient, per day, largely because of the
reduction in costs related to health care and the administration
of the criminal justice system.
We cannot remain indifferent to human problems such as drug
addiction and to its terrible repercussions, indeed to any human
suffering.
It is imperative that we open our minds to any possible
solutions. Sometimes, this will require thinking differently,
exploring new avenues.
That is what Motion M-454 does. And for that, we must thank the
member for Vancouver East, who has shown much determination and
devotion to the cause of helping the most disadvantaged members
of society.
1815
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the member for Vancouver East for
bringing this thought provoking issue to the House. Reading from
her backgrounder, I want to remind the House and the Canadian
public as to why the member did this. It is a problem all across
the country but in her home province it is particularly bad.
I want to go through some of the numbers which the member so
thoughtfully provided us with. She says that in her home riding
of Vancouver East a health emergency has been declared as a
result of an epidemic of HIV infection among injection drug
users. She also states that in British Columbia the death toll
is staggering. As of November last year a record 371 people died
of overdose in 1998 alone, 195 in the Vancouver area. Those are
compelling statistics.
Overdose from intravenous drug use has become the leading cause
of death for adults in the age range of 30 to 49 years in the
province of British Columbia. Over and above that, the leading
cause of HIV infection is now IDU. It is estimated there are
15,000 regular or frequent injection drug users in the province
of British Columbia alone, the member's home province.
It is estimated that one-quarter of injection drug users are HIV
positive and at most 88% have hepatitis C. She also states that
HIV infected drug users are showing up in larger numbers in the
Kamloops and Kootenay regions. She goes through some of the
numbers in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and other Canadian cities.
Those are pretty grim statistics. We have to admire the member
for wanting to do something about it. I know the issue is
somewhat controversial. Some members on both sides of the House
have said there are other examples in other countries and
jurisdictions and what has been done.
In short, the intent of the motion is to implement clinical,
multi-centre heroin prescription trials and hence the
controversy. It is not an easy thing to deal with.
Let us look at what the Canadian Medical Association has to say
about it. I am quoting from a document sent to me today:
The CMA recommends to the federal Minister of Health that the
investigation of prescription of heroin for opiate-dependent
individuals follow the same approval protocol in practice for the
use of any therapeutic drug in Canada; and that the CMA recommend
that methadone maintenance and counselling programs be more
widely available across the country with appropriate education
and remuneration of professional delivering such programs. This
recommendation applies also to correctional institutions.
The CMA has laid out quite clearly what it thinks of the issue
and the proposal before us.
I have done some research on this. I came across what they call
rapid opiate detoxification. It is something that could be
considered in this case. It is a cleansing therapy that curbs
heroin addiction. It is somewhat new and exciting in the
treatment of this addiction. It is a treatment widely used
throughout the world, but this sophisticated medical procedure
has just arrived in Canada.
Thanks go to a couple of individuals, Peter Garber and Mike
Greenberg. They tell us it is based on the work of psychiatrists
Dr. Karl Loimer and Dr. Colin Brewer who in the late 1980s
discovered that two drugs, naloxone and naltrexone, suppressed
the addict's desire for heroin and other drugs such as methadone.
The treatment does not purport to be a cure for heroin addiction
but offers an essential and powerful first step toward achieving
that objective.
1820
They step through how this procedure works and talk about
reducing withdrawal in five ways. First the process is
accelerated so what used to take the body weeks to achieve on its
own is now done in about six hours. Second, the body does not
crave the missing narcotic because it is replaced by another
substance. Third, the entire treatment is performed under
anesthesia so the patient is unconscious and unaware. Fourth,
unlike most programs, a physician and a nurse attend the patient
as the anesthetic wears off. Fifth, short term symptomatic
treatment is prescribed to alleviate any mild withdrawal symptoms
which may occur in the following couple of days. We are talking
about a detoxification system with some amazing results.
It comes down to what can we afford to do and what should we do.
Let us go through some of these numbers again. A study done in
Toronto says “Deaths from heroin overdose have risen in certain
cities, they are also related to HIV infection in some cases. The
social cost exceeds millions of dollars, more going to drug
enforcement”—and this is an important point—“than to drug
treatment”. That is an important thing to consider. It is
estimated that some $40,000 per year is spent for every untreated
user.
We are going back to some of these new and exciting
detoxification programs that have recently appeared. The question
is what is the cost and can we afford it? Considering the number
of deaths, we cannot afford to sit back and do nothing. I am not
sure we can sit back and rely on the old methods of treating
addiction. We have to examine anything that comes along which
might deal with this in an effective way.
The U.S. drugs are criticized in some of these programs but this
is not unusual. We can look at some of the other countries
involved. Australia has some major concerns as well. I guess we
could take some satisfaction with some of the stats coming out of
The Netherlands. Listening to some of the other experts, we
wonder whether or not they are accurate and whether or not they
are effective. It depends on who the listener is, who the
recipient is and whether or not they are interpreting some of
those statistics in the same way.
It is a big problem and one we want to see some progress on. The
latest procedure which I talked about has to be examined in the
context of what has been used in the past. Remember that when
heroin first appeared on the scene it was supposed to be the drug
that was going to relieve morphine addiction. Look at what is
happening with methadone which is an addiction of its own. It is
a substitute for another addiction.
I think the jury is still out. But I think the consensus of
this House is that this motion has to be examined very carefully
by the Minister of Health. We have to encourage more thought
provoking motions like this one and consider all options in the
treatment of a very serious situation.
1825
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the members who participated in this debate,
in particular the member from the Bloc Quebecois and the member
from the Conservative Party for their very thoughtful comments.
That is what this discussion was about, to talk about this very
serious issue and to examine what options and possibilities there
are for dealing with the very very serious situation of chronic
injection drug users who may be using heroin or cocaine or a
combination of drugs.
It was disappointing to hear the response from the government
member. To me this debate is about saying we must have a variety
of options available. I would certainly agree with the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health that methadone
must be improved, it must be expanded. There have been calls for
that in all the reports I have read and I would certainly agree
with that. Indeed the other options she mentioned need to be
brought forward and put on the table as real possibilities that
can be used.
My concern is that we not rule out what has been shown to be
successful in other countries in terms of a heroin maintenance
program that can be viable and beneficial in circumstances where
individuals have not been able to get successful treatment using
other options.
To characterize the heroin maintenance program in Switzerland or
anywhere else as something that is not well established or that
is very risky, I would encourage the member to look at some of
the material that is available from the very credible
organizations that have been monitoring the Swiss program. The
evidence shows very clearly that we are not talking about risky
situations but about a program that actually produced very
amazing results.
To the member from the Reform Party, it is very disappointing
that this would be characterized as the NDP wanting to give out
free heroin to addicts. Morphine is also a controlled substance.
We recognize that it has a legitimate use within our medical
system. Nobody here is advocating handing out heroin all over
the place to whoever wants it.
This motion talks about setting up a very tightly controlled
scientific and medically supervised pilot program in which we can
enrol people and make contact with people who otherwise are
totally marginalized and seem to be outside of our health care
system.
To characterize a very complex health issue by throwing it away
and saying that it is about free drugs really does not do service
to the complexity and the compassion we need to show for people
who are really suffering out there. I was very disappointed to
hear the remarks from the Reform Party.
I have heard other members from the Reform Party say they have
been to Vancouver's downtown east side in my constituency of
Vancouver East and they are very horrified at what they have seen
on the streets. If that is the case, I would encourage them to
look at this seriously and to seek out information from the
Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Addiction Research
Foundation, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police,
coroners offices, and the list goes on and on.
This motion was brought forward to bring about a debate, to
bring about understanding, to encourage the government not to
close the door on this matter. It has had a lot of discussion
within the health care community and the justice community. This
is something that should be taken note of and examined further.
We should be working with the medical community to look at the
protocols that would be necessary.
From what I have been able to read in articles, even officials
from Health Canada believe there is a place to have this kind of
program set up. I would encourage the government not to reject
this outright as being too controversial and risky but to look at
it as an option, as part of a comprehensive harm reduction
strategy for dealing with illegal drug use.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of
the House to make this a votable motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
1830
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would seek unanimous consent to have the matter sent
for further discussion to the Standing Committee on Health.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to refer
the matter to the standing committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There being no further members rising
for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item,
the time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business is now expired and the order is dropped from the order
paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if the
government were an individual Canadian, it would have been forced
into bankruptcy long ago. If the government were a small
business, the shop would have been boarded up for some time now.
The government sees fit to waste taxpayer money with seemingly
little regard and with even less respect.
On February 16, 1999, I challenged the Minister of National
Defence on the issue of Canada's submarine purchase. The price
the government has led the Canadian taxpayer to believe it will
spend on our new submarines is $750 million, but it appears the
actual cost could be closer to $2 billion.
Imagine a Canadian small business underestimating its cost by
over two and one-half times the original estimate when it
budgeted for new equipment. No respectable business could stand
such gross financial mismanagement time and time again. However,
that is exactly how the government treats its own books and how
it treats taxpayers.
I wish the only problem with this deal was the cost, but the big
picture is even worse. The Liberal government's priorities are
so far out of whack it is hard to conceive how it must have gone
about making decisions.
Let me ask why we are buying four used submarines and how this
decision fits into the role our forces will play early in the
21st century.
Two of the suggested roles, drug surveillance and fisheries
patrol, are clearly dubious at best. Does the government really
think that increased submarine capability would have stopped the
turbot war? The proposed third reason for protecting our
sovereignty under the ice cap would require an incredibly
expensive refit.
What about the cost of technical data and crew training? What
about the cost of infrastructure refit and development to be able
to house the submarines? What about the need, as I have
mentioned, to refit them with air independent propulsion so they
can work under the ice without frequent resurfacing?
Furthermore, what will we do when these submarines break down?
The production line for these submarines has ended and to get
parts must we then cannibalize one of the four submarines we are
purchasing? What about the cost of changing the communication
suites to be compatible with the Auroras and helicopters?
I will detail my estimates and I trust the government will
choose to do the same in its response: acquisition costs of $800
million; shore facilities and modification, $200 million; routine
refits over the life of the program, $1 billion; and air
independent propulsion system, $1 billion. This totals $3
billion and if we add 30 years of operating costs at
approximately $2.7 billion, the grand total is $5.7 billion or
over seven times the cost to the taxpayer that the government is
touting.
What about the big picture itself? The government needs to
answer a question to the people of my riding of Halifax West, to
Nova Scotians and to all other Canadians. How does this
expenditure stand up against the need for adequate pay and
housing conditions for Canadian forces personnel so desperately
needed and so terribly missing? It is true there has been some
money infused as a result of the recent report of a committee,
but yet there is a long way to go.
How does this stand up against the need for immediate attention
to finding a substitute for the flying accidents waiting to
happen or the Sea Kings and Labrador helicopters? People deserve
an answer and they are waiting.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the cost of acquiring the four
upholder class submarines and putting them into active service in
Canada is still $750 million in the year of 1998-99.
In April 1998 the government approved the acquisition based on
this figure and nothing has changed except the names of the
vessels. It was announced on March 30 that the vessels would be
known as the Victoria class submarines.
The first Victoria class submarine is due to arrive in Canada in
the autumn of 2000 and the navy is already preparing for this.
Even as we prepare to take possession of the submarines we have
already started to plan for the future, precisely because we
expect these boats will have a long life in the Canadian navy.
1835
As with any piece of equipment there will be maintenance and
upgrade projects involved throughout the life of the vessel. It
is unreasonable to think that one can buy any piece of equipment
and keep it operating for 30 years without maintenance and
upgrades.
For instance, the Victorias will require a mid-life refit to
ensure that they meet their expected lifespan. We will also have
to keep maintaining all the safety and rescue equipment so that
it will be compatible with the newest technology.
Furthermore, as new technologies come available that would
require enhanced operational capabilities of the submarines, they
will need to be integrated into existing systems whenever
possible. It would be unfair and irresponsible to add the costs
of such eventual projects to the cost of acquisition because at
this point we cannot predict the timing, the cost or the nature
of any future projects with 100% accuracy.
When the time comes for any new expenditures I can assure the
hon. member that these projects will be subject to the necessary
government approval before they can proceed. Planning for the
future is the responsible thing to do and it is particularly
important in times of tight fiscal restraint.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
growing number of children are directly involved in armed
conflict as deliberate targets and as child soldiers.
The record of the past decade is grim. Close to two million
children have been killed in armed conflict; more than four
million children disabled; over one million children orphaned;
over 300,000 girls and boys serving in armies and rebel groups as
fighters, cooks, porters, messengers, spies and labourers; 12
million children homeless; and over 10 million children
psychologically scarred by the trauma of abduction, detention,
sexual assault and witnessing the brutal murder of family
members.
The situation of children in armed conflict is worse today than
it was 50 years ago when the Declaration of Universal Human
Rights was signed. Today 90% of the casualties of war are
civilian, mostly women and children, whereas it was only 48% in
the second world war and 5% in the first world war.
Children usually become soldiers through coercion, either
through mandatory conscription or forced recruitment. Child
soldiers overwhelmingly are recruited from the poorest and most
marginalized sectors of society. Particularly vulnerable are
children without families or with disrupted family backgrounds.
Coercion aside, children may join the military for security, food
or medical care. The military may offer children the only path
to wages to support themselves or their families.
The use of children in armed conflict is global in nature. It
is a far greater problem than suggested by the scant attention it
has received. The use of child soldiers violates international
norms.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, signed in 1989 and
ratified by all but two nations, establishes 15 years as the
minimum recruitment age. In fact, most countries have endorsed
an optional protocol that boosts the minimum combat age to 18
years. However, in the face of armed conflict, military units in
some nations, whether governmental or rebel, often pay little
attention to age.
International silence about the abuse of children must change.
The welfare of the world's children merits special priority in
Canada's human security agenda.
Children are the most vulnerable group. The experience of
children during their early years affects them for life. It will
affect their families as well as their own future. We simply
cannot afford to let the current situation continue if we value
our own future.
In February the Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed the UN
security council on the impact of conflict on civilians. He
outlined Canada's approach to this very serious issue. In light
of this, could the Minister of Foreign Affairs highlight what
Canada is doing to protect civilians in armed conflict and in
particular children?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I respond to this question on
behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs I would like to
acknowledge the important contribution that the member for London
West has made to the issue of child soldiers. She really has
made a difference in advancing the cause of human safety and
security when it comes to the lives that those children will
have.
It is true that on February 12 the Minister of Foreign Affairs
travelled to New York to preside over a special meeting of the
security council sponsored by Canada on the issue of protection
of civilians in conflict.
1840
It is a recent innovation of the council to hold its meetings on
a thematic focus. This enables the security council to consider
cross-cutting security issues in a broader, more integrated
context than its usual crisis mode of interaction. We support
this practice which also permits the council to hear from outside
non-state sources, for example the International Committee of the
Red Cross.
This initiative is a key element of Canada's security council
human security agenda which we hope to advance during our two
year council term. At issue is the rising toll of modern
conflict on civilians, particularly vulnerable groups such as
women and children who are not only victimized by new forms of
aggression but are often directly targeted, as the hon. member
who has worked so hard on this difficult issue has noticed, and
used as child soldiers, which is a very serious issue. Our goal
is to explore new ways for the security council and the
international community to address this pressing human safety
concern.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs delivered Canada's statement on
this theme and reiterated to council members that the ultimate
aim of the council's work was to safeguard the security of the
world's people, not just the states in which they live. Clearly,
with the disproportionate toll modern conflict takes on
civilians, the protection of individuals should be a primary
consideration in the council's activities. The minister called
on the council to meet its responsibilities and to face the
challenges of this issue head on.
As a result of the February 12 briefing, the council adopted a
presidential statement which condemned all attacks against
civilians in conflict situations, including women, children and
refugees, and called on the—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member, but her time has expired.
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of all
Atlantic Canadian fishermen, plant workers and their families,
and on behalf of those in Quebec and in the territory of Nunavut.
The recent auditor general's report on the failed DFO management
policies when it comes to the shellfish industry in Atlantic
Canada, Quebec and Nunavut is one of the most damning reports
ever on the policies of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The auditor general did great work. We in this party want to
thank him very much for raising the red flag.
In 1992 devastation hit Newfoundland and many other parts of
Atlantic Canada in terms of the groundfish collapse which has now
been proven to be solely the responsibility of the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. Two levels of government mismanaged that
fishery to the death knell of many people.
Unfortunately the auditor general says the exact same management
policies that happened in the cod fish crisis is now happening in
the shellfish industry. We just cannot allow this to happen. In
committee report after committee report the facts are clear. We
have studied this issue to death. The DFO cannot properly manage
the shellfish industry of Atlantic Canada. It does not have the
resources. It does not have the scientific people to do the job.
It certainly does not allocate any money.
For example, the lobster industry is a $500 million industry in
Atlantic Canada. It spent $330,000 a year on research. That is
all it spent on this most important and crucial industry.
The DFO allowed the dragging of a brood stock of scallops in the
Bay of Fundy. That was a nursery, for God's sake. It actually
allowed a dragger to go through the Bay of Fundy and destroy an
entire scallop industry.
The auditor general also pointed out that we have little or no
at sea observer coverage on board ships within our own 200 mile
limit. It even ignores the observer reports it gets.
In 1997 the Minister of Veterans Affairs who was then the
minister of fisheries and oceans ignored the North Atlantic
Fisheries Organization's scientific advice. We got this
information from court transcripts of the Federal Court in
Vancouver. He ignored the advice of the Nunavut wildlife branch.
He ignored the advice of the fisheries resource conservation
council. Most important, he ignored the advice of his own deputy
minister and opened up the turbot fishery two months prior to the
federal election. Those are the facts.
Now the auditor general has pointed out that the current
minister ignores advice from his own department and ignores the
advice from observer reports. We can only come to the conclusion
that it is based on political favouritism. It is not issuing
quotas or licences, for example, on sound biological or
scientific evidence. What it is doing is basing it on political
favouritism.
It is the same thing that the Liberal government accused the
Conservative government of doing.
1845
Unfortunately the people of Atlantic Canada do not have that
much time to wait. If the industry collapses, which I suspect it
may under the current regime we have, we know very well there
will not be a TAGS 3 program.
Where will the answers be from the government then? The auditor
general has raised the red flag, has put up a precautionary note,
and has given sound advice to the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans and to the government. We are asking on this side of the
House that the government of the day, the department and the
minister heed his advice very carefully, understand exactly what
the problems are, and move forward in the new millennium.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can give the assurance that
there are effective monitoring programs in place. Fisheries
enforcement is a priority for the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans and every effort was made to protect the enforcement
program from budget reductions. A number of steps have been
taken to improve enforcement effectiveness.
Under a national recruitment strategy over 100 new fishery
officers have been hired in the last three years. Physical
fitness and competency standards have been developed for fishery
officers along with new training courses, including one on
forensic auditing.
Operating budgets have been increased and new surveillance
equipment, computers and patrol boats have been purchased to
augment program effectiveness. In addition, the department is
reviewing the mix of enforcement resources and examining ways to
better utilize data collected.
Major improvements are being made to dockside monitoring
programs in 1999. Dockside monitoring companies will be required
to meet standards set by DFO and will be subject to checks and
audits.
The at sea observer program will also undergo a major review in
1999 which will include the development of criteria for setting
observer coverage levels. We have learned from the groundfish
collapse and we are determined not to repeat the mistakes of the
past. Conservation of the resources is the department's first
and foremost priority.
Shellfish resources have been healthy and abundant in the 1990s.
It is important to note that every shellfish fishery is managed
through specific conservation measures such as minimum size,
quotas, specific fishing areas and a limited number of licences.
DFO's decisions on shellfish allocation are based on established
criteria with conservation being the first priority. Where
temporary sharing of abundant shellfish resources is authorized,
it is done in such a manner that it ensures harvesting capacity
does not increase on a permanent basis.
The auditor general has recommended that the department should
clearly define its policies. I am happy to tell the member and
the House that DFO has already begun a full review of its
Atlantic fishery policy.
[Translation]
The Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to order adopted on Thursday,
March 11, 1999.
(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)