36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 28
CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 5, 1997
1400
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WINNIPEG BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Godin |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOREAN WAR VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
1405
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEST WE FORGET
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIEUTENANT COLONEL BILLY BARKER
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PREMIER OF NOVA SCOTIA
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC PREMIER
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1410
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONTAMINATED EARTH
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy Saint-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMELTING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1415
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1420
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRINKING WATER
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1425
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1430
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRINKING WATER
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VISAS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1440
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR REACTORS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEARCH AND RESCUE HELICOPTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1445
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1450
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEVCO
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
1455
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILINGUALISM
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Louis Plamondon |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1500
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tabling of Documents
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Library of Parliament
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1510
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy Saint-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVACY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-275. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-276. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1515
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Violent Offenders
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Joyriding
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Highway System
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Goods and Services Tax
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hudson, Quebec
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of Children
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of Family
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Labelling of Alcoholic Products
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1520
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Safety Officers
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Highway System
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Highway System
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TABLING OF LETTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1525
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARENTING ARRANGEMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1530
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
1535
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1540
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1555
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1610
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1635
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1640
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1645
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1650
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRINKING WATER MATERIALS SAFETY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-14. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
1715
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-209. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1730
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1815
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1820
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Labour
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1825
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
1830
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Railway Transportation
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
1835
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tip Employees
|
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1840
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 28
![](/web/20061116183304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 5, 1997
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
Edmonton East.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
WINNIPEG BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw the attention of the House today to the
Winnipeg Boys and Girls Club and its Floodbusters program.
After the flood that Winnipeg suffered this summer, the
department of human resources and the Winnipeg Boys and Girls
Club got together and organized a program that hired 193
students. They worked all summer long cleaning up properties and
helping homeowners repair their homes. They removed some 400,000
sandbags. They ran a summer camp for kids displaced by the flood
so their parents could work on their properties. When the Red
Cross was having trouble getting relief out, 12 members of the
Floodbusters team worked with the Red Cross to ensure people got
the compensation they needed.
The program was run by Mike Owens, executive director of the
Winnipeg Boys and Girls Club, and Heather Popoff who actually
directed the program. They did a superb job. I would like all
members of the House to congratulate them.
* * *
SPORTS
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
why strike a subcommittee to study sports in Canada? Is it
because our national passion, hockey, is going south? Do we need
a study to know the NHL is a multi-billion dollar, multinational
business funded by $80 tickets, special viewing box seats and TV
revenue from mass markets?
NHL owners and players are pricing hockey out of its cradle, our
home, Canada.
The committee mandate, with an emphasis on hockey, will also
touch on other sports, both professional and amateur, in 30
meetings and will table a report by June 1998. This is
completely unrealistic, resulting in either a lightweight study
having no real value or worse a request to expand the hearings
tenfold. The study is either a waste of time or a blank cheque.
Why are we doing it? Donovan Bailey, Silken Lauman, Nancy
Green, Kurt Browning, Sylvie Frechette and of course Paul
Henderson. Need I name more? Canadians are proud of their
athletes but this study will do nothing to support—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 30 I held the first of a series of pre-budget
consultation meetings with the constituents of Parkdale—High
Park. The message I received is that they are proud of the hard
work done by the government that has resulted in today's healthy
economic environment.
Canadians in my riding want the government to stay the course
and continue the process of debt reduction and fiscal restraint.
We are all looking forward to the elimination of the deficit
during this Parliament.
My constituents have told me that we should reinvest any surplus
dividend in health care, education, youth employment and the
environment. As well, my constituents would like to see
continuing support for small business.
It may interest my hon. colleagues across the floor to learn
that we did not talk about sweeping tax cuts. Canadians,
especially those in Ontario, know too well the real costs of
these tax cuts borne by them in the areas of the health care
system and the education of their children. They are not willing
to pay this huge price for political pandering.
* * *
[Translation]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today the
Bloc Quebecois expresses its thanks to all those who served in the
army, navy, air force and merchant marine, all the nurses and all
of the other men and women who risked their lives, or gave their
lives, to enable us to overcome tyranny.
As the years pass, and the veterans of that time get older and
pass on, each new generation has a duty to perpetuate the memory of
their sacrifice and courage.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I honour the women and men
who gave their lives to defend freedom and democracy during the two
world wars, the Korean war and the numerous UN peacekeeping
missions.
We salute you all.
* * *
[English]
KOREAN WAR VETERANS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
year's Remembrance Day poster honours our Korean War veterans.
Today on the first day of Veterans Week I think it is appropriate
that we pause and give some thought to the sacrifices made by
these veterans.
1405
For those who fought in it, the Korean War was as bloody and
dreadful as the two world wars that preceded it. Perhaps,
happening so soon after the second world war, Canadians just
wanted to put the war out of their minds and so Korea has not had
the same attention as other wars.
We should remember that when we joined 15 other nations to
resist enemy aggression, Canada was the third largest contributor
to the multinational force. In all, over 26,000 Canadians served
in Korea, 1,558 became casualties, of whom 516 died.
In the Memorial Chamber in the Peace Tower hon. members will
find the names of those 516 Canadians in the Korean Book of
Remembrance. It is our great loss that they did not make it
home. May they rest in peace.
* * *
LEST WE FORGET
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on November 6, 1997 a resident of my riding, Margaret McKenna,
will make a trip to Belgium for what is truly a sober reminder of
the sacrifice made for us during World War II.
Margaret McKenna's eldest brother, Jack Summerhayes, was a
gunner on a 426 squadron Halifax bomber, which was shot down on
the night of May 12, 1944 over Belgium.
Thanks in part to the efforts of the Canadian and Belgian
governments and the Belgium Aviation History Association, on
September 6 of this year Pilot Officer Jack Summerhayes was found
in a Belgian swamp still at his post. Jack Summerhayes and two
other crew members also trapped in the bomber will be buried
alongside the five other other crew members who perished that
night in 1944.
As we approach Remembrance Day, may the pilgrimage of Margaret
McKenna and the other Canadians travelling to Belgium to bury
their loved ones some 53 years after their deaths serve as a
statement that we as Canadians will never forget the supreme
sacrifice they made.
* * *
LIEUTENANT COLONEL BILLY BARKER
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we can tell much about a country by its heroes and how it treats
them.
This forgotten Canadian hero shot down 53 enemy aircraft during
World War I. This forgotten Canadian hero received the Victoria
Cross, the DSO, the Military Cross, the French and Italian
military honours, six gallantry awards from King George V and
others. Billy Bishop called him the deadliest air fighter who
ever lived. This forgotten Canadian hero was the first president
of the Toronto Maple Leafs and first acting director of the Royal
Canadian Air Force.
Some 50,000 people joined or watched the mile long cortege at
his funeral in 1930, yet his grave is marked as Smith in a family
crypt with no indication of what he did for Canada.
Canada, it is time to give Lieutenant Colonel Billy Barker, VC,
this Canadian hero from Dauphin, Manitoba, the recognition he
deserves.
* * *
PREMIER OF NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
great pleasure to congratulate the Premier of Nova Scotia,
Russell MacLellan, on his election yesterday in the riding of
Sydney North. Russell was the choice of his party and the people
to be Premier of Nova Scotia.
Russell is an 18 year veteran of this place where he made his
mark as a parliamentarian noted for his honesty and integrity, a
great representative of his province and as a man of the people
in all his deliberations.
We wish Russell well on his victory and that of his colleague
Dr. Ed Kinley in Halifax Citadel. These victories bode well for
a re-election of the Liberal government in Nova Scotia in the
next few months.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at a Liberal
fundraising dinner at $325 a plate, the Prime Minister emphasized
that Ottawa would not be arriving in Kyoto empty-handed.
But what is going on, really? Canada is the only G-7 country
without a specific target to propose at the Kyoto conference.
Has the Prime Minister forgotten that Canada made the
commitment at the Rio Summit in 1992 to reduce its greenhouse gas
emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000? His government has,
moreover, maintained that commitment, particularly by inaugurating
a set of voluntary measures in 1995.
The outcome: the Royal Society of Canada estimates that, by the
year 2000, greenhouse gas emissions will be 9.5% over the 1990
reference level.
This wait-and-see attitude, backed up with virtually no
strategy whatsoever, contradicts the Prime Minister's statement
that “If we are really concerned about the next century—”
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
* * *
QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again we have a fine example of the “Do as I say not as I
do”
politics of the sovereignist government of Lucien Bouchard.
This is how Le Devoir put it in its headline “Quebec City
imposes its aid on Montreal”.
Lucien Bouchard is very good at accusing others of meddling, but I
would like to know what his government is up to if it is not
meddling in the management of the City of Montreal.
1410
His government is going back on its promise in the financial
agreement and is now telling the mayor of Montreal how to manage
his city. Montreal is, to all intents and purposes, under
protection.
The separatists do not think this is meddling in Montreal's
jurisdiction. They are calling it a partnership. I put the
question again: should we not look askance at any partnership Mr.
Bouchard might propose to Canada?
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1966
the Liberal government rushed the sale of nuclear Candu reactors
to China without following the rules laid out in the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. Back then the Liberal government
showed a complete lack of respect for the safety of citizens.
The Liberals have done it again. Now they are trying to push
another Candu sale, this time to Turkey.
The Liberal government is kidding itself if it thinks that
setting up a sham of a shallow assessment will stop the lid from
blowing sky high on this issue. It is another sneaky backroom
political deal.
The recent decision by Ontario Hydro to shut down seven
operating reactors proves that safety concerns better be
addressed before we sell these things to other countries.
To add even more insult to Canadians the Liberal government is
using taxpayers' money to finance these deals. So much for the
public input just mentioned on how best to spend Canadian tax
dollars. The government has once again allowed a business deal
to take precedence over the environment.
* * *
[Translation]
CONTAMINATED EARTH
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, PCB
contaminated earth from Toronto is on its way to the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area with the permission of Lucien
Bouchard's PQ government but without the permission of the people
there and the people of Quebec, who were not consulted.
Fifty thousand tonnes amounts to some 2,000 trucks a year or
10 trucks arriving every work day in Saint-Ambroise with a load of
contaminated earth after passing through a number of towns and
villages in Quebec. The danger facing the people of Saint-Ambroise
is that tomorrow it could be 100,000 tonnes of earth and 4,000
trucks a year.
It is a former minister of the environment in Ottawa who is
responsible for the shipment of contaminated earth from Toronto to
the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area without complying with the Quebec
regulations on holding public hearings.
* * *
[English]
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Oslo conference on child labour reflects a growing concern about
the urgent need to end the economic exploitation of children.
Speaker after speaker at this conference identified the
liberalization of trade agreements as a key cause of the
escalation of this worldwide problem. Statistics show there are
250 million child labourers in the world. Many work in
conditions that jeopardize their health, their safety and their
social and moral development.
Our party believes that governments and consumers in developed
nations can and should use their influence to put pressure on
those who exploit child labour. We believe the Canadian
government should pass legislation similar to the Harken bill in
the United States which would ban the importation of goods made
by child labour.
Canada should join the other nations of the world in signing ILO
convention No. 138 which limits the minimum age of workers
entering the workforce. Canada should not enter into any
international trade agreements that do not clearly outline
acceptable labour standards.
* * *
[Translation]
SMELTING INDUSTRY
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabasca, PC): Mr. Speaker, earlier
in the week, Magnola, a smelting company and a subsidiary of Noranda,
announced the construction of a $720 million magnesium smelter in
Asbestos. This project will create 1,000 jobs during the construction
phase and 350 once the smelter is in operation.
As a result of this announcement, Quebec and Canada will become the
second largest magnesium producer in the world.
Having held the office of mayor of Asbestos until June 2, I hasten
to congratulate the people at Magnola, as well as all the players in the
social and economic development of Asbestos.
This very good news does credit to the people of my hometown of
Asbestos, my riding, my province, Quebec, and the country as a whole.
* * *
1415
[English]
REFORM PARTY
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over
the past several weeks I have listened to my Reform colleagues
make accusations about financial contributors to my party. I
listened to them challenge the credibility of the prime minister,
who happens to be the most respected politician in Canada. I
have also listened to my Reform colleagues tell the government
that it needs to take advice from western mining consortiums.
Reform members tell us to listen to western mining companies
when setting targets for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
They tell us to listen to these mining companies regarding the
transition of authority of the Mackenzie River Valley.
Fund-raising, mining. Fund-raising, mining.
I wonder if Canadians realize that many thousands of dollars
donated to the Leader of the Opposition came directly from these
same mining companies. Talk about representing a special
interest group.
Reformers should be ashamed. There is no end to their
hypocrisy.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for weeks now the Liberals have refused to reveal what their
position is on greenhouse gas emissions. The countdown to Kyoto
is just 26 days now and yet the Liberals have resorted to empty
rhetoric, saying and pretending they are the only Canadians who
really care about mother earth. Yeah, right.
I would like to ask the prime minister this question. Why did
the government ignore its own environmental laws and sell
reactors to China and Turkey without the proper environmental
assessments?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the affirmation of the hon. lady is not true. We have
followed Canadian regulations. The law permitted us to do what
we did.
We believe that exporting Candu reactors is very important for
the Canadian economy. It is extremely important for countries
which will use the electricity generated by nuclear power to
replace coal, which is causing a lot of climate problems.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this government bypassed the entire process. The only
environmental assessment that the Liberals are doing for these
nuclear plants is some meaningless shadow assessment. The deal
has already been approved for these reactor plants. It does not
matter what the government does.
No nuclear reactor would ever be allowed in Canada with this
meaningless, shallow shadow assessment. What a double standard.
Why does the prime minister pretend to be Mr. Green Thumb at
home here in Canada and yet around the world he is known as Mr.
Uranium?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again the Reform Party is up in the House of Commons.
When this bill was before the House of Commons Reform members
voted against it. They did not want to have anything at all. This
bill called for assessments to be done according to the laws of
Canada and they voted against it.
Now they dare to get up in the House. They are not serious, they
are just laughable.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am dead serious about quoting from the second Liberal red book:
“Domestic action alone is not enough to protect Canada's
environment. Ensuring a healthy environment for Canadians is a
major foreign policy goal”. There is no such thing with nuclear
reactor plants in China and Turkey.
I want to ask the prime minister once again, can he stand in his
place here today and say that he is proud of being known as Mr.
Recycle in Canada when he is actually known as Mr. Radioactive in
China and Turkey?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to know that they are against nuclear energy.
I am happy to know that members of the Reform Party do not
appreciate the fact that we have developed in Canada the safest
system in the world for nuclear energy with the Candu reactor.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the prime minister stood in the House and made the
ridiculous claim that he gives a damn about the environment.
Let us take a look at his damn, China's Three Gorges Dam.
While in opposition the current environment minister condemned
Canada's involvement in the project, calling it “the world's
largest disaster”, but his own government is financing at least
$153 million in loans for the Three Gorges Dam.
Can the prime minister explain his own government's damn
hypocrisy?
1420
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to AECL and its business around the world,
as a matter of policy the Atomic Energy Corporation of Canada
Ltd. conducts an environmental analysis of all its projects.
In relation to the bid process, which is still under way in
Turkey, one of the bid specifications was the complete
satisfaction of all relevant environmental regulations and
assessments.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
nice answer, but it is completely irrelevant. I was asking about
Three Gorges Dam.
The government wants to punish the Canadian taxpayer with the
Kyoto deal when it turns out it does not give a damn about the
environment.
Why will the prime minister not admit the closest he has ever
come to a green policy is on the golf course?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again they do not have a position.
We want to do what is important for Canada. We want to make a
serious contribution to solving this problem. It is a problem
which affects all the nations of the world. The only thing the
Reform Party is proposing is to do nothing.
We will not listen to the Reform Party. We will do what is
right.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I wonder if I might ask you to
please back away from using the word damn.
* * *
[Translation]
DRINKING WATER
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Health claimed that he had “the support
of all the provinces to introduce” Bill C-14 on drinking water.
The Government of Quebec, however, has never given its support for
this bill.
Will the minister admit that he has never had the agreement of
any minister of the Government of Quebec to go ahead with Bill C-14
on drinking water?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously things are getting seriously diluted.
Everyone knows that it is becoming increasingly difficult for
the Bloc Quebecois to justify its presence here in Ottawa. Every
day, it looks for significant problems. Today, the focus is water.
It is truly bizarre.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
If the minister wants to wade in, I will give him a tip: he should
start by answering the questions.
I repeat my question to the plumber of health. Did he receive
the support of a minister of the Government of Quebec before saying
that he had Quebec's support in tabling Bill C-14? There is
nothing watered down about that, that is a question he should
understand.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
subject matter of Bill C-14 is entirely within federal
jurisdiction. We have fully respected the jurisidiction of the
provinces.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question to
the Minister of Health will be clear and simple.
Could he tell us whether or not he has the Quebec government's
approval to go ahead with Bill C-14?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer
is yes.
Let me quote a letter from the Quebec health minister dated May 2
last year, stating that “from a public health protection point of view,
we have no problem with this bill being enacted”. That is the answer
given by the Quebec health minister.
1425
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is
referring to a bill from the last Parliament. Bill C-14 was introduced
last Friday.
Does he have the Quebec government's approval specifically for
Bill C-14, which is before us now?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I plan to
share the contents of this letter with the hon. member. I have a copy
here for him.
The hon. member cannot get around the fact that the Government of
Quebec was in agreement.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, question period is rough enough.
Please, I appeal to all of you, do not bring our pages into our
particular disagreements or debate. I would ask you not to do
that.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the prime minister.
Just hours before the Liberals called the spring election
cabinet pulled another fast one on Canadians, approving $1.5
billion in financing and agreeing to circumvent an environmental
assessment of a Candu reactor sale to Turkey.
In six years this reactor reported 1,100 nuclear incidents.
Politically unstable, Turkey has a disturbing human rights record
and it is an alarmingly high credit risk.
How does this sordid deal promote environmental safety abroad
and Canada's good reputation in the world community?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if and when AECL is successful in its bid and actually
negotiates a contract to sell a Candu reactor to Turkey it will
of course comply with all applicable Canadian standards and
Turkish requirements. Those Turkish requirements are in fact one
of the very bid specifications.
As a matter of policy AECL conducts an environmental analysis of
all its projects.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I hope
the prime minister will address this question.
Ever since he was energy minister 13 years ago, the prime
minister has been bound and determined to sell nuclear technology
to Turkey. Now he is at it again.
Can the prime minister not find a better way to rack up club
Kyoto points than spending billions of dollars to promote the
sale of nuclear technology to an economically and politically
unstable country like Turkey?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member obviously has a very profound
misunderstanding about the whole financing. This is not a
giveaway. This is a repayable loan at commercial rates.
Second, Canada has sold thus far nine nuclear reactors. The
Canadian public has not lost one cent on any repayment. In fact,
not only has it made money but it has also created jobs.
Last, the state of Turkey is guaranteeing this loan and as a
member of the OECD and as an ally in NATO and as a country that
has kept up with its international repayment schedule—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
1430
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
difficult for the House to take the government seriously when the
Minister of Natural Resources tells us that AECL is doing an
environmental assessment on itself.
I would like to know from the Prime Minister, since he is ready
to manipulate the courts and also circumvent the law by producing
a secret shadow assessment on the Turkish deal, if a secret
shadow assessment has been done on the China deal. If yes, will
he take it out of the shadows, allow it to glow in the dark and
take the credit that he wants but that he does not deserve?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everything was made public when we signed the deal with
China. Everybody knows everything. We always respect the law.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, when
he was the environment critic in 1991, today's finance minister
said “I unconditionally support the principle of the
environmental assessment legislation in Canada”. I guess he
just does not support the practice. He then went on to say “The
environmental assessment process in this country must not be open
to political manipulation”. If selling nuclear reactors to
other countries without environmental assessment is not political
manipulation of assessment laws, what is political manipulation?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have indicated, the policies of AECL are to conduct
environmental analysis of all of its projects. The bid projects
from other countries around the world typically include
environmental requirements with which AECL must comply.
Finally, in terms of the application of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act, the hon. gentleman will know that
is a matter of litigation at the present time and neither he nor
I should comment until the litigation is complete.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to senior government sources, the Kyoto deal is going
to cost Canadians billions of dollars. We want to ask the Prime
Minister a straight question and we want a straight answer. I
ask him not to evade it or avoid it but to just answer it.
How is the government going to pay for the Kyoto deal, by
raising the gas tax or by cutting into the surplus? Which will
it be? How is it going to pay for it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a very good record. We have run a good
government and have managed to reduce the deficit to almost zero
in four years. Therefore, we know how to manage the affairs of
the nation. Among the responsibilities of the nation is to make
a contribution to the problem of climate change, something the
Reform Party does not want us to do.
We need to have a strong position because we believe in the
protection of the environment on this side of the House.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I asked a straight question and I got another crooked answer.
Why will the Prime Minister not tell us—
Some hon. members: Sit down.
The Speaker: We are pushing the envelope a little bit
today. The question, please.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the cabinet
apparently made a decision to rack up costs on the Kyoto deal.
How is the government going to pay for it? Is there going to be
an increased gas tax or not? Is the government going to reduce
the surplus or not? How is it going to pay for the billions of
dollars of cost implied by the Kyoto deal?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is exclusively the Reform Party that is talking about
this doomsday scenario.
The hon. gentleman should know that there are a variety of ways
by which the climate challenge can be addressed: by broadening
and deepening the voluntary initiatives in the private sector
which the private sector is already anxious to do; strengthening
energy efficiency, encouraging co-generation; promoting science
and technology and the commercialization of science and
technology; fostering renewables; the whole point about jointed
limitations; the whole point about credits trading throughout the
world. All of those will be part of the equation. Canada will
have a position that works.
* * *
[Translation]
DRINKING WATER
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Health has just been capitalizing on a letter dated May 2, 1996, in
which, according to him, the Government of Quebec gave its agreement.
1435
If the minister has read the letter, can he deny that what is
written is the following: “I would like to inform you that it is the
Ministry of the Environment and Wildlife that is responsible for water
management. It is the responsibility of that department to advise you of
a definitive agreement on this legislative process”?
Does the minister know how to read? Does he still claim that he has
the agreement of the Government of Quebec, as he has just stated?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
plumbing is still plugged.
Some hon. members: Ah! Ah!
Hon. Allan Rock: It is too late now to protect the Bloc's position.
They made an enormous mistake. We obtained the prior agreement of Quebec
and of all the other provinces.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: That's not true.
Hon. Allan Rock: May I quote a letter from the Quebec Public Health
Branch, which says that the bill “is a positive element to protect
public health”.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let's be serious.
We are in this House and we are speaking to the government. The Minister
of Health has no right to falsely interpret statements, as he is doing.
How can the Minister of Health claim to have the agreement of the
Government of Quebec when his letter not only comes from the Department
of Health but also states that it is up to the wildlife ministry—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I would ask that you refrain from
showing letters. Letters may be quoted, but you are asked not to display
them like that.
I would ask the hon. member from Roberval to pose his question.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. Is
the minister aware of the letter signed by the present Deputy Minister
of Health and sent to his environment colleague in Quebec, and of the
denial by the Quebec Minister of the Environment of what the minister
has just said in this House?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
really strange. I simply read what Quebec government officials wrote
about this bill.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Allan Rock: The simple fact is that the provinces have
jurisdiction over the quality of drinking water and that the federal
government has the power to make laws concerning the materials used to
transport water. Our bill deals with this and it is an area of federal
jurisdiction.
* * *
[English]
VISAS
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration. Yesterday, former ambassador Joe Bissett issued his
report into a Los Angeles visa office with regard to the issuing
of a visa to a known triad gang leader. The report contained 11
recommendations.
Can the minister advise the House and all Canadians if she
agrees with those recommendations? When will she enact those
recommendations not only in Los Angeles but in all visa offices
around the world?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following a problem in the Los Angeles office, I
personally asked the deputy minister to prepare a detailed report on the
situation.
The deputy minister asked an outside consultant to review the
processing procedures in our Los Angeles office. We just received Mr.
Bissett's report. It includes some very interesting recommendations and
we intend to follow up on them.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Does the minister know today where the triad gang leader is? Has
her department issued a deportation order against the triad
leader and his family?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform member is well aware that the Privacy Act
precludes me from providing details on the private lives of those
involved in any departmental matter.
* * *
1440
NUCLEAR REACTORS
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Prime Minister.
Yesterday evening, CBC National News announced that the federal
government intends to fund the sale of two CANDU reactors to Turkey, to
the tune of $1.5 billion, without conducting environmental impact
studies.
Can the Prime Minister explain why his government is prepared to
circumvent its own legislation for the sole purpose of selling nuclear
reactors to Turkey, while here in Ontario, nuclear reactors are being
closed down because of the risks to the environment?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman should be careful of the aspersions
he may cast with respect to the Candu technology around the
world. That technology has proven to be efficient and safe and
is respected.
The problems he refers to in Ontario were problems related to
management and processes within Ontario Hydro. They had nothing
to do with the Candu technology.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we to
understand that the federal government is prepared to do anything for
money, including violating its own laws?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have already said, if and when AECL is successful
in its bid and if and when it is successful in negotiating a
contract subsequent to that bid, it will of course comply with
all applicable Canadian standards and all applicable Turkish
laws. Environmental specifications were a part of the bidding
process imposed by Turkey.
In addition to that, AECL, as a matter of policy, has an
environmental examination process that is built into every one of
its projects.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Albertans mourn the untimely death of Senator Walter Twinn. I
know that members from both sides of the House conveyed their
condolences at his funeral. Since then both Ralph Klein and
Alberta Liberal leader Grant Mitchell have called on the Prime
Minister to let Albertans elect their next senator.
May I remind the Prime Minister that he said in 1990 “I pledge
to work for a Senate that is elected”. Will the Prime Minister
keep his word and allow Albertans to elect their next senator?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we were for an elected Senate. It was a proposition in
the Charlottetown accord that the Reform Party campaigned
against.
Reformers want to have it both ways. They did not want to make
any compromises and they voted down an elected Senate. I will
name the next senator the same way as the father of the Leader of
the Opposition was named.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this does not require constitutional change. May I remind the
Prime Minister that in Alberta the precedent has already been
set. The late Stan Waters was elected as senator to the Senate in
1989. Now we have members of all sides of the Alberta
legislature, including provincial Liberals, asking for an elected
senator.
I ask again. Will the Prime Minister let Albertans elect their
next senator?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister of the land is obliged to respect the
Constitution for Alberta and the provinces of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
SEARCH AND RESCUE HELICOPTERS
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
The government will soon announce its decision regarding the
purchase of 15 search and rescue helicopters, without having even
debated the issue in Parliament.
Will the government do what it usually does when a difficult
decision must be made and announce its choice of helicopters on Friday
afternoon or next week, when Parliament will not be sitting?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the process for the purchase of 15
helicopters has been unfolding for a long time. We had four bidders
whose names made the news.
We are currently studying the bids and once this review is
completed, I will make recommendations to cabinet and a decision
will be announced.
* * *
1445
[English]
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Western Economic
Diversification.
Canadians know the importance of job creation for young
Canadians and its impact on the future of the nation. Young
people from Vancouver Kingsway want to know how western economic
diversification has addressed the creation of jobs for youth in
western Canada.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, western diversification has made great progress
specifically targeted to young people.
The first area is in science and technology where it has created
almost 100 jobs. It hires young people to help small business—
Some hon. members: Oh. Oh.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, they are not
interested in jobs.
It hires young people to help small business in science and
technology.
Second is the international trade personnel program which has
enhanced exports and has created approximately 400 jobs.
Third is the western youth entrepreneurial program that
encourages young people to get involved and start out in small
business. It has created almost 500 jobs.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Spanish overfishing off the east coast prompted this government
to respond with guns and Captain Canada. Meanwhile on the west
coast, Americans continue to overfish and continue to violate the
Pacific salmon treaty and this government does nothing.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why the double standard
for British Columbians?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member comes from Vancouver
Island, British Columbia and he should know better than to ask
such a foolish question.
The fact is that the salmon resources on the west coast are
shared between Canada and the United States. To have a decision
which will be lasting and in the best interests of fishermen of
both countries and at the same time to protect conservation, it
is essential to have a joint agreement with the Americans. There
is no other way of handling this matter except through an
agreement which both sides feel is in their interests.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am from British Columbia, just like the minister of
fisheries. I am representing the people of British Columbia and
they are insulted to be called foolish.
The people of British Columbia have heard talk for five years
from this government and they are sick and tired of it. They want
action. When is this minister going to get up off his seat and do
something for the people of British Columbia?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day what counts is not
the rhetoric in the House. What counts is an agreement with the
Americans. We must have a lasting agreement that we have not had
because of the flaws in the Mulroney treaty which was negotiated
in 1985.
We are attempting to overturn that through the
Strangway-Ruckelshaus process. The hon. member is well aware of
that process. Instead of coming here and putting forth the
comments he has, he should be supporting the process so we can
get to an agreement which will solve the problem we face on the
west coast.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the fisheries committee heard eloquent
evidence from B.C. coastal communities and aboriginal people
about the devastating socioeconomic impact of the Mifflin plan.
I want to ask a question of the Minister of Human Resources
Development. The Community Fisheries Development Centre has
prepared an excellent active labour market transition plan
costing $375 million over three years. On the east coast fishery
so far, $3.4 billion was spent. I want to ask the minister to
finally meet with representatives from British Columbia who are
here today. Will he support their proposal and not give us more
rhetoric? What will he finally—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
1450
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans met with them yesterday. My
parliamentary secretary, the member for Kenora—Rainy River, met
with them today. My parliamentary secretary will be visiting
them.
I think it would be irresponsible to pit one region against
another and make comparisons. The situation in B.C. is serious
but is on a different scale than the one we have in Atlantic
Canada. I think the member will grant that. My department has
already invested in a number of programs for the communities in
British Columbia—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bras d'Or.
* * *
DEVCO
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
During a recent meeting with the auditor general, we were
informed that a special examination of the crown corporation
Devco will be concluding soon but only Devco's board of directors
have the right to see the results of this audit.
Taking into account the latest questionable activity of Devco's
management, and on behalf of the members from the United Mine
Workers of America who are in Ottawa today, will the minister
live up to the standards of openness and accountability that his
party campaigned on and table—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the hon. member shares the sentiment expressed
by the union, by the Government of Nova Scotia and by our
government to have success stories related to Devco.
The special examination is part of the process to try to ensure
that the corporation is operating in a correct and proper basis.
The study is being conducted by the auditor general. When the
report is prepared, it will be handled in the appropriate way
according to law. I will take the hon. member's request under
advisement.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, when
referring to Canada's position on greenhouse gas emissions, the
Prime Minister said last week in this House “Our position will,
I hope, be acceptable to all Canadians”.
One month before Kyoto all they can do is cross their fingers
and hope. Apparently it is a coin toss whether the Prime
Minister impedes the progress of industry or negotiates away
Canada's reputation as an environmental world leader.
Will the Prime Minister at least consult Canadians? Will he
commit today to having any position derived from Kyoto subject to
a vote in this House?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to legally
binding targets in Kyoto. We are dealing with every partner in
this country in reaching our goals and timetables. We are open to
any consideration and any suggestions from other parties in this
House. We would like to encourage all Canadians to be involved
in this very important agenda.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question was quite precise. I asked whether any positions derived
from Kyoto would be subject to a vote in this House? That was
the question I asked.
The Minister of the Environment has just stated that she has
been in dialogue with her provincial counterparts. Next week on
November 12 there is a meeting with the provincial energy
ministers and provincial environment ministers and today they
still do not know what the agenda for that meeting will be. When
will they know the agenda? What will be discussed? More
important, they will be asked to sign on to a position that they
have no idea—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues are in constant
dialogue with all the partners on this important agenda,
including the provinces. Yes we will be meeting with the energy
and environment ministers next week in Regina. The agenda for
that meeting is known to them.
* * *
CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Customs Tariff Act is currently before the House. Concerns
have been raised by many, including Toyota in my riding of
Cambridge, whether any changes will be made to the current tariff
policy on imported automotive parts.
Can the minister assure this House a level playing field for all
auto manufacturers in the country, including Toyota—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
1455
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has been an extremely strong advocate
for the interests of the auto makers in his riding. I can assure
him that the government will not remove the provision that
permits duty free entry for auto parts used in vehicle assembly
in Canada from the tariff simplification bill.
I can also assure him, as he has asked, that we sent a letter
last week to the Canadian Motor Vehicle Manufacturers'
Association confirming this commitment.
* * *
IRAQ
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Saddam
Hussein is asking Canada to drop trade sanctions against Iraq.
The minister has two choices. He can go with France and Russia
and drop the sanctions, or he can go with the U.S. and stick with
the sanctions.
Does the minister have a position, or is he going to waffle like
this government does on most issues?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we stand four square behind the
United Nations' decision to have sanctions against Iraq.
* * *
[Translation]
BILINGUALISM
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the President of the Treasury Board.
Yesterday, the Commissioner of Official Languages stated that
budget constraints had resulted in a 20% reduction in the number of
federal offices designated bilingual.
How can the President of the Treasury Board, himself a francophone,
justify this kind of doublespeak on the part of his government, which
claims to support French-speaking minorities while continuing to cut
services?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary.
Last year's report by the official languages commissioner shows steady
improvement in the use of French in French-speaking groups and in
offices serving Canadians in both official languages.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
for over 50 years the men and women who bravely served in
Canada's wartime merchant navy have been treated as second class
veterans, deprived of many of the benefits accorded veterans of
other services.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs when questioned on this in the
House yesterday referred to Bill C-48, which he knows full well
excludes members of the merchant marine from many of the benefits
received by others.
Will the government show the veterans of the merchant marine the
honour and respect they deserve before it is too late?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the bill was C-84. It was passed in July 1992.
The hon. member, when he refers to this government, should know
that the main agitators for that bill were three members of the
opposition party, which was the Liberal Party, and a member of
the NDP. It was the initiative of those members which caused the
government of the day to come across with a bill which basically
allowed those brave merchant seamen to receive the same benefits
as those veterans in uniform, including a veterans independence
program—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
* * *
FISHERIES
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. It has to do with the west
coast fishery. I see he has just stepped out of the House. I
hope he will be able to join us again.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: If the hon. member for Sherbrooke has a
question, I would like him to put it now.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans in question period referred to envoys
Ruckelshaus and Strangway. Both envoys met with Premier Clark
last week and his advisory committee. Both envoys said they were
ready to submit an interim report when there is a bilateral
meeting between the Prime Minister and the President during the
APEC conference.
Will the government accept their offer and finally do something
for the people on the west coast who want some action on this
issue?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was the hon. member's party which
signed a treaty which is so defective that the annexes ran out
after seven years. There was no provision in it for continuing
those annexes or for settling disputes.
His party signed that defective treaty which is the cause of our
current problems.
1500
Strangway and Ruckelshaus are able to report when they wish.
However, we will not make the same mistake that the Conservative
Party made in putting on artificial deadlines. That led the
treaty to come forward to the shamrock summit when it was not
ready.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I have two groups to introduce to hon.
members today. I wish to draw to your attention the presence in
our gallery of the members of the Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources Protection of the National People's Congress of
the Republic of China.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Second, not in my gallery but in the public
galleries, we have a group of teachers from all parts of our
country who are participating in the second annual Teachers'
Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy. The objective of
this forum is to promote a greater understanding of the Canadian
political process.
[Translation]
Let us welcome, dear colleagues, these teachers who are educating
future generations of Canadian citizens.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to citation 347 of Beauchesne's and according to the
reference within that section to Standing Order 32, there are two
methods in this House by which documents can be tabled.
Today during question period, documents were passed from the
health minister to the leader of the third party and vice versa.
I would ask that those two documents be properly tabled in the
House so that all of us can be aware of the contents. I hope
that that process does not occur again.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know of no provision for
tabling a document coming from an opposition member but in so far
as the government document is concerned, I will endeavour to have
it tabled before the end of the day.
1505
The Speaker: The hon. House leader for the Reform
Party is accurate in what he says. If ministers quote from
documents, they should be tabled. I would not like to see any
minister using one of the pages during question period to bring a
document across the floor of this House. The pages are here to
help us and they should not be brought into our debates or
battles.
I take the word of the hon. government House leader that the
documents that were quoted from will be tabled. I urge him to
have these tabled before the end of today's session.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 34(1). I have the
honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the
report of the Canada European Parliamentary Association to the
sixth annual meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Organization of Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE,
which was held in Warsaw, Poland from July 5 to July 9, 1997.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report
of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
[English]
In accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 108(2), your
committee has considered the fifth and seventh reports of the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
presented to the House during the second session of the 35th
Parliament, entitled respectively “Ending Child Labour
Exploitation, a Canadian Agenda for Action on Global Challenges”
and “Canada and the Circumpolar World Meeting the Challenges of
Co-operation into the 21st Century” and has concurred in the
findings of these two reports.
In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 109, the
committee requests that the government provide a comprehensive
response to these reports.
Mr. Speaker, this may seem rather unusual. It is a rare
procedure that reports presented in the last House after an
election are re-presented. Our committee is of the view that
these reports are extremely important and therefore want to
re-present them to the House so we can get the government's
response.
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on
the Library of Parliament.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of some committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the seventh report later this day.
1510
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of
reference from the House of Commons of Thursday, October 23,
1997, in relation to supplementary estimates A for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1998, in regard to Vote 5a under Parliament
(House of Commons).
The committee reports the same.
[Translation]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour
to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
The committee has considered Bill C-8, the Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas
Accord Implementation Act, and reports it back to the House without
amendment.
* * *
[English]
PRIVACY ACT
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-275, an act to amend the
Privacy Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to vest the
privacy commissioner with the power to determine whether personal
information should be disclosed by a government institution under
subsection 2(1) of the Privacy Act. The power is currently
exercised by the head of such an institution, namely a cabinet
minister.
This bill will ensure that ministers cannot hide behind the
Privacy Act for political reasons.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-276, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(protection of children).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a bill today,
the purpose of which is to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code
of Canada. Section 43 allows corporal punishment of children by
parents and teachers.
I believe that section 43 contravenes the charter of rights and
freedoms and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We hear a lot about societal violence and abuse of children.
This section of the Criminal Code legally sanctions corporal
punishment which leads to the physical and emotional injury of
children.
It is high time that this section of the Criminal Code was
repealed to make it clear that this ancient law no longer has a
place in a society that upholds and values the rights of
children.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the seventh report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented
to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to present petitions today.
I have another three petitions with a total of 1,090 signatures
asking Parliament to amend the Criminal Code regarding sentencing
for those convicted of sex offences. The petitioners mention a
variety of ways in which they think we could tighten up the
Criminal Code to make it safer for Canadians.
1515
VIOLENT OFFENDERS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
next two petitions with regard to Bill C-41 contain 61
signatures.
They ask that all violent offenders are excluded from
conditional sentencing. I am happy to support that.
JOYRIDING
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
next two petitions, containing another 208 names, ask parliament
to increase the penalties for those convicted of joyriding.
It would be my pleasure to present my private member's bill on
that very subject at the end of regular business today.
[Translation]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure to present three petitions.
In the first, the petitioners are asking that the phrase
sexual orientation not be included in the Canadian Human Rights
Act.
[English]
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition urges the federal government to join
with provincial governments to make the national highway system
upgrading possible.
[Translation]
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last petition, the petitioners call on the
government to eliminate the GST on books and periodicals.
[English]
HUDSON, QUEBEC
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which has been
signed by almost 80% of the residents eligible to vote in the
town of Hudson.
They urge parliament to make clear and present a commitment to
honour and protect the Canadian territorial status of the town of
Hudson pursuant to the expressed will of its residents as herein
presented and demonstrated by the local results of any future
provincial referendum on separation.
I would like to pay tribute to Mrs. Thompson, who is the
initiator of this petition. She is in the gallery and has worked
very hard and diligently to keep our country united. For that I
salute her.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of concerned
constituents of Brandon—Souris, more particularly the town of
Killarney, Manitoba.
It has to do with the abolition of nuclear weapons. It requests
parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the
year 2000 of an international convention that will set out a
binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
As it seems the House has done such a wonderful job on land
mines, I think it is now time to go up one more stage and accept
the petition on the abolition of nuclear weapons.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I present two petitions on behalf of my
constituents.
In the first the petitioners are concerned that the possible
removal of section 43 of the Criminal Code would strengthen the
role of bureaucracy. They petition to affirm the duty and
responsibility of parents to raise their children according to
their own conscience and beliefs. They want to protect section
43 of the Criminal Code.
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is with regard to the United Nations convention
on the rights of the child and the fact that not all provinces
support that move on the part of the government.
They petition support for Motion No. 300 which would recognize
the fundamental rights of individuals to pursue family life free
from undue interference from the state and furthermore recommend
the fundamental right and responsibility of parents to direct the
upbringing of their children.
It is with great honour that I present these two petitions.
CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition to present today calling on the government to end
the legal approval of corporal punishment of children by
repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
RIGHTS OF FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions to present today. The first ones has to do
with the family.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the
House that managing the family home and caring for preschool
children is an honourable profession which has not been
recognized for its value to our society. They also point out
that the Income Tax Act does not take into account the real costs
of raising children.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon parliament to
pursue initiatives to assist families who choose to provide care
in the home to their preschool children.
LABELLING OF ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition has to do with the issue of alcohol misuse.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the
House that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause
health problems, particularly fetal alcohol syndrome and other
alcohol related birth defects which are 100% preventable by
avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon parliament to
mandate the labelling of alcoholic products to warn expectant
mothers and others of the risk associated with alcohol
consumption.
1520
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the final petition has to do with our everyday heroes, police
officers and firefighters.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the
House that police officers and firefighters are required to place
their lives at risk on a daily basis.
The employment benefits they receive often provide insufficient
compensation to the families of public safety officers killed in
the line of duty. They also point out that the public mourns
those losses.
Therefore the petitioners pray and call upon parliament to
establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the
benefit of families of police officers, firefighters and other
public safety officers killed in the line of duty.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36,
containing well over 12,000 signatures. All the petitioners are
from the Kamloops constituency.
They call upon the government to do away with section 745 of the
Criminal Code, the section which in a sense does not mean that a
life sentence is a life sentence. It means it is only a
shortened sentence and it allows criminals like Clifford Olson
and so on to make appeals. Thousands of people from my
constituency are saying that this does not seem right at all and
should be repealed.
I have another petition that has to do with section 43 of the
Criminal Code of Canada. That is the section that permits people
to violently beat their children. I suppose we could put it that
way.
The petitioners feel that it is not right for parents to inflict
physical pain on children at young ages. When they are
determining their values and the basic morals of society it is
not right for parents to inflict pain on children for
disciplinary purposes and goes against the spirit of the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. They are asking for a repeal of section
43.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
whole list of truckers from the Kamloops constituency.
They call upon parliament to develop a national highway system
upgrading program, using infrastructure money to make sure
Canada's highway system is in first rate condition from coast to
coast to coast.
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, another set
of petitioners are concerned about the unfair tax system in
Canada presently.
They point out that it is unjust, unfair, biased and a disaster,
to put it mildly. They consider it to be so haywire that it
needs a complete overhaul.
They call for a cost benefit analysis for every tax exemption to
ensure, whatever the cost is, that the people of Canada, in
particular the taxpayers of Canada, are getting the best bang for
their dollar.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is a
request by petitioners to dedicate the federal excise tax on
gasoline, or at least a part of it, to rehabilitate Canada's
crumbling highway system, again a dedicated tax for highway
construction.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from concerned Manitobans with regard
to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Canada and all state parties to the 1968 United Nations treaty
on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons reaffirmed their
commitment in May 1995 to undertake to pursue negotiations in
good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the
nuclear arms race at an early date.
The petitioners simply would like the House and the government
to enter into a binding timetable for the abolition of all
nuclear weapons.
* * *
[Translation]
TABLING OF LETTERS
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to table in the House copies of two letters to which I
referred during oral question period.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1525
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that all notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed
to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I
move:
That 10 members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
be authorized to travel to St. John's, Witless Bay, Harbour
Breton, Marystown, Burgeo, Deer Lake, La Scie, Blanc Sablon,
îles-de-la-Madeleine, Miramichi, Shelburne and Sambro for the
week of November 23 to 30, 1997; and
That the necessary staff do accompany the members of the
committee.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PARENTING ARRANGEMENTS
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House
of Commons be appointed to examine and analyze issues
relating to custody and access arrangements after separation
and divorce, and in particular, to assess the need for a
more child-centred approach to family law policies and
practices that would emphasize joint parental
responsibilities and child-focused parenting arrangements
based on children's needs and best interests;
That seven Members of the Senate and sixteen Members of the
House of Commons be members of the Committee with two Joint
Chairpersons;
That changes in the membership, on the part of the House of
Commons of the Committee, be effective immediately after a
notification signed by the member acting as the chief Whip
of any recognized party has been filed with the clerk of the
Committee;
That the Committee be directed to consult broadly, examine
relevant research studies and literature and review models
being used or developed in other jurisdictions;
That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and
adjournments of the Senate;
That the Committee have the power to report from time to
time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print
such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have the power to retain the services of
expert, professional, technical and clerical staff,
including legal counsel;
That a quorum of the Committee be twelve members whenever a
vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both
Houses are represented, and that the Joint Chairpersons be
authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and
authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are
present, so long as both Houses are represented;
That the Committee be empowered to appoint, from among its
members, such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and
to delegate to such sub-committees, all or any of its power,
except the power to report to the Senate and House of
Commons;
That the Committee be empowered to adjourn from place to
place within and outside Canada;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and
radio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;
That the Committee present its final report no later than
November 30, 1998; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint that House
accordingly.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me today to
rise and speak on the motion to establish a special joint Senate
and House of Commons committee to examine child custody and
access issues.
Before I do, since this is my first opportunity to rise in the
House while you have been in the chair, Mr. Speaker, I want to
say what a great pleasure it is. You are a fellow Edmontonian.
We have contiguous ridings. On behalf of my constituents in
Edmonton West I want to say what a great pleasure and honour it
was for all of us when you were appointed Assistant Deputy
Speaker in the House. I look forward to working with you in the
months and years ahead.
The motion calls for a special committee to examine and analyse
issues relating to custody and access arrangements after
separation and divorce and, in particular, to assess the need for
a more child centred approach to family law policies and
practices that would emphasize joint parental responsibilities
and child focused parenting arrangements based on children's
needs and best interests.
I know there is a great deal of interest and concern about these
very important issues. When a marriage breaks down, arrangements
have to be made for the care, upbringing and maintenance of the
children.
Some parents, many parents, are able to work together to decide
what these arrangements should be. They are able to focus on the
interests of their children and can agree on where the children
will live and how decisions will be made about the children's
schooling, religious upbringing, medical care and participation
in extracurricular activities.
1530
For other parents, however, this is a difficult task. Divorce is
a complex and emotional time in people's lives. As parents, most
will want to try to do what is best for the children, but they
may be confused, hurt or angry. They may be unable to agree
about what arrangements are best for their children. They may vie
for the loyalty of their children.
There can also be genuinely complex issues that need to be
resolved. In these contested cases is the family law system that
governs custody and access determinations. I know that many
criticisms have been raised about the current family law system.
Courts that address family matters are the forums for deciding
parenting disputes and there are many complaints about the high
costs and delays associated with the legal process.
There are also concerns that parents who cannot agree about
parenting issues involving their children must often resort to an
adversarial system that tends to promote the anger and hurt
associated with separation and divorce. Many believe that the
very terminology of custody and access in family law legislation
reflects a winner and loser approach that encourages the parties
to compete with each other for the status of real or best parent.
Too often the legal process contributes to the conflict between
the parents and results in outcomes that do not resolve matters
but in fact further promotes ongoing difficulties and pain.
Recent experience with child support reforms suggests that these
issues to be dealt with by the committee will promote vigorous
debate, dare I say at times probably contentious debate.
There are many different views about what problems should be
emphasized and about what reforms are required. The difficult and
controversial nature of the issue should not dissuade us from
beginning the process of reform.
The many transitions and reorganizations that accompany family
breakdown greatly affect the children involved. While the long
term effects of divorce should not be exaggerated by any of us,
there is no doubt that divorce is a painful experience for
children. There is a real need to look at custody and access
issues and attempt to reform the family law system to minimize
the negative impacts of divorce on children.
The motion asks that the committee specifically look at the need
for a more child centred approach to family law policies and
practices. I believe this is very important. The goal must be to
identify the legal rules, principles and processes that will
emphasize what is best for the children. This can be done if the
committee is steadfast in focusing on children. I believe there
is an obligation to examine this issue through the lens of the
needs and rights of children. All concerned Canadians, ourselves
included, must reject the temptation to cast this debate as one
between the interests of mothers versus fathers. If we are to
move forward in dealing with the challenge of parenting after
divorce, both individually and in our public policy, we must be
vigilant in making the needs and rights of children our primary
source of inspiration.
To help in this task the committee can review the professional
literature about the developmental needs of children and examine
models being used in other jurisdictions that have attempted to
alleviate the negative impact of divorce on children. The
committee can also meet with and listen to the many individuals
and groups that care about the quality of life for our children.
I know there is a great deal of interest, concern and insight
that Canadians will bring to these issues.
I urge all members of the House to support the motion. It is
time to find ways to help parents better resolve their
differences and focus on what is in the best interests of their
children.
Unfortunately, because of prior engagements, I have to leave the
House in a few minutes. But I want everyone to know that I am
going to follow and review with interest the speeches that follow
in this debate because I do believe this is an opportunity for
all of us, in the Senate and the House of Commons, all parties,
to work together to do something that is not only right but very
important to ensure a better quality of life for all our children
and families as we approach the millennium.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I am also pleased that the Minister of
Justice is still with us.
There is another matter before that department, Bill C-16. There
have been deliberations among all the parties about this subject
matter.
1535
I believe I have the consent of the House for the following
motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, if Bill C-16 has been
reported from committee no later than November 6, 1997, the House
may consider the said bill at the report stage and at the third
reading stage on November 7, 1997.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion to
establish a joint committee of the House of Commons and the
Senate.
Last February a rather historic and public discussion ensued
across the country on Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act.
By the time the bill got to the Senate, alarm bells began to be
heard in the community.
The groundswell was enormous and powerful. Public support for
the Senate's actions to slow down and review Bill C-41 was
profound and unprecedented. Public concern for fairness in the
divorce law was strongly expressed.
We only have the motion today because the government was forced
into a situation in order to get Bill C-41 passed in the last
Parliament.
The government ignored the pleas of Canadians last time. Now
that we have a committee we hope to make it work.
The government, in rushing the bill to passage, rushed the
committee's work. In fact, public support for the position taken
by the Senate surprised the government.
The dominant public wish and the one which most frequently and
repeatedly was articulated was the wish that we in Parliament
would return balance, fairness and equilibrium to the Divorce
Act, to the practice of family law, to the courts and to the
administration of justice.
I quote one letter written by Toronto lawyer Bruce Haines,
Queen's counsel. He wrote in part:
For over thirty years I have practised family law in Ontario and
during that time I have watched the development of the law and
the dramatically changed social conditions which have not only
seen a very high percentage of married women move into the
work force in most every area but have also seen a significant
narrowing of the income differentials between men and women.
During that same period I have watched spousal social
expectations change in that husbands have embraced a full
participation in all aspects of family functions, particularly in
the nurturing and raising of their children.
Changes to the divorce law have rarely kept pace with changing
attitudes and, despite the gender neutral language of the Divorce
Act, its actual implementation in the areas of child custody and
child support has continued to be marked by an entrenched
systemic gender bias that “mother knows best and father pays
best”. The administration of justice does not treat spouses
equally when it comes to assigning child custody. By and large,
custody is almost always assigned to mothers and the most fathers
can hope for is a generous access order. Where fathers interfere
with custody orders they will ordinarily bear the full weight of
the law while mothers who flaunt access orders will, by and
large, receive judicial admonitions with usually little other
consequence.
Section 16(10) of the Divorce Act requires courts to take into
consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is
sought to facilitate contact of the child with each spouse.
Practising family lawyers know that this section is almost never
invoked.
I urge—to reject Bill C-41 in its present form and to approach
all of the issues on a remedial basis. In considering custody
and child support, there is a need to restore greater balance
between the rights of mothers and fathers. I have not ventured
into other areas of family law where the similarly entrenched
systemic gender biases seems to exist.
1540
This was one of the many letters of the view that divorce
legislation must be balanced and fair. That was widely held
across the country by most Canadians, men and women.
Senators amended Bill C-41 and passed the amended bill on
February 13, 1997. The House of Commons concurred with the
amendments the next day. As part of the passage of Bill C-41,
the government, in response to the concerns of senators and
non-custodial parents, committed itself to studying the issues of
custody and access. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada said:
—this government will take the steps necessary to introduce a
motion in this session to establish a joint Senate-House of
Commons committee to study issues related to custody and access
under the Divorce Act. The government is offering this
commitment in response to concerns raised by some senators on
behalf of non-custodial parents, who believe that this issue
should be re-examined.
Family issues are fundamental to our society. In the last
election our party made a commitment to make families a priority.
We said among other things that we made a commitment to the
country to make families a priority and ensure that government
policies and regulations are family friendly. We said that we
would extend the $3,000 to $5,000 child care deduction to all
parents including those who care for their children at home. We
would increase the spousal amount from $5,380 to $7,900,
levelling the field for parents who chose to stay at home to look
after young children and help families to meet the needs of a
more demanding economy.
We would help provinces and local governments ensure that
deadbeat parents live up to their responsibility to support their
children when families break down. We would ensure that
agreements concerning access to children are respected an
enforced. A zero tolerance policy would be enacted on family
violence and we would crack down on child prostitution and child
pornography.
We also said that we would make families a priority. I quote
from our literature:
While the federal government has been catering to special
interest groups, the voice of Canadian families in the policy
debate has grown weaker and weaker. This has resulted in social
and economic policies that undermine the security of Canadian
families, causing unnecessary levels of stress, burnout, and
financial hardship.
Family time is not a luxury. It is absolutely essential if we
are to preserve health and happiness in our homes. It's time to
make families a priority again.
For too long these issues of custody and access have been
begging Parliamentary committee study. Witnesses related to the
numerous and extensive problems in the areas of custody and
access and the problems facing non-custodial parents. They also
described many problems including parental alienation syndrome,
commonly known as PAS, and false sexual abuse allegations in
divorce and custody disputes.
The new payment guidelines of Bill C-41 sound good, but I have a
letter from one parent who claims that the change has brought a
loss to the children, a loss of relationship. He says in part:
As you may have gathered I am one of the so called non-custodial
parents. I have paid my share of my children's expenses through
child support payments for the past eleven years. Now the
government has decided that I am really just a wallet for my
kids—It seems to me that pressures have swung the pendulum
all the way to the other side.
I am now having to pay so much to my ex and Revenue Canada that
I will no longer be able to visit with my children or have them
come to stay with me.
I think that when the law was enacted too much consideration was
given to the custodial parents—and not enough to the
non-custodial parents.
Again I tell you that this law has now made it so that this will
be the last summer that I will be spending with my children and I
don't anticipate visiting as often as I live 600 kilometres away.
I just cannot afford the luxury and that is what the new law has
made it.
I hope you understand what is happening and can do something
about the law to make it fair.
Parental alienation syndrome is an effort by one parent, the
custodial parent, to eliminate access between the children of
divorce and their non-custodial parent. Elimination of access is
often a significant indicator in an effort to alienate the
non-custodial parent, eliminating access on a permanent basis.
Dr. Richard Gardner coined the term parental alienation syndrome
to describe the process whereby one parent initiates the
systematic vilification of the other parent by manipulation of
the child with the intent of alienating the child from the other
parent.
The manipulation of time becomes the prime weapon in the hands of
the alienator.
1545
Parent alienation syndrome occurs when one parent is engaged in
an attempt not merely to destroy the other parent and the other
parent's relationship with the child but also to cause the child
to join in the process. The child enters the dynamic becoming a
weapon, a spokesperson, a co-combatant in the process.
Another problem is the use of false sexual abuse allegations in
divorce and custody proceedings. The use of false allegations in
divorce and custody proceedings has become epidemic in this
country and it has been described as the weapon of choice in
custodial disputes.
Of particular note is that these peculiar false allegations
arise in the context of divorce and custody disputes. False
allegations, as in the case Plesh v. Plesh, the trial judge, Mr.
Justice Carr of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench in his 1992
judgment stated about an applicant “I conclude she never
believed that their son had been abused, not when she reported
the abuse and not now”.
These are only some of the many problems in the operation and
application of the law with respect to custody and access.
In the last Parliament, former member of Parliament Daphne
Jennings championed a grandparents' right private member's bill
to extend better legal standing for grandparents in court
contested custody cases.
On the issue of access, the 1995 Supreme Court of Canada
decision in Gordon v. Goertz was significant. The issues for
adjudication were custody access and contact between the child
and non-custodial parent. In her reasons for judgment Madam
Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote “Important as contact with the
non-custodial parent may be, it should be noted that not all
experts agree on the weight to be given to such contact in
assessing the best interests of children”. That statement and
judgment caused a lot of anxiety and anguish to non-custodial
parents across this land and caused many to ask Parliament to
study the issues of custody and access.
As Mr. Haines pointed out earlier in the letter that I quoted
“Marriage and society in general have moved toward joint
parenting and joint responsibility for children. You may divorce
your spouse, you don't divorce your kids”.
So too in many jurisdictions has divorce law moved toward joint
or shared parenting. Some jurisdictions have even abandoned the
antiquated term “custody” in favour of the modern term
“parenting”. As a former divorce mediator, I have special
awareness of these kinds of problems.
However, in 1991 the justice minister, then professor of law,
wrote a discussion paper for the Alberta Advisory Council on
Women's Issues entitled “Women and the Process of Constitutional
Reform”. In this paper she argued that constitutional
devolution of federal government powers to the provinces would
give provincial governments control over the family, such as that
certain proceedings in separation and divorce would fall under
provincial jurisdiction by virtue of the provinces' power over
property and civil rights. Such devolution, she believes, would
result in joint custody after a divorce.
She apparently was not in support of it. She stated “If
through constitutional reform, divorce became a matter of
exclusive provincial jurisdiction, provinces could legislate
comprehensively in the area of the family. Some provincial
legislatures may choose to impose a presumption of joint custody
and require mandatory mediation in the resolution of family
disputes”.
The minister also said “An increasing number of commentators
now suggest that joint custody may simply perpetuate the
influence and domination of men over the lives of women”. What
an incredible statement.
The public's rejection of ideology in family law drove the
public support for a second look at Bill C-41. Therefore I
support the terms of the committee. The terms have been read out
by the Speaker.
In general the courts typically deal somewhat acceptably with
money, but they deal very poorly and handle with great difficulty
custody, access and guardianship. The federal Divorce Act and
similar provincial family court acts leave a messy jurisdictional
problem within the area of family law.
Therefore, the renewed parliamentary attention to outstanding
issues on family law is welcome. Reformers recognize the
fundamental importance of family to society and Reformers agree
that changes to family law need to be addressed to ensure the
rules are more family friendly.
1550
We will certainly emphasize the need for such an issue to be
raised in Parliament in order to raise the profile of the family
and family issues as it clearly is a priority topic in the
community. Consequently we will fully participate and will work
to ensure reasonable cost in the conduct of the committee while
we also ensure we have balanced deliberations.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this is a rather odd motion we have before us today. When I first
looked at it, I was not all that surprised at the government's
approach, because as justice critic I have had to look at a number
of bills and am becoming increasingly aware that the federal
government is, under the guise of the preponderance it claims to
have under the Constitution, under the guise of peace, order and
good government, or under the guise of criminal law, encroaching
more and more on areas under provincial jurisdiction.
This week we had another striking example, Bill C-14 on
drinking water. Is there any area more provincial than water?
No, yet the federal government is interfering.
Things are getting more and more complicated with the
government over there. A while ago, we found it somewhat amusing
to watch the matter of which jurisdiction the St. Lawrence River
came under. You will see that there is a parallel in this. What
they said was “The bottom of the St. Lawrence is federal. The
water is provincial. The fish swimming in the St. Lawrence are
provincial. As soon as they are caught, taken out of the water,
and put into the boat, they are provincial fish in a federally
registered boat, constructed under provincial regulations, and
governed by federal safety regulations”. So there you are, what a
fine great country Canada is.
Finally, we address a subject similar to this motion. When a
couple separates in Canada—this is referred to directly in the
motion—this is provincial legislation. But when they divorce,
this is federal legislation.
And if that were not sufficiently complex, the federal government
has decided in its wisdom as a centralizer, of course, to table a
motion and mandate some of the dear senators. I hope they will
find enough of them awake to fill the positions. There will be 7
senators and 16 MPs with the two co-chairs, making up a nice little
committee to examine child custody, visiting rights, parenting and
so on.
This motion is worded so broadly that it encompasses large
areas directly under provincial jurisdiction. I will give you a
few examples of this. In Quebec, the mechanisms for implementing
custody and visiting rights when there is a separation come under
the Civil Code. The federal government has nothing to do with it.
Parenting of children comes under parental authority, a
jurisdiction of the Quebec National Assembly. The federal
government has nothing to do with this.
As regards the school system, which is under provincial
jurisdiction, the federal government has no business intervening.
Then there is the federal government's unwarranted intrusion
in the lives of individuals. The motion talks about “practices
that would emphasize joint parental responsibilities and child-focused
parenting arrangements based on children's needs and best
interests”. What is the federal government doing in this area?
Tell me. It is provocation, pure and simple. It has no business
in this area of jurisdiction.
1555
I wondered how the people opposite, who are supposed to be
intelligent, can be guilty of such provocation?
An hon. member: They are supposed to be.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes, they are supposed to be, as one
of my colleagues said. But, perhaps we should look at the
background to this motion.
We have to go back to the 35th
Parliament, where little deals were made here in the House, not
with the duly elected members sitting here, but with the two or
three senators who were not sleeping in the other place. Deals
were made with the federal government and they were told “Let Bill
C-41 on child support pass, and we will find you a little something
to do.
We will arrange it so you can look at the issues of custody and
access after divorce”. That was the deal made at the time to get
C-41 through.
What is this motion about? It concerns both divorce and
separation. It is much broader. However, the many members
opposite who support the minister's motion should open their ears
to what a member of the Bloc Quebecois has to say on the matter
rather than watching what is happening above. Our comments are
important, and perhaps if they paid a little more attention to
Quebec's historical demands, we would not be here discussing the
distribution of powers or anything else. The problem between
Canada and Quebec would have been settled 35 years ago.
That having been said, I understand that the topic, which has
to do with child custody from a financial or parenting point of
view after separation, is a serious one. We are not saying that it
is not serious or important. On the contrary, it is very much so,
but it is up to the provinces, not the federal government, to
legislate in this area.
As far as Quebec is concerned, I am well placed to address
this issue, first because I am an MP from Quebec, and second
because I am a lawyer. I argued matrimonial cases before I was
elected to office. Since that time, things have even improved in
Quebec with the recent reforms introduced by the PQ government,
some of which took effect on May 1, 1997, and others of which took
effect recently on September 1, 1997.
We in Quebec have a model for setting support payments that
reflects the importance Quebec places on its children. This model
takes into account the income of both parents and the length of
custody.
In addition, a form and a guide for determining amounts are made
available to parents, mediators, counsel and judges. The model is
so good that the federal government has agreed to apply it in cases
of divorce, while we naturally applied it in cases of separation,
since separation comes under provincial jurisdiction. And all this
has been in effect since May 1, 1997.
They are talking about family mediation as though it were the
discovery of the century. Family mediation was already around in
Quebec when I was practising law, between 1986 and 1995, but since
September 1, we have improved our approach, making it much more
structured.
This family mediation, which we have Minister Serge Ménard to thank
for, is free for the first six sessions and may be conducted by
lawyers, notaries, guidance counsellors, psychologists, social
workers and so on. In 1996, there were 459 mediators in Quebec;
today there are 735. There is therefore a market, and this service
is used in Quebec.
The legislation provides for a process of registering
decisions with a special clerk in order to speed matters up,
because there is also an important issue at stake: there is no
stalling around when it comes to children's rights, parents'
visiting rights, salary, family income; decisions must be taken
quickly.
A follow-up committee will submit a report on the process to the
Minister of Justice, in the fall of 1998. Serious work is being done;
measures are being applied and a follow-up will take place.
1600
As you can see, whether it is child support setting, mediation,
children's rights, the right to attend school, alimony, etc., Quebec has
already adopted major legislation on all these issues. Today, if the
federal government really wanted to show its good will in this regard,
it could withdraw without any problem from family law and even divorce
matters.
It could immediately decide to get out of these areas. A whole
section of the Quebec civil code has been passed but is not being
applied, because it is beyond our jurisdiction. The National Assembly
could immediately and without any problems start dealing with divorces,
which would improve harmonization and better reflect what really goes on
in Quebec, with a very comprehensive civil code. Our code deals with the
appropriate issues and truly meets the needs of Quebec families.
We can dream, but we know the federal government will not do it. In
the last 30 years, it has been increasingly interfering in areas under
provincial jurisdiction, including those of Quebec.
The motion shows that, when it comes to parenting, the federal
government does not hesitate to get involved in this area, which comes
under provincial jurisdiction.
As I said earlier about the federal government interfering in people's
lives, I think that too is not its jurisdiction.
All this to say that my initial reaction to this motion was to say
“We in the Bloc Quebecois must not take any part in this charade. We in
the Bloc Quebecois must not be a party to this centralizing approach, an
approach that does not in any way reflect Quebec's demands”.
However, after talking the matter over with the hon. member for
Longueuil in particular—she is very sensitive to the needs of
women's groups in Quebec and has met with many groups involved in
this matter—I realized that these groups also agree that the
federal government is stepping in areas that are none of its
concern. They nevertheless wanted us to be involved. They wanted
us to be there to voice our opposition to this extremely
centralizing bill. And that is what we shall do.
The hon. member for Longueuil, whose professionalism is well known,
will take part in this committee to represent Quebec's point of view.
She will also make the point that, in Quebec, we are at the forefront in
several areas, and family issues in particular.
If at all possible, because I am a perpetual optimist, we in the
Bloc Quebecois will try to bring the government and those senators who
are not asleep round to our opinion. We will try to convince them that
they should not interfere in this area but rather give it over to each
province's legislative assembly.
But if we are unable to change their minds on a matter as important
as this one, I am confident that the hon. member for Longueuil will let
our caucus know and, if the government does not yield to the Bloc's
arguments, in her wisdom, she will table a minority report.
That having been said, you will understand that, yes, we will take
part in the work of this committee if it is struck. We will pay close
attention and very strongly insist that Quebec's demands in this area of
jurisdiction be met.
I have been hearing all sorts of comments coming from the other
side since I rose to take part in this debate.
There is one thing I would like to say: if it is true that the members
opposite are so committed to the interests of children, why then have
they not yet endorsed the Quebec-France agreement on child support? This
agreement directly concerns the children of Quebec, and yet the
government opposite is wrangling over procedures, scrutinizing every
comma and preventing thousands of Quebec families from receiving child
support from overseas.
1605
If the government is truly committed to the interests of children,
it should endorse the agreement that has been signed between Quebec and
France, and maybe then we will be able to believe them when they say
they are committed to families, to sound management in this area of
responsibility that does not belong to them.
We will be showing openness by attending the hearings to be held by
this committee, although we find it useless and a waste of time, and I
hope that the government opposite will at least be smart enough to
listen to our demands and to take them into account in any future
legislation.
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was listening to
my colleague opposite speaking about his experiences and his background
in the legal profession. I was once a policy advisor at the provincial
level and I can tell you that I have seen more than one woman having
difficulties with provincial laws. I don't think there is much to be
proud of in this respect. Either he is out of touch, or he was being
selective in his choice of cases.
He often makes reference to the senators. I can introduce him to
some of them and he will realize that they are people with a lot of
experience and knowledge and that, even if a few were caught with their
eyes closed, that does not mean they are all sleeping. It is important
that he realize this.
I have a question for the hon. member. If a couple separates and
one of the partners moves to another province, would national standards
not make it easier to settle matters?
That was my comment and my question.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would ever so politely say to the hon. member that he ought to
have remained a political adviser, because as a politician, at
least as an MP representing a Quebec riding—unless I am mistaken—he
ought to know that the remarks he has made are totally
inaccurate, totally coloured by very negative stereotypes on
Quebeckers, who have passed family legislation that is superior to
what there is in many other provinces.
There are many MPs who speak in this House but are rarely seen
in committee. I invite the hon. member to the justice committee,
among others, where subjects like this will be discussed. I hope
that the hon. member will, at the very least, be appointed to the
joint committee which will examine this matter and which will hear
qualified witnesses in this area, from Quebec and elsewhere.
Very often, people from outside Quebec are the ones who quote
Quebec legislation. I often heard, during the 35th Parliament,
people from Vancouver, from Alberta, from the maritimes, quoting
legislation, citing Quebec's various social measures as examples.
I think that the hon. member across the way is completely unaware
of this.
For that reason, I repeat that he might have been better off
remaining a politicial adviser. I can understand that perhaps
giving opinions like that to the MP he worked for before may be
what put an end to his career as a political adviser.
As for the rest, I do not understand the hon. member's
question on how divorces in Ontario, in Quebec, in some other
province, can be handled if it is not the same law that applies.
What happens with separations? The same law does not apply, it
depends on whether it is in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia or
the maritimes.
But do some people end up worse off as a result? No. Because the
provinces have passed legislation which reflects what they are.
1610
We in Quebec do things differently than they can in Ontario,
for example, or in western Canada. The men of the 1990s in Quebec
are not the same as those of the 1970s. Nor are the women involved
in cases of divorce and separation in the 1990s the same as the
women of the 1970s.
Our experience in Quebec is not necessarily the same as that
of Ontario or western Canada. This is why it is absolutely
essential that the government opposite understand that it must not
interfere in the family law sector, that it must back off and leave
the provinces to deal with parenting, support payments, separation
and divorce.
It must understand that, for the well-being of the public and in
the best interests of Quebec families, among others—I will argue
for my parish and for Quebec—it must cease to meddle in matters
that do not concern it.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the issue before the
House today. It is one that I have some particular interest in.
Hon. members indicated in their earlier comments the experience
they have had. My own experience in this area goes back as a
legal aid lawyer for some 12 years, dealing with people in
society who do not perhaps have the financial ability in many
cases to afford social workers or counsellors and who find
themselves locked into litigation of the courts and litigating
over the custody of and access to their children.
It is no argument that family law lawyers who deal with these
problems deal with one of the most difficult and fractious areas
of law in the country. It is no argument that social workers who
deal in this area of the law find themselves confronted on a
daily basis with very difficult decisions. It is no exaggeration
to say law enforcement agencies that are forced in some cases to
enforce court orders dealing with custody and access find
themselves in very difficult situations.
I know because I have seen the children put in police cars when
one parent demands to exercise access. I have also seen children
tortured and torn between two parents saying on one hand “I want
to be with this parent” to please the custodial parent and on
the other hand “I want to be with this parent” to please the
access parent.
It is clear in the area of divorce and family law that we are
not dealing in a very sensible and certainly not in a very
effective way with the needs of the children who find themselves
caught in that arrangement.
At the end of the day there has to be a better way to deal with
family breakup. I am pleased to support the structuring of this
committee. I welcome its views. It can perform a very real
service for all the people I have mentioned who work in family
law services and in the family courts by helping us come to grips
with what should not be an adversarial process but a conciliation
process dealing with children.
Before I was a member of Parliament, as a lawyer and a private
citizen I submitted a report to the then minister of justice in
the last parliament which sought to reform the Divorce Act. I
dealt with the very issues this committee will be examining,
whether or not there ought to be a presumption of joint custody,
whether or not there ought to be other presumptions in terms of
determining which parent has custody.
When we look at the Divorce Act as it currently stands,
unfortunately in many ways it encourages litigation and takes us
away from a reconciliation process or a mediation process.
The framers of the act did not intend this but once we take the
family and put it before the courts in a litigious manner, in an
adversarial manner, then right off the bat we find ourselves
acting in ways that might be in the best interests of clients or
might be in the spirit of the legislation, but are not in the
spirit of the family.
1615
Just as an example, section 16 of the Divorce Act allows for an
interim order for custody. As every family lawyer knows, the
courts have developed over the years many tests to determine
which parent ought to be the custodial parent. I can go back to
the parents patria jurisdiction of the court, the tender years
doctrine, which was used by the courts for many years to
determine in most cases that the mother ought to be the custodial
parent of children who were of tender years. The courts then
revised that and dealt with the status quo doctrine.
Of course the overriding principle is always the best interests
of the child but it is the difficulty in determining that which
the courts have to grapple with. It is with that difficulty that
these tests have been developed.
One of the predominant tests is of course the status quo
doctrine, which is that the parent who has custody of the
children and provides a good environment for them immediately
after the separation ought to be the parent who has custody. It
is not good for the children to have constant upheaval.
As sensible as that test may be, when we put it into the
litigation context, it encourages family law lawyers to make an
application for interim custody right off the bat. They know
that in many cases the first one at the bar takes all. If the
lawyer is successful on the interim application, with the courts
being overburdened as they are, the actual litigation of the
divorce process and the custody hearing may take four, five, six
or eight months, which automatically gives one parent the
advantage. However the child does not necessarily have the
advantage.
When we look at it in that adversarial context, that is the kind
of thing which the act encourages.
For families that have sufficient means, and the justice
minister alluded to some families who are able in many situations
to work out their own custody and access arrangements, many
parents can. Many poor parents can because they put the needs of
the children first and allow themselves to work within that
framework. However there may be more success among wealthier
people because of course they can avail themselves of mediation
services which in many provinces are currently privately run and
run for profit.
Obviously there is a need to take this out of the litigation
process and move it into a more conciliatory process. As I have
indicated, that is one section of the Divorce Act which
encourages litigation.
While there is a presumption of joint custody or access, the act
itself looks at other factors. It says that the court ought not
to look at the past conduct of a parent in determining which
parent ought to have custody or access. Yet we know that many
judges in the litigation process are influenced by many things.
While the court says we ought not to look at past conduct unless
it is in relation to the children, if we are in a win or lose
situation, it is not unusual for litigation lawyers in a family
law practice to bring up events from the past which have no
impact on raising the children but which may appeal to a
particular judge's sense of what is morally correct and what is
not.
The act itself in its current form may encourage litigation
which is not always in the best interests of the child and
certainly does not go the distance in helping to determine a
better mode of dealing with the children who are the subject of
divorce proceedings.
The tests that I have indicated filter down into provincial
legislation. My hon. colleague in the Bloc talked about the
jurisdictional problems. Those jurisdictional problems are
there. There is no question that upon separation, the family
finds itself in family court. Upon divorce, they find themselves
in the federal or supreme courts. Therefore what has been
determined by a lower court is not necessarily binding in the
federal court.
1620
It is extremely difficult. Those of us who have practised
family law will know the absolute incredulity of our clients when
we tell them “I know we have litigated all of this in family
court. Now you are proceeding to divorce and yes you have a
custody order but it is not binding and it reopens the door”. So
the jurisdictional problem is one I think this committee could
look at in a very real way.
It would be remiss if I did not say, coming from a legal aid
background, that unless we look at resources in the legal aid
system which deals with the vast majority of family law cases in
this country, unless we look at ensuring there is a solid legal
aid system in place in each of the provinces, all of the rhetoric
about the best interests of the children and all of the
conclusions this committee can come to will be nothing more than
a report placed on a shelf to be dusted off occasionally. Unless
we are committed to putting in place mediation services, legal
aid services, family court services, then it may well be a waste
of time.
I respect the comments made by the hon. member, my colleague
from the Reform Party, when he talked about the presumption of
joint custody. I think most parents would agree on that until
such time as there is a breakup. At that time families need
someone to discuss with them the interests of their children
separate and apart from maintenance payments and support payments
in a way that they can understand the joint obligations as well
as the joint rights that parents have.
There has been some indication that this committee will look at
all of those questions. It may well lead to guidelines in the
Divorce Act that can then be applied to provincial acts. I look
forward to hearing and examining the situation in Quebec that has
been referred to by my hon. colleague. I would support the
committee and the creation of the committee. It can only benefit
the children and the families of this country as they struggle in
what is obviously a difficult situation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, Labour; the hon.
member for Lévis, Railway Transportation; the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Tip
Employees.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government
in the House of Commons on a point of order.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe you will find consent for the following order:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on government business
No. 7, the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose
of the said government order, a recorded division shall be deemed
requested and deferred until the expiry of government orders,
Tuesday, November 18, 1997.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to move this
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On questions and
comments, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have in my hands a press release issued by the Government of
Quebec. I will read the first paragraph only, after which I will
have a question for the hon. member.
September 2, 1997
In Montreal this morning, Quebec's Minister of Justice
and Attorney General, Serge Ménard, unveiled the new family
mediation program. As of yesterday, there is a new way to
approach separation or divorce in Quebec and it is free. Bill
65, an act adding family premediation to the Code of Civil
Procedure and amending other provisions in this Code, which
was passed by the National Assembly on June 13, came into
effect on September 1. For the first time in Quebec, it will
now be possible for couples with children to reach agreement
on custody, visiting rights, outings, support payments and
even the division of property, at no cost.
1625
That is pretty clear, as press releases go. I also think it
is pretty clear as to the approach taken by the National Assembly.
My question for the member who has just spoken is this: Does
he think that the other provinces should follow Quebec's example in
the treatment of families when they separate, and under the new
bill, when they divorce as well, with respect to mediation? Does he
not think the federal government should withdraw entirely from the
family law sector and leave this completely up to the provinces?
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the
hon. member's question in French, but my French is not good enough.
[English]
So I am forced to answer in English. I certainly would concur
with my colleague that the model he cites which is being used in
the province of Quebec is the kind of thing that I certainly
would be advocating for the province of Nova Scotia. In fact I
should advise him that the legal aid system under which I worked
took some of our own tight budget and directed it toward a pilot
mediation program to attempt to indicate to the provincial
government the need for this kind of program.
Unfortunately the program is not in place in the way that we
would like in the province. I would see an opportunity at the
federal level. If this kind of program could be enacted as
divorce mediation at the federal level, the different provinces
might then see the benefit in this kind of a program and follow
the federal lead.
I certainly commend the province of Quebec in taking this type
of action but I would not at this point indicate that the federal
government ought to withdraw completely. I think it has a role
to play, as a leader, in those provinces that might not be as
forward thinking as the province of my hon. colleague.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does
agree with my point about Quebec's being at the forefront in this
area. However, he concluded by saying that the federal government
ought not to withdraw completely, because it has a role to play, as
leader.
I would like to know exactly what he means by “role to play,
as leader” in the area of child custody, alimony, education in
terms of level of studies and access. I would like him to tell me
not in terms of the Constitution we want, but in terms of the
Constitution of 1982. There is something we must not forget. There
is a Constitution where Quebec's hand was forced. Perhaps not the
hand. I should say it was jammed down our throat, because we did
not sign it.
1630
I would like the hon. member to tell me what leadership role,
under the Canadian Constitution, the federal government could play
in the area of family rights?
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my English is not
as good as it could have been in delivering the previous answer.
What is the role I see for the federal government. I will use
as an example my own province. Obviously the parties have the
option of separating and dealing with provincial jurisdiction
later on, or immediately the option of divorce and dealing with
federal jurisdiction.
In provinces that do not have the types of mediation services or
programs alluded to by my colleague from Quebec, and if the
committee was to determine that there ought to be federal funding
in place for mediation at the divorce level which is a federal
jurisdiction, then certain individuals in a province where there
may not be provincial mediation available could avail themselves
immediately of the Divorce Act as opposed to the provincial
statutes under which they might otherwise operate. They could
avail themselves of what might be available and provided at the
federal level in the supreme courts of the provinces with federal
funding.
That would be the leadership role I would see in child custody
and access cases.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I think that the debate
we are having this afternoon is a very interesting one.
The hon. member has just said that the federal big brother may
be there to protect his province in the event that there is not
enough money available to set up family mediation.
He says that there might be financial assistance to set up
mediation. Should the federal government once again decide to
stick its big nose into this, we in Quebec already have a mediation
service, one that costs several million dollars a year.
Would he be in favour of a bill that would have the federal
government compensate Quebec 100% for its mediation service?
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would have no objection
to the federal government paying the way, in whatever province.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to start by congratulating the government on presenting this motion
to set up a joint committee to examine custody and access in
response to the concerns expressed by certain senators on behalf of
non-custodial parents.
The government must provide direction on this issue, as it did
earlier this year on Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act,
with respect to child support payments.
In the course of the debate on Bill C-41, many parents
requested on behalf of non-custodial parents, whose access rights
are guaranteed by order, that similar legislation be passed
regarding support orders. They wanted legislation that would
provide for more effective and less costly ways to enforce access
orders.
The points raised by witnesses at the hearings on Bill C-41
included questions on the effectiveness of existing mechanisms to
enforce access rights, the rights of second and third families, the
opportunity for mandatory mediation in the case of divorce, the
rights of grandparents or third parties to apply for custody or
access, parents' freedom of movement after the divorce, the right
to information and other non-custodial parent rights and the
effects of divorce on a child's mental health and development.
We must look at the language of divorce in terms of the
divorced parents and the children, as Senator Jessiman pointed out
during the debate on this motion.
The language of divorce, the terms used, such as “custody” and
“access”, come from criminal law and property law and are not
appropriate to designate the relationship between parents.
The parental approach to custody and access has been taken in
a number of states, where joint custody is considered the best
solution for divorcing couples, and sole custody is accorded only
if it is in the child's best interest. Some people are opposed to
joint custody.
1635
In 1991, when she was teaching law at the University of
Alberta, the Minister of Justice wrote a working paper for the
Alberta Advisory Council on Women's Issues entitled “Women and the
Process of Constitutional Reform”.
If, through constitutional reform, divorce were to become an
exclusively provincial jurisdiction, the provinces could pass
comprehensive family law. Some people would opt for the
presumption of shared custody and make mediation obligatory in the
resolution of family disputes. Increasingly, commentators feel
that sole custody serves only to perpetuate the influence and
domination of men over the lives of women.
We all know that education and mediation are the best solution
in any dispute, and some witnesses have spoken about education with
respect to divorce, an approach that has been taken in a number of
Canadian and American cities. Parents seeking divorce take courses
about the impact on their children of certain behaviours or
attitudes they might adopt—such as involving their children in
their dispute—and which are the most likely to have harmful
psychological effects on the children.
One of the witnesses before the Senate Standing Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Paul Carrier, a family
counsellor with the Royal Ottawa Hospital, said: “Disputes over
custody and access affect children's self-esteem—In the
interest of children, it is preferable for parents to maintain a
harmonious relationship. Money is important, but the quality of
the relationship is even more important. Many people have grown up
in poor environments but are still happy.
Money is important, but it is not the only thing. The quality of
the relationship is still more important”.
In connection with Bill C-41, he said: “The bill does not
address the question of access properly. Its approach is not in
the children's best interests. It could, and should, attach more
importance to parent-child relationships. If the division of
resources does not foster more prolonged contacts between parents
and children, the legislator will be neglecting one of children's
basic needs”.
Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
states as follows: “A child shall not be separated from his or her
parents against their will, except when this is in the best
interests of the child. A child who is separated from one or both
parents has the right to maintain personal relations and direct
contact with both parents on a regular basis”.
Article 18 states that “both parents have common
responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child.
States shall render appropriate assistance to parents in the
performance of their child-rearing responsibilities”.
I have raised some of the questions I wish to see the joint
committee examine. This is an important study and one which, I am
sure, will generate measures that will make it possible to create
a custody and access system to protect the rights of the child as
defined in the UN Convention and will also enable children to
continue to benefit from the presence of both parents.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the hon. member whether she finds it acceptable for the
federal government to be striking a special committee to examine
questions of agreements on custody, visiting rights and parenting
after parental separation or divorce, when separation is known to
be a provincial jurisdiction and the federal government has no
right to meddle in this area of provincial jurisdiction?
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, the member was saying that
separation is a provincial matter, but divorce is federal. I think
that the committee will be set up in the best interests of the
children. It should be set up.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I did not quite understand the hon. member's approach. She cited
the rights of children and they indeed have the right to visit
their parents and to have a relationship with them. I support that
100%. Even the UN supports these rights.
1640
Is the hon. member saying that a province such as Quebec could
not legislate the rights its children are entitled to? Is she, in
her centralist and federalist way, saying that provinces like
Quebec cannot provide for children the rights they are entitled to?
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that Quebec
is not able to provide the same rights to children. What I am
saying is that these issues could perhaps be raised before the
committee. I think today's debate concerns the establishment of a
joint committee to try to find ways to improve the situation for
children. That is what I am saying, and we can raise these issues
before the committee and perhaps they can be decided there.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed listening to the speech.
The questions I have are on the creation of this committee and
the recommendation that we go ahead with this committee so that
we ensure that if this type of parenting proposal becomes
legislation that it recognizes that fathers as well as mothers
have every right to nurture and provide for the children. In
many cases, we have found in the past that there seemed to be a
preponderance of decisions that favour giving the children to the
mother when that need not necessarily be the most appropriate
decision.
I wonder what the member's thoughts are on these types of
issues. As we recognize, the need for equality and for the lack
of discrimination in this country are extremely important, but it
shows up in more than one place. Here is an example where it has
shown up and it has been quite detrimental for many fathers who
have made representations to me in my constituency office. They
felt that they have been denied access to their children and are
looked on as a means of providing cash. It is one of the serious
injustices that we have.
I would like to get the comments of the member as to how she
feels about ensuring that the legislation, if it does become
legislation, demonstrates a commitment to equality.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I think in my speech—I
am not sure the member was here earlier—I mentioned that we
preferred the option of joint custody, with both parents having
access.
Should one of the parents be unable to care for the child,
then things would be different. But our preference goes to joint
custody.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in my riding I have a constituent who is a Canadian citizen. His
wife is an American citizen and a Jordanian citizen. They had a
two-year-old daughter. Unfortunately they are divorced. When my
constituent was divorced he received custody of the child.
Thereafter the mother abducted their two-year-old child and took
her to Jordan. This situation happened seven or eight months ago.
The father who had legal custody could not have access to the
child. He went to Jordan to fight with the government and the
legal system there so that he could bring the child back to
Canada because his daughter is a Canadian citizen.
The legal system had him going up and down and back and forth.
After many months he could not get the child and bring her back
to Canada.
I would like to ask the hon. member what she feels about this
kind of situation when the children are abducted and they are
carried out of the country. They are not in a position to come
back to Canada and the Canadian government has been unable to
follow it up. What would be the hon. member's reaction and what
would she feel this motion might do to follow up on these kinds
of situations?
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am very sad for
those to whom this happens, but this is precisely the kind of problems
that could be brought to the joint committee so that a solution can be
sought.
1645
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
either the member misunderstood the question by the Bloc Quebecois
member for Drummond or I misunderstood her answer.
I shall be brief. One thing is clear: the whole area of separation
is under provincial jurisdiction. Members on both sides will agree that
separation is under provincial jurisdiction. Divorce, however, under the
Canadian Constitution, is a federal jurisdiction.
Is the hon. member in favour of having a joint committee
consider the issues of custody, visitation rights and parenting
following separation or divorce? Had the government across the
way stuck to the deal it made with the other place last year to
consider the issue of what happens after a divorce, I would
understand, but can the hon. member, who is a member from Quebec,
accept that, under the guise of a nice little joint committee and
the pretence of protecting the rights of children, they jump in,
with both feet, and interfere with the rights of Quebec—because
I am a member from Quebec—and discuss separation and divorce
as a single issue, mixing everything up as they do on a regular
basis? Can she tolerate that?
That was my question.
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, my answer is that, if he
attends the joint committee, the hon. member will have the opportunity
to raise his question there and we can discuss it in then and there.
The specific purpose of this motion is to set up a joint committee
and, personally, I am in favour.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a few
short comments to make on this topic.
I find it passing strange that included in the motion is a
clause saying that the joint committee made up of senators and
members of the House of Commons be given the authority to incur
travel costs. There is a cute little phrase in it saying “inside
and outside the country”.
I am not sure whether they will find it necessary to meet over
in some foreign countries. Perhaps in the middle of winter it
would be nice to go south and have a government paid trip. Maybe
this is what is contemplated. I sincerely hope not. I find it
strange that the government should include in the motion the
phrase that they should be able to travel outside the country as
well. Surely what we should be looking at is the experience, the
needs and the aspirations of Canadian parents.
We have many children who are the products of relationships
where the parents are not married to each other. I am not sure
the motion will direct the committee to look at the implications
of that. Many of those couples stay together for a while. They
produce one, two or more children, fall into disagreement and
walk away from each other. Those children are just as much at
risk as those who suffer the experience of a divorce.
I do not know if all members have had experience with couples
who have gone through this, but my wife and I have. It is heart
wrenching to see the children being jerked around.
My last comment in this extremely short intervention, which I
know is unusual for me, is that I think we need to pay attention
to equality. We have heard many times today the expression—and
I know it is often true—that women are automatically assumed to
be the best parent and the fathers are cut out. Now there is a
cry to bring equalization into it so that fathers also have
access to their children and the children to their fathers. That
is a noble goal.
My concern is that when it comes to judging these matters it is
a false assumption that the courts always evaluate it correctly.
Sometimes we land up with built-in prejudices and biases.
I am afraid that perhaps the bias could go the other way so that
in these cases family court judges would have a predilection to
choosing fathers instead of mothers for equal or greater
advantage. That may not necessarily be the case.
1650
I simply urge that in all studies like this one we truly urge
objectivity and a true evaluation. That would include much more
than just highly paid, court appointed counsellors and
psychologists, very frankly some of whom I am not convinced are
really competent in their job. Once again the children are the
ones who suffer.
These are the few comments I wanted to make in the moments
available to me.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to ask a question to the Reform Party member, with whom I sat
on several occasions, during the 35th Parliament, on the Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs. Unfortunately, we had rather different views
on many matters. But that was part of the debate, and each one presented
his arguments.
As for the motion we have before us, I have a question similar to
the one I asked to other members in this House, but I would like to know
his opinion as a Reform member.
Does he believe that in the interest of greater harmony, of better
enforcement of family law, this whole issue of rights relating to
custody, support, visits, and other rights concerning separation or
divorce, would be better dealt with if it were the province that had
complete jurisdiction in this area?
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I never was on the justice
committee. I think the member is recalling days when he
substituted on public works and government services. Perhaps it
was the ethics committee that we worked on, the Bill C-43
committee.
Be that as it may, in answer to his question, where should
jurisdiction lie? Is it provincial or is it federal? It is one
of those areas where there is a crossover, as I understand it.
In general principle the closer to the people we have the
jurisdiction, the better democracy is served. Sometimes it is
very difficult to get politicians in distant Ottawa to hear the
concerns of the people, whereas those who are in our provincial
legislatures simply because they are closer geographically will
sometimes be able to get the message a little better.
I give guarded support to saying let us have the legislation as
close to the people as possible, in general principle in the
provinces. Where a federal law currently has jurisdiction it is
under the terms of parliament.
Perhaps the committee should look at how to devolve the issue to
provincial courts, provincial child care agencies and so on, the
people who deal with these issues, so that we get the absolute
best expression of concern for the children and their welfare.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I wish take the opportunity
to set a matter straight for the member. We sat together on the ethics
code committee. We did not succeed in agreeing there more than on the
justice committee.
He made a particular comment that I agree with 100%. He said that
very often we should ask ourselves which jurisdiction could more
properly deal with the matter. He said that we should always give the
responsibility to those who are closest to the people. I do not think
there is a matter more appropriate than this one, on that score.
Which jurisdiction, the province or the federal government, can
more properly apply the law on divorce or separation? I believe that the
answer is obvious, it is the provinces.
1655
There is already a lot of social legislation to assist families. I
think this is like a puzzle and there is a piece of this puzzle that is
missing and without which Quebec and the other provinces cannot have
full jurisdiction, and that piece is divorce legislation, which would
complete the whole area of family law.
But my question is the following: Is the Reform member familiar
with the Quebec example in the area of family law, including separation?
Also, is the Reform Party member familiar with how we have decided to
proceed in Quebec since September 1, 1997 in the area of family
mediation, which is offered to everyone free of charge, which
accelerates the process for separation and divorce, and which deals with
the issues of custody, child support, joint accounts, assets and other
things? Is the member familiar with the Quebec example and does he
recognize that it goes well beyond what the federal government can
provide by asking a committee to review this issue?
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I must concede that I am not
aware of the full details of the Quebec bills. I have heard of
them and he has alluded to them in the debate today.
One of the very valuable things that happens in the House is
that we get to know more about each other. We understand each
other better and we see where we are all coming from. I
certainly agree with the member that if there is a good system in
place in that province it should be allowed to work. There is
absolutely nothing wrong with that idea.
However, when we are talking about the welfare of children it is
very important for children to be in a home in which there is a
stable relationship between their parents.
It is distressing to me when I look at the demographics across
the country that there is a variation among people who enter into
long term, permanent, legal relationships with each other in
order to make a family and have children.
I simply respond to the member by saying that the issue in
Quebec is no less than it is in any of the other provinces with
respect to the care of children. We need to make them our focus.
There is a great need there. Many of our children are growing up
in homes where the parents are not permanently committed to each
other. In those situations statistics show that children are at
greater risk in terms of their own personal well-being and
welfare.
Personally I think we ought to emphasize more the stabilization
of families. One book I read recently indicated that one of the
greatest stresses in a marriage relationship is financial. More
husbands and wives argue about money than just about anything
else. In this country we are nigh taxed to death. The
government with its high taxation rates is adding to the stresses
of families and thereby contributing to family break-up.
If we could only get that part solved and leave more money in
the hands of families so they could provide for each other and
their children, we would have less stress and a smaller problem
in terms of looking after children from broken homes and from
broken relationships where there was no marriage. We should be
placing the greatest emphasis on the welfare of those dear
children.
I am a grandparent now. When I had my own children they were
very special to us. Now we have grandchildren. They just touch
my heart. When I see how important they are, how I wish that
every family would look at their children with respect, deep love
and caring so that we could keep our families together and keep
the children in a nice, stable home where they have the best
advantages and the greatest security that are important to them.
1700
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order made earlier
this day, the question on the motion before the House is deemed to have
been put and a recorded division deemed deferred until Tuesday, November
18, 1997, at the end of the period reserved for Government Orders.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Madam Speaker, I rose earlier to ask a question
and when you announced we were resuming debate I thought a member
opposite was going to speak before me. Then you informed us of the
questions to be raised at the time of adjournment. After that you sat
down and the clerk announced that we were going to debate another bill.
I wish to inform the Chair that I still had something to say on the
previous motion, which is why I rose.
I would like to know if it was my turn to speak on the motion
dealing with child custody, or if it was the turn of the hon. member
opposite.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must tell the hon. member I
did not see him at that moment. With the House's consent, we can resume
the debate.
Does the House gives its unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate. The hon.
member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok,
BQ): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Could you also tell me whether I have 20
or 10 minutes, as I am unsure where I stand in the order of things on
this?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): You have 20 minutes.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Madam Speaker, I also thank hon. members for
allowing me to address this motion. Sometimes, there are issues in this
House about which we care deeply.
For the benefit of those who just joined us, in the House and at
home, allow me to point out that we are addressing a motion on custody
and access arrangements after separation or divorce.
The motion, in part, reads as follows:
—and in particular, to assess the need for a more child-centred approach
to family law policies and practices that
would emphasize joint parental responsibilities and child-focused
parenting arrangements based on children's needs and
best interests;
You will understand that this motion is of great concern to us
in the Bloc Quebecois. The subject of children strikes a chord.
We believe—not only do we believe, but it is a legislative fact—that
the education of children is a matter of provincial
jurisdiction.
Separation is a provincial matter as well.
1705
Going further, to divorce, which is federal, application of
custody rights come under the Civil Code of Quebec. Allow me to
point this out very loudly and very indignantly.
When the federal government decides to strike a committee to
examine a question, I have never seen it—in my short experience at
any rate—spend time addressing a subject and then come up empty,
saying “Oh no, we are not going to deal with that any longer”.
Why, when writing these lines, this motion, did the minister
or ministers concerned not say “That's not really our jurisdiction.
We have no business messing about where we don't belong. There are
provisions already in place”.
They say that the purpose of this is to clarify things for
people.
I would just like to address the comment by the Reform member
who has just said that this issue merits examination because
children undergo great upheaval at the time of separation. Yes, I
can imagine. It is precisely to avoid having both a provincial and
federal inspector looking into the welfare of the child. I do not
want to see any more battles over who is in charge of what,
jurisdictional squabbles between the province and the federal level
when parents separate, ending up with the children having two sets
of people concerned with their well-being, looking into their case.
It is all the more confusing when the children are already the
victims of a problem between their parents, children who are
undergoing the emotional shock parental separation or divorce can
represent.
The wording of the motion embraces—a fancy word—areas under
of provincial jurisdiction just a little too much. The word
“embraces” may be rather inappropriate when used in connection with
divorce or separation, but it is important to point out that what
this committee wants to examine embraces areas under provincial
jurisdiction too much.
I have already said this, but it bears repeating. The
mechanisms for implementing custody and visitation in the case of
a separation in Quebec come under the Civil Code. Child rearing
comes under parental authority, and when it involves the education
system, under the province.
The strangest part of the motion is the tail end—and I would
say that it is scary—as it refers to an approach that will focus
on the responsibilities of each parent to assess the children's
true needs.
This approach focusses on the responsibilities of each parent,
on the needs of the children and their best interests at the time
agreement is reached on their education. If education is a
provincial matter, what business do they have sticking their noses
in this?
An hon. member: Meddling.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Yes, meddling. I thank the hon. member
opposite. Sometimes you have to grab their attention.
I think this is inexcusable intrusion by the federal
government in family matters. I recognize that the federal
government wants to get involved in a relationship where the family
is on its last legs, but this means going into the bedroom after
the parties have left it. It means going into the parents' bedroom
to see if the parents are making the right decision on the
education of their children. I find that outrageous.
For the benefit of members from other regions besides Quebec,
I would like to mention certain elements of Quebec legislation.
1710
In the past year, Quebec has passed two laws. I will identify
them and then we will discuss them a bit. The first is a model for
setting support payments. It has in effect since May 1997 and
reflects the importance Quebec accords its children. The second
concerns family mediation and has been in effect since September
1997.
What does this mean? It means that Quebec looks after parents
who are separating or divorcing. The model for setting support
payments takes the incomes of both parents into account along with
custody time. A formula and a guide for setting the amount of
support are also available for the parents, mediators, lawyers and
the courts.
It is already set up. Family mediation is a new program allowing couples
with children to agree at no cost on issues such as custody, visiting
rights, child support and the division of assets in every judicial
district.
The important thing in all this is that people are doing something.
I see some movement across the floor. Members opposite are waking up,
finally. Some are even laughing at me. It does not make sense. I realize
it is getting a little late.
I want to make sure we will not let the federal government stomp
all over areas under provincial jurisdiction. That is the purpose of my
speech this afternoon. I want people to know that.
Moreover, I do not understand why a committee is being set up to
review this issue, when everything is already in black and white.
As I said earlier, I have never seen the federal government review
something and then say that it does not make sense, that the government
will not to come up with something.
However, I will give other members an opportunity to address this
issue and I am prepared to answer questions if there are any.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order made earlier
this day, the question on the motion before the House is deemed to have
been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until
Tuesday, November 18, 1997, at the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders.
(Division deemed demanded and deferred)
* * *
[English]
DRINKING WATER MATERIALS SAFETY ACT
Hon. Fred Mifflin (for the Minister of Health) moved that
Bill C-14, an act respecting the safety and effectiveness of
materials that come into contact with or are used to treat water
destined for human consumption, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, Canada has a remarkable history of collaboration and
co-operation among the federal government, ten provinces and two,
soon to be three, territories in the north. I say remarkable
because this is a vast country, an impressive land mass of nearly
10 million square kilometres from the tip of St. John's,
Newfoundland, in the east to the Queen Charlotte Islands off the
coast of British Columbia in the west.
This level of agreement and working together is something most
countries have come to envy and in some cases study to see how we
do it.
The protection of drinking water is one of our proudest
co-operative achievements.
1715
This new legislation, Bill C-14, the drinking water materials
safety act demonstrates our continuing partnership with the
provinces and territories and the vigilance with which we guard
the health and safety of all Canadians. According to the
Constitution acts of Canada, drinking water quality from the
source to the tap falls under the provincial and territorial
jurisdictions. The federal government however is responsible for
protecting Canadians from unsafe materials that come into contact
with that water along the way, from the raw water intake through
the filtration plant and then through the water mains to our
faucets.
[Translation]
The new act will help better protect drinking water by guaranteeing
the safety of the materials that come into contact with that water while
it is moved to the consumers.
[English]
Again we are doing this with the support of the provincial and
territorial health authorities. Canada has one of the largest
safest supplies of fresh water in the world. We want to keep it
that way. But the quality of that water has often been threatened
and in the 1990s it is falling prey to some new hazards.
A rapidly increasing population puts more pressure on the
existing water supply and distribution systems. There are new
concerns about the use of pesticides and chemical effluents
runoff from spraying farmers' fields. In recent years there has
been an alarming increase in cases of animal waste washing into
municipal water systems and making many people sick. This has put
provincial and municipal governments under growing pressure to
safeguard their drinking water. The public at large is becoming
more and more concerned about its tap water and is rightly
demanding guarantees of safety.
Municipalities need to replace aging infrastructures and they
need health based standards to ensure that new materials they buy
are safe. In some cases costly new kinds of treatment systems
are required to deal with the emerging problems such as
cryptosporidium infections which cannot be eliminated by
chlorination.
All of these concerns and more were cited when the provinces and
territories put their support behind the drinking water materials
safety act currently before this House. I cannot emphasize too
strongly that the distinct federal, provincial and territorial
jurisdictions with respect to drinking water quality will
continue to be recognized after the introduction of this bill.
In fact this bill affirms both the federal government's
responsibility to provide guidance and expertise in the area of
drinking water quality and the right of the provinces and the
territories to define legally enforceable standards within their
own areas of authority. This bill also acknowledges the federal
government's role in developing water quality research in
collaboration with the provinces and territories.
Responsibility for the overall quality of water that flows
through the system will remain with the provinces. The federal
government with this new bill will guarantee that all the
materials that come in contact with our water are certified to
national health based standards. We will be responsible for the
regulation of drinking water materials that make up the
distribution system along the way. These fall into three
categories: treatment devices, treatment additives and system
components.
Quite simply, drinking water materials can be anything,
including products and substances, that comes in contact with our
drinking water from the time it leaves the water supply until it
touches our lips. That includes the chlorine added to municipal
water supplies, the pipes that carry the water, right down to the
filters you may attach to your faucets at home. All of these
products and many others I have not mentioned will fall under
this legislation.
Why do we need to do this? Because safe drinking water is an
essential resource. Because Canadians expect their water to be
protected. And because present federal legislation and existing
voluntary compliance on water materials safety are inadequate.
1720
I know that just moments ago I was boasting about our enviable
supply of safe drinking water. Indeed we have some of the best
drinking water in the world. This is partly a fortunate
circumstance of history and geography.
But the ongoing protection of our fresh water is no accident. In
partnership with the provinces and territories, we have spent
years developing the guidelines for Canadian drinking water
quality. Since 1968 Canada has published these guidelines for
safe drinking water. They recommend maximum levels of many
chemicals, micro-organisms and radioactive substances. We are
pleased to note that the sixth edition of these important and
respected guidelines was published last fall.
These guidelines serve as the basis for drinking water quality
enforcement in the provinces and territories. Alberta and Quebec
have both enacted water quality regulations based on these
guidelines. Other provinces are enforcing them through their own
provincial mechanisms.
This partnership has been working extremely well but we must do
more. These guidelines do not have the added weight of being
federal law. The provinces and territories have asked us for
that added leverage in protecting drinking water materials right
across Canada.
This bill will ensure that drinking water materials are
certified to health based standards enforced by law. They will
give Canadians better control over potentially hazardous drinking
water materials that could contaminate drinking water.
Home water filters are a good example. There are many of these
products available to consumers at every hardware store,
department store and shopping mall.
[Translation]
When we buy one of these filters, we have no guarantee that it will
do what the maker claims, which is to improve the quality of drinking
water.
[English]
In fact we know that while many of these products are reliable,
a full 50% would fail a health based test. This is a growing
industry. There are false health and safety claims being made
and consumers do not always have the means to compare one product
against another. This bill will allow direct comparison based on
the same standards tests. These devices are just one area of
concern.
There is the sale of chemicals of uncertified quality to water
treatment plants and the leaching of contaminants, such as lead
and cadmium, from water storage and delivery systems. This bill
will guarantee the quality of these chemicals and the safety of
water system components.
I am also proud to say that the drinking water materials safety
act will build upon the unique collaborative and co-operative
working relationship Canada has enjoyed with the other
jurisdictions in this country.
The Assembly of First Nations in partnership with Health Canada
and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is
currently working on a project to identify solutions to assist
First Nations communities in protecting and enhancing the quality
of their drinking water. This project is known as the drinking
water safety program for native people. Since the drinking water
materials safety act is national legislation which will regulate
all drinking water materials on the market in Canada, it would of
course affect future purchases of material for use on Indian
lands.
Ongoing discussions with provincial and territorial members of
the subcommittee on drinking water indicate continued support for
federal legislation to improve the safety and effectiveness of
devices, additives and components. Direct consultation with the
provincial departments of health also revealed strong support for
this legislation.
When Health Canada crafted this legislation, its officials
wanted to make sure they were not adding a layer of red tape to
the existing guidelines. This proposed legislation will not
duplicate or replace local and provincial plumbing codes for
example.
In fact it will give much needed support to the provinces in
their efforts toward compliance and enforcement of these codes.
Current Canadian plumbing codes do not contain health based
performance standards and the vast majority, a full 70%, of
plumbing materials are not certified as free from harmful
contaminants. This is simply unacceptable.
1725
Again provincial drinking water authorities have asked the
federal government to act as a clearing house by guaranteeing
health based standards through a process of third party
certification. This bill will do that. It would be far too
costly for each province to run its own separate certification
program. If they did, a costly and confusing patchwork of
legislation would result.
I also want to assure my colleagues that this bill will not
force the provinces and territories to rip out their existing
water systems and put in new ones. What it will do however is
ensure that those municipalities who need to build new water
distribution systems will buy safe infrastructure materials.
The provinces and territories will also find their home grown
products on a level playing field, opening the door to
international markets but closing the door to unscrupulous
manufacturers and substandard products which right now can easily
be dumped into Canada because there is no federal legislation to
prevent it.
I think many members of this House and many consumers will be
shocked to discover that a country like Canada has not had such a
basic piece of legislation in place long before now. In fact
drinking water legislation was first proposed by a Liberal
government in 1983 but it is only now that the Liberals are
finally in a position to make good on this commitment to protect
the health of Canadians.
[Translation]
The public is worried about issues concerning health and the
environment, such as the contamination of drinking water.
[English]
Canadians will remember this government's strong commitment to
protect the health of women and children and the need to stop
long term toxic pollutants from entering our water. This
legislation will make good on these promises.
As I said earlier, the protection of drinking water quality is a
co-operative venture in Canada, one which we can all be proud of.
We have made great strides in making drinking water safer over
the past century and we have done so in partnership with our many
distinct regions.
I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity to once again
work in conjunction with our provincial and territorial
constituencies. I urge members of the House to give their
wholehearted support to this legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we resume
debate I should inform the House that the House will be moving to
Private Members' Business at 5.30 p.m. The hon. member for
Macleod will have two minutes and would then come back when the
legislation comes forward again.
On a point of order, the hon. opposition whip.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if you might find the unanimous consent of the House to
see the clock as reading 5.30 p.m. so that rather than split up
the hon. member's speech we could hear it in its entirety at the
next opportunity.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent to call it 5.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-209, an act to amend the Criminal Code (joyriding) be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak
on a private member's bill. Private Members' Hour in the House
of Commons is a special time for ordinary backbenchers. They do
not have to be a member of the government. They can find an
issue that is of importance not only in their community but to
the country and try to convince other members in the House in a
non-partisan way that it is a good idea.
1730
I would like to take a few minutes to outline the reasons for
introducing the joyriding bill, a bill I originally introduced in
December of 1996 and reintroduced in this Parliament because of
the ongoing problem with joyriding.
I suggest that joyriding is actually a misnomer for what is
really a very serious criminal offence. At one time joyriding
was equated to someone coming along and borrowing uncle Jim's car
and going to a barn dance. That was called a joyride. Times
were different when that section of the Criminal Code entitled
joyriding was brought in.
Joyriding is no longer a joy. It is now very much a serious
crime. It is not a victimless crime. It is something that
causes a lot of dollar damage, a lot of social problems and
unfortunately a lot of injuries and deaths.
I brought forward this bill to try to correct this, the Criminal
Code amendment, because of the problem of widespread auto theft
in Canada. In the city of Montreal there are 40,000 auto thefts
every year. There is a total of $1.6 billion in damage and loss
of vehicles in this country due to auto theft and joyriding.
Most of the vehicles that are taken out for what used to be
called a joyride are indeed taken, damaged and left. They are
not necessarily sold for parts or anything else, just straight
malicious damage, and it seems the police are having a difficult
time dealing with it.
The practice of joyriding is covered under section 335 of the
Criminal Code under the title “Offences Resembling Theft”. It
reads:
Everyone who, without the consent of the owner, takes a motor
vehicle or vessel with intent to drive, use, navigate or operate
it or cause it to be driven, used, navigated or operated is
guilty of an offence punished on summary conviction.
The problem is that this section of the law dealing with
joyriders is so weak that young offenders do not even worry about
it. Young offenders, underage drivers, are the most common
abusers of this section of the Criminal Code. They do not do it
for the money. They do not do it to sell the cars. They realize
that if they get caught there will not be serious consequences.
So they steal cars.
The average joyrider causes $4,000 in damage per car. That is
not a joyride. That is a serious crime and a serious amount of
damage to the vehicle of the unfortunate victim of this crime.
This section of the code is unfortunately tailormade for young
offenders. It does not want to saddle the teenager who is out
for a thrill, so it just calls it resembling theft.
Unfortunately, because of the changing societal problem we have,
this misnomer means that teenagers caught stealing cars do not
pay a serious penalty for it.
The average young offender stealing a car in Canada receives a
$100 fine. That is the median fine for car theft. The courts
allow some discretion for judges. If it is your car that got
ripped off with an average of $4,000 damage done to it, it is a
little disturbing when the penalty does not fit the crime. A
$100 fine for $4,000 average damage is out of proportion and
needs to be fixed. That is why this bill is before us today.
There are 160,000 motor vehicles stolen in Canada at a total
cost of $1.6 billion. There is only $3.5 million a year stolen
in bank robberies. We are justifiably worried about bank
robberies and take the necessary steps to make sure we call it a
serious crime. This is a case of $1.6 billion in penalties and
we shrug our shoulders and say boys will be boys. I do not think
we should continue with that.
I say that because too much damage is done and too many innocent
people are injured by so-called joyriding.
A couple of years ago my brother, a logging contractor, was
going to work in the morning and found a kid on the road all
covered in mud. He waved him down and asked for help.
He stopped and helped the kid. He had driven off the road, down
into a creek. His friend, who was in the car, had a broken back.
My brother got on his cell phone and called for an ambulance and
the police.
1735
When the police arrived on the scene they said to this young guy
“hi, Jim, took another car, eh?” They bundled up the poor
innocent victim who was the passenger in the car. He had a
broken back.
They took the other fellow down to the police station. Before
my brother could get there to fill out the papers about being a
witness to this event, the young man was on his way out of the
police station. He waved at him and said “see you around”.
He did that every weekend. It seemed as though there was
nothing the police could do. They caught the guy. They knew who
he was and yet that young guy went away, shrugging his shoulders.
He was an underage driver. He had almost a chronic problem with
car theft. Nothing could be done. The innocent victim, his
friend who came along for the joyride, ended up with a permanent
lifetime disability. That is very unfortunate.
In my riding of Fraser Valley people held an auto theft
awareness town hall meeting. An RCMP officer gave a presentation
at that meeting. I was asked to give my point of view with
respect to a Criminal Code amendment.
The RCMP officer informed us of things we could do to prevent
auto theft. ICBC was there as well, our local insurance company.
They also went through some of the things we could do. They told
us to always lock our cars and to put an auxiliary lock on the
steering wheel. They suggested an increased use of bike squads,
an increased use of auxiliary police, as well as the use of crime
stoppers and community patrols, such as block watch and citizen
patrols. They went through all the things we could do to address
the crime of auto theft.
In my home town of Chilliwack auto theft went up 90% last year.
It went up 150% in Prince Rupert. Manitoba had the biggest
increase in the country. It is growing exponentially.
There is a bunch of things we can do to prevent it, but the
bottom line is after the patrols are done and the bike watches
and other community efforts are made, and the cars are locked up,
put in the garage and everything else, the net result is a 90%
increase in auto theft.
The average claim in Chilliwack is $4,000. That does not count
the disruption and the anxiety. I would even argue that it is a
bit like the horse thievery of the old days. It is more than
just the $4,000 in damages. When someone comes out in the
morning, expecting to go to work, and their car is not there, the
damage is more than in dollars. There is the loss of wages.
There is anxiety. The family is disrupted. It is a big problem.
The RCMP officer went on to say that it is not a police problem,
that it is a community problem. It is a national problem. He
asked how the police could do their job when they go through all
the work involved in arresting and processing the young offender
and the courts fine them $100 and ask them not to do it again.
This bill would address that problem. It would give direction
to the police and to the courts. My bill would make this a
serious offence under the Criminal Code. It should be treated as
a serious offence.
My bill would establish minimum and maximum sentences for jail
terms; if not jail terms, at least there would be some way of
dealing with these young offenders. They could be sent to a
group home or to another appropriate facility.
This bill also stresses the fact that at times it is possible to
tell parents of young offenders that they too share a
responsibility.
1740
The bill particularly addresses the idea that where it can be
shown and where the judge is convinced that the negligence of a
parent or guardian has contributed to the crime, then the parent
or guardian would be obligated to help pay for the damage.
In other words, a young offender might have a curfew already
imposed by the court with restrictions on travel or where they
could be or whatever the court has imposed. The parent might say
“What can you do with these young people? Jimmy steals cars and
that is the way she goes”. Under the bill, if the court were
convinced there was negligence it could tell the parent “Your
kid has stolen a car. He was out at one in the morning, but he
was told to be in at midnight. Therefore we are going to hold
you responsible for some of the damages”.
I think that could give parents and guardians some second
thoughts as to whether they should be negligent in their duties.
I hope people here in the House recognize the seriousness of
this problem. I believe it is a national problem and one that
affects not only the criminal justice system, the courts and the
police, and the people who have their cars stolen, but it affects
the victims of joyriding, people who are passengers, people who
may be involved in a hit and run situation or someone who goes
along as an innocent person in what they think is a fun trip to a
show and it turns into a very serious accident. It also affects
the young people themselves.
I would argue that in dealing with young offenders who are
beginning a habit of breaking the law at a very young age, the
kinder thing would be for our police, court system and community
not to shrug our shoulders and say that is the way it goes, they
are just growing up.
As a country and as a Parliament I think we have an obligation
to step in and say that it is serious and we are going to step
into their lives at a young age, while they can still possibly be
saved from the hardened criminal life. We should get them help,
let them know it is a serious problem that we also take
seriously. If we could send that message clearly to young
offenders, perhaps we could start the clean-up.
I think of cases in New York where they have now started to
prosecute very minor crimes such as graffiti, defacing walls,
breaking windows. They are starting to prosecute the small stuff
because they are finding that if they look after the small stuff
then people do not progress in their criminal activity to become
habitual criminals.
I hope people will take this into account and I hope the
minister gets a draft of the bill and of the message I am trying
to send today. I hope the House of Commons will accept the idea
that this has been a long time coming and it is now time to deal
with it.
I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to make this a
votable motion, to send it to committee for consideration at that
stage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member has
asked that his bill be made votable. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Fraser Valley has presented several amendments to
section 335 of the Criminal Code which he claims will create a
tougher and more effective law, one that will have a real
deterrent effect on joyriding by young people. I would like to
commend him for his work in this field.
However, these changes will result in a more draconian law. I
would like to outline a few of the changes: a minimum penalty of
six months imprisonment; a minimum fine of $1,000, with a maximum
of $5,000; a provision for damages to be paid by the offender
directly to the victim; a clause which would make the parents of
a joyrider, if he or she is a young offender, liable for any
fines or damages in certain circumstances.
As responsible parliamentarians we have an obligation to examine
any change in the criminal law very carefully to determine
whether tougher penalties will be effective and fair.
We have a special responsibility to scrutinize any law that would
impose additional imprisonment and fines on young people who come
into conflict with the law. As we know, joyriding is
predominantly a young persons' offence.
1745
The question I ask is this. Is there objective evidence to show
that the existing law in section 335 has failed to do the job?
In order to answer that question we should examine how the courts
have actually used the joyriding section.
In case I am accused of diminishing the importance of this
offence, let me state for the record that I do regard joyriding
as a very serious offence. In fact, I was a victim of such an
offence. I know firsthand.
The involvement of a young person in the appropriation of an
automobile is always a significant matter. It is all the more
serious because joyriding so often results in personal injury or
costly damage to property.
The problem with Bill C-209 is that its drafters have not paid
sufficient attention to the way section 335 is used by
prosecutors and the courts in relation to other criminal charges,
in particular the offences of theft, criminal negligence and the
possession of stolen property.
The hon. member suggests that there are a huge number of
joyriding incidents but relatively few convictions. I will not
debate the numbers but I do recommend that he look at the number
of convictions for theft and possession of stolen property at the
same time as he analyses the joyriding statistics. He will
likely find that joyriding incidents frequently result in more
serious charges or charges in addition to joyriding.
Several decades ago Parliament wisely decided that joyriding
should be a distinct offence separate from the theft of a motor
vehicle. The difference lies in the intention of the person who
takes the vehicle. In a theft situation, the thief intends to
steal a car for purposes of reselling it. Joyriding, as the name
implies, is more often an impulsive act and the offender may take
the vehicle for thrills rather than profit.
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the distinction between theft
and joyriding in a 1972 decision, stating that the joyriding
offence was created in order to provide a penalty where it may be
difficult or impossible to establish the offence of theft. The
difference lies in the intent of the taker. The courts have said
that if the intent is to merely drive a car and then return it
the owner, then that is not theft but rather a separate offence.
These decisions provide the key to understanding how joyriding
should be dealt with under the criminal law. If joyriding
charges are not laid as often as the hon. member would like, it
is because serious joyriding incidents, which result in injury to
other persons or damage to the car or to other property, are
often prosecuted with a charge of theft or possession of stolen
property, perhaps criminal negligence, careless driving or
dangerous driving.
An obvious concern arises here. Can someone who steals a car
claim that he really intended to return it to the owner and
therefore avoid a theft charge? The courts have provided us with
the answer. Each case must stand on its own facts. For example,
how long did the offenders keep the car? How far did he drive
it? Did he make an effort to return it? Did he drive the car
recklessly? All the circumstances must be considered.
This is what I am asking the hon. member to ponder. Rather than
applying a mandatory minimum jail term in every case, why not
give the courts some flexibility in structuring the penalties for
the young joyrider in view of all the circumstances of the
individual case?
What about the youth who has no previous record? There are so
many ways to handle this problem short of sending every young
joyrider to prison. A probation order for a first time offender
combined with an order of restitution may be quite adequate.
I would also point out that it is unusual to see a custodial
term imposed for a first offence of possession for stolen goods.
I do not see why we would opt for mandatory minimum of six months
jail time for a first offence here.
I also cannot understand why the hon. member wants to take
sentencing out of the realm of the Young Offenders Act. The bill
says, notwithstanding the Young Offenders Act, the offender is
liable to a term of imprisonment. I would point out that he is
also liable to imprisonment under the Young Offenders Act. Young
offenders can also be forced to pay restitution. The Young
Offenders Act provides all the remedies needed in conjunction
with a penalty structure of the Criminal Code. Section 3 of the
Young Offenders Act sets out 10 principles that apply to the
sentencing of youth offenders. I quote the first principle:
Crime prevention is essential to the long-term protection of
society and requires addressing the underlying causes of crime by
young persons and developing multi-disciplinary approaches to
identifying and effectively responding to children and young
persons at risk of committing offending behaviour in the future.
These principles should be applied so that all of the
circumstances surrounding the offence, including parental
involvement, can be considered.
1750
I can see that Bill C-209 would continue to require that young
offenders be tried in youth court but I cannot understand why he
would want to add a notwithstanding clause that would suddenly
take sentencing outside the structure of the Young Offenders Act.
I have no objection to prosecutions under section 335. Joyriding
is a problem in itself, aside from damage to property or personal
injury that may result from it.
In the last session, the government introduced a series of
amendments to the Criminal Code in Bill C-17, which is now
chapter 18 in the Statutes of Canada, 1997. These amendments
included section 335, a change that for some reason is not
reflected in the hon. member's bill before us today. The
amendment deals with the responsibility of occupants of the
vehicle.
Young people who take cars often do so in the company of others
and these passengers may be aware of their immunity from
prosecution even when they clearly know that the car has been
taken without the consent of the owner.
Furthermore, it is often difficult to determine who took the
vehicle when several young people are involved. The new law
solves this problem by making passengers liable to a charge of
joyriding unless they make an effort to leave the vehicle. This
amendment shows that the government does take the section of the
code very seriously.
Let me give an example of how section 335 has been used. In
1991 in a Saskatchewan case, an offender took a vehicle and
claimed that he was going to use it to pull another vehicle out
of the mud. However, he made no attempt to restore the vehicle
to its owner and the accused appeared to be responsible for the
later destruction of the car in a fire. The offender received a
conditional discharge combined with 18 months of probation but he
was forced to pay restitution to the victim for the loss of the
vehicle.
This is an example of how section 335 in combination with the
restitution sections in the Criminal Code can be used to benefit
the victim where property damage and loss have occurred. The
amendment in Bill C-209 is not really necessary.
Let me give a quite different example. This is an Alberta case.
The offender admitted to taking the vehicle for purposes of
joyriding. He began driving too fast, misjudged a turn and
slammed into a trailer parked on the other side of the road. Of
what was he convicted? Not joyriding as the offender hoped, but
rather dangerous driving, which carries a maximum penalty of five
years imprisonment and 10 years if there is personal injury.
Finally, I wish to comment briefly on the second part of the
bill which tries to make parents responsible for fines and
damages incurred by a young person who is convicted of joyriding.
This idea was examined recently by both the House of Commons
committee and a federal-provincial task force on youth justice.
Neither group recommended that parents be required, under the
Criminal Code, to pay damages for neglecting to exercise due
care. The task force did recommend that provinces develop
legislation governing the civil recovery from grossly negligent
parents for damages or losses arising from the criminal acts of
their children.
I understand that Manitoba recently created legislation making
parents civilly responsible to a limit of $5,000 where it is
proven that the parents bore some responsibility for the offence.
In terms of the parents actually participating in an offence, the
Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act already contain
offences of aiding and abetting.
For these reasons, I suggest that the amendments of Bill C-209
are not needed and will not improve the capacity of the criminal
justice system to deter joyriding.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we return to
the debate, the Chair would confirm that the member for Fraser
Valley West did not receive unanimous consent to have this bill
made votable. Unanimous consent was not received. This is for
the record.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
sad to see a bill like this one being used to try to misrepresent the
facts, because of a lack of understanding, exaggeration or what not. The
problem is not as bad as it seems or as the member from the Reform Party
made it out to be.
What does the Criminal Code provide in this respect right now?
Section 322 of the Criminal Code deals with theft per se. Let us call a
spade a spade. Let us call things by their rightful name.
To take a vehicle with intent to use it—when there is, in legal
terms, actus reus and mens rea, that is to say acting wilfully with
criminal intent—it is just that, theft.
1755
The other thing the lawmakers saw fit to add to the Criminal Code
under the heading of offences resembling theft is subsection 335 (1),
which the hon. member from the Reform Party would like us to amend.
What does this subsection say?
335.(1) Every one who, without the consent of the owner, takes
a motor vehicle or vessel with intent to drive, use, navigate or
operate it or cause it to be driven, used, navigated or operated is
guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
This is another offence which, while not being as serious as theft,
is also punishable.
This is the case where a young person, or an adult for that matter,
decides to use an automobile or another vehicle without the owner's
consent, but does not have a criminal intent, has no intent to defraud,
there is no fraudulent intention, and the lawmakers leave it up to the
crown to decide whether to prosecute under section 322 of the Criminal
Code or under subsection 335 (1).
I think that, in a free and democratic society as ours in Canada
and Quebec, it is healthy to let those who enforce the law use their
head in laying charges to try to see what would be most appropriate in
each case.
As the government member said earlier, the judges of the
Supreme Court of Canada, in 1973, however, not in 1972, handed down
a clear ruling in Lafrance v. Regina to the effect that the offence
as worded in section 335 (1) is not a lesser offence than ordinary
theft. They created two separate offences, each with its own
characteristics. The two are distinct and the crown may decide on
the charge according to the circumstances of the case. This
interpretation by the courts seems to show the effectiveness of the
standard set by the present wording.
The amendments or speeches by Reform members I have heard
sometimes seem to indicate an interest in seeing everything covered
in the Criminal Code. Each situation would have its own section in
the Criminal Code.
The goal would be to limit the judge's discretion as much as
possible. I have the impression that the Reform Party wants to see
the courts turned into legal robots, heartless machines operating
on the basis of sections, statistics, sometimes even stereotypes.
It looks like they want to remove any possibility of discretion, of
a decision based on a particular case.
In the field of justice, I learned very early on that nothing
is black and white.
In this field, as in many others, some things must be analyzed, and
I think that judges in the existing system—if everyone does not
agree with me on this, we have a big problem—have the training and
the skill to analyze and judge the offence before them, which the
crown has decided to prosecute under either section 322 or section
335 (1).
But the Reform member's bill goes further still. It calls for
a stiffer sentence. Once again, the intention is to prevent judges
from exercising their discretion, from using stiff fines to make a
distinction between cases.
It is true that sometimes this will be the result of a joyride, but
other charges will be laid against the wrongdoer, the adolescent or
young man who uses a car without the owner's consent, because
damaging another person's property is also an offence. And it is
the crown prosecutors who look at the facts presented to them by
the police and decide which sections they will rely on in court.
1800
There is also a major shortcoming in Bill C-209, and you will agree
with me that it is another reason to reject this bill. It undermines the
Young Offenders Act.
I know that when it comes to the Young Offenders Act, there is a
tremendous gulf separating the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party. I
think we will never succeed in sharing the same views on this matter.
This is what I concluded when we studied the Young Offenders Act
last year. With Bill C-209, an attempt is made to quietly uproot powers
in the Young Offenders Act, namely a part of that act relating to the
application of section 335(1) of the Criminal Code.
There is an attempt to increase the penalties for this offence.
Let it be clear, I do not want to minimize that. I think that
presently the Criminal Code includes all the necessary tools for the
administration of justice, provided of course that the courts apply it
properly. I have every reason to believe that today the courts are
applying properly sections 322 and 335(1) of the Criminal Code.
There is another reason why we should reject this bill—this will
my last point—and it concerns parental responsibility. In fact, I
remember when I was 15 or 16, I was attracted to cars. Are not all young
people at that age attracted to cars? I am not saying that I stole cars,
I am not saying that I used cars without my parents' consent, but I was
nevertheless attracted to cars, especially in a county like
Berthier—Montcalm.
Berthierville is in that county, and with the Villeneuves, it is natural
down there to be attracted to cars.
Can it be said that parents are negligent if one day a child sees
a car with its keys, and, without thinking, gets in the car, takes a
ride and brings it back to the parking lot where he took it. On a whim,
the young person used a car. Does this make that child a criminal?
I know that the members of the Reform Party would want that child
to be called a criminal, but I tell you that is not the case. That
child, on a whim, used a vehicle. In such a situation, the crown
attorney can at his discretion decide to refer to theft under section
322 or to an infraction resembling theft, use without consent, under
section 335(1) of the Criminal Code.
I know that it upsets Reform members when they are told such
truths, but that is what is found today in the Criminal Code. I do not
think the Criminal Code is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and
there are things in it that should be changed. If we really want to
change it, let us review it completely, rather than trying to do
patchwork, as the Reform Party is doing with Bill C-209.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-209 brought forward by the member for Fraser Valley outlines
the member's concerns about the serious increase in and problems
with joyriding and car theft. No one would question the concerns
and the seriousness we have seen in Canada with the growing
problem of car thefts which the bill seeks to address.
Between 1990 and 1994 the number of car thefts increased by over
40,000 and the number of vehicles stolen per 1,000 registrations
increased by 50%. It is generally known in the community that
most car thefts are used for joyriding, in fact something like
three-quarters.
There is a concern in the community that dangerous behaviour
associated with joyriding makes it a threat to the safety of not
only the police but the public and often tragically the joyriders
themselves. Probably most of us are aware of various instances
and circumstances that have taken place in our local communities
and neighbourhoods which involve joyriding and often result in
serious injury or even death.
1805
In addressing this bill, which is non-votable and being debated
for the record, there is also widespread agreement that we really
need to examine new ways of dealing with crimes by young
offenders.
In the NDP we believe very strongly—and there is a growing
sense in the community—that we need to promote a renewed sense
of social responsibility. Our focus must be on finding ways of
making young offenders aware of the consequences of their
actions. That is important but most important is that the
information and studies that have been done show the most
critical actions we can take and the most effective things we can
engage in are crime prevention and addressing the underlying
issues which drive young people to antisocial behaviour and
criminal activities.
Unless we can understand the issues and provide the resources
and tools to local communities to address underlying issues of
antisocial behaviour and crime, the NDP believes that we will not
make much progress.
There are different opinions on how we have to build a sense of
responsibility among young offenders. Certainly for the member
from the Fraser Valley the idea of minimum penalties for
joyriding requiring parents to pay for their children's actions
is seen as the way to go.
The bill before the House sets out a minimum penalty of a $1,000
fine or six months in prison. It also stipulates that parents or
guardians could be required to pay the fines or other penalties
incurred by their children if it was felt somehow that their
neglect of parenting duties resulted in the child committing the
offence.
The problem with this approach is that there is little or no
evidence to show that increasing penalties will actually work and
will actually deal with the issue of joyriding or many of the
other issues facing us in terms of increasing crime among young
people.
To talk about the position of the Reform Party and how it has
approached this issue and issues it has raised around crime and
punishment, commenting in the Alberta Report on the problem
of car theft in the city of Regina, the member for Calgary
Northeast suggested that without incarceration young punks have
nothing to fear.
That member ignored that Saskatchewan already incarcerates a
higher proportion of youth than most provinces and has now
recognized that it has not reduced crime. Simply criminalizing
young people, throwing them in jail and increasing fines, has not
dealt with the issue most people would recognize as a problem.
Fortunately for the city of Regina, the Government of
Saskatchewan has recognized the limitations of the approach of
the Reform Party and what it is advocating. It is looking at
more effective ways as one province, and certainly in my province
of British Columbia, of dealing with the situation of young
offenders.
It is also very questionable whether simply holding parents
responsible for the actions of their children will actually
impact young people and make them consider the consequences of
their own actions. There are cases where better parenting may
have prevented the child from committing an offence. However,
the more important point is that if the relationship between the
parent and the child is so bad that the courts feel the parents
have failed, it is not clear at all and there is no evidence to
suggest that penalizing the parent will improve the situation.
It is important to point out that according to the National
Crime Prevention Council, 97% of young people in custody have
suffered abuse at the hands of a trusted authority figure. That
is a very startling figure. It should lead us to be very
suspicious of superficial approaches put forward by the Reform
Party. It should lead us to understand that these approaches
have failed.
When looking at the bill we must ask ourselves how we will
address the problem by having parents pay their children's fines.
Holding parents responsible, even in a limited sense, for the
crimes of their children sends out a wrong message.
1810
When dealing with young people who have committed crimes, the
goal should be to persuade them to take responsibility for their
actions and to prevent these actions from taking place in the
first place. Holding responsible someone other than the person
who committed the crime seems to us to be a step removed from the
objective.
The main problem with the bill is that we cannot deal with
issues like joyriding in isolation. We must address the social
and economic conditions that cause these acts of antisocial
behaviour, criminal acts in the first place. We must also find
more effective socially responsible ways to deal with young
offenders.
Criminal activity by our young people does not happen in a
vacuum. While it is important to state that each individual,
whether a young person of 18 years of age or an adult, is
responsible for his or her actions, we must recognize that there
are societal factors at work which often push young people toward
criminal activity. If young people grow up in poor circumstances
and in an environment that shows little respect for the rights
and needs of children, we should not be surprised that children
grow up not respecting society's rules.
One approach that is having some impact in terms of dealing with
young offenders rather than jail sentences or penalties is to
deal with restorative justice. The objective is to bring about
understanding and recognition of the damage that has been done to
a victim or to a community at large.
In a program in Maple Ridge, British Columbia, local businesses
allow young offenders to pay their fines by working at the local
businesses. There is an attempt to bring about better
understanding of the crime that has taken place. While some have
criticized restorative justice or diversion programs as letting
people off scot-free, the fact is the results are positive. At
the Maple Ridge program only 6% of the participants reoffended in
the following year.
We believe in the NDP that we need to understand the risk
factors that increase the chances of a young person being
victimized or engaging in antisocial behaviour. We need to
ensure early prevention for high risk youth. We need to ensure
we are investing in education. We need to ensure families have
good support in the community. We need to ensure families have
good paying jobs and that there are family friendly workplaces.
Our concern with the bill is that the approach of the Reform
Party is to further criminalize young people. This is no answer.
It is an answer that may pander to the concerns of the community
and may offer a very superficial response, but it does not deal
with the underlying issues at work in terms of young people at
risk.
We do not agree with the bill and suggest that it is a
short-sighted measured to deal with what is a very serious
problem.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley for bringing forward Bill
C-209. I also appreciate his thoughtful and rightful initiative
in doing so.
We all know joyriding is a serious crime and a serious problem.
It is not a joyful ride. It should be called a painful ride.
This problem affects communities all over the country and any one
of us could be a victim of this crime. We do not know who will
be a target tomorrow in our communities. The hon. member for
Erie—Lincoln said even he was a victim of this crime.
It is disappointing to hear members from the third and fourth
parties opposing the bill.
In my riding 27 cars are stolen every day. Most of them end up
being used for a so-called joyride, which I call a painful ride.
The fine imposed for this type of crime is unproportional to the
loss and damage caused, including the innocent lives which are
lost in these types of accidents. As a result of this, insurance
premiums are increasing. They are skyrocketing. Innocent
victims are affected not only by the damage but also by the
increased insurance premiums.
1815
The hon. NDP member for Vancouver East stated that an increase
in penalties, fines or holding the parents responsible will not
help. What else will help to reduce this type of crime?
Let us consider the record of other countries, such as
Singapore. There are no more joyrides in those countries because
the penalties are harsh and tough. Young criminals know that the
penalties are tough. That is the way to control these crimes.
Someone has to be held responsible for these painful rides. Who
else will be held accountable? These young kids are stealing
cars and going for joyrides. Why not hold the parents
responsible?
This is an excellent bill. We need to bring about these
changes. Measures to deal with joyriding should be in the
Criminal Code. Someone has to take the initiative. The parents
should be held accountable for the actions of their kids who are
not properly controlled.
I appreciate the initiative of the hon. member for Fraser
Valley. Considering the seriousness of these crimes, we need to
take corrective action and hold someone accountable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I recognize the hon.
member for Fraser Valley. The Chair should point out that as is
the convention, as it is the member's bill, he will have five
minutes but there will be no further debate at the conclusion of
the five minutes.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
has been an interesting debate. It is almost like a take note
debate. Of course there will not be a vote on it because not all
Private Members' Business is votable which is unfortunate.
Nevertheless it has been interesting to hear the different points
of view from the different parties.
I always find it a little unfortunate in Private Members'
Business that people do not seem to listen to the speeches. They
all craft a speech in advance and regardless of what anybody
might say in presenting their opinion, it is as if they had never
said a thing. Therefore I would like to run through again very
quickly the reasons for this bill.
The NDP member mentioned that we have to do things to prevent
crime rather than just come down like a ton of bricks on someone
who steals a car.
I went through the list. I went through what the RCMP said
would work well. I fully support that. The trouble is we cannot
put all of that in the Criminal Code. We can only deal with code
amendments here. A lot of other initiatives, both provincial and
federal, are not code amendments. Of course I cannot put all of
them into this bill.
I talked about the increased use of bike squads, getting out
among the kids so they see a friendly police presence. I talked
about the increased use of crime stoppers, nipping the crime in
the bud before it becomes a big problem in the community. Then we
have the increased use of street crews as we call them in my area
which deal not only with crime, but also with drug use, drug
abuse and so on. That is an initiative which works well in our
area.
There is the block watch program where people look after not
only their own assets but those of their community. If they see
kids trying to break into a car, they can stop the crime. To
prevent the crime of course is far better.
Citizen patrols have been very successful in my riding. The
lock it or lose it campaign initiated by our local insurance
company has been very successful. Ten to fifteen per cent of all
auto thefts result from vehicles not being locked. That is a
shame. It almost entices someone to steal.
We have an education program in our schools about the serious
effect of this crime. It is a very good program which should be
continued and expanded.
All of this I believe is Reform Party policy as well.
I hope the member from the NDP will realize that the object of
the Criminal Code amendments is not to say this is the only thing
we are going to do. The object is to say that when all else has
failed, what can we do?
1820
Parliament has the privilege and the requirement to say that we
treat this as a serious crime. By all means part of the
restorative justice campaign is to pay back, to make restitution
for damages, to pay for those crimes by perhaps working at the
local stores.
One comment made in the speeches here today was that we should
just make young people aware of the consequences of their
actions. They are well aware of the consequences of their
actions. Right now the consequence is a $100 fine. Fifty-two per
cent of young people receive no fine. They receive total
probation for a car theft with damages up to $4,000 on average.
The consequences of the crime are very serious. The loss of a
person's vehicle. Often there are injuries. Two-thirds of young
people who steal cars end up in an accident of some sort, many
causing bodily harm.
If we send the message to young people that if they steal a car,
wrap it around a telephone pole and get caught, they can figure
on about $100 fine, those are the consequences. These young
people think they are immortal, they are young and do not think
about the damage done to themselves or their friends. They just
drive hell bent for leather and often hurt themselves and others
and the consequence is a $100 fine.
We need to send the message that the consequences are serious,
that we treat this crime seriously. We hope the young people
will treat it seriously and that the courts, police and parents
will treat it seriously as well.
All the talk about holding the parents responsible is very
interesting. I hope that everyone has read the bill and the
sections that I have tried to amend.
In subsection 2 of the bill I brought forward today it says that
notwithstanding all the other portions of the Young Offenders
Act, if the court is of the opinion that the case would be best
met by the imposition of a fine, damages or costs and the court
is satisfied that the parent or guardian of the young person who
contributed to the commission of the crime, then they can step
in. In other words—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I regret, but the
time has expired.
[Translation]
As no other member wishes to speak, and the motion has not been
made a votable item, the time provided for consideration of Private
Members' Business has now expired and the item is dropped from the Order
Paper.
[English]
The adjournment proceedings are to start in seven minutes. May
we have the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as
6.30 p.m.? However, we may have to suspend to allow time for one
of the members to arrive for Adjournment Proceedings.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
LABOUR
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Oslo conference on child labour reflects a growing and worldwide
concern about child labour, particularly the urgent need to
eliminate its most extreme and intolerable forms.
All the delegates at the Oslo conference agreed that the
countries of the world must take every step possible to suppress
such atrocities as the sale and trafficking of children, forced
and compulsory labour, debt bondage and child slavery, and the
use of children for any type of work that is likely to jeopardize
their health, their safety or their moral and social development.
The use of child soldiers in recent armed conflicts was
identified as an issue that requires immediate and specific
attention.
There was less than consensus opinion, however, on how to best
address the larger issue of the 250 million child labourers
between the ages of 5 and 14 who are forced to work to survive.
1825
Everyone everywhere agrees that poverty is both the root cause
and a major consequence of child labour. In that light
strategies to fight poverty are central to any serious efforts to
alleviate child labour. Canada falls short in this regard. The
international community has targeted 0.7% of GDP as the level of
industrial development aid. Canada now stands at 0.34%, a drop
of $780 million. Both Norway and Great Britain have announced
increases to a full 1% of gross domestic product.
Canada falls short in other tangibles as well. The Canadian
government says that it does not support the use of boycotts or
labelling programs. It does not agree that projects like the
Rugmart labelling system will end the exploitation of children in
the carpet industry even though there is broad support for that
program in many parts of the world. The government does not
believe in legislation such as the Harken bill in the United
States which bans the importation of goods made by bonded child
labour. It has refused for over 25 years to sign International
Labour Organization convention No. 138 which deals with the
minimum age of workers entering the workforce.
The government does not agree that international trade
agreements must include labour standards in spite of the fact
that speaker after speaker at the Oslo conference cited
liberalized trade agreements as a key cause in the escalation of
the use of child labour in the world.
Consumers and governments in developed nations can and must use
their purchasing power and any other instruments at their
disposal to put pressure on those who participate in the economic
exploitation of children. Voluntary compliance with codes of
conduct will not help the child who sits chained to a loom as we
speak.
Do we know that consumer boycotts and non-tariff trade barriers
work? The garment manufacturers of Bangladesh at the merest hint
of a boycott by the United States cleared their workplaces of
child labour within three years and now use the fact that they
are child labour free as a marketing tool.
Critics would say that boycotts result in these children being
thrown out of the workplace and winding up in the streets or some
worse form of exploitation. My point is that there are 50
million child labourers in India and over 100 million heads of
households who do not have meaningful work. It is simple. We
take the children out of the workplace. We put their parents in
the workplace. We put the children in schools where they belong.
The government has not done enough. When questioned on October
3, the Minister of Foreign Affairs again repeated he was not
willing to engage legislation and tools such as the Harken bill
in the United States and he was not willing to sign convention
No. 138 of the ILO.
[Translation]
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg
Centre.
[English]
Some child experts question the effectiveness of measures such
as the one my colleague has just been speaking about, that is
banning imports of forced or indentured child labour. The
underlying cause of child labour is poverty and the long term
solution is to attack poverty. This point came out clearly in
the speech of the minister for international development at the
Oslo child labour conference last week.
The conference was hosted by the Norwegian government in
conjunction with the ILO and UNICEF. It unanimously adopted an
agenda for action which appears consistent with our policy on the
issue of child labour.
Our efforts are focused on three issues: providing affordable
access to primary education particularly for girls; improving the
status, role and economic security for women as equal partners in
development; and encouraging governments to enforce existing laws
governing the employment of children.
Canada is actively supporting the work of the ILO to develop a
new convention by 1999 on the most intolerable forms of child
labour including bonded labour. Canada is to host a preparatory
meeting in Ottawa for principal donor countries that were invited
to the Oslo conference.
Within our region, the United States, Mexico and ourselves are
examining the child labour and working conditions of young
people. Our labour minister spoke at a trilateral conference in
Ottawa last month which was attended by over 100 government,
labour and NGO representatives.
We also believe that business can play a role that reinforces
international action by government response to ethical,
environmental and social concerns.
A private sector alliance developed an international code of
business ethics for firms operating overseas.
1830
[Translation]
RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October 24, I put a
question in this House to the Minister of Transport. My question dealt
with a statement made to the newspaper Le Soleil by the secretary of
state for agriculture and agri-food, and fisheries and oceans, who is
also the hon. member for Bellechasse, the riding next to mine.
The secretary of state was quoted as saying that the station in
Lévis would close on December 1 and that rail service would be
transferred to the north shore, in Sainte-Foy. I thought that statement
was rather strange, which is why I wanted to ask the Minister of
Transport a question.
I asked him if the decision had been made at his level, even though
there had been a recommendation by the national transportation agency.
He said no.
During question period in the House, we do not have much time. I
would like to use my time today to get further information on the
subject I raised in my question.
I found the answer of the minister very interesting when he said:
We are looking at a number of options for rail service across
the country. On the matter of the Lévis station, no decision has
yet been made. I will gladly consider any idea or opinion my
colleague or anyone else might have on the subject before I make my
decision.
Afterwards, I called for public consultations and I tried to find
out if the national transportation agency had held public hearings,
because it did hold a few public hearings in 1991. But there were no
public hearings this time because the NTA decided there would not be
any.
Because of public interest, since there had been no agreement
between Via Rail and CN, the then Minister of Transport, under the
Conservatives, decided, on March 16, 1993, to close Lévis station. It
seems that the situation is the same today because, on February 22,
1996, CN got permission to abandon lines along the St. Lawrence River.
However, negotiations between CN and Via Rail have yet to be
completed. Since there is still no agreement, Via Rail has let it be
known, probably through the member for Bellechasse, that it would be
forced to go to Sainte-Foy.
In the meantime, two trains stopped at the Charny station every day, but
VIA announced in an internal bulletin that they would no longer stop in
Charny, which means no more train station on the south shore.
In these circumstances, as a member of Parliament, I decided to
hold public consultations on November 11 and 12. I will consult the
people, ask who is for and who is against before the irreparable closing
of the Lévis and Charny stations so that people who disagree with this
decision can express their opinion.
Today, I ask the transport minister's representative to help me by
insisting that VIA Rail make all pertinent documents public, which it
has refused to do until now, so that people can express an informed
opinion.
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, let me assure the hon.
member for Lévis that the minister is very aware of the situation
involving the Lévis station and he is intent on resolving the
matter soon.
As the hon. member knows full well, the problem of the Lévis
station has been around for a number of years and there are many
divergent opinions on what to do about it. Consultations with
stakeholders and local community leaders have been ongoing since
1990.
Because of the very divergent views on the subject of the Lévis
station and the Montmagny line, a number of extensions have
already been obtained in order to keep this station open.
1835
First and foremost, the government's primary consideration is to
ensure that any solution is safe and that it minimizes the
inconvenience for the roughly 17,000 rail travellers who use the
Lévis station every year.
I know the hon. member for Lévis is anxious about the situation
in his riding, but I am sure that, at the same time, he would not
want the minister to make any decision without first considering
all the possible options.
The minister is extremely concerned about looking at all the
options in order to make the right decision. For this reason,
the minister wrote some time ago to Mr. Ivany, the president of
VIA Rail and asked for opinions with respect to the Lévis
station.
Let me assure my hon. friend that his concerns have not gone
unnoticed. On behalf of the Minister of Transport, I would like
to assure him that a decision on this matter will be made
shortly. In the meantime if the member learns of any opinions
from his constituents at his hearings next week, please, I would
ask him to forward them to the minister because I know that he is
open to suggestions.
[Translation]
TIP EMPLOYEES
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October 29, I asked a question of the
Minister of National Revenue concerning the employment insurance
eligibility of tip employees.
The minister stated that consultations were ongoing between the
Minister of Finance, the Minister of Human Resources Development and
himself to find a solution to ensure that the policy implemented by the
Quebec government is compatible with employment insurance eligibility.
I wanted to come back on the matter because, in a way, it requires
urgent action. The bill introduced in the National Assembly is now at
the clause by clause study stage before a committee and we need to know
if the federal government will make the necessary technical changes.
We must remember that the Quebec government wants tip employees to
claim their tips, in consideration of which they could use those
revenues for their employment insurance entitlement, something that is
easily understandable.
The analysis made led to the conclusion that employers should
collect only 20% of tips to simplify the process. We are waiting for
the federal government's decision. We know there was some kind of
agreement in principle, but the regulatory change is yet to come.
Would it be possible to have an announcement on the matter by the
revenue minister, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the
Minister of Finance or the three of them if they wish? We would like to
finally go ahead with the new system designed by Quebec. I know that it
could interest other provinces as well. If the necessary regulatory
changes were made, the new system could be implemented for the coming
fiscal year, thus allowing tip employees to earn employment insurance
benefit entitlement for the tips they actually earned.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National
Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
[English]
In its 1997 budget, the Quebec government announced measures to
help ensure that the tips of workers in the restaurant and hotel
industry are reported and subject to tax. It announced that this
would be accomplished in part through new measures to be
introduced in legislation which would oblige the workers to remit
their tips to their employers.
The Quebec budget also announced that tips would be eligible
income in the calculation of various social benefits, notably
employment insurance.
Prior to the Quebec budget announcement, Quebec officials had
explained to federal officials that employees would be required
to remit tips daily to employers who, in turn, would record them,
withhold the appropriate deductions and return the remainder to
the employees. On that basis, Quebec was advised that tips would
be insurable for employment insurance purposes because they would
be employer controlled.
Under the current employment insurance legislation, tips can
only be regarded as insurable if they are employer controlled as
a result of being remitted by the employee to the employer on an
ongoing basis.
We are aware of the underlying objective of the Quebec
government to curb the underground economy and address the under
reporting of income, more specifically tips in restaurant and
hotel industries.
1840
The federal government also understands that following the
publication of the Quebec proposals, major concerns were
expressed by employers as to their added administrative burden.
As a result, Quebec considered a number of options for
alleviating this burden and has asked the federal government to
advise whether these changes would be acceptable for EI coverage
purposes.
These are being actively reviewed. I will assure the House that
the federal government is aware of the importance of the issue
and the tight time frame of the Government of Quebec to implement
its program by January 1.
The government is treating Quebec's request as top priority.
Quebec will soon be advised of the federal government's position
on the matter.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.41 p.m.)