36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 5
CONTENTS
Friday, September 26, 1997
1000
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1005
1010
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1015
1020
1025
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1040
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1045
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NIAGARA GRAPE AND WINE FESTIVAL
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1100
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALGERIA
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINNIJEAN BROWN TRICKEY
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GFI CONTROL SYSTEMS
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1105
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLICE OFFICERS OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LANDMINES
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARTHRITIS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOCKEY
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOMES FIRST SOCIETY
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1110
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JOHN COCHRANE
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SUMMER GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1115
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH PROTECTION BRANCH
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1120
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1125
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFRASTRUCTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1130
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MIRABEL AIRPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1135
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1140
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Bujold-Girard |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Bujold-Girard |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TELECOMMUNICATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1145
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSING
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1150
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1155
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1200
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments during Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE ALISTAIR FRASER
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1205
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1210
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1215
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MACKENZIE VALLEY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-6. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1220
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SAGUENAY-ST. LAURENCE MARINE PARK ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-7. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-206. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-207. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-208. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
1225
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-209. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-210. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-211. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1230
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-212. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LOUIS RIEL DAY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-213. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1235
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Highways
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of the Child
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Highways
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
|
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1240
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1255
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1310
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1325
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1340
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1345
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Carolyn Bennett |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1400
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
1405
1410
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1415
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1420
1425
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
1430
![V](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 5
![](/web/20061116183439im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, September 26, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
.TUCPrayers
1000
The Speaker: My colleagues, I wonder if you would welcome
with me one of our assistant deputy speakers. This is her first
time in the chair. I remember the first time I took the chair.
My knees were knocking. But I know you will be very gentle with
our new Speaker.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Orders of the day.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed from September 25 consideration of the motion
for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to
his speech at the opening of the session and of the amendment.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me
to rise in the House today to speak for the first time in the
36th Parliament and to talk about what is important to this
session of Parliament and Canadians.
Before I do so I would like to congratulate you on your
appointment and I am sure that during the many deliberations that
this House will be having we will keep you on your toes from time
to time but, as the Speaker has said, this is Friday and things
are a bit different on Fridays.
First and most important I want to take this opportunity to
thank my constituents, the people of St. Catharines, for choosing
me to represent them here in the nation's capital in the House
of Commons once again.
I remind my colleagues, both new and old, that we are
representatives of Canadians like those in St. Catharines who
have concerns about jobs, about health care, about their children
and grandchildren.
My riding of St. Catharines is known as the garden city. We
have gentler winters and warmer summers than we have here in the
nation's capital and that is why our tender fruit is so sweet and
our wine is just right.
1005
It also makes for good times for watching the ships slide
through the Welland canal or to go rowing on Martindale pond, the
future site of the 1999 world rowing championships.
In addition to thanking my constituents for their continued
support I want to warmly welcome the new members to the House.
I am also honoured to stand before you as the recently appointed
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. I see this
not only as a challenge but as a wonderful opportunity to work
with all my colleagues in this House, to help Canadian businesses
to succeed, to help them grow to create jobs and to make Canada
the best country in the world.
The Speech from the Throne, which we are debating today, marks
the next stage in our government's commitment to work with
Canadians and Canadian businesses to create and seize
opportunities in the global knowledge based economy.
Canada's solid economic foundation is something that we put in
place with the help and sacrifice of many Canadians. I want to
remind the House that over the last four years we have also been
working hard to promote innovation, advance the information
highway, increase trade and create opportunities for Canadians in
the new economy.
I take this opportunity to outline some of our recent
initiatives in the industry portfolio and how we will continue to
improve the various department endeavours.
Over the last four years we have been getting Canadians
connected and putting them on the information highway. This
strategy calls for a high quality, low cost information network
that will give Canadians access to employment information,
education, health care, entertainment, investment and wealth
creating opportunities in the technology sector.
The strategy seeks to promote job creation through innovation
and investment, reinforce Canadian cultural sovereignty and
identity and to ensure that we have universal access to the
information highway wherever we are in Canada.
For example, the Strategis program and Industry Canada's on-line
business information service have been demonstrated to business
owners and managers at special events throughout this country at
trade and information shows. Almost 13 million documents have
been accessed through Strategis, which is available to Canadians
instantly on the Internet.
The community access program is designed to connect rural and
remote areas and aboriginal communities to the Internet. As
stated in our throne speech, the mandate before 2001 is to
connect well over 5,000 rural communities across Canada to the
Internet to help them to get information at home or at their
business.
The SchoolNet program will encourage the connection of some
16,500 schools, 3,400 libraries and 450 first nation schools to the
Internet by the end of 1998-99.
For everyone's information, well over 9,500 schools and 1,200
public libraries have been connected. Each day across this
country new libraries are being connected to this excellent
program.
Another program called computers for schools redirects surplus
computer equipment to schools and public libraries throughout the
country. To date close to 40,000 computers and 60,000 software
packages have been delivered to schools across this country.
The student connection program hires university and college
students to teach small businesses how to use the Internet
because everybody needs to get on line and it takes time and
effort for each of these businesses to do what has to be done in
the new economy. It helps them improve their competitiveness and
create new opportunities.
In my province alone, Ontario, well over 2,200 firms have been
assisted by our students to be connected to the Internet.
1010
In addition, the industry portfolio has been working to realize
our international potential. The department has been working
with its many partners to help existing exporters identify and
access new trading opportunities and provide at the same time
perspective exporters with the information, the skills and the
tools they need to be export ready.
We have a number of international trade centres across this
country, including one in my province, the one in Toronto. It
serves as a focal point for the delivery of market information,
counselling and other support to potential exporters across the
province.
In 1996 the centre responded to well over 10,000 requests. In
addition, Industry Canada and foreign affairs have established an
active networks of trained executives across the country, those
people who can assist small businesses, in fact any businesses,
whether home business or even large businesses, in export.
The National Research Council's industrial research assistance
program has been helping SMEs right across this country. IRAP
helps members of Parliament in their ridings to help their
businesses which then create jobs.
In my area of Niagara where we have some 31 cottage wineries a
partnership with IRAP has created a special wine industry, known
worldwide, receiving many medals. That was an initiative with
IRAP, the grape growers and the wine industry.
Later next month we will be opening up an oenology and
viticulture institute at Brock University, an excellent endeavour
for the university, its students, its grape growers and the wine
industry.
Many of our universities across Canada participate in networks
of centres of excellence where they link together and work
together for research and development. This area will be
improved and will be continually supported by this government
because of the excellent work that has been going on.
I should also point out that the Canada community investment
program has been an endeavour which 20 communities across this
country, and all provinces and territories have at least one,
have been using to improve access to capital. This is another
area where we must continue on to help those communities that do
not have major banking centres and financial centres but which
need access to capital.
I believe, as set out in the throne speech, that consumer
confidence is growing and new businesses have been created. There
is much work to do with all of us working together in our
communities, our ridings, for the betterment of our country.
It will be my endeavour to work with as many members in this
House and companies and communities across this country in
assistance to the Minister of Industry to make sure that we are
continuing on the right track to help us grow as a country.
I have outlined many initiatives pertaining to people,
innovators, businesses and communities at work across this
country. I believe the Speech from the Throne is a framework to
lead our country into the 21st century, and the good news is that
much of our work is already well under way. We must continue to
work at it in this mandate.
I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, and again congratulate you
on your appointment. I am sure many of us will have many
discussions with you in the next four years.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I too
would like to congratulate you on your appointment and I can
assure you that you will certainly get as much co-operation as we
are able to muster in this House for your administration of the
affairs of this House in the days to come.
1015
I rise today in response to the Speech from the Throne. Nothing
in that speech assures me or the people of this country that the
integrity of Canada's justice system will be restored by the
government or the new justice minister.
Many areas in justice should have been addressed in the throne
speech but were not. We could look at the need for the reform of
the Young Offenders Act, the elimination of the faint hope
clause, exempting violent offenders from conditional sentencing
and, of course, a victims' bill of rights. These are all issues
of great concern to Canadians and issues which Reform intend to
pursue with vigour in this session of Parliament.
According to a July 1997 Angus Reid poll, 52% of Canadians have
lost faith in our courts and our justice system. This is a
serious matter. Why have so many Canadians lost faith in our
justice system and particularly our courts? That is the question
I would like to focus my remarks on today.
Canadians' faith in our justice system can only be further
shattered by the scandalous affair perpetrated by senior
officials within the justice department, aided and abetted by the
federal court and concealed from the people of this country by
the intentional ignoring or oversight of the facts by the former
justice minister and the Hon. Charles Dubin.
In 1996 a series of indiscretions were committed by Associate
Deputy Attorney General Ted Thompson who deliberately and
knowingly interfered with the judicial independence of Associate
Chief Justice Jerome who was conducting a hearing into the
deportation orders of three suspected Nazi war criminals.
In an attempt to protect his close friend from embarrassment,
Ted Thompson telephoned Chief Justice Isaac to warn him of the
proposed supreme court reference. The chief justice of
the federal court and Judge Jerome's administrative superior
arranged for Mr. Thompson to meet with him in his chambers to
discuss the matter further. An exchange of letters ensued in
which Thompson outlined the chronology of the court delays on the
three cases. This was all done without the knowledge of defence
counsel.
Chief Justice Isaac then called Judge Jerome to a meeting and
advised him of the threat of a supreme court reference if the
pace of the hearings into the three deportation cases did not
pick up. With Judge Jerome's assistance, Chief Justice Isaac
responded to Mr. Thompson's letter assuring the assistant deputy
the cases would be expedited. “I have discussed your concerns
with the associate chief justice and like me he is prepared to
take all reasonable steps possible to avoid a reference to the
Supreme Court of Canada on these matters.” This too was done
without the knowledge of defence counsel.
Following this horrendous act of interference into the judicial
independence of Judge Jerome, justice department officials sought
to minimize the damage by deliberately creating a false scenario
designed to mislead defence counsel and Canadians into believing
that Ted Thompson has approached Chief Justice Isaac for the
innocent purpose of discussing the scheduling of 12 future
deportation cases and had inadvertently discussed the three
deportation cases being handled by Judge Jerome.
In an effort to cover up this deceit, these justice officials
recognized the need to keep Ted Thompson from testifying when a
motion for a stay of proceedings was entered on the basis of
political interference into the judicial independence of the
court. This deceit and the object of deceit is revealed in secret
justice department documents which justice officials were ordered
to file in the Supreme Court of Canada. One of these documents
is a memo to Mr. John Sims, the assistant deputy attorney general
responsible for citizenship and immigration dated May 10, 1996,
from Mr. Chris Amerasinghe, senior general counsel for the
Attorney General of Canada.
Mr. Amerasinghe states in his memo that if Ted Thompson
testified in court “The damage done to the image of the
department, the attorney general and the court will be
incalculable for all time and the consequences could be far
reaching, going far beyond the immediate concern for these three
cases. It could precipitate the resignations of the minister and
the chief justice. More importantly, the reputation of the
government and the court will be irreparably damaged if all the
evidence were to come out.”
The contents of this one secret document alone is shocking and
beyond belief, yet it gets worse.
1020
In a second memo dated May 12, 1996 Mr. Amerasinghe states:
Unfortunately there are several problems in calling Ted
Thompson—Bayne—one of the Defence Counsel—will soon realize
the extent of the friendship between Ted Thompson and the Chief
Justice and will be able to demonstrate that the real reason Ted
went to see the Chief Justice was to alert his close friend to an
impending Reference which would embarrass the Chief Justice and
seek ways of avoiding it, and that the story about the concern
for the 12 cases was false and is a cover-up.
Justice officials were not the only ones who advised Thompson
not to testify. During a private conversation in Montreal in
early May, Judge Jerome provided Thompson with the same legal
advice, not to submit an affidavit. Chief Justice Isaac was at
the same Montreal rules committee meeting, again an unbelievable
revelation.
As unbelievable as this is, Mr. Amerasinghe clearly and
accurately describes the story being put forward by the justice
department as false and a cover up, and this assessment is not
denied by any justice official in the documents filed with the
Supreme Court of Canada.
The most outrageous and reprehensible part of this whole scandal
is the realization that this false story, this cover up, was
extended either knowingly or unknowingly into the House of
Commons by the former justice minister who on May 29, 1996 said
this in Hansard regarding the meeting between Thompson and
Isaac: “The meeting was for the purpose initially of discussing
concerns with the pace of litigation generally in the federal
court”.
The former justice minister is here parroting the false story
and cover up detailed by Mr. Amerasinghe in a secret memo to John
Sims. Mr. Amerasinghe said in relation to Ted Thompson's motives
and the real reason for approaching his friend was not to discuss
general administrative matters but to alert his close personal
friend of the proposed supreme court reference which would
embarrass Chief Justice Isaac who had been working to improve the
reputation of the federal court.
I invite all Canadians to look at the facts, to review the
evidence. I am confident a reasonable person would reach the
same shocking conclusions. I am confident ordinary Canadians
would recognize that aspects of what the former justice minister
reported in this House were incorrect and misleading and that the
finding of Charles Dubin concerning the conduct of Ted Thompson
is at best deficient and at worst a deliberate whitewash as he
had access to all the damning information contained in the
documents filed in the supreme court, and that the Canadian
Judicial Council's examination of the conduct of Chief Justice
Isaac is also inadequate and deficient. However, this was to be
expected, given that the council did not have access to all the
information contained in the secret and confidential justice
department documents that were later filed with the Supreme Court
of Canada.
It appears that the Canadian Judicial Council depended solely on
the word of Chief Justice Isaac who told them among other things
that he never discussed Judge Jerome recusing himself from the
cases, although the justice documents say exactly the opposite.
Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada, although dismissing the
stay of proceedings motion, clearly stated that both Chief
Justice Isaac and Associate Chief Justice Jerome were tainted by
this affair and should have nothing further to do with these
cases.
What are Canadians to think when they witness this type of
conduct from our justice officials and our judges, the very
people entrusted to protect our rights and freedoms and who are
to uphold the rule of law to the very highest standards? What
are they to think when they see pertinent information being
withheld from the Canadian Judicial Council, the one body
entrusted to ensure that courts and judges remain independent of
outside pressures so citizens can rely on the fact that they will
receive fair and impartial hearings? What are they to think when
they hear and see this kind of conduct on the part of these
officials? What are Canadians to think when they hear all the
damning evidence which clearly points to such inappropriate
conduct? And there is more.
In a secret memo to John Sims, the Assistant Deputy Attorney
General, dated December 14, 1995, Chris Amerasinghe states this:
I am appalled at the irresponsible manner in which the associate
chief justice, who is responsible for the proper functioning of
the federal court trial division conducts the business of the
court. It is a travesty of justice that these cases proceed at a
snail's pace and that Jerome acquiesces in every attempt by
counsel for the respondents to delay them rather than pushing
counsel to deal with them speedily. He does not seem to care
what happens. Apparently the Chief Justice of the Federal Court
either has no power to influence the conduct of the Associate
Chief Justice or does not wish to do so.
1025
Mr. Amerasinghe attributed the associate chief justice's
behaviour to the state of his health. I quote from the same
memo:
He appeared to be misled as to the nature to the privilege which
we were claiming—the rather disjointed manner in which he spoke
caused me serious concern as to the state of his health. More
disturbing was the fact that he did not appear to appreciate that
Bayne was misleading him as to the law.
These comments are not only in contempt of Judge Jerome and his
court, they are designed to spread this contempt into the minds
of anyone who read them, including the Assistant Deputy Attorney
General of Canada, John Sims. So bitter was Amerasinghe's attack
on Judge Jerome that John Sims blacked out those portions of
Amerasinghe's memo before he passed it on to the members of the
litigation committee.
If Mr. Amerasinghe had justification for his attack on Judge
Jerome, the proper body to take it before was the Judicial
Council of Canada, instead of sowing seeds of contempt in the
minds of his superiors within the Department of Justice and yet
that is exactly what he did. It is outrageous and unacceptable
that this has happened within the highest levels of the justice
department.
In the words of a defence counsel before the Supreme Court of
Canada, the Department of Justice, the former minister of justice
and the Hon. Charles Dubin exacerbated Ted Thompson's flagrant
breach of judicial independence with their “concerted pattern of
lack of candour and outright deception”.
On May the 29, 1996 the former justice minister stood in this
House and stated:
I want to note at the outset that as soon as the department
became aware that Mr. Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac had met,
and as soon as the correspondence came to light, the department
provided copies of that correspondence to the lawyers acting for
the three persons involved in the revocation cases pending before
the Federal Court.
The minister's statement was wrong and is wrong. Counsel for
the applicants received copies of the correspondence on March 7,
1996. Yet we know from Mr. Amerasinghe's diary notes and from an
e-mail dated March 1, 1996 addressed to Mr. John Sims from Mr.
Amerasinghe both these men knew of Thompson's letter six days
before it was forwarded to counsel.
I phoned Ted Thompson's office and was told by his secretary
that he had written to Julius Isaac. I have no doubt he will
advise you.
The contents of faxed messages between Mr. Amerasinghe, Mr. John
Sims and the deputy attorney general clearly reveal that these
officials were aware of this issue or problem days before the
letters were sent to defence counsel and is a direct
contradiction to what the former justice minister stated in this
House.
The former justice minister not only submitted information that
mislead the House of the facts of this case, he also withheld
information for almost three months regarding this matter.
Ted Thompson committed this breach of judicial independence on
March 1, 1996 and yet it was not brought to the floor of the
House until the end of May of that same year. Why was this
matter not reported the moment the minister knew of it? Why did
he wait until the matter became a subject of public interest in
the media before he notified the House of what was happening
within his department? That is unacceptable and is shameful. It
is shameful that the former minister stood in this House on more
that one occasion and stated:
From the moment that it came to the attention of the justice
officials that Ted Thompson had been to see the chief justice,
steps were taken to find out exactly what happened, to get copies
of the correspondence and put them in the hands of the lawyers
involved in the three cases.
Yet we waited for three months before he notified us of what was
going on within his department. It is unacceptable that the
former justice minister refused to remove Ted Thompson for his
professional and unethical misconduct despite Reform urging him
to do so. It was the only proper course of action to clear the
air and assure Canadians that the justice department is not
staffed by individuals who will violate the judicial independence
of our courts. Instead the minister turned the matter over to the
former chief justice of Ontario, Charles Dubin, a person, and I
quote the minister, “whose experience and integrity in such
matters is beyond question”.
1030
On October 1, 1996 the minister publicly embraced Mr. Dubin's
findings when he stated “We took the trouble to have a person of
unquestioned reputation look carefully through all the facts of
this matter. He took the trouble to look through all the facts
carefully, speak to the people involved, examine the documents
and consider them carefully in accordance with appropriate
principles. He concluded there was no basis to fire Ted
Thompson”. I say nonsense. Absolute nonsense.
If the former justice minister believed this, why did he order a
new investigation into this issue when the contents of the secret
documents filed with the Supreme Court of Canada were made public
during the last week of the federal election? Those were the
very documents Mr. Dubin had access to during his investigation.
The confidential documents clearly call into question Mr.
Dubin's findings and suggest an enormous deficiency in his
conclusions and in his recommendation that left Ted Thompson
within the justice department.
In my opinion, Mr. Dubin's report was a whitewash. He
completely ignored or glossed over the facts and despite
overwhelming evidence to the contrary, maintained that Mr.
Thompson's conduct although inappropriate was properly motivated
and within his jurisdiction. Throughout his report he maintains
the charade that Mr. Thompson's meeting was to discuss general
administrative matters involving 12 pending revocation cases and
that three current cases were mentioned inadvertently. This is a
false story and a cover-up described within Mr. Amerasinghe's
internal documents to his superiors.
Ted Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac committed one of the
most serious breaches of judicial interference ever experienced
in this country. The true facts surrounding this enormous
violation have been ignored and some say covered up and have
just been revealed recently.
In the words of defence counsel quoting Lord Denning, “Had
this occurred in England, it would have brought down the
government”. But not in Canada because in Canada political
interference in the judicial process has become a way of life and
the hallmark of the Liberal government.
We witnessed political interference in the Airbus affair and in
the Krever inquiry. Can we imagine setting up an inquiry such as
the Krever inquiry and then creating legal roadblocks, as it has
done, interfering with Krever's mandate.
Then there was the Pearson airport contract. A bill was rammed
through the House which denied the injured people due process to
file a grievance within our justice system.
In the Somalia inquiry not only was there interference, it
stopped the inquiry completely. There was not only political
interference, the judicial process was stopped completely and
Canadians were denied the full facts and truth about the horrible
wrongdoing and cover-up within the Canadian military.
Is it any wonder that over 50% of Canadians have lost
faith in our courts and in our justice system after witnessing
the arrogant attitude that tampering with justice and the rule of
law is acceptable. And if you get caught, nothing happens.
In the case of Mr. Thompson, he was transferred to somewhere
else in the department. The Prime Minister moved the former
justice minister out of justice and into health and this House
cannot hold him accountable for the scandal which he has left in
the justice department.
In summation of this scandalous affair, it is clear that this all
occurred because these people did not want to suffer the
embarrassment of a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. They
chose instead to violate the independence and the impartiality of
the courts and betray the faith and trust of Canadians.
These people have to go. They do not belong in our justice
system. They have proven by their actions that they are unworthy
of belonging in our justice system.
In view of this terrible government interference which runs like
a current through our justice system on a regular basis, I have
forwarded a complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada asking
for an immediate investigation into the conduct of Ted Thompson,
John Sims and Chris Amerasinghe. In the light of yesterday's
Supreme Court remarks regarding Isaac and Jerome, I have also
written to the Canadian Judicial Council requesting a more
thorough review of Chief Justice Isaac's actions as well as an
examination of the conduct of Associate Chief Justice Jerome as
referenced in the justice department documents filed in the
Supreme Court of Canada.
1035
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise for the first
time officially in this House. I want to congratulate you and
all those who will be occupying the Chair during the course of
this Parliament.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank the people of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who have entrusted in me this
great honour to represent them in these hallowed halls and in
this House.
I want to very briefly comment on the very fiery speech given by
the hon. member for Crowfoot. I am encouraged by the member's
vigorous pursuit of this issue. He has obviously done a great
deal of research and a great deal of leg work to have uncovered
these inadequacies and injustices that have occurred on this
particular point.
I know that the hon. member has a great deal of practical
experience within the justice system. I just want to comment
that I as well look forward to keeping this government in check
in particular in the area of justice and these atrocities, some
of which the hon. member has mentioned, areas such as the Krever
report and the Airbus scandal. I too look forward to working
with him in seeing that this government is held accountable.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the kind
words from my hon. colleague. I would like to take the
opportunity to publicly thank him for that and to acknowledge the
fact that I was well acquainted with his father who was in this
House for many years and who showed the same kind of integrity
that his words have reflected.
I appreciate very much his comments and look forward to working
with him and reflecting the standard of integrity within this
House and within our institutions of government that the people
of Canada are demanding and have not been finding, particularly
in the justice system, as clearly revealed by the Angus Reid poll
of this past summer.
Again, I thank the hon. member for his kind remarks.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I refer to my colleague's reference
when he talked about public confidence in the court system. I
recall that last year the member travelled the country and
listened to average Canadians, especially around their lack of
confidence in the Young Offenders Act.
I would like him to comment on what is the real mood in the
community and what are the mainstream Canadian values that
Canadians hold which seem to be somewhat different than what they
actually get from the justice system. There seems to be a great
gap between the mentality and the inside language and the inside
operations of the justice system and where they are at and where
the public is act. There is great dissatisfaction and the polls
are showing that.
I would like the hon. member to comment on what he found when he
travelled the country, the difference between what Canadians want
and what they are actually getting from the justice system.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Madam Speaker, we spent quite a bit of
taxpayers' dollars on the 12-year review of the Young Offenders
Act. When we talked to ordinary Canadians as we travelled across
this country what we found was that they see a lack of ability
within the Young Offenders Act to respond adequately to youth
crime. We heard that over and over again.
1040
We also heard that the communities want the authority to deal
with their own children restored back to them. Families want
restored back to them the authority to raise their children in a
manner that they think is in the best interests of them, their
communities and this country.
There is no question that the Young Offenders Act has formalized
to a great extent simple acts that would normally be dealt with
by a high school principal or a teacher in the classroom by the
discretion of a peace officer. That discretion has been removed
by the formalization of the system. Families want this right,
this responsibility and this authority to look after their own
children returned to them.
We saw program after program, such as the Sparwood program in
Sparwood, B.C., coming from the people. People, in spite of all
the money and interference by the government through legislation
like the Young Offenders Act, were bringing forward programs to
protect their children and to keep them out of the criminal
justice system. At the same time we see obstacles being placed
in the way by the components within the justice system that have
a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in an industry
that spends $10 billion a year on youth and adult crimes.
There is much to do in amending our laws in this country,
including the Young Offenders Act, in order to regain the
confidence of Canadians and place back into their hands the
authority and responsibility to raise their own children in a
manner they think is in the best interests of themselves, their
children, their communities and this country.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
again as many before me have, I would like to offer my
congratulations and best wishes to you and all those who will
occupy the Chair through this 36th Parliament.
One of the things that the member for Crowfoot talked about in
his address and also in the questions and comments is the
frustration that Canadians have with our legal system. We have
seen just this past summer things like the section 745 hearings
for people like Clifford Olson who is a self-admitted child
killer of 11 children.
I wonder if the member would like to comment on how things like
the section 745 hearings have an effect on the people's
frustration with the justice system.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Madam Speaker, when we pass laws that
destroy the peace of mind of citizens, what are we doing? It is
one thing to see the interpretation of the law that affects the
sense of justice of our people. It is another thing to see the
law itself create that feeling where the peace of mind is
destroyed, where they cannot be at peace knowing that the justice
officials are not going to interfere with the judicial
independence of a judge that they may have to appear before and
that they will get a fair hearing, that the individual who
commits a crime will be punished in a manner according to the
circumstances surrounding the offence. We are hearing this all
across the country. The polls are reflecting it.
I cannot understand why the government will not move and support
the will of the majority in areas as simple as removing section
745 from the Criminal Code, the faint hope clause that gives
special rights and advantages to killers in this country, and on
the other hand punishes innocent people in this country.
We see Bill C-68 which is so frustrating for millions of
Canadians. What is it doing? Again, it directs punishment to
innocent, law abiding people while ignoring to a large extent the
criminal users of firearms.
1045
When we see laws passed and maintained that are punishing the
innocent and creating inconveniences for the innocent, the law
abiding tax paying Canadians, while at the same time giving
special rights and privileges to the offender, there is something
wrong with the picture and there is something wrong with the
justice system in Canada.
The only way the people can speak is through their elected
representatives in the House, through the polls, letters to the
editor, through petitions to this place, letters and phone calls
to ministers of cabinet. They are expressing that discontent and
a degree of frustration that indicates they have lost their sense
of justice. It has been destroyed by the actions and the laws
passed by this House.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
too would like to congratulate you and the other Speakers who
will occupy the chair and rule on our debates to ensure that we
conduct ourselves with the level of decorum that Canadians expect
of their parliamentarians.
I would also like to ask for the patience of the members in the
House to thank the people of Hillsborough for returning me to
this place as their voice in the House of Commons. It is a great
pleasure for me to serve my constituents and I plan to serve them
well.
[Translation]
I wish to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne, but
I also wish to speak of this Parliament.
[English]
The throne speech was very up beat. It spoke of the great
opportunities that await us in the new millennium. It also set
the stage for how we as Canadians will prepare our nation to
enter the new century as a strong and united country.
I would like to make one thing perfectly clear. The only reason
the throne speech took such a positive tone is the successes of
Canadians over the last four years. The Liberal government with
the help of all Canadians turned the country's financial books
around.
It has been said many times that a healthy economy leads to a
healthy society. This government also believes that a healthy
society contributes to a healthy economy. And it is obvious
after hearing the throne speech that the government plans to
deliver both to Canadians.
While there are many ways the government can work to improve our
way of life, it has targeted priority areas such as our youth,
health care, innovation and national unity. These areas represent
the greatest potential for Canada.
As the prime minister said, our children are our most precious
resource. The Liberal government will continue to create more
opportunities for our youth, opportunities for better education,
more employment opportunities, a healthier lifestyle and a secure
public retirement income system. In short, our government will
secure Canada's future through our youth.
At the same time, we must maintain a public health care regime.
There is no escaping the needs of a growing population. This is
why the Liberal government introduced public health care 30 years
ago and that is why the Liberal government will secure it for
another 30 years and beyond.
Another chief priority of the government is supporting
innovation in Canada's economy. Similar to the theory of
continuous learning for workers, Canadian firms must continually
strive to improve and update their processes. Our international
competitors are not standing still, so neither can we.
The federal government has a role to play in supporting research
and development and its uses within the business world. That is
why I am glad to hear that this government will build on its
prior achievements of maintaining innovation as one of its main
priorities.
Recently we have seen a slight evolution of the federalist
approach to the issue of Quebec's secession. Yes, we must
illustrate to all Canadians, especially the people of Quebec, the
benefits of living within Canada. But we must also bring
frankness and clarity to any debate on the unity of Canada. I
want to make it known that I support the recent initiatives of
the federal government and the provincial and territorial
leaders.
As I mentioned before, I want to discuss more than just the
Speech from the Throne. As we can all see, the make-up of this
Parliament is unlike any in Canada's history. It is
unprecedented for the House of Commons to have five official
parties.
1050
Since 1993 Canadians have wanted a change in the federal system.
The presence of so many regional parties is evidence of that
desire. Some change has occurred but I think the results of the
June election illustrate that Canadians are not yet quite
satisfied.
Just like our industries must be capable of innovation, so must
our Parliament be ready to change. By improving our Parliament
we may better serve Canadians. In consequence, Canadians may
better respect this institution and its members.
With such an extraordinary mix of political parties in the House
I believe the time for change is now. I say to my hon. colleagues
there will never be a better time than now to change this system.
Most of this change concerns increasing the role of an MP. A
member who is not in cabinet usually has little opportunity to
influence legislation and other measures of policy. But if a
group of members band together, then perhaps influence can be
achieved because the rules of the game are stacked against us.
Of particular importance in this Parliament is the role of
committees. There are now 14 committees with each containing 16
members. Many of us know from previous experience that all too
often there is insufficient time for each member to probe the
issues with questions to the witnesses.
As well, there is always the fear that the committees are viewed
as rubber stamps for the government. The committees should be a
second defence for Canadians to be protected from unintended
implications or oversights, but committees need a sufficient
amount of time to conduct an effective analysis of government
policy.
Along the same lines is the issue of resources available to
committees. Currently each committee must apply for funds for
each individual study. A number of committees share a clerk with
other committees or parliamentary associations. Researchers from
the Library of Parliament are assigned to various committees. I
do not believe this is good enough.
In my opinion we should take some lessons from our neighbours to
the south. Committee chairs should have the resources to arrange
his or her own experts on staff. They should be in addition to
research assistants available to other committee members.
Having more resources would allow members time to conduct a more
thorough study of the issues that come before them. But we
cannot provide more resources without allowing the committees to
actually use them.
The government must change its approach and be more open to
change. We have here a wealth of knowledge. The collective
knowledge of all 301 members of Parliament can be a force of
benefit for Canadians. As it stands now only the few in cabinet
have any real opportunity for input.
In addition, I believe there should be more business referred to
committees. In recent years it appears that more measures which
should be in legislation and debated here on this floor are
bypassing the House by being included in regulations.
Any legislation the government introduces is debated here, but
often it seems that the real meat of the legislation is
contained in the corresponding regulations.
I realize that this approach provides more flexibility to the
government because it is easier to amend regulations. I admit
there are times when it is justified, but this approach can
easily be abused. Putting the meat of the legislation in
regulations does not allow Parliament a direct opportunity to
investigate government policies.
There is a balance that can be obtained by referring all
regulations to the appropriate committees. This will allow them
to be studied and improve the impact of services to Canadians. As
well there have been a good number of issues over the years that
could have been avoided if committees of Parliament were given
more matters for analysis.
For example, I am sure that if the Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veterans Affairs had studied the helicopter
procurement initiated by the former Conservative government, any
controversy could have been avoided. Then we would not still be
dealing with this issue so many years later.
One final point concerns private members' business. I believe
there are many improvements that can be made to allow private
members more opportunity to introduce and pass meaningful
legislation.
Part of our role here should be to act as legislators. Currently
really the only legislators here are those in cabinet.
1055
Unfortunately I do not have time to expand on all the issues I
wanted to cover. Suffice it to say I believe the time for change
is now.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to offer my congratulations on your speakership
once again and to all those who will be occupying the chair.
I would like to ask the member, very briefly, to comment on this
question. Does the member agree that one of the primary
functions of government in a civilized society is to provide for
the peace and safety of its citizens? I was wondering if at the
beginning of this Parliament he would assure us that he would
agree with that statement.
The reason I ask that is I have been here for four years now and
cannot understand why law and order is not more of a priority for
this government.
I want to give the House an example. I am very familiar with
what is happening at our local high school in Yorkton. My
children have attended there and they tell me what is going on.
There is a serious problem with young offenders. Many of them
will attend school the next day and boast about their exploits.
This has a very negative effect on all the other students. They
begin to say “what does it matter what I do, who cares?” It
affects their studies. It affects their job.
Unless people realize that the law is made to be respected, they
lose the thing which holds us together as a society. The glue
which holds us together becomes soft.
Mr. George Proud: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his questions.
Yes, I believe it is the role of government to provide stability
within a country. I have grown up in this country and I believe,
as others do, that it is the greatest country in the world.
I also believe, along with government, that the individual
members of society have a role to play in ensuring that we have a
safe country in which to live.
One of the problems we have in society today is that too many
things over the last number of years have been foisted on to
government and the roles of family members and other
organizations have gone by the wayside.
I believe this government should and will continue to look after
the main interests of society, that being one very important
interest.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE FAMILY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
thousands of concerned parents from all across Canada have been
sending me petitions supporting my private member's motion to
recognize the right, responsibility and liberty of parents to
direct the upbringing of their children and their right to pursue
family life free from unnecessary interference from government.
Many parents feel their rights and responsibilities are
threatened by the government's attempts to fully implement the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a UN
charter which has never been approved in this Parliament.
Parents are afraid that their rights and responsibilities to
properly discipline their children are threatened by the
direction the Liberal government is taking. They say that if the
convention is fully implemented government bureaucrats and the
courts will have absolute power to determine what is in the best
interests of the child and parents will be powerless.
The problem seems to be that government is paying more attention
to what the bureaucrats and foreign politicians are saying in the
United Nations than what parents are saying here at home.
* * *
NIAGARA GRAPE AND WINE FESTIVAL
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to take this opportunity to invite all members of the House to
one of the top 100 festival events in North America. The Niagara
Grape and Wine Festival celebrates the annual harvest of grapes
from Niagara's 16,000 acres of vineyards. Thanks to the efforts
and talents of local vintners, Niagara wines are more popular
than ever and are expanding into the ever growing international
market.
1100
Industry Canada's industrial research assistant program has
helped to improve the quality of Niagara vines and Niagara wines.
A new Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute is being
sponsored by a government and industry partnership and will be
officially opened at Brock University next month.
The federal government has also worked with the Niagara young
people under the youth internship program, providing skills and
experience for youth in jobs in the wine industry.
I congratulate President Paul Speck and General Manager Gerry
Ginsberg on the festival's endeavours.
* * *
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the agenda our government unveiled in the Speech from
Throne is a clear cut action plan for four more years of positive
change. Canadians from coast to coast to coast have worked hard,
made tough decisions and sacrificed much, and now we are seeing
the results.
Almost one million jobs have been created since 1993, we are
witnessing the longest sustained increase in youth employment
since 1990, consumer and business confidence are up, a balanced
budget is within our grasp, interest rates are at an all time
low. On June 2 Canadians voted for success. They voted for kept
promises and they voted for a better tomorrow.
Fiscal responsibility? We will balance the budget by 1998-99.
Job creation? We will invest in key areas like technology.
Quality health care? We will help Canadians who care for family
members at home. Opportunities for youth? We will continue our
successful internship and summer job programs and increase access
to post-secondary education.
These initiatives demonstrate that this government is—
* * *
[Translation]
ALGERIA
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Algeria has been
a site of bloody conflict for years now, and the situation has been
deteriorating rapidly in recent months. Civilians, most of them
women and children, continue to meet ghastly deaths. Having lived
in that country, I cannot understand how the international
community can remain unmoved by the unbearable situation the people
of Algeria are in.
The truce announced by the Islamic Salvation Front for October
1 ought not to lull us into complacency. For the desperate
Algerians, and for our fellow Canadians who fear for their brothers
and sisters, it is vital that action be taken.
Many Algerian immigrants living in my riding of Louis-Hébert
are concerned about the relatives and friends they have left
behind. It is high time that each of us makes at least a minimum
show of solidarity.
I am therefore calling upon this government to speed up the
family reunification procedures for Algerian nationals, which are
dragging out forever despite the urgency of the situation.
* * *
[English]
MINNIJEAN BROWN TRICKEY
Mrs. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to comment on the
40th anniversary of an important event in black American history
and to congratulate a Canadian citizen who is part of that
history.
Forty years ago nine youngsters demonstrated tremendous courage
in dealing with segregationist policies which excluded them from
attending mainstream schools in Arkansas. I applaud those
individuals, in particular a present Ottawa resident, Minnijean
Brown Trickey, who was one of the Little Rock Nine. Ms.
Trickey's act of courage opened the doors to many African
American children to be admitted to the Little Rock High School
and brought the issue of segregated schools to the forefront of
American politics.
Bravo Minnijean Brown Trickey, a proud Canadian.
* * *
GFI CONTROL SYSTEMS
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to congratulate one of Kitchener—Waterloo's many
technology based companies.
GFI Control Systems is a Canadian company that is positioned to
become the global leader in the development of production of
clean alternative fuel engine control systems for gaseous fuel
powered vehicles. Worldwide demand over the next five years is
forecast to be 2.7 million alternative fuel vehicles. GFI employs
102 full time people and uses 64 local suppliers.
At the end of August GFI's investment in research and
development with the help of a $4.3 million loan from Technology
Partnerships Canada paid off. GFI was awarded by the Ford Motor
Company the single largest alternative fuel vehicle contract ever
by a big three auto maker. This contract is valued at more than
$100 million and has resulted in the creation of 125 new jobs.
Congratulations to GFI and congratulations to Technology
Partnerships Canada.
* * *
1105
POLICE OFFICERS OF CANADA
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
weekend more than 4,000 police officers and their families will
travel to Ottawa to pay tribute to their colleagues who have
fallen in the line of duty. Every day in this country police
officers sacrifice their own personal safety in order that the
rest of us remain protected from the criminal acts of a few.
Unfortunately, every year some of these courageous men and women
pay the ultimate price for their bravery. Even more remain
permanently injured as a result of their work.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank on behalf of all
Canadians the valiant, self-sacrificing efforts of the members of
our nation's police forces. Our safety is very much a result of
their bravery.
* * *
LANDMINES
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the recent announcement in Oslo, Norway that nearly 90 countries
had agreed on a treaty that would ban anti-personnel landmines is
a tremendous achievement for Canadian diplomacy.
Everyone in the House should be extremely proud of the role
played by the Prime Minister, the Canadian delegation in Oslo and
especially the Minister of Foreign Affairs who has been nominated
for Nobel Peace Prize. While the landmines treaty to be signed
in Ottawa on December 3 is a first step toward a solution, the
next phase will be to get these landmines out of the ground.
I am pleased and proud that two companies in my riding of
Nepean—Carleton, Computing Devices of Canada and Thomson CSF,
are actively engaged in leading edge technology for landmine
detection and clearance, technology which will save lives.
With the help of funding from the government, these two
companies are working to ensure that Canada remains in the
forefront of a solution to this serious international problem.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ECONOMY
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister says there is nothing more illusive than a million dollars,
when he wants to scare Quebecers who, in his opinion, are a little too
keen to be masters in their own house.
Yesterday, however, Intrawest announced it was investing an
additional $500 million in its tourist mega project at Mont Tremblant.
Intrawest president Joe Houssian said he was not worried about the
political climate.
He went on to say that Tremblant would have a long history that would go
well beyond the political history of the region.
The Bloc Quebecois is delighted and congratulates Intrawest
management on its wise decision. Quebec is and always will be an
excellent place to invest, and business people know this, so the
federalists can use as many scare tactics as they like.
* * *
ARTHRITIS MONTH
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House and all Canadians that
September is arthritis month.
Arthritis is a debilitating disease that threatens the independence
and quality of life of thousands of Canadian men and women. It is one of
the most widespread chronic diseases in Canada, and cases of long term
disability are most frequently due to arthritis.
There is no cure for arthritis, and the direct and indirect costs
of this disease are enormous. Public awareness campaigns and a healthy
life style can sometimes help relieve certain damaging effects of
arthritis.
Health Canada is committed to continuing its involvement with other
stakeholders in public and private organizations, to deal with matters
concerning arthritis and how to treat its sufferers.
The month of September is an opportunity for us to recognize the
work done by the Arthritis Society and its 10,000 dedicated volunteers.
* * *
[English]
HOCKEY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
September 28 is the 25th anniversary of an event that three out
of four Canadians remember, an event where we collectively went
nuts. With 34 seconds remaining in game eight of the
Canada-Soviet hockey series Paul Henderson snapped in his own
rebound, the winning goal that sent 15 million Canadians crazy.
Paul Henderson's goal is a benchmark of Canada's unique
collective culture.
By contrast the heritage minister should get a game misconduct
for high spending. It is called Canadian culture the Liberal
way. The sugar plums that dance in her head are coated with
taxpayers' dollars. She believes it is up to her and the
Liberals to determine Canadian identity. She does not
understand. She cannot manufacture culture. She cannot buy
patriotism.
Paul Henderson's goal was an unscripted athletic event that
helped define what it is to be Canadian. Thank you, Paul. Your
famous goal is part of what it truly means to be Canadian.
* * *
HOMES FIRST SOCIETY
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday this House paid tribute to one its greats,
Stanley Knowles. How fitting it is that today I draw attention to
one humanitarian work this weekend.
1110
Tomorrow, the Homes First Society in Toronto will hold its first
annual “off the street garage sale” at Nathan Phillips Square to
raise funds for Savard's and Haven, two housing projects for
homeless women in Toronto and in the Philippines.
Such projects are living examples of Stanley Knowles' lifelong
dedication to social justice for all peoples.
I commend the organizers and supporters of tomorrow's
fundraising event. I take personal pride that Filipino Canadians
are in the forefront of this volunteerism.
Indeed, the Homes First Society has displayed that uncommon
sense of public duty which Stanley Knowles so well embodied.
These volunteers have dedicated themselves to the duty of
citizenship that helps advance humanity forward.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
both honoured and proud at having been chosen by the people of
Bras d'Or to be their voice in Ottawa.
The people of Cape Breton sent a strong message to this
government on June 2. It is their right and the right of all
Canadians to be guaranteed by this government that they will
receive access to quality health care under the Canada Health
Act.
It is unacceptable for the people of Bras d'Or to be forced to
stand in line and take a number to access even minimal health
care. These people are trying to get medical attention, not pick
up a parcel at their local department store.
It is with this in mind that I intend to make the government
accountable for the devastating effect that has resulted from the
cuts to health care through the CHST.
The people in Bras d'Or would like to send a clear message to
the government that this type of treatment will not be tolerated.
I call on the government to reverse the cuts and reinvest in
health care until such time as the system addresses all the
health care needs of my constituents and all Canadians.
* * *
JOHN COCHRANE
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the
efforts of my constituent and friend, John Cochrane.
John recently travelled, as a Canadian volunteer adviser, to
Russia to assist a private company that publishes a newspaper and
produces stencilled colour printing. The company which requested
Mr. Cochrane's assistance was seeking advice on creating a new
product line and improving efficiency and profit. Mr. Cochrane
developed a plan to increase subscriptions and attract additional
advertisers as well as a new and more aggressive marketing
strategy.
Mr. Cochrane, like many other CESO advisers who work as Canadian
volunteer advisers to business and assist business and
organizations in Canada's aboriginal communities, developing
nations and emerging market economies in central and eastern
Europe. CESO volunteers are skilled Canadian men and women who
willingly share their lifetime of practical experience with those
who need it.
Again I congratulate all CESO volunteers and especially my
constituent, John Cochrane, on a job well done.
* * *
CANADA SUMMER GAMES
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is with a great deal of pride that I rise to inform the members
of the House that on August 9 to 23 in my constituency of
Brandon—Souris we hosted the 1997 Canada Summer Games.
I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the minister of
sport, as well as my leader, Mr. Jean Charest, for being a part
of that—
The Speaker: I do hate to intervene but I remind the hon.
member no names.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I do apologize, Mr. Speaker. It was a
rookie mistake. I would like to thank the leader of my party for
being there.
I would also like to congratulate the 4,000 young men and women
who came from all 10 provinces and 2 territories and demonstrated
both the spirit of sport and the spirit of unity.
I thank also the 6,000 volunteers that took part in my community
and the surrounding area to put on the best ever Canada games.
I would like to conclude with a remark that was made by a father
of one of those athletes. “There are very few things
that seem to be able to bring Canada together lately and this is
one of them. Our most valuable resource in this country is our
youth and if anybody is going to pull it together it is going to
be them”.
The Speaker: I would like to make a very brief comment or
observation. It would seem that yesterday we accomplished what
we set out to do. I would like to compliment the members because
they are disciplining themselves and I think that question period
is becoming a little more lively.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1115
[English]
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
summer when the Liberals were out making election promises they
swore that any budget surplus would be split 50:50, half would go
to new Liberal spending programs naturally, and the other half
would actually go back into taxpayers' pockets or to debt
retirement.
But now that the Liberals are back in power they have changed
their tune. They used to sing The Taxman by the Beatles,
now they have changed to another one entitled Hey, Big
Spender.
When the government spends $42,000 on a musical study entitled
“The Social Origins of the Medieval Latin Lyrical Song,” why
should ordinary Canadians believe that the government will ever
be able to give Canadians the tax relief they deserve?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada Council gives grants to people to do some
very useful work. To be knowledgeable about great ancient music
is very important for some people. I am not an expert but I love
Gregorian music. It was part of the services in the Catholic
Church when I was a kid. It is medieval and very good and very
peaceful to listen to after a good question period.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am not sure if the Prime Minister was part of a medieval Latin
song, but he has been around for a while.
I heard the Prime Minister whistling another ditty yesterday. I
think it was called “Smoking in the Boys Room”. Apparently the
government has decided to spend $1.5 million to subsidize smokes
for convicts in the Kingston penitentiary.
We suspect he has been blowing smoke about this whole budgetary
surplus thing. I think that is a given. But does he really think
that spending $1.5 million to subsidize smokes for convicts is
the best way to spend the money that he has siphoned out of
Canadian small businesses?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for posing the first question of my
new position. I want to take advantage of the occasion to commend
the good work that is done by Correctional Service Canada whose
300 executives sat in this House last night. They do good work.
They deserve to be complimented and I am proud to do it.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am not sure what they have been smoking, but it was something.
We also know that the Prime Minister enjoys a good golf game.
Heaven knows he has teed off plenty of voters. But does he
really have to waste taxpayers' dollars on it? Did the
government really have to spend $19,000 last year on golf balls,
or $500,000 for golf cart bridges at Antigonish, Nova Scotia?
Did Canadian taxpayers really need to spend $100,000 on a golf
course at an army base?
My question is obvious. Are these kind of spending programs
really more important to the Liberals than offering some prospect
of tax relief for the ordinary Canadian citizen?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes there is a beautiful golf course in the national
park at Cape Breton which is enjoyed by the thousands of visitors
who come there in the summer. It is an area of Canada that needs
economic development.
The golf course was developed a long time ago and it has been
made adequate for golfers. The people who play there pay and
that helps. On top of that, it helps the tourist industry in an
area which needs some help. It is about modernizing a golf
course a bit for tourists to visit, in one of the most beautiful
parts of Canada which has some big economic problems. I think
the Reform Party should compliment the government for doing
something for a region that needs it.
* * *
HEALTH PROTECTION BRANCH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Dr.
Michelle Brill Edwards uncovered dangerous safety violations at
Canada's health watchdog, the health protection branch.
I have proof here that senior department bureaucrats have
unethically opened her personal, confidential files in an attempt
to smear her just hours after her public disclosure.
1120
Does the health minister condone these attempts to smear her
reputation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am aware of the news reports this morning about a file being
asked for by an official at Health Canada. I have asked officials
to look into it and when the facts are known I will respond in
detail.
The hon. member should acknowledge in his question, and I know
he is aware of the fact, that for me and for this government the
role of the health protection branch is extremely important. It
protects the safety and the health of Canadians.
It is for that very reason that this week I took three important
steps to ensure its continuing strength: first, a moratorium on
future cuts; second, the appointment of an arm's length science
advisory board; third—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting that this minister himself is responsible for the
cuts that he is now undoing.
Dr. Brill-Edwards is an expert. She says the health protection
branch is unsafe. She worked there. Her colleagues agree. Now
health bureaucrats are trying to ruin her reputation and smother
the truth. Why is the health minister afraid of this scientist?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one thing I have tried to make a habit is to get the facts before
I jump to conclusions.
I caution the hon. member to get the facts before he
characterizes conduct in that irresponsible way. The reality is
I have asked officials to inquire into the news reports this
morning. Let us get the facts first.
The third step I took was to prepare a consultation document to
involve all Canadians, not just one or two in this discussion of
the future of the health protection branch.
I do not have to be told by former employees or by anybody else
what the role of the health protection branch is. I am firmly
committed to making sure it does its job in the most effective
way.
* * *
[Translation]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
In his speech in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Prime
Minister urged Quebecers to put their trust in the Calgary declaration,
the ramifications of which became even murkier yesterday with the
replies the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs gave to our questions.
My question is a very simple one: Given its constitutional history,
what makes the Prime Minister think that Quebecers can trust the Liberal
government?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebecers are visibly losing faith in the Bloc Quebecois. This is clear
from the recent election.
The very great majority of Quebecers want to remain in Canada.
This is clear not just from the polls, but from speaking to average
citizens. And the more they could be convinced that they do not have to
choose between Quebec and Canada, that these two formidable entities can
join forces and make them stronger and will be more indispensable to
them than ever in the next millennium, the more they will turn away from
the Bloc Quebecois in mistrust.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
minister's information, the Bloc Quebecois still holds the majority of
seats in Quebec.
That having been said, when we hear that being as unique as Pacific
salmon is the same thing as distinct society, we might well wonder.
How can the Prime Minister hope for Quebecers' trust, when his
government's only strategy since the last referendum has been to
threaten Quebec with its clever Plan B?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
far from making any threats, the government is calling for calm and
democratic debate of very serious matters: How does secession square
with democracy? There is no model for it anywhere.
Let me illustrate. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the
Premier of Quebec gave the example of the recent referendum in Wales,
noting that 50% plus one was enough.
I must give you the following information, which is important to
the debate. The Tories asked the British Prime Minister not to apply
the results to a simple decentralization because—
The Speaker: Pardon me for interrupting the minister, but the
member for Lac-Saint-Jean has the floor.
* * *
1125
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the future federal minister of education, whoever
he may be.
In his response to the Speech from the Throne, the Prime
Minister kept for himself the announcement of new meddling in areas
of provincial jurisdiction. The Prime Minister announced the
government's intention to set up a fund to distribute bursaries
directly to students.
How can the minister play saviour and announce such a fund
worth $1 billion without blushing, when his cuts to education,
which will amount to $10 billion, have put students in debt like
never before?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will use my example of Wales another time.
The announcement for students is excellent news. You know, the
Natural Sciences Engineering and Research Council, the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Medical Research
Council of Canada offered, for the last year available, bursaries
worth $175 million to 13,359 students. Many of us benefited from
them, including perhaps the hon. member. The member for
Saint-Laurent—Cartierville did. If even more students can
benefit, it will be a good thing for students in Quebec and
Canada.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are witnessing the federal government try to dole out federal money
in order to buy students.
I would ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs if he
intends to give the money for this new program to the Quebec
government, as has been done with the loans and bursaries program
for the past 30 years?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the member understands our
federation is flexible and accommodates various mechanisms. The
ones actually used with this program will have to be discussed with
our partners.
* * *
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the prime minister.
The Canadian government has been busily negotiating a
multilateral agreement on investment with profound implications
for Canadians.
My office has been deluged with calls from people who want to
know what this will mean. They want to have their say, not after
the ink is dry on the agreement but before the government enters
into any such deal.
Will the prime minister make a firm commitment today to hold
full public hearings across the country prior to any such
investment deal being signed?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
leader of the NDP for the question. This is my first opportunity
to reply.
Canada has learned the lesson over the last 10 years that doing
business without agreements and without a level playing field can
be a very turbulent thing indeed. Hence, the attempt is being
made to create the MAI.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
directed my question to the prime minister and I am hoping we are
going to get an answer.
The head of the World Trade Organization has said of the MAI
process: “We are writing the constitution for a new global
economy”. Surely an agreement of this importance deserves the
same standard of public disclosure, input and consultation that
Canadians have demanded with respect to their own Constitution.
It is clear that the government intended to sign, seal and
deliver the MAI before the last election, even without
consultation.
Will the prime minister assure us today that Canadians will have
their say?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, having spent 10
years in opposition in the province of Ontario I understand full
well the temptation to speculate on what will be contained in
something.
I should point out to the House that at this stage the
negotiators are still negotiating what they are going to
negotiate.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I have a very Liberal question for the Minister of Transport.
1130
Under the terms of the strategic highway improvement program
between the federal Liberal government and the provincial Liberal
Government of Nova Scotia, all contracts are to be tendered. I
quote directly from the agreement: “All contracts will awarded
to the tenderer submitting the lowest evaluated bid”.
Why were two contracts worth over a $100 million given to two
companies, both untendered? Even worse, both companies have at
the top of the list of officers the past president of the Liberal
Party of Nova Scotia.
Hon. David M Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like first to congratulate the hon. member's
appointment as critic for the Conservative Party and I welcome him
back to the House.
He did raise this with me privately and it is a matter which I
undertook to discuss with my officials.
This is a federal-provincial funding agreement. Highways are
the responsibility of the provinces. To date we have not seen
anything from the federal point of view that causes undue alarm.
I have given him my assurance that we will re-examine the matter
and I will discuss it with my provincial counterpart in Nova
Scotia.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the Minister of Justice and the Attorney
General of Canada.
The Highway 104 agreement includes clauses that clearly
contravene the Competition Act, which ensures choices and the
right to transportation and prohibits limiting facilities for
transportation.
I requested the Federal Bureau of Competition to investigate the
agreement which eliminates competition and choices and limits
competition.
Will the minister assure the House that there will be no
political interference in any resulting investigation, even
though the federal government is a partner to the tune of $27
million in this agreement?
Hon. David M Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do think it is somewhat premature to speculate
about using quasi-judicial review bodies or agencies when we have
not established the facts.
I have undertaken to get the facts for the hon. member. Until
that time I think we should examine them and see if the problem
is as acute as he says it is.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
they are at it again over here. I suppose Canadian merchants will
be happy to know that this prime minister's government is keeping
up its outrageous spending habits.
Can the prime minister tell this House if he really thinks that
government spending, investments as they are called, like
spending $72,000 on something called a mystery shopping program
is more important to Canadians than tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this government has made it very clear from the
beginning that it is our intention to bring in tax relief.
If the hon. member will take a look at what we did in previous
budgets he will see very clearly that we have begun the process
of tax relief, is a welcome change I must say after 10 years of
tax increases from the Tories.
We have very clearly reversed the trend of constant tax
increases by the Tories. We are very committed to tax decreases,
which will be evident in subsequent budgets as well.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, how do they spell relief over there? The prime minister
could be whistling “Pennies from Heaven”. I would like to
remind this government that it did not win a lottery. Any surplus
belongs to the Canadian people, not to the Liberal Party.
Was it necessary for this government to spend $50 million to
build ski chalets in Mont Tremblant or $70,000 to build an ice
cream parlour?
My question for the prime minister is why will he not give
surplus money back to the people instead of blowing it on things
like fancy ski resorts or ice cream parlours?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Saint-Maurice, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is almost a joy to have the hon. member asking me
what we will do with the surplus in future years.
No prime minister in the last 30 years has had to deal with the
problem of a surplus. When we started the government was
spending $120 billion on programs a year. That has
been reduced to $104 billion or less.
With respect to the problem of deciding what to do with the
surplus, we did manage our spending very tightly and I am happy
that the people of Canada supported the program of reduction in
expenditures.
* * *
[Translation]
MIRABEL AIRPORT
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
On April 14, the then Minister of Transport stated he was quite
happy to co-operate with any organization that wished to improve the
utilization of Mirabel airport.
1135
What is the Minister of Transport waiting for to appoint a federal
representative to the Tardif commission on the future of Mirabel?
Hon. David M Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the national airports
policy is designed to turn the day-to-day operation of some airports
over to local authorities.
The Aéroports de Montréal group made a decision to transfer flights
from Mirabel to Dorval. I received a letter from the Quebec transport
minister inviting me to sit on a commission. Based on the terms of
reference of this commission, I have decided it is an economic
development commission and not a transport commission. That is why we
will not be part of it.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my next
question is for the Prime Minister.
When will the Prime Minister respond to the Quebec premier's
request for an urgent meeting to follow up on this issue and ensure
Mirabel's development?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Transport just answered the question.
It is not a transportation issue at this point in time. I will get
back to the premier. A decision was made a long time ago by the then
Conservative government to transfer the responsibility of the airports
in Montreal to an independent commission. If I am not mistaken, the
premier of Quebec was a Conservative minister at the time.
This is a long-established system. They are the ones making
decisions. That is why we are willing to consider transportation issues.
If they say a bad decision was made at the time, we cannot overturn it
now because the policy is to turn airports over to local—
* * *
[English]
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, when a senator from British Columbia commented on
renegotiating British Columbia's role in Confederation the
intergovernmental affairs minister responded with comments that
cannot even be repeated in this House.
While this minister has worked extremely hard at accommodating
Quebec's desire to renegotiate its role in Confederation, he
responds to the concerns of British Columbians with the verbal
equivalent of the Trudeau salute.
What will the minister do to assure British Columbians that he
will be as sympathetic to their concerns as he is to Quebecers?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very helpful if the hon. member
were able to quote what I said.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is unparliamentary language for me to
quote what he was reported to say on TV last night.
When foreign overfishing threatened Atlantic fishing stocks in
1995 this government responded by seizing a foreign trawler. This
year when foreign fishing threatened Pacific salmon stocks this
government responded by taking the British Columbia government
to court.
Why is this government taking such a hard line approach toward
British Columbia?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Do we think it is so horrible, I do not know. To speak about
separation and secession is irresponsible in Quebec. It is
irresponsible in British Columbia.
Each province has its problems and concerns and governments are
not always as good as they should be. But what does this have to
do with secession?
* * *
1140
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Ms. Jocelyne Bujold-Girard (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour.
Collective bargaining talks between the Canada Post Corporation and
the postal workers' union are breaking down, as was unfortunately hoped
by the minister responsible for Canada Post.
Does the minister recognize that he must take action to restore at
least some trust, a necessary ingredient in successful collective
bargaining?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, under part I of the Canada Labour Code I have the
authority to appoint a conciliation officer. I did. He worked
with union and management in order to try to bring about a
settlement. He was not able to bring about a settlement. He has
reported to me and I will be making a statement on or before
October 7.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Bujold-Girard (Jonquière, BQ: Mr. Speaker, in view of
what the minister just said, will he pledge to take other measures to
improve negotiations and make them successful?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada Labour Code has worked well for both
management and labour in this country over the years. I have to
evaluate the information that I have and make a decision as to
what is best for Canada Post and for CUPW. When I do that I will
issue a statement on or before October 7, as I indicated.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board, or shall I say the compulsory wheat board.
Rather than his monopolistic all or nothing exclusion and
inclusion clauses, why does Bill C-4 introduced by the government
in this House yesterday not provide western Canadian grain
farmers with real freedom of choice in how they market their very
own wheat and barley?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is my first
opportunity as the parliamentary secretary to the minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to address the very very
important question raised by the hon. member. It speaks exactly
to the heart of the bill.
What the minister and this legislation have proposed for the
first time in a very long time has come from farmers themselves,
from producers. Farmers and producers themselves will have a
direct role in the management of that agency and they will
control their destiny. That is the democratic process and I
think it is a very good piece of legislation.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad the parliamentary secretary had the
opportunity to speak. I only wish he would answer the question.
Looking at the bill it is certainly highly questionable whether
the board of directors will ever be able to make the Canadian
Wheat Board voluntary.
In addition to CSIS, another government agency not held
accountable under access to information is the Canadian Wheat
Board. Can the hon. parliamentary secretary explain how the new
board of directors themselves will be held accountable to the
farmers who elect them when they will not be able to tell them
anything about the top secret Canadian Wheat Board operations?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we are discussing
here is a principle of democracy. The hon. member should
understand that under the current legislation which is before the
House of Commons today, clearly two-thirds or 10 out of 15
members of the board of directors will come from producers.
If the hon. member does not understand a thing about democracy,
perhaps he should be talking directly to some of the farmers. I
will quote a farmer, Mr. John Rowett, “It is more grassroots.
You know, the producers are the guys who really know what is good
for producers, right?” Perhaps what the hon. member—
* * *
[Translation]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
The government has forced the CRTC to issue satellite
broadcasting licences to all companies applying for them,
regardless of their solvency.
Now AlphaStar has gone bankrupt, leaving 6,000 customers stranded
without service and stuck with totally useless equipment.
1145
Given his responsibilities in this matter, does the minister
intend to take action to compensate them and to finally regulate
this sector?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the new member on her question.
I will respond by saying that we did not tell the CRTC it must
issue licences to any and all companies wishing one. We simply
indicated that it was unsatisfactory to a government wishing for
competition in a very important sector to have the CRTC decide how
many companies could compete in it. However, All applicanats are
required to submit a viable business plan to the CRTC.
* * *
[English]
HOUSING
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation.
The statements by the Ontario government about the proposed
changes to the administration of co-operative and other social
housing is causing extreme concern for those residents. What
assurance can the minister give these residents that the future
of co-operative and other social housing will remain secure?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on September 2 the
Ontario advisory committee on housing reform reported to the
minister of housing in Ontario. We are waiting for the position
of the Ontario government. Until we know the position of the
Ontario government there will be no further negotiations.
* * *
CANADIAN PENSION PLAN
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
taxpayers would wind up paying 9.9 percent of their salary as a
result of the Canada pension plan as proposed by the Liberals.
A taxpayer living until 75 would collect a maximum of $8,800 per
year for a grand total of $88,000. In contrast, members of
Parliament only have 9.5 percent of their paycheque go toward
the gold plated pensions.
If the minister of heritage had lost her election and lived
until 75, she would have collected $2.8 million. How will she
continue to justify gouging taxpayers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party obviously does not like the Canada
pension plan. Its members made it very clear that they would see
it destroyed.
The question that I would simply ask is what would the Reform
Party replace the Canada pension plan with? What they have
presented so far, their super RRSP would bring in a rate of 13
percent, roughly 4 percent and 5 percent higher than the premiums
that we have agreed to with the provinces, including I might
point out the province of Alberta.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, somehow I
knew they would justify gouging taxpayers. They put themselves
on a pedestal above taxpayers who pay the CPP, just like the
leader of the fifth party who is looking forward to a pension of
more than $4.2 million, just like the Minister of Justice who is
looking forward to more than $1.5 million. Brian Tobin, the
former Liberal fisheries minister and the premier of Newfoundland
is currently receiving $3.8 million.
Will they at least allow those members of Parliament who want to
opt out of the super rich gold plated pension plan the
opportunity to do so?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member should get his facts straight. First of all those
numbers that the member has just quoted are garbage. Second of
all why does he not deal with the real numbers? Why is he afraid
to stand up here and explain to the Canadian people that if 9.9
is a gouge, then what is 13 percent which his party has talked about?
In this House when it came time to debate the MP pensions, the
Reform Party's solution was to increase MP salaries to $150,000 a
year. Why does he not stand up and say that?
1150
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also to the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday the minister moved in the direction of privatizing the
administration of the Canada pension plan through the creation of
a fund of $100 billion to be managed by his friends on Bay
Street, those boys in red suspenders.
In light of that, I want to ask the minister today whether he
can at least ensure us that he will not change the rules where at
least 80 percent of the pension money must be invested here in
Canada.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is in the bill exactly as the hon. member has said. Perhaps
before asking the question he might want to read it.
What we have said very clearly is that there may be at some
future time the intention to change that rule, but it is not the
government's intention to do so now.
What is important to understand is the position of the NDP. Is
the hon. member saying that he is against an independent
investment board? Is the hon. member saying that he is against
the Canada pension plan achieving a higher rate of return than
has been—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what
the member is for is for the minister to answer a question for
once in the House.
In light of the decision reached yesterday with respect to the
bill to freeze the annual CPP exemption at $3,500 a year, and the
fact that it will hit low income earners, women and the disabled
of this country very hard, can he explain why he wants to shift
the burden onto low income people? Why is he playing Robin Hood
in reverse in this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are two ways to destroy the Canada pension plan. One is the
way the Reform Party has brought forth, which is to do so openly.
The second way is the NDP's way, which is to say “Do not change
it, do not deal with the problems and let it crumble under its
own weight”.
If the NDP wants to destroy the Canada pension plan, why is it
not being honest about it?
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may first
thank my constituents for giving me this chance to come back to the
Parliament of Canada to work on their behalf.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Throughout the
past week, this government has been criticizing the former
government. Considering that the free trade agreements helped us
increase our exports to U.S. markets from $90 billion to $215
billion, an increase of nearly 140 per cent, would the Prime
Minister tell us whether he has changed his mind on this issue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the 1993 election campaign, we said we wanted to improve the free
trade agreement, and we improved it in areas including the environment,
labour and other sectors as well. That was part of our program.
We were not against free trade as such, but we felt that the
agreement as negotiated needed improvement. We were successful in that
respect. I am pleased the system is working well.
I am also delighted to see the hon. member back in the House, and
I wish him the best of luck.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, would the Prime
Minister confirm that the changes made in the free trade agreement were
very marginal ones?
Is he prepared to tell this House and all Canadians that the free
trade agreement was a very progressive measure and a very important one
for all Canadians and explain why he came out so vehemently against the
free trade agreement in a number of advertising campaigns that were
extremely damaging for the future of our country's trade?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
regarding the debate during the 1988 election campaign, that was the
only campaign since 1963 in which I did not run.
When I became Leader of the Liberal Party, we reviewed the policy
and we adjusted it. We found that improvements were necessary. In the
days following my election in November 1993, we had talks with the
American and Mexican governments. We obtained improvements, and
subsequently the government signed an agreement that works very well,
thanks to the improvements we made to the agreement in general, and that
was my party's policy during the election campaign in 1993.
* * *
1155
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the citizens
of Windsor and Essex county raised concerns about not getting
timely and accurate warnings of severe weather conditions.
Following the meeting my Windsor colleagues and I had with the
Minister of the Environment, can the minister tell us what action
she will be taking concerning severe weather operations in
southwestern Ontario and in particular Windsor and Essex county?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and those other
colleagues in the Windsor, Essex and Sarnia areas for the work
they have done with the communities in their areas. It is of
concern to my department that citizens in those areas that are
prone to severe weather events have timely and accurate weather
forecasting information.
My department, besides having improved phone access and having
worked with the media, will be launching a public participation
process to help the communities get the kind of information they
require. We are also having an independent consultant work with
that public participation group to this end.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the response today in the House by the Minister of
Health regarding the serious issue of this government accessing
the personal and confidential files of Dr. Michèle Brill-Edwards
is unbelievably irresponsible and speaks to his own decision this
summer to cut the drug and food labs in the health protection
branch.
I want to ask the Minister of Health, if he cannot even protect
the confidentiality of an individual's files, how can we be
assured he is protecting the health and safety of Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I welcome the hon. member to the House. I want to work
constructively with her in what I know is a shared objective of
ensuring the health of Canadians but she is making it very
difficult from the beginning.
I told the House earlier that I have asked officials to look
into the news reports this morning. When the facts are known we
will be in a position to discuss it.
As far as the health protection branch is concerned, this is the
minister who put a freeze on those cuts, this is the minister who
is going to appoint a science advisory board to give us
independent advice on what scientists we need. And this is the
minister who is going to involve the public and the health
protection branch in an open and full discussion of its future.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, that is the minister who this summer eliminated the drug
research lab and gutted the food research lab.
How does the Minister of Health intend to fulfil his legal
duties under the food protection act if he has already eliminated
the scientists who carry out those duties on his behalf?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have already made it clear that we are going to do whatever is
necessary to ensure that the health protection branch, which is
an important service of government, is there to safeguard the
health and safety of Canadians.
I encourage the hon. member to take part in the public
consultation process we are going to go through over the coming
months. We have frozen cuts. We are going to appoint people who
know science to give us advice. I encourage the hon. member to
contribute constructively to the process. I hope her involvement
will go beyond wagging her finger in this House.
* * *
PENSIONS
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada pension plan disability program has an appeal process.
Currently there are over 4,000 people in Canada waiting for their
appeal to be heard. Once pension benefits are granted by the
review tribunal, the government officials have instructed to
appeal every single case to the pension appeal board. There are
just 20 federal appeal board judges to handle this huge backlog
and a waiting period of up to four years for Canadians who need
this pension.
Will the Prime Minister or the government tell us what their
plan is to address this injustice to thousands of disabled
Canadians who are waiting for an answer on this very critical
issue?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a major concern. Anything
that involves individuals with disabilities particularly when it
comes to the benefits that are due to them is of major concern to
the government. We are working very hard on this. We will get
back to the member with detailed information.
1200
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister begin showing compassion by telling the House today what
specific measures and time lines the government plans to
implement to streamline the appeals process. How soon will the
wait be over for the thousands of Canadians who need an answer
now?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult process and it
is something which deserves more time and attention. I do not
have the information for the member right now, but we will get
back to him very soon.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
The Speaker: I have received a notice of a point of order
from the member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Today during question period questions were raised concerning
the access of the personal and confidential files of Dr. Michelle
Brill Edwards. For the benefit of the Minister of Health I would
like to table the document indicating her files were accessed by
Mr. Joe Losos, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Department of
Health.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, two things. First, I
know that you have a piece of paper which I would ask you not to
use as a prop. Second, individual members cannot table documents
such as these. I guess it could be tabled if the hon. member had
unanimous consent.
I am addressing myself directly now to the member for Winnipeg
North Centre. Were you seeking unanimous consent?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.
The Speaker: The answer is yes. Now, is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
* * *
THE LATE ALISTAIR FRASER
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those of us who have been around
for a number of years, although not actually in the House of
Commons, were shocked and saddened earlier this month to hear the
news of the passing of an officer emeritus of this House, the
former Clerk of the House, Mr. Alistair Fraser.
Mr. Fraser was born into a family that values public service.
Both of his grandfathers were distinguished statesmen serving in
Parliament and at the provincial and territorial levels. Both his
father and one of his grandfathers were lieutenant-governors of
Nova Scotia and even today, if someone asks an old-timer in
Guysborough the way to the Fraser summer place, one will be
directed very clearly to what is referred to as the governor's
house.
1205
Immediately upon graduating from McGill University, Mr. Fraser
joined the Canadian army, serving until the end of World War II.
After serving briefly on the staff of the Hon. Brooke Claxton in
Ottawa, he attended the University of British Columbia law
school, practising law in Prince Rupert before returning to
Ottawa as executive assistant to the Hon. James Sinclair.
Subsequently he served in that same position with the Hon. Ross
MacDonald and the Hon. Jack Pickersgill.
Mr. Fraser was twice a candidate for the House of Commons: once
on the west coast in Esquimalt—Saanich and once on the east
coast in Pictou.
[Translation]
Mr. Fraser was appointed deputy clerk in 1966 and clerk, the
following year. He performed his duties with dignity, wisdom and
an unequalled sense of humour.
Although Mr. Fraser served at the clerks' table through the
most tumultuous years in Canada's history, he maintained excellent
relations with a number of political personages, including the
Right Honourable John Diefenbaker, the Honourable Allan MacEachen,
David Lewis, Réal Caouette, and others unnamed.
For myself, I would like to add that Alistair Fraser touched
the lives not only of parliamentarians, but of the people working
in the House of Commons during his time there. As you know, I was
a young employee of the House of Commons at the time and could see
firsthand the kindness, the wisdom and the intelligence of my boss,
Alistair Fraser.
When he retired in 1979, more than the clerk left the House of
Commons. We lost a mentor, an adviser and, I would say, a friend.
Following his retirement, Mr. Fraser continued his involvement in
the area of parliamentary affairs through the publication of two
editions of Beauchesne's parliamentary rules. In his visits to the
hill, he always brought along his enthusiasm and his sense of
humour.
He will be sorely missed. I offer my condolences to the
members of his family, to all his friends and, I would add, to the
employees of the House and the table officers, all of whom shared
this moment of sadness.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada to
pay tribute to a beloved servant of the House of Commons.
Alistair Graeme Fraser was born in Toronto in January of 1923
into a family distinguished for its political service. After
graduating from the University of British Columbia in law and
practising for a short time in Prince Rupert, British Columbia,
he moved to Ottawa and worked for 27 years in this place, serving
as executive assistant to several Liberal ministers, after which
he was appointed Clerk of the House of Commons for 12 years.
Mr. Fraser presided as Clerk over some revolutionary
developments in this House: the creation of the parliamentary
interns group, the reorganization of the role of pages in the
House and most important, the introduction of this Chamber to all
Canadians through live television broadcasts.
He possessed an encyclopedic knowledge of the complex rules and
procedures of this place, so much so that he co-authored several
editions of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, the
commentary on the standing orders of the House that all members
consult almost daily. In Beauchesne's we can discover something
of the personality of its author. It is the codification of
common sense. It tries to strike a balance between the freedom
of the member to speak and the member's responsibility to abide
by the rules of decorum and procedure intended to benefit all
members. It combines firmness with good humour and Mr. Fraser was
well known for his keen sense of humour.
Pierre Trudeau, who was leader of the opposition on October 9,
1979, a couple of weeks after Mr. Fraser retired as Clerk said
this about him:
When paying homage to someone, one often speaks of “selfless
devotion”. That expression has been used so often as to become
almost meaningless. Yet I believe it to be an accurate
description of the way in which Mr. Fraser served the House of
Commons as an institution and its members as individuals— Those
who accept the position of Clerk of the House of Commons are not
allowed to display the range of opinions and emotions which so
delight the heart of a politician—Rather, they are teachers,
conciliators and friends. They do not think of self but bend on
their will and their stamina to making the House of Commons work.
1210
On a personal note, when I was elected to this House in 1972,
Mr. Fraser was in the House. As a 30-year-old member in this
Chamber it was very nice to have somebody sitting at that table
who could fill me in on the rules that everybody else knew. It
was nice to have somebody to assist me in preparing my private
member's bills and my questions. I always found that Mr. Fraser
and all those he taught, many of whom are here today, had that
fairness and respect for all members of Parliament no matter what
their politics.
We would like to pass on to Mr. Fraser's family our wishes and
comfort for the honourable life and tradition of service that he
brought to this House. I would like to tell them that we all
remember him very well.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I in turn would
like to join my colleagues who have just spoken in paying tribute to
Alistair Fraser, who, as has been pointed out in the last few minutes,
was Clerk of the House of Commons from 1967 to 1979.
Although many of us here today did not have the good fortune to
meet and get to know Mr. Fraser, he served the Canadian public and this
venerable institution in which we sit for many years, and his memory
will not soon disappear from its hallowed walls.
He first came to the House in 1951 as an assistant to the then fisheries
minister, the Hon. James Sinclair, moving on to take up the position of
Clerk Assistant, as the Government House Leader pointed out, and then
Clerk.
On September 1 of this year, he passed away, leaving us all
saddened. A lawyer by training, Mr. Fraser came from a Liberal family
of long standing in his province of birth. His father and his
grandfather were lieutenant-governors of Nova Scotia and his grandfather
was even a member of Parliament.
It was through his efforts and those of the present Clerk of the
House of Commons that the Parliamentary Internship Programme was set up,
providing an opportunity for numerous Canadians and Quebecers to work in
this place for the representatives of the public, to achieve a better
knowledge and understanding of this universally admired democratic
institution, and to pass that knowledge and understanding on to others.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to express deepest
condolences to his family and friends and, as I said at the beginning of
my speech, to assure them that his memory will remain very much alive in
this House for many years to come, because the volume to which he
contributed is something we consult on a daily basis.
He left his stamp on two editions of Beauchesne, which is something of
a bible in the work of the House.
Once again, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I offer heartfelt
condolences to his family and friends.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too
wish to join on behalf of our party in expressing our condolences
to Mr. Fraser's family.
I felt particularly moved when I heard about his passing. Mr.
Fraser swore me in as a member of Parliament on four separate
occasions: in 1968, 1972, 1974 and 1979.
1215
He was extremely well liked and highly respected by all members
of the House, on all sides of the House, during the time he was
clerk of this Chamber.
He was also known as the Mr. Rules of this place, along
with the former member for Winnipeg North Centre, Stanley
Knowles. It is rather ironic that the last time my colleague
from Winnipeg—Transcona encountered Mr. Fraser was at Mr.
Knowles' funeral back in June. The two of them were friends and
colleagues. The two of them were experts in the rules. They
made an immense contribution toward the evolution of this place
through a fairly revolutionary time. The rules were changed,
which radically changed the operation of the institution. There
was the introduction of television, which again changed the way
this place operates.
He was also a great parliamentarian in terms of the real love
of this place. He was a great advisor to those of us who were
members in those days, particularly when we were new members of
Parliament. He was always available to give friendly advice as
to how we should conduct ourselves as members. He was fair. He
was above the partisan battle of the House of Commons.
Best of all, he was a friend. Because of that, on behalf of my
party, I want to extend to his family and to his friends our very
sincere condolences on his passing.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise to add my voice to
those paying tribute to
Mr. Alistair Graeme Fraser.
I met Mr. Fraser on several occasions when my father took his
oath in this House. He was, like I, a Nova Scotian. He often
referred to his field at Guysborough, which was very important to
him. His brothers and their families shared that home. I extend
my deep condolences to them and all the members of the Fraser
family in Nova Scotia. They have suffered a great loss, as has
this House.
On September 25, 1967 the journals of this House recorded the
announcement of Mr. Fraser's appointment as clerk of the House of
Commons. When he retired in 1979 this House was different than
it is today.
Mr. Fraser loved this Chamber. The people who worked in and
around it were very important to him. He knew political life
mattered and that those who practised it, supported it and
reported it were key to the basic freedoms of this country.
He saw Parliament Hill as a welcome place for those who sought
to learn about it and who came to pay their respects.
Someone once said that Mr. Fraser saw this place as a sort of
university. He devoted much time to explaining it to the people
who came here.
He was critical to the success of parliament and the
parliamentary internship program. He supported the establishment
of the Canadian study of the parliamentary group and he
represented this institution in the Parliament of the World with
distinction.
At his retirement he was made an honorary member, officer of
the House, with a seat at the table before us. He took this
honour very seriously. His counsel remained available to several
committees and his testimony was given to a special committee
established following the famous ringing of the bells, which
remained lively and cogent in his critique of the House of
Commons.
Parliament has too few friends. Mr. Fraser's death robs us of
an ally and one of the Commonwealth's great parliamentary
officers.
On behalf of the Conservative Party, I add my voice of
condolence to the family, to this House and to all Canadians, for
Mr. Fraser will be sorely missed.
The Deputy Speaker: I would like to acknowledge the very
gracious tributes paid to Mr. Fraser from members of all sides of
the House.
I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Fraser in 1967, when he was
clerk and I was working in this place for the summer. I
acknowledge that everything which has been said about him is
true. He was a wonderful builder of Parliament and a real
cornerstone of the House of Commons. The words which have been
uttered about him by all hon. members are very fitting.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34, I am pleased to table, in both official languages,
the report of the parliamentary delegation that travelled to Hanoi and
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and to Kaohsiung and Taipei, Taiwan, from
March 29 to April 8, 1997.
* * *
[English]
MACKENZIE VALLEY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
Hon. Sheila Copps (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-6, an act to provide for an integrated system of land and
water management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain
boards for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to
other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
1220
[Translation]
SAGUENAY-ST. LAURENCE MARINE PARK ACT
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-7, an act to establish the
Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park and to make a consequential
amendment to another Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-206, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (prostitution).
He said: Mr. Speaker, constituents of my riding are deeply
concerned with the plaguing problem of street prostitution. They
want the penalties made tougher in order to make control easier.
They remember when the law was different and we did not have the
pervasive street trade.
The way the Criminal Code reads now, public communication to
obtain sexual services carries only a penalty of summary
conviction. In most cases the offender is given a summons, like
a traffic ticket, which brings a fine.
This bill will amend section 213 of the Criminal Code, making
the penalty of communicating either an indictable offence with
imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a summary conviction. It
makes the section a hybrid or an electable offence.
The amendment will give the system a procedural option,
something the police in my riding have been asking for. I urge
the justice minister and all members of this House to strongly
consider this vital improvement.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-207, an act to amend
the Criminal Code (trespass).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce this bill.
There is a serious gap in the law for public order and community
peace. If a mall security guard legally removes a problem person
for public disturbance, that person can return only moments later
provided they do not resist when originally being escorted off
the premises. This can happen in an unending cycle.
This bill would amend the Criminal Code, making it a summary
conviction. A person who has already been legally removed from
real property or dwelling House would not to be able to lawfully
return for a minimum of 24 hours.
The amendment would simply prevent repeated and unnecessary
mischief without consequence. It is one of the practical tools
that can help the public overcome its cynicism concerning the
absurdities of the justice system. I urge its adoption as it
reflects public expectation of the law.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-208, an act to amend the
Access to Information Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill
today. This bill would provide stiff penalties against any person
who improperly destroys or falsifies government records in an
attempt to deny right of access to information under the Access
to Information Act. This bill is about the protection of our
public records.
1225
In January of this year, federal information commissioner John
Grace released his report to the Minister of Health on his
lengthy investigations into the tainted blood scandal. In this
report specific mention was made of the fact that there are no
sanctions in place against public servants who may be found to
have improperly destroyed records.
In his annual report, released two days ago, the commissioner
reiterated his concerns about document tampering by public
servants and renewed his call for the creation of penalties for
those actions.
This bill provides us with the necessary tools to prevent future
occurrences of document tampering.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-209, an act to amend the Criminal Code (joy
riding).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from
Prince George—Peace River for seconding this bill. This is a
very serious problem in this country, one that touches 160,000
Canadians every year. It is a $1.6 billion problem, and that
problem is auto theft.
Our loose laws are encouraging people to break the law,
especially male young offenders who steal over half the cars
stolen in Canada, mostly to joy ride and experience a thrill at
someone else's expense.
The problem is out of control in British Columbia. In my own
constituency, as an example, in the city of Chilliwack auto theft
was up 87 percent last year alone.
My bill would strengthen the provisions of section 335 of the
Criminal Code, a section under which young offenders are usually
charged. It prescribes a minimum and a maximum sentence in terms
of a fine, a jail term or restitution to the victim. It also
states that parents of young offenders who have contributed to
the delinquency of their child can be held responsible for
restitution.
I hope that all members will take note of this serious problem
in Canada and give careful consideration and support for this joy
riding bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-210, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act to
transfer older offenders who commit violent offences to adult
court, to limit the application of alternative measures, to allow
for certain young offenders to be designated as dangerous
offenders, to establish public safety as a dominant consideration
in the application of the law respecting young offenders, to
remove privacy provisions and to make certain other amendments.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Surrey North
for seconding this motion.
It is an honour today to rise and introduce this bill on
amending the Young Offenders Act. This summer the new justice
minister said the YOA would be a priority yet we did not see
anything in the throne speech about it.
Reform believes that the YOA is a priority and thus the reason
for our bill and the amendments to lower the age from 12 to 10,
to raise 16 and 17 year olds to adult court, automatically
transferring serious violent young offenders into adult court
aged 14 and 15 and removing the privacy provision for young
offenders convicted of violent offences, particularly repeat
violent offenders.
The Reform bill does much more. I hope we get the opportunity
in the very near future to debate these very important and urgent
amendments to the Young Offenders Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-211, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(arrest of those in breach of condition of parole or statutory or
temporary release).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to table in the House a
private member's bill which will amend the Criminal Code to
provide for the arrest of those in breach of condition of parole
or statutory or temporary release.
1230
I again acknowledge the dedication and commitment of the
Abbotsford city police, in particular Constable Mike Novakowski
who provided the incentive and foresight to put this bill into
force.
This enactment makes a breach of a condition of parole or
statutory or temporary release an indictable or summary
conviction offence as is the case for breach of a probation
order. Paragraph 495(1)(a) of the Criminal Code allows a peace
officer to arrest a person who has committed an indictable
offence or who he finds committing a criminal offence. Therefore
this amendment enables a peace officer to arrest the person who
is in breach of a condition of parole or release.
The amendment to section 497 provides for such a person to be
held, to give the board that granted the parole or release if the
board considers it advisable an opportunity to apply to keep the
person in custody until it is able to issue a warrant of
apprehension to facilitate a review of the parole or release
under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-212, an act to amend the Criminal Code
and the Young Offenders Act (capital punishment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I want to recognize and thank my
hon. colleague from Blackstrap for seconding my bill.
A Reform government would hold a binding national referendum on
capital punishment. This Liberal government however refuses the
people that much power.
As the next best thing today I introduce a bill to reinstate the
death penalty for adults convicted of first degree murder. In
addition the bill also imposes a range of stiffer minimum
sentences for youths convicted of murder.
Three times in the last Parliament I introduced this legislation
and I will continue to do so until the government allows a real
free vote on capital punishment where all MPs vote the wishes of
their constituents. I believe that once convicted a murderer
such as the Abbotsford killer should face a punishment that
matches his crimes.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
LOUIS RIEL DAY ACT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-213, an act respecting the designation of a Louis
Riel Day and revoking his conviction of August 1, 1885.
She said: Mr. Speaker, once again, for the fourth time since
I have been a member of this House, I am introducing a bill to
revoke the conviction for high treason of Louis Riel on August 1,
1885.
This time, however, the bill contains something new, which is
to allow the designation of a Louis Riel Day in order to
commemorate his memory everywhere in Canada on November 16 every
year.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and ordered
to be printed)
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Langley—Abbotsford:
That during the period ending December 10, 1997, the member
proposing a motion on an allotted day shall not speak for more
than 20 minutes, following which a period not exceeding 10
minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to
ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the
speech and to allow responses thereto; and
Immediately thereafter a representative of each of the
recognized parties other than that of the member proposing the
motion may be recognized to speak for not more than 10 minutes,
following which in each case a period not exceeding 5 minutes
shall be available, if required, to allow members to ask
questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech
and to allow responses thereto.
1235
This motion has been negotiated with all House leaders, and I am
pleased to propose it to the House.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
HIGHWAYS
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to rise on behalf of
the constituents of Erie—Lincoln and Niagara Centre to present
two petitions, both on the same subject.
The petitions call to the attention of parliament the fact that
38 percent of our national highway system is in disrepair. It
also refers to the benefits of a national highway system such as
job creation, economic development and, most important, the
saving of lives and the avoidance of injuries.
The petitioners call on parliament to urge the federal
government to join with the provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading possible beginning in 1997, and
I agree with these motions.
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member realizes he is
not to express his agreement or disagreement with the petitions
he tables. I would remind him of that rule.
RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have quite a large number of petitions so I ask for
your patience in introducing them.
First I would like to present 87 petitions with the signatures
of 2,035 Canadians from seven provinces. They are concerned that
by ratifying and implementing the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child that government bureaucrats and the
courts, not parents, will be legally entitled to determine what
is in the best interests of the child.
The petitioners go on to say that Canada is creating a
bureaucracy to police parents and enforce the guidelines in a UN
charter, a charter that has never been approved by Parliament.
Not only are parental rights being undermined by implementing
this UN convention, they are concerned it will create greater
incentives for families to abdicate their parental
responsibilities to the state.
Finally, your petitioners request Parliament to address their
concerns by supporting my private member's motion No. 33, which
would include parental rights and responsibilities in the charter
of rights and freedoms.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am also pleased to present seven petitions with the
signatures of 178 Canadians from Nova Scotia, Manitoba and
British Columbia.
These citizens of Canada support retention of section 43 of the
Criminal Code which states “every schoolteacher, parent or
person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using
force by way of correction toward a pupil or child who is under
his care if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under
the circumstances”.
Your petitioners request Parliament to affirm the duty of
parents to responsibly raise their children according to their
conscience and beliefs and retain section 43 in Canada's Criminal
Code as it is currently worded.
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table a petition that deals with the national highway
system. It is sponsored by the Canadian Automobile Association.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to
His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the
opening of the session, and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Vaughan—King—Aurora, who I understand is splitting his time and
has a 10 minute speech.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would first like to congratulate you on your role. As
everyone in this House knows, you are one of the brightest minds
in parliamentary procedure this House has ever seen. You rightly
deserve your position.
I would also like to thank the residents of
Vaughan—King—Aurora for their vote of confidence in returning
me to this House. It has been an honour and a privilege to have
served them since 1988 and I look forward to serving them for
many more years, working with them as their voice in Ottawa.
1240
This is a unique Parliament standing on the threshold of a new
era. In his remarks this week, His Excellency the Governor
General drew attention to the fact that we are the last
Parliament of the 20th century and the first of the 21st century.
An arbitrary boundary? An important milestone? If nothing
else, it is an opportunity to pause and assess the state of our
society. From that perspective all of us in this House have been
entrusted with an important duty.
We have been given the mandate by our electors to act as
stewards of their interests as we cross the threshold into a new
age. The decisions we make and the actions we take in the next
four years will shape our society for decades to come. More
importantly, they will decide what kind of nation Canada is as it
begins a new century.
The throne speech demonstrated that the government has a clear
vision of where it would like to take this country in the course
of this current mandate. The speech provides a clear outline of
where the government intends to dedicate its efforts and most
importantly, it unveiled an agenda that responds well to the
suggestions and aspirations voiced by the residents of
Vaughan—King—Aurora. They have made themselves heard on issues
like national unity, technology and the new economy. They have
participated in town hall meetings on health care, on the
environment and on social programs. The government knows where
the people of Vaughan—King—Aurora stand on such issues.
It has been my pleasure to report to the House on 36 town hall
meetings to date and a school speaking tour that included over
25,000 young people and literally thousands of meetings with
groups and individuals.
The Speech from the Throne with its emphasis on fiscal
responsibility, with a promise to balance the budget by 1998-99,
on job creation with investments in key areas like technology, on
quality health care with a plan to help Canadians who care for
family members at home and on youth employment with a commitment
to continue our successful internship and summer job programs to
create real opportunities for our young people.
These are the kinds of initiatives that the people of
Vaughan—King—Aurora are looking for from the government. I am
confident that this Speech from the Throne will meet with their
approval as we gather for our first town hall meeting on the 36th
Parliament on October 1.
With that in mind, I want to take a minute to compare the throne
speech that opened the 35th Parliament and the one delivered on
Tuesday. In 1994 the words were cautious, the commitments
solemn. But this one was different. It was full of hope,
optimism and excitement about what the future holds. The
Governor General spoke of a country in control of its finances,
ready to reinvest in its society and optimistic about its future.
As someone who as worked on the issue of youth employment for a
number of years, I am encouraged by the fact that for the third
time in three months youth employment is up. This is the first
period of sustained youth employment growth since May 1990.
The government's commitment to youth goes back to our days in
opposition. In 1992 in the face of the indifference our
predecessors showed toward youth issues, our party established a
Senate-Commons committee on youth. Through national public
hearings we met with young people, teachers, parents, social
workers and members of the business community. The end result was
a final report entitled “Agenda for Youth” which laid out a
number of steps the government would take to assist young
Canadians.
Many of the recommendations we made in that report were
incorporated into our party's election platform in 1993.
Following the election we formed the government and the youth
proposals in our platform were acted on immediately through the
unveiling of the youth employment and learning strategy.
1245
The strategy has three components: the youth internship program,
youth service Canada and an improved Canada student loans
program. This three pronged approach has proven successful.
Since 1994 youth internship Canada has helped nearly 50,000
young people secure positions and gain professional experience.
Our figures show that two-thirds of them will find a job within
one year of leaving the program, usually with the employer they
interned with. Sixty-eight percent of youth service Canada
graduates either returned to school or found meaningful work
within six months of completing their placement. Over 60,000
youths participated in the 1997 student summer job action. In
all, youth internship Canada, youth service Canada and the
student summer job program have helped over one million young
people since 1994.
Our internship programs have a 78 percent success rate. Right now our
total investment in federal youth programs is approximately $2
billion. We have introduced a number of measures designed to
build on our commitment to helping Canada's youth. The youth
employment strategy will give over 110,000 young Canadians work
experience opportunities. The 1997 budget included measures
designed to increase federal support for post-secondary education
by approximately $137 million to make post-secondary education
more accessible to young people.
These programs and measures are only part of the solution. As I
said earlier I have spent a great deal of my political career
listening to Canadians across the country. I have found that the
most innovative solutions come from young people. For this
reason I encourage members of Parliament on both sides of the
House to seek input from Canada's youth as we try to address the
various challenges they face.
I would like to remind the House of something the governor
general said in the throne speech. He said “Our challenge is to
ensure that no Canadian is left behind as the country moves
forward”.
Our country is moving forward. The deficit is vanishing,
interests rates are low, unemployment is decreasing, productivity
is up and there is a new sense of optimism. We must all move
forward together. When certain groups are shown to be more
vulnerable than others, society has a responsibility to lend a
helping hand.
In our first mandate we began the work of dealing with youth
unemployment. By renewing our mandate I believe Canadians are
saying in part let us get back in there and finish the job.
As a member of Parliament I have also seen success at the local
level. Last term I was one of the founders of the Vaughan
Technology Enterprise Centre, a project that identifies young
entrepreneurs with a knack for high tech and teaches them the
necessary skills to compete in the business world.
Team Canada, a youth service Canada project, placed young people
in local businesses seeking to expand their export potential. The
youths explored emerging markets and designed a database of
identified opportunities.
I am confident that by working together and by pooling our
resources and by committing to nothing less than success we will
overcome this challenge. Our youth will look to the future with
confidence and enthusiasm as they should.
As a postscript I note with interest that a number of young
people were elected to this House in the last election. As
someone who first entered this Chamber at the age of 28, I salute
their courage and their determination. I encourage them and all
members to join together to deal with the many challenges facing
our youth.
1250
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, perhaps I may finish the name of my riding,
which is Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
representing its four regional county municipalities.
It will be a pleasure to put my questions and comments to the hon.
member for Vaughan—King—Aurora. In the past, we travelled across
Canada together on the committee on employment insurance reform. I have
a question which to me is entirely reasonable.
This throne speech contains not a single reference to the fact that
we should review the inequities in Canada's current employment
insurance. A number of regressive measures were put into the system, the
excuse being that there was not enough money, but by December 31, 1997
there will be a surplus of $13 billion in the employment insurance fund.
With a surplus of $13 billion, the government nevertheless reduces
the number of weeks during which people will be entitled to receive
employment insurance, especially seasonal workers. They pay a penalty of
1 per cent on the benefits they receive every time they draw employment
insurance benefits for 20 weeks.
In its throne speech, the government said that compassion and
generosity were the hallmarks of this country.
But there was not a single word about redressing these inequities.
However, if anyone should be aware of these inequities, it is the
Liberal majority, because some of those who were here in the last
Parliament, especially from the maritimes, and I am thinking of the
Minister of Defence, are no longer here today. These are the people who
paid the price for the fact that the Liberal majority did not listen to
the public consultations that were held across Canada. The public wanted
employment insurance reform but they wanted humane reform, the kind of
reform that is a reflection of economic reality and gives regional
economies a chance to diversify.
Does the hon. member not wonder why we are faced with this kind of
situation today?
Does he not feel like telling his government that it should act on the
consensus reached by the ten provinces in Saint Andrews, where they
asked for two things that were strangely similar to what the Bloc said
in its campaign platform: a significant reduction in employment
insurance premiums and improvements in the living conditions of seasonal
workers and new labour market entrants? Is the hon. member prepared to
tell his majority here in the House that all this is lacking in the
throne speech and it should be corrected accordingly?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the
hon. member for his question. He was one of the most active
members of the human resources development committee which I had
the honour to chair in the last parliamentary session.
I am quite surprised that the hon. member did not view some of
the changes we made to the employment insurance program as
improvements to the program. As the hon. member is fully aware,
there have been great changes in the Canadian economy and with
change also comes change to programs and institutions as they too
must reflect the changing dynamics of our economy.
In reference to lowering the premiums, the hon. member knows we
have lowered premiums each year. If we followed the Conservative
government's legislative timetable, the premiums would literally
be going through the roof at this point.
I draw the attention of the hon. member to the actuarial report
that basically stated that this surplus is required in case of an
economic downturn to offset any of the strain that that may place
on the federal treasury.
I want to also make it very clear that the reason why we have
this so-called surplus is that we have learned from the mistakes
of the previous government. What the previous government did
during the last recession was increase the premiums precisely at
the time when firms and employees required a relief in premiums.
These issues need to be honestly put forward in this Chamber and
outside as well, not to mention the reality that unemployment has
indeed dropped in this country in large measure due to the
effective partnership we have been able to create with the
private sector. Also, there is the fact that we have the
fundamentals for the recovery well in place.
1255
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time.
The role of government is to provide a level of social order and
progress that we cannot individually provide for ourselves.
Canadians have expectations from government but they also have
needs. Therefore the government's throne speech in view of this
reasonable standard is a disappointment, especially from a
justice system perspective.
It has been a long voyage for society, from tribalism to this
Canadian Parliament. We indeed have accomplishments in Canada.
We have built a country out of a harsh but bountiful land.
However nation building is a passage, not an arrival. Canada
must continue to live, renew and flourish. Canada is our home
and our community but we just cannot take from it. We must give
back. We must respect and nurture what has given us life by
regarding basic principles.
Unfortunately a downward spiral of cynicism has gripped many.
They have given up on politicians because they have come to
believe that average Canadians are too powerless to change
anything as large, amorphous and detached as the way things are
done in political Canada.
In the current context of this House, the throne speech is said
to outline the vision of the new government. However our society
needs both sustenance and a hope to go forward. The throne
speech sadly is a mere chart for interim crew duty on the ship of
state and not a bold course for our ship to sail through the
winds of change. The Liberals have charted a course with their
statement. If it is a vision at all, it looks like we are
sailing into the fog with faulty forecasts, with a ship they have
not maintained and with an ill-prepared crew. The bunch cannot
be trusted.
Canadian democracy as imperfect as it is has nominated this
Liberal crew and they have now tried to reassure us in this
throne speech that we are on a voyage somewhere.
There is a proverb that says that where there is no vision, the
people perish, but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. Where
there is no vision, the people get out of hand; blessed are they
who keep the precept. Where there is no revelation, the people
cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law. Another
proverb says that righteousness exalteth the nation, but sin is a
reproach to any people.
I have risen to respond to the throne speech because I care
deeply about our country and I despair at the kind of leadership
and competence observed from the government. Many Canadians
watching here today do not feel very good about politics. They
have become very cynical about politicians and the process of
elections. They do not know who they can trust.
However, I say that we can launch out, guided by love for our
country, our community and a sincere concern for our neighbour.
Joined together for the common good, we can discover what we can
give to build this country rather than just calculate what we can
get from the government which are really just other taxpayers.
One thing is for sure. If we in this House keep doing what we
are doing, we are going to just keep getting what we are getting.
It could be so much better.
Canadians do not ask for the impossible. They have reasonable
expectations for their representatives. Although historical
deference to Parliament is gone, Canadians basically expect three
things: they want members of Parliament simply to be honest, to
be competent and to have some leadership qualities to inspire.
It is basic principles that matter, for by living by principles
and receiving the humility that comes from them, we are empowered
to learn from our history, act with confidence in the present and
have vision for the future.
First we want our politicians to be honest. We want leaders to
be forthright and have character. We want to be able to believe
and trust what we hear. It has been said that character is what
carries a person beyond adversity to the finish after the initial
emotional reasons for doing the right things have faded.
Canadians deeply value honesty. Integrity in political life
must come first.
Therefore on this point do the Liberals have any integrity left
in view of what they did to the Somalia inquiry?
1300
Second, Canadians want competence. We want politicians who are
qualified to look after our national affairs and to have depth of
wisdom and a commitment to principles.
When there are no easy answers forthcoming on the issue of the
day, it has been said that federal politics is conflict
resolution at the national level but it is also taking care of
the business of the country in a wise manner for the long term
welfare of future generations, not short term special interests
or for only those who currently have the inside track.
We have much incompetence in government. Therefore we need our
leaders to be competent, to be able to get Canadians to pull
together and then wisely administer. However, on the topic of
competent governance, we have a prime minister who has never
given the country a balanced budget or had the courage to stem
the rising tide of hurtful taxation. And now he wants to lead a
spending charge again. Some competence, some leader.
In Canada the crime rate is too high. Victims are still not
paramount in law and the Young Offenders Act remains in disrepute
with the public and the provinces only have the broken promises
of YOA funding. Tragic 745 hearings continue to tear communities
apart. Our youth are enticed through a wide open legal door into
prostitution and the supply of dangerous drugs has not been
stemmed. Immigration fails to protect our borders and Canada is
embarrassed before the world with the existence of the slavery
pipeline. Federal jails cannot seem to hold dangerous offenders
and we cannot even prosecute war criminals. That is the sorry
Liberal administrative record. They are not competent.
Third, Canadians desire real leadership. We need inspiration and
leaders who can lift us up. We need real leaders who can look
beyond today and inspire us with a vision of substance of a
better Canada, with hope and real belief that we can do so much
better than what we have politically. After hearing the feel good
banalities of the throne speech, does any Canadian really feel
inspired and believe that we are being wisely led or being
protected from the criminal and given community peace? Public
acceptance for what the courts give is at an all time low.
However, there is a reformist alternative of democratic free
market principles that rigorously defends equality of
opportunity, denies discrimination in any form to keep a foothold
and trusts the common sense of average Canadians to do what is
right and just for the country.
Reformers say the ultimate authority of the government rests in
the people and full democratic power should be given to everyone.
The people are competent. Average Canadians can be trusted to do
what is right for the country if they are told the complete truth
and are finally given real political power. Reformers strive for
responsible and accountable government rather than merely
the current representative government.
I come back to three things in respect of vision for the
country, honesty, competence and leadership. I am part of an
honest, sincere group of colleagues who are competent and ready
to govern and who are ready to inspire to take this country to a
new level of democratic freedom, justice and social and economic
prosperity.
On leadership, I remind my colleagues in the House that there is
a vision of a new Canada. It is an exciting vision of a country
that can finally become fully democratic and forever put aside
the injustices from the old line political parties. We have a
vision of a new Canada. Someday it will voters themselves who
will decide how our country is run rather than four or five year
dictatorships. Someday all Canadians will truly be equal when
there are no more special deals for categories, groups and
insiders.
Someday the justice system will represent mainstream Canadian
values where we protect our children and properly denounce
discrimination and violence. Someday the federal government will
be an enabler rather than an oppressive tax taker. We can lead
the way from the scourge of unemployment, for a good crime
prevention program is low unemployment.
Someday we will shape a federation that is attractive enough for
the discontented who say they want to separate to want to stay be
fulfilled, lest they are left behind our dynamic and yet diverse
society.
I say we can protect our children from the criminal. We can
support those who need our help, not with another handout but
with a hand up. We can finally say to the world community that
Canada is a haven of freedom where we can be secure in our homes
and have every opportunity to be fully engaged in the building of
our national home. We can make our country fit for heroes to live
in.
1305
Our opposition benches will do their part to lead us to that new
Canada. We will compliment the wise government policy, criticize
the bad and propose constructive alternatives.
In conclusion, I say that the vision for the national voyage
must be based on honesty, competence and leadership. May the
legislation which flows from the government be honestly
presented. May the government administer with the highest
standards, guided by real accountability measures, and may the
prime minister find himself and begin to lead, for whatever
enlarges hope will exalt courage, for if he faints from these
principles the nation knows that we on this side of the House are
more than ready.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to congratulate you on your position as Acting Speaker
of the House. It is an honourable position, which I am sure you
know. We extend our thanks to you in advance for your
impartiality, your fairness and the important role which you will
play in keeping us all in order and on topic.
With respect to the topic today, we have been spending quite a
bit of time on this side of the House talking about justice
issues. Today I was able to table a private member's bill which
deals with a problem in my riding, joy riding. Other members of
the Reform Party have tabled an alternative legislative package
for Canadians to consider when they see what it was the Liberals
did not do on justice issues and what the Reform Party would like
to do and would do if and when it has the chance to form the
federal government.
In August when the justice minister was before the bar
association she spent some time detailing her priorities for the
coming session. She said that her priorities were changes to the
Young Offenders Act, that she would toughen it up and make it
tighter. She said that she would deal with Canadians' concerns
that the Young Offenders Act has become a leaking sieve rather
than a catch basin which would look after our justice problems.
She said she was going to get tough on the parole system. She
said she would look after the people who are slipping through the
cracks and being released when they should not be.
She said she would deal with violent crime. She said she would
find ways to take violent criminals off the street and out of
society and that public safety would be the number one concern.
Last, I remember her saying clearly that she was going to deal
with victim rights.
None of those things are in the throne speech. That is why the
Reform Party today has spent a good deal of its time questioning
the government about its priorities and about its sincerity in
dealing with the issues that the new justice minister said in
August were going to be the priorities of this government. That
is why we see the alternative package.
The Reform member who just spoke gave a global picture of what
is wrong with the justice system. He talked about the
theoretical problems, the problems that will plague the
government until it fixes them. He also talked about some of the
principles which guide us.
I know he has extensive personal experience in the field.
This is not simply a theoretical exercise for him. He has
experience dealing with juveniles, working in the justice system,
and he has some expertise and some inside knowledge of what needs
to be fixed in the justice system.
I wonder if the hon. member would like to expand a bit more on
his thoughts on what needs to be done, with some specificity, so
that we can take those ideas to heart, knowing his expertise.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Madam Speaker, in the brief 10 minutes
I was given I did touch, in broad generalities, about
confidence in government, integrity and so forth.
To take one specific example from my riding, when I was a child
going to school on the streets of New Westminster I did not see
prostitutes standing at bus stops. There was a social context in
my riding, and in most cities of this country, where street
prostitution was not pervasive because there was a legal context
which prohibited it.
We may not ever remove the problem of prostitution from our
society, but the law changed and capacity creates its own demand.
When this Parliament made the mistakes and changed the law, we
now have street prostitution from one end of the country to the
other.
1310
In the last Parliament there was a fairly significant effort of
the federal government to consult with the provinces and many
reports were produced and many suggestions for particular amendments
to the criminal law were made. One specific one that appears to
have agreement from all attorneys general across the country is
simply communicating for the purposes of obtaining sexual
services in a public place. That specific offence should not
merely be a summarial offence but it should be a hybrid offence.
It should be an electable offence.
This would provide the needed tools to the local police forces
and the flexibility they need to arrest if necessary and allow an
offender to appear before a justice and be released on some kind
of recognisance order. It also helps with the identification of
those on the street.
This is a very minor first step and I introduced a private
member's bill specific to this. I understand the previous
justice minister acknowledged the need for this but gave the
excuse of why he did not introduce that he was still consulting
with the provinces.
It is time we begin to take some steps that all provinces across
the country are asking for.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am honoured to have this opportunity to respond to the throne
speech, but first let me take this opportunity to thank the
voters of Surrey North for showing their confidence in me.
Being new to this place I do not really know whether to be
optimistic or cynical. Like most Canadians, I continue to have
hope that each new Parliament will be an improvement but fear
that we will again be disappointed when our government proceeds
for political reasons rather than for the best interest for
Canadians.
As an example, it did not take the previous minister of justice
long to advance his gun control legislation, even though he did
not bother to determine whether and how registration would
discourage the criminal misuse of firearms. He stated repeatedly
that he had consulted and that he had the support of Canadians.
Perhaps he consulted with his leader's imaginary homeless friends
because our aboriginal peoples consistently claim that they were
not consulted, even though their treaty rights would be
significantly affected.
Consultation with the various provincial authorities is also in
question, as four provinces and two territories are presently
before the courts challenging our federal government on this
legislation.
In this week's throne speech the government talked of
partnerships. It now states that the federal government cannot
act alone. It is indeed unfortunate that the previous government
did not understand this concept.
Then we have victim rights. On April 29, 1996, after
encouragement and pressure from the Reform Party, the former
minister of justice stated in this House: “Although steps have
been made toward progress in recent years, they have been
imperfect. There remains a great deal to be done”.
He promised to address this deficiency in our laws. It may come
as a surprise but this hon. member either would not or could not
carry through on his promise. We must assume one of two things.
Either it was not a priority on his personal political agenda or
he was overruled. Regardless, Canadians are still waiting.
It was with great disappointment that I noticed the almost
complete absence of any substance toward rectifying the
inadequacies of our criminal justice system in the throne speech.
It is hoped that this government's priorities on justice have
been inadvertently forgotten. Otherwise Canadians will also be
greatly disappointed.
We now have a fresh new Minister of Justice. Once again
Canadians anticipate the introduction and passage of much needed
legislation. Hopefully she will be able to fulfil her promises
regarding violent young offenders and victims of crime. Hopefully
she will be interested in the pursuit of what is right for
Canadians rather than what is right for the Liberal Party.
In the past Parliament many of the members opposite were most
interested in passing legislation to provide alternative methods
of sentencing. For example, Bill C-41 permitted conditional
sentencing which, while useful in some cases, is applicable to
even those who violently offend within our communities. Bill C-53
extended temporary absence provisions and Bill C-37 actually
reduced the parole ineligibility for young offenders convicted of
second degree murder in adult court.
But what did the government do for victims, those who have not
deliberately decided to offend society's rules but just happen to
be in the wrong place and the wrong time?
I have made my home in British Columbia since 1971. It is where
my wife and I met 29 years ago, where we raised our family, where
we work and where we pay our taxes.
1315
Although my hometown of North Bay is not far from here, each
time I fly here I pass directly over the place of my youth. Last
week I was able to pick out the beaches where I swam, the wharf
where I fished and the streets where I walked, played and cycled.
I could not help but to think about that young man growing up
and the twists and turns his life would take over the next 40
years which would put him in a jet plane flying to a seat in this
House of Commons.
My life was not that much different from the lives of most
Canadians of my generation. Violent crime was something we read
or heard about, tragic events that happened to others. That all
changed on October 18, 1992 when our 16-year old son went to a
party and never came home. He was murdered on his way home in a
random, unprovoked knife attack by a complete stranger, a young
offender who was violating a court ordered curfew stemming from
prior charges.
The next week in Courtenay, B.C. a six-year old girl was
sexually assaulted and murdered by a sixteen-year old neighbour
who was on probation for molesting a young child one year
earlier. The anonymity provisions of the Young Offenders Act
precluded neighbours from knowing the threat he posed.
Two weeks later in my community two women were butchered by a
man who, because he said he was stoned on cocaine, received 10
years for manslaughter. He applied for parole last March. The
grass is barely green on the graves of his victims, one of whom
was pregnant while the other left three young children. The
youngest, at the tender age of four years witnessed his mother's
killing. Barely three months had passed before a Surrey doctor
facing a hearing for sexual impropriety had the young complainant
murdered. The hit man was free on bail after shooting a man in
the face six months earlier.
Our family spent nearly two years before the courts. We have
come to know many families of victims of violent crime and have
followed many of their cases. It did not take very long to
realize that our system of justice is seriously out of kilter.
Shortly after our son's murder we founded an organization to
support victims and to work for justice reform through public
education.
Time is not sufficient to detail our efforts but suffice to say
that it was the way in which I was treated by the justice
committee of the previous Parliament during its hearings on the
youth justice system which propelled me into this arena. It was
painfully clear that the previous government was not prepared to
listen to the views of ordinary Canadians.
I have come to the House of Commons with the support of my
constituents. Along with representing their interests in this
institution, they have given me a specific mandate to achieve
better recognition for innocent victims of crime and reform of
the criminal justice system.
For too long society has dealt with justice as merely a
jurisdiction between the state and the offender, the philosophy
that an offence against the laws of our land is an offence
against the state. Little regard is given to the specific damage
done to individual law-abiding citizens. This must change, not
merely because it may be politically advantageous but because it
is right, because it is fair and because it is what real justice
is all about.
I am serving notice that I fully intend to be particularly
vigilant on this issue. I realize that my task will be difficult
as politicians of the past have been known to talk a good game,
promising advancements in flowery complicated legal wording. But
legislation to do any real good for our communities must have
substance. It must be made more accessible, more equitable and
more sympathetic toward victims of crime.
I am hopeful that the present Minister of Justice will set her
fellow Canadians at ease by being a breath of fresh air and being
a saviour not of the rights of our criminals but of the rights of
our innocent victims. I am also hopeful that this new minister
will be much more successful in her consultations and
negotiations with the provinces. A great deal of victims
legislation will have to be co-ordinated with those provinces,
which have the task of administering our criminal law.
Funding for these services to victims will be of utmost interest
and it is hoped this minister will use her persuasive powers to
encourage the government to adequately provide those resources.
She has promised a policy of co-operation with the provinces. She
has assured us that victims of crime will be accorded better
treatment within our justice system. It is noted that she
promised victims better treatment but at the same time denies
them and the majority of Canadians their demand to repeal section
745 of the Criminal Code. Obviously we will have to work to
convince her in that regard.
I personally attended Clifford Olson's 745 hearing. There are
few words available with which to describe it. Mockery and
travesty come to mind. Those who crafted section 745 and those
who support it should hang their heads in shame.
The Reform Party has been the most active in recognizing
victims' rights. It is one of the primary reasons why I chose to
run in the recent election for Reform. I have been most
fortunate to be chosen by my colleagues to watchdog this issue.
The government has put on notice that we intend to aggressively
pursue righting this wrong in a justice system that, for too
long, has ignored and failed to adequately consider the rights
and interests of victims.
1320
Victims of crime desire no special rights for themselves, only
due consideration. Victims rights are about balance and
fairness, nothing more and nothing less.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, the member made specific reference to
the loss of his son but he talked about the particular offender
in that regard, and a peculiar gap in the law.
Then he mentioned parallel examples of other individuals who
committed heinous crimes while they were already before the
justice system on other matters. I believe he has introduced a
private member's bill related to that.
I would like him to expand on this issue where we have
individuals who are law breakers, who are in process. The
justice system should be aware of them and yet it is inadequate,
apparently, to stop their cycle of offending while they are still
before the courts.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Madam Speaker, I can relate to the
business that the hon. member mentioned. In this case, it is a
section of the Young Offenders Act that I would like to see
amended. It would hold parents accountable.
There is a section that holds parents accountable for failing to
supervise an undertaking. In in my particular case, this came
into play because the father did undertake to supervise a curfew
condition that was, obviously, not supervised properly. It was
not followed through in the courts. It never is. It could have
been.
Right now it is a summary offence. We would like to see that
moved into something more of an indictable area. Situations like
that force the families of victims of violence—in particular
murder victims—into the civil courts which is something that we
really do not feel they should have to go.
That is not a route that should be taken. It is just one extra
roadblock on the way to recovery. We feel many of these things
have to be done through the criminal courts, not the civil
courts.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I want to add my own congratulations to you on your appointment
as one of our deputy speakers and look forward to your very fair
and impartial judgments on our deliberations.
As a fellow colleague from the coast and Vancouver Island I
have, of course, much sympathy for what the hon. member for
Surrey North has been sharing with us this afternoon. We were
all treated to that terrible travesty of justice recently where
Clifford Olson was brought into our living rooms by television
and other means to plead his case for early parole. It is the
insensitivity of the government that has allowed this kind of
thing to happen in Canadian society.
I have a question for my hon. colleague. I wonder if, in view
of the tragic circumstances that his family has endured in the
past few years, he has any light to shed on whether or not the
penal system in this country does rehabilitate criminals.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Madam Speaker, there is certainly a
place within the criminal justice system, within the corrections
system, for rehabilitation.
I for one do not believe it works all the time. In fact in most
cases when dealing with serious violent offenders, with sexual
predators, it has been shown that it does not work. There have
been any number of instances of that over the past number of
years.
1325
It has been argued that the incarceration periods for young
offenders are far too short to instil any positive corrective
behaviour. You cannot take someone who has committed a murder,
and is seriously off the rails, incarcerate them in a youth
detention centre for five or six years and expect to get them
turned around. It just does not work.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Madam Speaker, first I
would like to congratulate my colleague on his maiden speech. If
more members of Parliament would take to heart his words of
advice we would certainly have a better institution and a far
better country.
I would ask the hon. member to comment on the area of victims
rights. He mentioned in his remarks the 745 hearings. Having
been involved with a group of people in Saskatoon who have just
recently gone through this, I do feel the tremendous amount of
grief and emotion of these people, 15 to 25 years after the fact.
There has been no closure.
Would the hon. member like to comment?
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Madam Speaker, after sitting through
Clifford Olson's section 745 hearing for four days, there are
really no words to describe it. You had to be there.
It was an absolute travesty. There were 22 family members
representing eight of his 11 victims. It was beyond
comprehension what those families were put through in those four
days. It is not much more than what any family goes through when
dealing with a parole hearing. However, in the case of a section
745 hearing, at one point a judge said “life with no parole for
20” but these families were forced to deal with it at 15 years.
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for St. Paul's.
I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the Speech from the
Throne, but before beginning, Madam Speaker, I too want to congratulate
you on your appointment as Acting Speaker of the House, and to wish you
good luck.
On June 2 of this year, I began my second term of office, this
time as the member for Ahuntsic, in the riding where I have lived
with my family for close to 30 years. The riding of Ahuntsic has
a long Liberal tradition, and I take great pride in following in
the steps of women like the Hon. Jeanne Sauvé and Thérèse
Killens. I pledge to continue to work hard with my government
for the well-being of the residents of Ahuntsic, for nothing
makes me happier than to serve my fellow citizens and all
Canadians. I thank the citizens of Ahuntsic for their support.
Canadians are optimistic. Their confidence has returned because
of our good governance, and because of a climate in which 974,000
jobs have been created since we formed the government in 1993.
For the first time in close to 30 years, the Government of Canada
will not be facing a monumental deficit. We are once again in a
position to meet Canadians' priorities without exceeding our
financial means.
The result is that we can now make strategic investments for our
children, our young people, our health, and our communities, as
well as for the sector of knowledge and creativity.
[English]
During our first mandate we demonstrated the leadership
Canadians expect from their federal government. That is why
Canadians returned their confidence on June 2 by electing a
Liberal government to lead them into the 21st century.
We have restored their optimism and renewed their hope for the
future. We were not mean, as some of our opponents will have you
believe, but we were lean. We were not pseudo-conservatives as
others would have you believe, we were true liberals. I will
quote a great Canadian who led this country into another century,
Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
I am a Liberal of the English school. I believe in that school
which has all along claimed that it is the privilege of all
subjects, whether high or low, whether rich or poor, whether
ecclesiastic or laymen, to participate in the administration of
public affairs, to discuss, to influence, to persuade, to
convince—but which has always denied, even to the highest, the
right to dictate to the lowest.
1330
That is what Liberalism is all about.
[Translation]
We also know that the government cannot act alone. Canadians
want their government to work in partnership. We are ready to
work with all our partners—the provinces and territories, the
private sector, non profit agencies, the volunteer sector and all
Canadians—to better equip our country to meet the needs of
Canadians.
We are not trying to encroach on the fundamental rights of the
provinces, as the Bloc Quebecois is accusing us of doing, but
rather to help my province, Quebec, develop within this flexible
federation. A more smoothly operating federation is the key to
our future. A federation is not static, but rather constantly
changing. Together we will decide how it will change.
The Speech from the Throne sets out the broad lines of our
strategy for our second mandate. Job creation and economic growth
are and will remain our first priorities.
Accordingly, we want to keep our efforts focussed on helping
small and medium size business develop and market new technologies.
[English]
Small and medium size businesses need to make the transition to
new technologies if they are to survive in today's market.
Manufacturers make up the majority of industry in my riding of
Ahuntsic, names like Simon Chang, Tolédano and Christina Canada,
which most recently received a grant from the federal government
to help develop a new fibre for bathing suits. This new project
will help to create nearly 200 jobs in Ahuntsic. This initiative
funded through the transitional job fund is an example of the
success of our job creation commitment, and that is just one
example in my riding.
Investing in our youth has the largest return for Canada. As a
mother of two young girls this issue is of utmost importance to
me personally and I believe to all my colleagues in the House. We
need to give children the best start possible.
During our first mandate we established a prenatal program and
increased the Canada child tax benefit by $850 million a year. In
our second mandate we will continue to develop a national child
benefit system to respond to the problems of low income families
with children. We will also develop a national children's agenda
and establish centres of excellence to deepen our understanding
of children's development and well-being. Who can argue with
that?
[Translation]
We must do everything to guarantee our young people a better
future. The youth service corps and youth internship programs
were hugely successful in our first mandate. I had a number of
projects in my riding and I can testify to their impact on the
development of young people.
Young people want to gain experience in order to overcome the
obstacles blocking their entry into the labour market.
Furthermore, this experience revives their self confidence and
increases their worth with future employers.
The youth employment strategy and the public service youth
internship program will also create opportunities for young
people in the riding of Ahuntsic and for the students of the
collège Bois-de-Boulogne, who will certainly benefit from these
programs.
Finally, the $1 billion Canada millennium scholarship endowment
fund that the Prime Minister announced yesterday in response to
the Speech from the Throne demonstrates once again our commitment
to helping young Canadians. I would like to congratulate the
Prime Minister on behalf of all our children and on behalf of my
daughters.
1335
[English]
These programs go a long way in helping our youth reach their
potential and making them responsible citizens in their
communities. There is nothing sadder than seeing youth resort to
crime in the absence of hope for their future.
During my first mandate I worked directly with street kids and
youth workers and saw firsthand the problems our youth are facing
today. I bring these experiences to my new role as Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada. I thank the prime minister for giving me that
opportunity.
Our focus in our second mandate will be crime prevention, youth
justice and victim rights. By investing in crime prevention we
are investing in the future of our children and ensuring safer
streets and communities.
The throne speech announced an increase in funding for community
based crime prevention initiatives to $30 million a year, further
demonstrating our commitment to helping communities deal with the
roots of crime. It also announced the government's intention to
develop alternatives to incarceration for low risk, non-violent
offenders such as sentencing reforms, community diversion
programs and alternative sentencing.
My goal in my second mandate is to continue to serve my
constituents and Canadians with honesty and integrity, as this
government has shown, to remain accessible and approachable to
those I represent and finally to remind them of the important
role they play in shaping Canada's public policy.
As a Canadian of Hellenic origins, I take particular pride in
knowing that the ancient Hellenic ideals of democracy and the
agora are continuing to thrive in Canada because of this
government.
As Aristotle once said, if liberty and equality are chiefly to
be found in a democracy, they will be best obtained when all
persons alike share in the government to the utmost.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank you,
Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you
and congratulate you on your appointment. I want to assure you of
my full co-operation.
I cannot resist the temptation to put, through you, a question
to our colleague, who is from Montreal and represents a
constituency similar to mine in that there are very specific
concerns about Montreal.
My question to the hon. member, which I hope she will answer, is
this: Does she recognize that 20 years ago we were in a situation
where the three leading federal parties—we tend to forget
this, but a little over 20 years ago the Conservative Party, the
NDP and the Liberal Party did recognize the existence of two
nations or peoples in Canada. Why is it then that, for one reason
or another, today, only lip service is paid to Quebec as a people
or a nation, particularly on that side of the House? Is there
cause for concern?
I would like to ask my hon. colleague, through you, if she
recognizes Quebec as a people. This is something that can be
defined objectively. Each people has its own vernacular. In this
case, it happens to be French. We also have control over a
territory.
There are few examples of federations in the world—and the
hon. member sitting next to me is an expert on these issues—where
one nation clearly has control over a territory, as is the
case in Quebec. When we talk about peoples and nations, it always
involves a clearly defined judicial system, as is the case in
Quebec. These terms imply a will to live together, and the hon.
member for Bourassa is aware of these issues.
All the objective elements are present so that the word
“nations” can be used in the plural. Yet, some newspapers and
political parties persist in their use of the singular form.
1340
Will the hon. member recognize, here in this House, that Quebecers
are a people, that they have a right to self-determination, and that we
can count on her, should tempers flare in the coming weeks, particularly
in Montreal, to discuss the issue of partition? I know the hon. member
will be by my side and will say that Quebecers are a people, that they
form a nation, that Quebec has a right to self-determination, and that
its territory must remain intact.
Am I to understand that we will fight together for the same cause?
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from
the Bloc Quebecois for a question which is dear to my heart, since
it is a given that I have been actively involved in Quebec politics
for 25 years. I consider myself a Quebecer, and I am one, although
not Quebec-born.
What I wish to say is that, when the hon. member talks history,
he must not forget that the two founding peoples include French
Canadians throughout Canada, and not just in Quebec. We must
never forget that there are French Canadians outside Quebec.
As for partition, for me there is one Canada, indivisible. There
is no question of dividing the best country in the world, and I
have always fought against that during my 25 years in politics. I
will repeat what I said in my speech. If the hon. member has
listened well, what I said was that we must work together for a
federation that will be more modern and more democratic, and will
include all Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
note with the background of the member who just spoke that she
probably exemplifies where we are in Canada, which is that indeed
Canada is made up of all those in Canada, not just those from the
so-called two founding nations. That is noteworthy.
My question to her concerns her being Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Justice. I had occasion to have some people
insist on having a discussion with me because someone they were
associated with had been convicted of first degree murder 15
years ago. At that time the judge said it was an awful crime. I
could see that in the eyes of these people when they met with me.
These people are petrified at the potential of this killer being
set free after 15 years.
At the sentencing hearing the judge said that it was such an
awful crime there was no way the killer should be paroled for 25
years.
I have a question for the parliamentary secretary, as she will
be the person who will be backing up the justice minister. This
is a very serious question on behalf of these very distraught
people.
Why should we believe in today's court judgments when the judges
and the juries clearly say this is the penalty that must be
applied because of the severity of the crime? Why should be
believe in the judgment and in the sentencing that happens in
1997 if the judge says there should be no parole for 25 years,
such as in the awful case of Bernardo? Why should we believe
that our courts are going to be able to actually see that done?
Does the fact that her government refused to repeal section 745
not put the judgments and the sentencing of today's—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. As has been evident in the House, the
Reform Party's vision of the justice system is totally different
from the vision which we as Liberals have. We do not question
the integrity of our justice system.
In our first mandate we toughened sentences for those convicted
of hate crimes. We tightened the rules for early parole
hearings. We enhanced longer sentences for young offenders
convicted of first and second degree murder. We made it possible
to obtain DNA samples from suspects in crimes of physical
violence. We cracked down on child prostitution and child sex
tourism. I think that is proof enough that this government is
going in the right direction and the integrity of our justice
system is not put in question.
1345
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
congratulations on your appointment.
As I assume my responsibilities as the member for St. Paul's, I
want to thank my predecessor, Barry Campbell, for his hard work
both in the riding and for his invaluable help as the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I am also
honoured to have his ongoing support and guidance as I enter this
exciting new chapter.
I also want to thank his staff, Michael Spowart and Esther Shron
for staying with me and providing the seamless transition for the
people of St. Paul's with their ongoing care and experience.
The people of St. Paul's are big picture people. They are
knowledgeable, passionate and have high expectations of their
member of Parliament. Mitchell Sharp, John Roberts and Barry
Campbell have set a high standard that I hope to be able to live
up to.
Throughout the election campaign, it was clear to me that the
people of St. Paul's respected the Liberal record of fiscal
responsibility. Now they solidly support the priorities of this
government as set forth in the Speech from the Throne. As it says
in the Speech from the Throne, this government has regained the
ability to address the priorities of Canadians while living
within its means.
We have been elected to continue our prudent fiscal management,
but make sure that we are able to be compassionate and look after
those less fortunate. The people of Canada elected a Liberal
government with a real plan: first eliminate the deficit, then
divide the surplus between reinvesting in programs and a
combination of tax relief and debt reduction, a balanced
approach.
The people of Ontario strongly rejected the tax cuts and
survival of the fittest option. We are living every day with the
consequences of a provincial government which has no vision nor
values; a government that continues to transfer power to
unelected officials and ignores public opinion and referenda; a
government that does not believe that it can have a positive
effect on people's lives and whose sole purpose is to cut taxes;
a government that forgets that Canada is a big cold country and
as John Ralston Saul has said, a country whose people agreed over
150 years ago that they would have to look after one another. The
true vision and values of Canadians are Liberal values.
Throughout the throne speech one finds the word
“partnerships”. It is an exciting time when government can be
the catalyst that brings together the private, public and third
sector to facilitate innovative programs that will have a
positive effect in the lives of Canadians. Partnerships require
good communication and mutual respect.
I have been surprised and overwhelmed by the enthusiasm and
innovation present in our public service and their clear
commitment to real partnerships. Yesterday at the Industry
Canada open house I was thrilled to see Schoolnet and Strategis
as realities, to see the national graduates registry actually
putting young Canadians to work on the digital collections and
consulting small business. It is quite clear that our young
Canadians' real facility with technology will be the true
leveller in our society. The CEOs of this country are really
learning directly from the recent grads.
I had the opportunity to see first hand last week one of the
youth initiatives at HRDC. Their award winning newspaper
Canada Prospects is really talking to high school students
in language they can relate to and it is working. I was
privileged to represent the minister at the launch of HRDC's new
program, career in a box, creating a partnership between the
federal government, the packaging industry and the CEC union.
Hopefully this example of partnership will provide a template for
which other sectors can soon follow.
Initiatives such as getting the volunteer sector on line is
another true example of partnership and a commitment to make sure
that Canadians are looked after but government does not have to
deliver every service. Organizations like ACTEW and Skills for
Change in my riding embody the vision and values and have the
expertise to help realize the potential of those highly motivated
Canadians who would truly rather be working.
As a family physician, my patients and now my constituents have
made me acutely aware that they are increasingly concerned that
the health care they need may not be there when they need it. In
Ontario the present restructuring is putting at risk the high
quality care that Canadians wear as a badge of honour.
1350
I support the establishment of the health transition fund that
will help provincial governments innovate in the areas of primary
care and provide more integration in the delivery of health
services and innovative home care and pharmacare. By finally
moving forward with health care reform we can hopefully begin to
ameliorate the damage done by the closing of hospitals and
old-fashioned mergers before resources have been properly placed
into community care. By improving the health information system,
we will finally be able to track outcomes and ensure the kind of
accountability that is required in order to support what up until
now has only been supported anecdotally.
Throughout North America, health institutions are sharing
services, saving dollars and proving that restructuring can be
done without destroying institutions like Women's College
Hospital and eroding public confidence in the system. In my
former role as host of Doctor On Call on WTN, I was shocked
at the disparity of health care across the country. It is only
with the facts that we will finally be able to address the
inequities.
The tenets of the Canada Health Act presumed high quality care.
Accessibility to bargain basement standards is not what was
intended nor what Canadians expect. These new initiatives will
ensure increased accountability and real measurements of quality
such that we can restore the confidence of Canadians in their
health care system. We can no longer tolerate benchmarks that are
not based on quality.
In Ontario sending people home from hospital quicker and sicker
is what seems to be rewarded. We know the data is flawed and we
know that readmission rates are not being tracked and that the
women of this country are being left to pick up the pieces when
patients are sent home too sick to look after themselves. We need
to measure the absenteeism of those working women and the real
cost to our country. Some companies are already convinced that
partnerships in home care for their employees is just plain good
business.
Health care delivery may be a provincial responsibility but
there is no question in my mind that all Canadians hold us, the
federal government, responsible for the existence and the quality
of our health care system.
For me the sustainability of the health care system is reliant
upon the recognition of all the determinants of health: jobs and
poverty, violence and crime prevention, the environment. The
priorities set out on Tuesday of investing in children, building
safer communities, creating opportunities for young Canadians,
are all part of our goal of keeping Canadians healthy. It is
really about decreasing the demand so that we can guarantee
adequate supply.
Throughout the summer my constituents have already been
reassured by the efforts of the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs to bring frankness and clarity to any debate that could
put in jeopardy the future of this country. They too believe
that our future as a country is too precious for us to risk
losing it through misunderstanding. The issue of national unity
continues to be of paramount importance to the residents of St.
Paul's.
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you and your office
personally for the excellent opportunity that your office
provided at the centre d'immersion at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.
It helped me become a little more comfortable in our other
official language. I also felt that the exposure to Madam
Gervais and her staff with their frank conversations helped me to
better understand the point of view that will be important to the
future of a united Canada. This experience and exposure has been
invaluable to me as a member of Parliament and has allowed me
already to help explain to the people of St. Paul's the need for
even greater understanding.
I recommend that all Canadians take any opportunity they can to
visit Quebec. I hope this sort of exchange among all provinces
will become a focus for some of our millennium celebrations. As
we move toward the millennium I feel extremely proud to be a
Canadian.
Last week I had the opportunity to speak to the Canadian
Publishers Association which was entertaining a delegation of 20
Japanese publishers. I was asked to help them differentiate
between Canadians and Americans. I focused on two things, both
highlighted in the Speech from the Throne: our commitment to look
after one another and our respect for multiculturalism.
American author John Irving who with his Canadian wife has an
apartment in St. Paul's, pointed out that it is the expectation
of the Canadian social system to look after the people who cannot
look after themselves. There is no such expectation in the
United States. That is another reason to protect our culture and
to celebrate the stories of Canadians and by Canadians. We can
remember that in Fifth Business Dunstan Ramsay looked after
Boy Staunton. There is also the wonderful Canadian nurse who
looked after the English patient. We are different.
I am so proud to be married to Peter O'Brian who with his films
such as Grey Fox and My American Cousin continues to
find and produce films that tell our stories.
1355
Our respect for diversity also makes us different. I suggest
that perhaps the publishing industry has demonstrated such
success because of its recognition of the tremendous talent of
our Canadians with roots around the world: Ondaatje, Ricci,
Bissoondath, Kogawa.
As we move into this exciting new chapter, I am honoured to be
part of a government that has accepted the challenge“to ensure
that no Canadian is left behind as the country moves forward”.
I thank my husband and my sons for making my decision such an
easy one and I thank my parents for their commitment of hard work
and commitment to the customer.
Being a member of Parliament is truly the greatest privilege and
responsibility. Politics and the opportunity to be part of a
good government that can make a real difference in people's lives
is indeed the highest calling. I promise that I will do
everything in my power to continue to earn the trust the people
of St. Paul's have placed in me.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I found it rather unusual that in the member's speech
she mentioned health care in Ontario, and of how people are sent
back home too soon as if it was just happening in Ontario.
I guess I just wanted to make members aware that this has been
happening in the Atlantic provinces for quite a long time, having
been, myself, a statistic of that. I had a child 22 months ago.
She was born on Wednesday and Friday morning I was out. Friday
night I was back in with my daughter.
Believe me it is not only the problem of the premier of Ontario.
It is actually the federal government's problem because of the
cuts transferred to the provinces. I want to make it clear that
it is happening in the Atlantic provinces.
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, I am aware that this
is a problem across the country. I believe it is not the fault
of the transfer payment cuts which I think were very necessary in
order to be able to reduce the interest payments and for us to
continue to do good work.
I do think, though, that the federal government has an ability
to track these kinds of outcomes and be able to set some
standards that all provinces can then set as true accountability
for their performance.
We do not really know the readmission rate of maternity
patients. We do not really know the readmission rate of people
being sent home from hospital too early. We need to know those
statistics so that we know where to reinvest and how to set
examples for excellent quality care.
What I am most concerned with is that we have to do everything
in our power to restore the confidence of Canadians in our health
care system, because otherwise we end up on the slippery slope to
an American system. I will do everything in my power to prevent
that.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Madam Speaker, I guess what I would
like to know then is how are the Liberals planning on finding out
those statistics? What is the plan now?
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, I think the
beginning is the health information network. In Ontario, we have
the beginning with ICES, a plan for keeping track of certain
things.
It is really important when we start to track information that
we ask what questions do we want answered and then to go and get
that information. I think things like early discharge from
maternity care, discharge from hospital readmission rates are
probably the way to go, waiting lists.
We need to look at different kinds of problems, such as looking
at pharmacare and seeing that in certain provinces when drugs are
cut off the list, the patients have to be admitted to hospital in
order to get that drug. That is not saving the overall budget any
money.
We need to know that those kinds of things are happening. We
need to know the kind of absenteeism in the women's workforce
that is happening because women have to stay off work in order to
go and look after their sick relatives who have been sent home
from hospital too early.
I think we can get that data, but we are going to need
everybody's help in finding out what questions we need to be
asking in order to go and track that data.
1400
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will
share the 20 minutes allocated to me with my colleague from
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
I would like to start by thanking my constituents in
Matapédia—Matane. The riding is so big it could be a country. I
say this for the benefit of my hon. friends opposite, because
many have never set foot in my riding, except to make an
announcement and wave the Canadian flag during election
campaigns.
My riding extends from Saint-Moïse to Maria and from
Baie-des-Sables to Madeleine. This is 750 kilometres. In other
words, as far as Amqui to Ottawa. It takes about 10 hours or a
day to travel the perimeter.
I want to thank my constituents for putting their trust in me.
Some of them reelected me, others elected me for the first time.
The people of Matapédia—Matane elected me to a second term. This
is when I made the best showing. I served them well for four
years, and I got a substantial majority. In Avignon and
Denis-Riverin it was a little harder, because I was not as
well-known. So I think we can say that Bloc members have to get
out there and meet people and also cover a lot of ground.
People put their trust in me because I was there for them, but
it is more than that. They trusted the man who defended
sovereignty during the election campaign. I was very frank. I
told them that if they wanted to elect a federalist, there were
some very good ones. There were some outstanding candidates. But
if they wanted to elect a sovereignist, there was only one
choice. And today, I am here. Again, I thank the people in my
riding.
These people are not stupid. They are sick and tired of hearing
meaningless terms like “distinct society” and “unique
society”. Some people, one of them a fisher, said “as unique as
Matane shrimp”. What does that mean?
An hon. member: The shrimp come from Sept-îles.
Mr. René Canuel: Yes, they are caught in Sept-Îles and eaten in
Matane, and they are excellent.
In philosophy, we say words are very important, so let us stop
saying that words like “unique” and “distinct” no longer mean
anything. Even Claude Ryan said these words were meaningless.
When we ask our hon. friends opposite whether they are prepared
to recognize us as a founding people, they all start to stammer
and stutter. They do not have the guts to say they cannot
recognize us as a founding people because, when it comes down to
it, they do not recognize us. Well at least they are consistent.
They are afraid to come out and say so. That I can understand,
and I thank them for being consistent. I can follow that.
The government, however, is doing everything it can to diminish us,
to reduce us to the level of some ethnic group. I may recall that
aboriginal peoples were here at the very beginning. Everybody recognizes
them. Then, we had two founding peoples. Everybody acknowledges that.
But today, it would be nice if members opposite were able to say yes,
you are a people.
1405
I was in Vancouver during the holidays. A very nice place, but I
could not feel at home there. Perhaps the Vancouverites who come
to Quebec feel the same. I respect that. There is something
missing, however. Are we treated as equals? I think not. The
people down home have a rather colourful way of speaking, and I
am going to adopt a bit of that. Such a lovely way of speaking.
They do not mince words.
They are sick and tired of commissions, of all the different
commissions. They are also sick and tired of the attacks on our
integrity. They are disgusted, too, by the psychological
profiles of the premier of Quebec. They sick and tired of seeing
the multinationals using tax havens to get rich. They have been
demanding action on this for a long time. Yet nothing happens.
They are sick and tired, as well, of seeing the rich families
protected by family trusts. Sick and tired of seeing banks
making billion dollar profits.
I asked a big banker “Would you go bankrupt if Canadian taxes
were raised a little?” He said “Not at all”. Do you know why?
Do you know why the rich of this country are protected? That is
easy to understand. Big businesses are the ones contributing to
campaign funds, and then they find the Prime Minister's door wide
open to them, the ministers' doors wide open to them. “We gave,
so now it's our turn”. That works out very well.
There was an attempt made here to get a little bill passed on
political party fundraising. No way would the Conservatives or
the Liberals vote for that. Ask yourselves why, ladies and
gentlemen. My fellow citizens know very well why not. We can see
that the hands of the members opposite are tied. The people at
home and even the people in the Atlantic provinces have not
forgiven them.
Employment insurance, which I call poverty insurance, is causing
problems at home. Some people are going to find the winter long:
910 hours to start. Some mothers and fathers are short 50 or 75
hours. Will they go on welfare? If they do, as you know, when
you have children, they will have to sell their house. Obviously
it is a last resort. We are entitled to a few thousand bucks in
the bank.
That means those people are without hope. I have seen people
crying in my office because they found this legislation so
totally inhumane. This government has not the heart to change
it.
I hope that those who do have a little heart will understand
people living in poverty. What is there in the speech from the
throne for the rural community? One little, very little,
minuscule paragraph: “It is our good intention to—”. Go ahead
and read it again. I have not got time to read it, but read it
carefully.
What is in it for fishers? Nothing. What about forest workers?
Absolutely nothing. And farmers? Nothing. A fine country,
great and rich. They are busting with pride.
Our people are no fools. The people in my riding voted 64 per
cent in favour of sovereignty in the last referendum, and the
vote will be even higher in the next one, because the government
is totally inhumane and unfair to rural communities. It says:
“Let us feed the rich, because they support us”.
1410
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I also
take this opportunity to congratulate you on your excellent
appointment. It is once again someone from Quebec, a French
Canadian woman, who was appointed by the government, through the
Prime Minister.
I was listening to the members of the club of the outraged, if I
can put it that way. These people never feel free; they feel hard
done by. However, given what their head office in Quebec City,
more specifically the real leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Lucien
Bouchard, is doing, I hope the hon. member opposite will be every
bit as critical of his own people. If the member has any human
sentiment, as he claims he does, he must have little sympathy for
Minister Trudel, who is doing terrible things to municipalities.
I was in Chicoutimi last week and, once again, through the
federal office of regional development and the Minister of
Industry, we showed that we believe in partnership, that we can
work with provincial organizations. We provided funding for
another industrial chair at the Université du Québec in
Chicoutimi. Again, this initiative will help improve people's
quality of life.
A general council was recently held in Lévis. French Canadians
from other provinces were once again left out in the cold. When
it suits its purposes, the Bloc Quebecois speaks on behalf of
French Canadians living outside Quebec. However, when it does not
suit its needs, it just forgets about them.
I would like to know if the hon. member recognizes the French
Canadian people, because the other side often plays the same
cassette on the concept of people. Is there a French Canadian
people?
Mr. René Canuel: Madam Speaker, I could answer without
answering as they do, but I choose not to. There is a people of
Quebec.
An hon. member: That is right.
Mr. René Canuel: And this people, in Quebec, is very responsive to
all francophones wherever they are, particularly in Canada. We will be
very responsive. We will listen to them and help them, no doubt about
it. But start by recognizing us as a people, then we will be able to go
some distance.
You referred earlier to the club of the outraged. In doing so,
you have insulted every one of my constituents. You have insulted
Quebecers because what I was saying is this: the reason Lucien
Bouchard has to make cuts is that the federal government made
cuts, billions in cuts to provincial transfers.
You, across the way, are the ones who should take the blame; but
don't go speaking to us like that.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, as always, the
member for Matapédia—Matane has spoken right from the heart,
from his knowledge of the particular situation of his
constituents. He is most eloquent.
Since the members across the way have not answered the question,
I would ask my colleague, who cannot have failed to hear the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs yesterday, when he said in this House: “We cannot
recognize you as a people, as the people of Quebec, because that
would give you rights”, what he thinks of that remark?
Mr. René Canuel: Madam Speaker, I find this unresponsiveness
particularly disturbing when we have asked so little of Quebecers
across the way.
We are asking them if we are a people. It is not a difficult
question. Not a one of the members opposite has replied. Or
perhaps they do not understand what the word “people” means.
Maybe that is the problem. If you do not understand the meaning
of the word, perhaps we can explain it to you, but if you do in
fact understand it, you are being dishonest in your answers. It
is twisted, very twisted, and I am sorry but—and I will conclude
on this—I am anxious to see a Quebecer say: “Yes, you are a
people”.
1415
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in the
debate on the Speech from the Throne.
First of all, I would like to thank the voters for renewing my
mandate as a Bloc MP, and for allowing me to be a member of the
team of 44 sovereignist members from Quebec out of 75 Quebec
ridings.
There is a majority of sovereignist members in this Parliament,
people who want Quebec to become a country, who received the
mandate from their public to come and tell the Canadian
Parliament that Canada no longer meets the needs of Quebec when
it comes to development that will ensure its autonomy and its
capacity to grow.
In my opinion, the Speech from the Throne ought to be a sort of
snapshot of the government's plan of action. Not of the program
of the party in power, but of the government's plan of action. A
government is supposed to take the election results into
consideration, and this was an election in which loads of
Liberals got beaten in the maritimes and vanished from eastern
Quebec, because they lacked the necessary sensitivity or the
necessary clout in caucus to get the government to be more humane
in the way it was applying employment insurance reform.
Some of these had been good members of this House, but they had
to pay the price. In its Speech from the Throne, the present
government ought to take that into consideration. Because it is
the government of all Canadians, it ought to have taken into
consideration that a message had indeed been sent to it, a very
clear message, and ought to have said that the old government of
1993-97 had been forced to behave inhumanely, perhaps because of
financial constraints. But today, with the known surplus in the
employment insurance fund, a surplus of $13 billion as at
December 31, 1997—this program does not operate on a zero-based
budget—but a $13 billion surplus—
Those billions were collected from people earning $39,000 or
less. The decision was made to lower the ceiling in the
legislation to $39,000. So those earning under $39,000 are
financing the battle against the deficit the most.
Today in the Speech from the Throne, having heard the very clear
message from the people in the maritimes, eastern Quebec and the
regions hard hit by seasonal unemployment, the government acted
as if the problem did not exist. This is one example, but there
is another even more significant and catastrophic.
The speech says: “The Parliament of Canada is the only
institution directly elected by all Canadians—”. That is true.
This is one reason why I am a sovereignist. When you are a
Quebecer and you give significant powers to a majority that will
never be your own people, as in transport, the whole foreign
affairs question, everything to do with citizenship and
immigration, any people that decides to give these
responsibilities to another majority sort of commits suicide, and
this is what is happening little by little.
At the time of confederation, the balance was about 50:50,
anglophone to francophone. Today, Quebec represents about 24
percent of the population. Francophones have less and less real
weight. Significant choices were made in Canada's history. When
Manitoba was created, for example, a supposedly bilingual
province, French was prohibited there in order to overturn the
balance that had existed in Canada.
This is the sort of historical baggage we find in the Speech
from the Throne, which invites us to watch in the next millennium
to see whether this fine and grand country will produce the
expected results. We are the messengers of the people. We do not
come out of a box of cracker jacks. The 44 sovereignist members
from Quebec were elected by the people to come and tell you that
there is something fundamentally wrong with Canada.
1420
The speech also says, and I think it is hypocritical in the
extreme, that “we have the values of sharing and mutual help”,
but not a single word about the seasonal workers and new labour
market entrants who have to work 910 hours to be eligible for
employment insurance.
For the information of the newly elected Liberal members in this
Parliament, before employment insurance reform, it took 300 hours
to be eligible for employment insurance. Today, a first time
applicant who has finished a CEGEP course in deep sea fishing or
wild life management where there is a lot of seasonal work, that
person will pay employment insurance premiums from the first hour
worked, but he will never manage to work 910 hours during his
first year. This means that more and more people are paying
premiums who will never be able to benefit under the system.
Between 1990 and 1997, 60 percent of the people received
benefits under a system to which they contributed one third of
the funding. We would have expected this kind of behaviour from
the Conservatives. They said they would do it, and they have
always done that sort of thing. But we did not expect the
Liberals to turn around and behave the way they did during the
last Parliament.
In the throne speech they had a chance to correct this, but there
is no sign they did so. It is pretty obvious this government is not
listening. It is not getting the messages from the public.
Another point I would like to raise is that the government talks
about making Canada a prime tourist destination. We had a very
concrete example of how federalist Canada thinks that Ottawa has
the solutions and that everyone else should understand that they
are the right ones. A $500 million program was set up to help
strong enterprises already successful in the tourism sector to
develop projects. This may be worthwhile and significant, but
this program—and it is the only one—does not help develop
significant tourism infrastructures outside major centres that do
not have as solid a financial base. In other words, people are
on their own.
For regions looking at overhauling the seasonal industry, the
federal program is completely inadequate and will only widen the
gap between large tourist centres and those that have not yet
built up significant infrastructures. Here again, we see their
failure to listen.
Another example, which in my view is indicative of their
contempt, is the issue of the Canadian social union. The
premiers of all provinces except Quebec agreed unanimously on an
approach to social programs that was never approved by Quebec.
You can go back to 1971, when Mr. Bourassa, Quebec's premier at
the time, refused to sign the constitutional amendments in
Victoria for the very reason that the federal team wanted to
interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Since then, Quebec
has never, under any of its premiers, whether federalist or
sovereignist, agreed to the kinds of things which the premiers of
the other nine provinces are able to accept. The premiers of
those provinces all have a similar approach. But Quebec's
jurisdiction under the present Constitution is completely
ignored. They want Quebec to have to comply with national
standards set by the federal government, and that is unacceptable
to me. This must be made clear and obvious, and the members of
the Bloc Quebecois are here to make that point.
I would like to raise another issue, as I feel it is important.
A gesture of good faith one would expect from the government,
that could be included in the amendments to the speech, concerns
the whole issue of regional and local development. The federal
government has set up a structure similar to the one in Quebec
with the community futures development corporations.
In each of our regions, we have people working for these
corporations, who are doing their best to help. But at the same
time there is this other network in place in Quebec: the local
development committees. The federal government, which does not
have any responsibility for local development, should just accept
to withdraw from that area, transferring all responsibility with
full compensation to Quebec and authorize the amalgamation of
community futures development corporations and local development
committees.
1425
I give these examples to show that this throne speech in no way
responds to the will expressed by a large percentage of the
population of Quebec and the maritimes in the last election. The
government is unresponsive.
We are entering into what really is a period of transition, and
if there is something that this throne speech says to me, it is
that, in our vision of the future, Quebecers will inevitably have
to make a choice. They have the choice of being assimilated,
which would have the result we are seeing now in francophone
communities in the rest of Canada. That is a choice we will not
accept, and we will never be the ones to bring about our own
extinction within the Canadian fold. We will not let ourselves be
bulldozed in spite of what all the doomsayers might say.
I invite you all to celebrate the new millennium. Here we are
invited to celebrate the third millennium, but I invite you all
to come celebrate with the people of Quebec who will have given
themselves a new country for the year 2000.
[English]
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
congratulations on your appointment.
I listened to the hon. member with some interest. It certainly
appears he is filling the role of a dutiful opposition member in
terms of attacking the government. However, I am sure he is
aware of some of the news that we have had in Canada over the
last few years and more recently. I am thinking of course of
deficit reduction, taking the deficit from $42 billion down to
zero, that interest rates are at their lowest levels in 30 years,
that almost one million jobs have been create, that there have
been massive increases in Canada's trade surplus, that our
economic growth is going to be the best in the G-7 and that, of
course, and we have all heard this before, Canada has been rated
number one according to the United Nations human development
index.
I would ask the hon. member, with all the things that have
happened over the last four years and all of the positive
developments, would he not concede that there have been at least
a few positive developments in Canada which are going to benefit
his constituents?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, I never said that nothing positive
has happened over the past four years.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Hear, hear.
Mr. Paul Crête: However, I noticed, for example, that in the fight
against the deficit—and I would ask the hon. member for Bourassa, who
is applauding, to do so in public as well, so everyone will know that he
thinks my comments make perfect sense.
As regards the fight against the deficit, do you know who paid
the price? By December 31, 1997, a surplus of $13 billion will
have been taken from the employment insurance fund. Who paid the
price for that? The government slashed $42 billion from transfer
payments for health and education. That is how the federal
government achieved the results it brags about in its fight
against the deficit.
In 1993, in case the hon. member has forgotten, the Liberals ran
on a slogan of “jobs, jobs, jobs”. As far as I know, we still
have 1.5 million Canadians unemployed.
If we look at what is right and what is wrong with Canada, we
realize there are still big changes that need to be made. The
fact that jobs are being created for those with diplomas and
relevant training and those who are part of the new economy
should not obscure the fact that whole generations are being
sacrificed. This does not mean that a Canada barely out of its
19th century mentality does not have what it takes to face the
challenges of the 21st century.
In the 19th century, big political entities were needed to
ensure big markets. Free trade has changed all that. What we need
today is small nations that can stand up for themselves, prosper
and compete on global markets. Canada's current structure cannot
fill Quebecers' needs for the future.
1430
Basically, I think that the Liberal Party of Canada is in a dead
end, because, at the same time, it believes—
L'hon. Don Boudria: Time is up.
An hon. member: There is still some time left.
Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Speaker did not say that my time was up.
You should respect the mandate of your new speaker.
Yes, there have been improvements; you can see improvements
anywhere in North America or in the world, but it remains that
some problems have not been dealt with.
The throne speech quotes Sir Wilfrid Laurier. When my
grandfather voted for the first time he said: “I will vote for
Laurier because I hope that one day this will bring about
equality between French Canadians and English Canadians”. Well,
today, nearly 100 years later, this has not yet been achieved.
The only way we will ever have equality between Quebec and
Canada, a sound relationship, a relationship between mature
peoples, is for Quebec to become sovereign.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Thibeault): It being 2.30 p.m., the
House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)