36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 95
CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 29, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COLLÈGE SAINTE-ANNE IN LACHINE
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASBESTOS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ONTARIO MINING WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réginald Bélair |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MANITOBA FLOODS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH—WESTON
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
1405
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ISRAEL
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH—WESTON
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR ABITIBI
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH—WESTON
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
1410
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ISRAEL
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MAY COURT CLUB
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WEYBURN RED WINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATURAL DISASTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1420
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PROFESSIONAL SPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1425
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
1430
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1435
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1440
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
1445
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCOPHONE INFORMATION HIGHWAY
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1450
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1455
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1500
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1505
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-395. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of Parents
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1510
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rail Transport
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Food and Drugs Act
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Kidney Disease
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1515
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Age of Consent
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Seniors Benefits
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1520
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1525
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transferred for debate
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transferred for debate
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COSTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-27. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
1600
1605
1610
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Natural Resources and Government Operations
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1700
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-27. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1705
1710
1715
1720
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-262. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1755
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
1820
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1825
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1830
![V](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 95
![](/web/20061116174911im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 29, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now sing
the national anthem, which will be led by the hon. member for
Saint John.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
COLLÈGE SAINTE-ANNE IN LACHINE
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this House today with great pleasure to draw
attention to the presence in the gallery of students from
Collège Sainte-Anne in Lachine.
On September 2, 1861, this institution, which was known at the
time as Villa Anna, opened its doors to 66 students aged between
6 and 18, 51 of whom were residents of Lachine.
It is also important to note that, from the very beginning,
Villa Anna provided bilingual instruction and encouraged
students to grow in truth, freedom and life skills.
The list of students who have gone through Collège Sainte-Anne is
too long for me to read, but let me mention one of the most
famous ones: the Hon. Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux.
Congratulations to Collège Sainte-Anne of Lachine, which—
The Speaker: I am sorry but I must now give the floor to the
hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
* * *
[English]
VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today is the second anniversary of an agreement in the House of
Commons to develop a national victims bill of rights.
Yes, it was April 29, 1996 when the Liberal government agreed
with the Reform Party to put the rights of victims front and
centre in this nation. Once again, however, the Liberal
government did nothing. That is right, nothing. The Minister of
Justice recently said that victims rights were just rhetoric.
Is the right to know the status of the criminal rhetoric? Is a
person's right to know what their rights are rhetoric? Is the
right to know when plea bargaining is taking place rhetoric?
I am ashamed to say that I sit in this House of Commons with
those who are more concerned with the rights of criminals than
the rights of victims. I am ashamed to be involved with those
who say one thing and do nothing.
The fight for the rights of victims will continue and I am
committed to be at the forefront of that battle, full time, now
and when I leave this place of false hope.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to acknowledge the hospitality shown and the positive
suggestions made by the International Association of Firefighters
which has been meeting here in Ottawa at its seventh annual
legislative conference.
Firefighters, as members know, are primary guardians of safety
who are prepared to risk their lives in the performance of their
duties. I would like to officially recognize them for their
continuing dedication, sacrifice and service to this country.
Firefighters from across Canada have been to Ottawa to advance a
number of very important issues. Among them is their request for
the establishment of a federally regulated, third party
investigative agency that would lessen the risk to firefighters
who must deal with tragedies like the 1997 Plastimet fire in
Hamilton.
They ask that we extend funding to complete the testing of
Operation Respond, a program designed to ensure the safety of
firefighters. I support these requests.
I call on my government to demonstrate its commitment to safety
and its respect for firefighters. I urge it to implement—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies.
* * *
[Translation]
ASBESTOS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have learned in the newspapers of the decision made
by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe to
completely ban asbestos.
Last week, as Canadian parliamentarians from the Liberal Party,
the Conservative Party, the Bloc Quebecois and both Houses of
Parliament, as well as observers at this interparliamentary
assembly, we ran into a wall of misunderstanding and faced total
rejection of the Canadian position, which is the same as the one
held by the Russians.
Instead of a comprehensive ban on asbestos regardless of type or
use, the Canadian position is based on the following consensus:
asbestos may be a hazardous product, but its use can be
controlled by putting workers' and public health first.
This consensus is shared by all levels of government, industry
and labour in Canada. Unfortunately, the vast majority of
parliamentarians in the Council of Europe have remained
insensitive to any argument that might have softened their
position.
It is therefore important that the Canadian consensus be put
forth again before the Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe, which will make a final decision on this recommendation.
* * *
[English]
ONTARIO MINING WEEK
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is Ontario Mining Week and I would like to pay a
special tribute to the mining communities in the riding of
Timmins—James Bay and, more specifically, to the city of
Timmins, the largest gold mining community in Canada. I would
also like to acknowledge the more than 3,000 individuals who work
in the mining sector and contribute to this region's growing
economy.
New mines are opening up in my riding, such as the Agrium
phosphate mine near Kapuskasing. This means new jobs and
economic opportunities for the area.
The value of production from metal mines in Timmins—James Bay
has amounted to $836 million or 19% of the total value of output
in Ontario. Exploration expenditures are up to $43 million.
There is no doubt that mining is a vital contributor to my riding
and to the country.
[Translation]
I am proud of the contribution made by the mining industry to
our region's economy, quality of life and lifestyle. We must
never forget—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lethbridge.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
grave message for this Liberal government and the health minister
from a constituent.
I am going to read her words, expressing the pain suffered by
her and her family:
I received tainted blood during the course of surgery in 1985 and
I was notified in 1996, by the blood bank.
I have hepatitis C, and now understand the symptoms I have
experienced for years.
Added to the physical problems is the emotional and mental
anxiety of passing this disease on to my husband, my children and
my grandchildren.
To only compensate victims between 1986 and 1990 is totally
unfair. I battle the same health problems, the same outcome,
possibly death and we are just as innocent as the “window”
victims. Are we not just as deserving of compensation?
She ends by saying:
Shame on the health minister. Shame on the Prime Minister.
Shame on all the wimp Liberal MPs.
* * *
MANITOBA FLOODS
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
tragic floods that occurred in Manitoba last spring devastated
the people of the Red River Valley.
One year ago today the town of Ste-Agathe was completely
flooded, creating grief, family breakdown and attempted suicides.
Even today 100 families live in trailers or garages because
their homes remain uninhabitable.
This is not a question of merely, as was stated in the House
yesterday, flooded basements or having no lights. This is about
people who are suffering. We have a duty in this House and I
have a duty to say that we must continue to support the people of
Provencher, the people of the Red River Valley, as this
government has done.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH—WESTON
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I strongly
condemn the comments made yesterday outside the House by the
member for York South—Weston, who criticized the Canadian
government for helping flood and ice storm victims.
We must deplore such demagoguery on the part of that member, who
will definitely not gain any credibility by trying to get a
segment of the population all worked up.
1405
The member for York South—Weston chose the easy route by shooting
at anything that moves. He may show his incompetence and lack of
judgment if he chooses, particularly since we know his record on
faithfulness to a party and on being a team person.
As for us, we will not evade our responsibilities. We would
rather live with the consequences of our actions as members of a
government team. I guess we all choose our own way, express our
own convictions, and show our faithfulness to a team, a
philosophy and a Prime Minister. We know where the independent
member stands on these points.
I prefer by far my own philosophy, which is to make the
difficult decisions that have to be made and to be faithful to
my leader, my team and our agenda.
* * *
[English]
ISRAEL
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, tonight marks the 50th anniversary of the modern State
of Israel. Born out of the ashes of the Holocaust and invaded by
five countries on the very day of its independence, Israel has
survived and thrived against all odds. Israel at 50 is a
remarkable nation where Jews from all over the world go to live
in freedom.
In recent years hundreds of thousands of Jews from the former
Soviet Union and from Africa have immigrated to Israel, adding
their own distinctive character to that growing country. In
Israel, Arabs and Jews sit side by side in the Israeli Knesset
and all citizens are allowed to practise their own religious and
political beliefs.
Perhaps nothing speaks to Israel's spirit more than its national
anthem, called “Hatikvah” which means “The Hope”. I call upon
all members of this House to join with me in expressing our hope
that Israel's next 50 years will be peaceful and prosperous and
that she will live in harmony with all of her neighbours.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH—WESTON
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I strongly disagree with the comments made yesterday by the
independent member for York South—Weston, who criticized the
compensation provided to victims of the disasters that occurred
early in the year.
It would be hard to find someone who is more of a demagogue than
this independent member, who betrayed his political party. I
challenge him to come to my riding and my region and to repeat
the same comments. I challenge him to try to withdraw the
assistance provided by our government to those who suffered
tremendous damage early in the year.
The independent member can go whichever way the wind blows, if
he so chooses.
Personally, I would rather stand up and support the decisions
which we feel are best for the people in my riding and in my
region.
* * *
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
talks on the MAI have broken down, been suspended—call it what
you like. The fact is that all Canadians who have been
campaigning against the MAI have something to celebrate. Our
concerns regarding the current model of globalization have
resonated with the public and trade ministers have been forced to
listen.
We are not members of the flat earth society after all, as the
trade minister recently alleged. Instead we are members of the
society for global governance that is just, sustainable,
participatory and accountable.
Let us bury the MAI once and for all and use the opportunity of
its failure to create a global economy which puts the rights of
workers, of the environment and of democratically elected
governments ahead of the rights of investors and the global
corporate elite.
The NDP salutes all those who worked with us on this issue. Let
us be vigilant, but let us also briefly pause to celebrate a
significant victory in our struggle to put forward a different
view of globalization.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR ABITIBI
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
during the debate on poverty, the member from Abitibi said, and
I quote:
I can say that, if women still stayed at home to look after
their children, there would be less poverty.
I find this remark absolutely shocking and to top it all it is
not true. In modern society fathers also take care of children.
I am dismayed that in 1998 it is still possible to use this sort
of language to describe society. The member for Abitibi should
be ashamed of reducing the problem of poverty to such simplistic
terms.
They are unworthy of a member of this House.
Certainly recognition of the unpaid work performed by women is
vital, but this should not prevent women who choose to work
outside the home to do so, regardless of what the hon. member
thinks.
I hope this hon. member will change his paternalistic tune and
join modern society.
* * *
MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH—WESTON
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, victims
in the Montérégie, the Eastern Townships, the Saguenay region,
others in various regions of Quebec hit by the recent ice storm
and the victims in Manitoba are very upset by the remarks of the
independent member, who is faulting them for receiving financial
help in response to natural catastrophes.
If the independent member for York South—Weston has the courage
to do so, let him visit the Saguenay, Manitoba and the other
regions of Canada and tell them they should return the cheques
they received from our government.
1410
The hon. member can certainly shirk his responsibilities and he
can let his party down as he did because he could not take the
pressure, but he cannot insult victims who have received
government assistance.
* * *
[English]
ISRAEL
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Israelis
must build with one hand while defending themselves with the
other. That was the message of Chaim Weizzman, Israel's first
president on the day the Jewish people re-established a homeland
from which they were separated for thousands of years.
Tomorrow, by the Jewish calendar, the people of Israel will
celebrate 50 years of statehood.
Today Israel is a diverse, vibrant and modern democracy.
Israelis have transformed a tiny, barren land into an economic
and technological power. Fewer than one million Israelis became
six million. With all their differences they make the desert
bloom and democracy work.
As Israel marks its 50th birthday, the PC Party of Canada
extends its best wishes and its hope that the citizens of Israel
will continue to move toward a just, comprehensive and lasting
peace. Shalom, Israel.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is
a very sad day indeed for all hepatitis C victims.
It is a terrible thing to realize that the federal government is
stubbornly refusing to free up funds to compensate all hepatitis
C victims, while it is literally throwing billions down the
drain at the same time.
According to the auditor general, $2.2 billion are being wasted
by bad management in the armed forces, $750 million of that on
used submarines. And if this were not enough, we now learn that
the government would be receptive to subsidizing the
millionaires in Canadian professional sport.
At the same time, this same government is cutting $11 billion
from health, education and welfare, with more cuts to come.
Where do the Liberal government's priorities lie, when it is
abandoning innocent victims, while at the same time merrily
embarking in all sorts of ridiculous spending? This is
unacceptable.
* * *
[English]
MAY COURT CLUB
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great pleasure today that I rise in the House to pay
tribute to the May Court Club on its 100th anniversary. The May
Court Club of Canada was founded in 1898 by Lady Aberdeen, wife
of then Governor General, the Earl of Aberdeen. Thirty-six of
the 150 members and volunteers from Kitchener—Waterloo are on
their way to Ottawa to take part in the 100th anniversary
celebrations taking place May 1 and 2 with their current patron,
Her Excellency, Mrs. Diana Fowler LeBlanc.
May Court provides a valuable community service. Through its
tireless volunteerism and fundraising it operates a number of
community service projects, including an afternoon day care
centre for mothers and children, a special care committee
providing weekly activities for ex-psychiatric patients and a
food box program for school children.
In addition to these valuable services, through local
fundraising efforts May Court provides financial aid to 39
community organizations servicing children, community needs,
health care and counselling—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.
* * *
WEYBURN RED WINGS
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, once again the Weyburn Red Wings of the Saskatchewan
Junior Hockey League have captured the Anavet Cup. It took seven
games to defeat the talented Winkler Manitoba Flyers.
The Weyburn Red Wings now advance to the Junior II National
Championships to be held in Nanaimo, B.C.
Winning the national championship is not new to the Red Wings or
their loyal fans.
Good luck, Red Wings, and bring home the national championship
and the coveted Royal Bank Cup.
* * *
NATURAL DISASTERS
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when I looked at the news today I was appalled to
see the member for York South—Weston trivialize the damage and
suffering caused by the ice storm and floods to millions of
Canadians.
To say that their hardship consisted of the lights going out and
the occasional flooded basement is as callous as it is
uninformed.
Do I need to remind the member that families were without light,
without heat, without water in the dead of a Canadian winter? Do
I need to remind him of the human toll? The ice storm and floods
caused damage to many of my constituents in the riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
I cannot accept this type of cheap politics. Obviously the
member is a dork—oh, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, is in the dark.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister is proud of himself today. Let
us look at what he has done.
He has abandoned thousands of hepatitis C victims infected
because of government negligence. He has driven some of his own
backbenchers to tears by forcing them to vote against their best
interests, against their own consciences and against their
constituents.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Was it worth it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have seen crocodile tears in my lifetime, but when I
see the leader of the Reform Party wanting to cut billions of
dollars from the programs of the natives of Canada, when I see
the leader of the Reform Party asking the government to get rid
of the CPP because he wants to transfer it to the private sector,
when I see him opposing any measure that creates social progress
in Canada and trying to score political points on the health of
some people in Canada, it is very difficult for me to take him
seriously.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister misses the point as usual.
Let us consider the situation of the MP for St. Paul's. She was
a founding member of the hepatitis C society. She says she wants
compensation for the victims. As a physician she swore an oath
to make caring for the sick her number one priority, but she was
forced to abandon her conscience, her friends and everything she
believed in because of a political decree from the Prime
Minister.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why should some oath of
political allegiance to the Prime Minister take precedence over
that member's oath to care for the sick?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, because I know the member of parliament, who is
extremely competent in the field, I know that she does not want
to play politics with the health of people.
She understood very well that in voting with a responsible
government she was showing to the others that they were just
playing politics and being hypocrites with the health of the
people of Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, did the Prime Minister think the victims were playing
politics yesterday? Apparently the Prime Minister achieved what
he wanted to achieve. He proved that Liberal backbenchers can be
browbeaten into violating every principle they believe.
The MP for Gatineau actually said he now wishes he never got
involved in politics in the first place. The Prime Minister must
be—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am sure we all want to hear both the
questions and the answers. I go back to the hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime
Minister has now lost all moral authority on this issue, is there
anyone in the government who will take up the cause of the
thousands of hepatitis C victims the government abandoned last
night?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, an agreement was made with all the provincial
governments of Canada. I just want to quote to the House of
Commons the spokesman of the ministers of health said, Clay
Serby, the NDP minister of health from Saskatchewan:
But this, in my opinion, is not a political issue. This has
never been a political issue and we should not be making it into
a political issue.
This isn't Saskatchewan's opinion only. This is a collective
wisdom of all of the provincial ministers across the country,
whether the provincial governments are Liberal, Conservative or
NDP.
There was no—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was
instructive last night what the health minister did after the
vote.
He did not go out and say he was sorry to the victims. He did
not even face them. He snuck out the side door. Then he said
“This file is closed”. That is how he treats and thinks of
those victims and the suffering of those victims: just another
legal file that he can close.
1420
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why did he order this
heartless lawyer to treat these victims just like a legal file
that he could shove away?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say that the Minister of Health was the
first one to raise the issue in Canada and force the provincial
governments to move on the matter.
All the ministers of health are facing the same problem. They
are facing it responsibly because they look at the real issue.
The minister of health from Manitoba said that if we are to get
beyond the principle of compensating—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister was the first one to raise it all right. He raised the
expectations of those victims when he said that they would not
have to go to court, and now he is forcing them to go to court.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why has he let his
heartless minister go on this way and treat these victims in a
heartless, cruel manner? Why?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the health minister, for the people where there was
government responsibility, was the one who moved first to offer
them compensation so that they would not have to go to court to
be compensated.
* * *
[Translation]
PROFESSIONAL SPORT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister forced government members to vote
against compensating all hepatitis C victims.
In the meantime, Liberal members were lobbying for government
funding of professional sport.
How can the Prime Minister justify his government's priorities
when, on the one hand, he is forcing all government members to
vote against compensating hepatitis C victims and, on the other,
he is allowing certain members to lobby on behalf of sports
magnates?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
Lucien Bouchard pointed out yesterday in the National Assembly,
members of the House voted in favour of compensating all victims
of this illness for the period during which the government was
responsible, as recommended.
Are we going to go beyond fault so that, even in the absence of
fault, governments will have to compensate for damages? If the
answer is yes, people need to know that this might diminish the
quality and scope of services. There are therefore very serious
consequences.
That is what a responsible government does.
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister should take note of what was said yesterday in
the National Assembly.
Yesterday, a number of witnesses before the heritage
subcommittee referred to the situation in the United States,
where sports teams are heavily funded. While that is true, it
is also true that the United States is not interested in having
a universal health system. That is something the sports
magnates did not talk about.
Rather than concluding a tax agreement with sports magnates,
should the Prime Minister not return the money he took from the
provinces for health care? That is a political choice. That is
a socially responsible choice.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on several occasions I have explained to the House that what
this government is doing is ensuring that Canada's fiscal house
is in order. When one looks at what actually happened, the
Province of Quebec was cut less than the government of that
province cut its municipalities.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the government flatly rejected the plea made by
hepatitis C victims. On the other hand, it is receptive to the
representations of sports millionaires.
1425
Are we to understand that the government is about to invest in
professional sports, and will do so with the $6 billion that it
takes each year from the employment insurance fund, while 60% of
the unemployed can no longer have access to employment insurance
benefits?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government eliminated its deficit largely by cutting transfers
to provinces for health, education and social assistance.
Now that it has managed to get some flexibility in this fashion,
does it intend to invest in sports millionaires, instead of
restoring funding for education, social assistance and health?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): No,
Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Liberal backbenchers are spinning hope today among hepatitis C
victims by suggesting that additional proposals are in the works
for those excluded from the current compensation package.
Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians what specific measures he
is prepared to implement for the excluded hepatitis C victims? Is
this government policy or just Liberal backbencher damage
control?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I note in passing that in the legislature of Saskatchewan the
members of the NDP Government of Saskatchewan voted down a motion
to extend compensation to all victims. The NDP government
refused to permit a free vote in that exercise.
The NDP Government of Saskatchewan and that legislature have
reaffirmed the agreement reached by all ministers of health to
provide cash payments to those who were infected as a result of
the fault of those responsible for the system.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, unlike
the Liberal Party, New Democrats have the honesty and the guts to
disagree when the situation warrants it.
The health minister insists that the hepatitis C file is closed.
It is not closed for the tens of thousands of hepatitis C victims
and it will not be until they are fairly compensated. It is not
closed for most members of parliament, not even for the
government's own backbenchers. Hepatitis C victims do not want
false hope.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Is there money to
deliver the promises being pedalled by Liberal backbenchers—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
every government in the country, not just the federal government,
looked at the history of this matter. They decided there was one
period during which the harm could have been prevented.
We have offered compensation to people infected during that
period. That is the right approach. It was the approach that
was affirmed yesterday in the vote in the House of Commons.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are protesting.
Government services have been disrupted because the government
turned its back on thousands of Atlantic Canadians.
The economic and social devastation in Atlantic Canada has been
caused by gross mismanagement of our groundfish stocks by the
Government of Canada. The number of fishing vessels, harvesting
technologies and fish quotas are all decisions of the government.
When will the government live up to its responsibility and
provide continued income support to those thousands of Atlantic
Canadians whose lives it has ruined?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been working very
hard. We brought in a $1.9 billion program to help the people
when we realized there was a cod crisis in Atlantic Canada.
We are looking at the post-TAGS environment as we realize the
fish are not coming back. There is a problem. We realize it. We
are addressing it and we are working very hard. When we are
ready we will be making an announcement.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of HRDC should have been ready. You have
known for three years that this problem was coming to a head.
The Speaker: Would the hon. member please address the
question to the Chair.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, the minister should have
known.
The provincial governments in Atlantic Canada do not have
responsibility over our groundfish stocks. The fishermen have no
groundfish management control. The unions do not have any
control. The processors do not have any control.
The minister has all the control. Will he do the honourable
thing? Because of his gross mismanagement—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to remind the member that the problem and
the mismanagement of the fish stocks in that area happened when
the Conservative government was in power.
After we formed the government in 1993 we offered compensation
and a program of $1.9 billion for the first time to help them
survive this change.
The member should remember that the Conservatives created the
problem and this government has worked on the solution.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister chose the vote over the victims.
I will never forget that young boy up in the gallery. I never
will forget that 15-year old boy, Joey Haché. He had the nerve
to stand up to the Prime Minister but his own Liberal MP did not.
Hon. members may laugh but Joey Haché has to get blood
transfusions every single week just to stay alive. We are
blessed that we are not in that position but it does not change
his.
Let me ask the Prime Minister, why is he forcing Joey and others
like him to go to court for compensation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member that I travel in
Alberta. When I visit rural parts of Alberta, there are native
Canadians who live in difficult conditions, I realize that the
hon. member wants us to cut the money that is going to the
natives of Canada. I will never forget that they want to cut in
this case—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
rural Albertans and Albertans in general have a sense of what is
right and what is wrong. They would be ashamed to see the
behaviour of the government right now.
Joey needs to go to court. Joey needs blood transfusions every
week. Instead he is going to have to go to court and the
minister said “Oh, no, you won't have to do that”. He needs to
spend time with his family.
The Prime Minister hopes this matter is over now but it is not.
It will not go away. Does the Prime Minister really expect the
victims to just go away and forget about his betrayal to them?
Does he want them to just go away?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a national health care system and hospitals in
Canada where this individual can go to receive the treatment he
needs, paid for by the state.
It is not what the Reform Party would like to do. When I travel
in Canada I see young people who are worried about pension
benefits. At the time of retirement they will want to have a
pension. I will always remember that the Reform Party does not
want to guarantee to young Canadians that they will have a
pension plan forever.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
government successfully gagged those Liberal members who wanted
assistance to be provided to all victims of hepatitis C.
What does the Prime Minister have to say to his members,
including the hon. member for Gatineau, who stated again this
morning that the fight for hepatitis C victims was not over?
Did he definitely close the door on this issue yesterday or did
he suggest to his members in private that work was continuing to
eventually provide assistance to hepatitis C victims? We want to
know.
1435
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
come to an agreement with the Quebec health minister in this
matter.
I too have a question. I noticed that today the opposition in
Quebec moved a motion similar to the one we dealt with yesterday
in this House. Will Lucien Bouchard and Jean Rochon allow a free
vote on this motion?
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, they should be
the ones paying compensation, not the National Assembly. They
are the ones with the money. How dare the government reject out
of hand—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, how dare the government reject
out of hand the hepatitis C victims' claim, when the auditor
general himself just reminded the government that the army has
spent $2 billion on equipment that does not even meet its needs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Now I have
seen everything, Mr. Speaker. Members of the Bloc Quebecois are
now advocating centralization.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: They would have the federal government
interfere in health because, unlike the PQ in Quebec, we can
manage our finances in such a way as to produce a surplus.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister has been doubling and tripling the number of hep C
victims he feels are infected. The minister uses a bogus number
to bully his caucus members into turning their backs on hepatitis
C victims seeking justice. He is simply making up numbers to
scare people into believing that a fair compensation package
jeopardizes our health care system.
I ask him to prove his claim. Table the documents in this House
that show how many are infected.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this month the Reform Party is cloaking itself in the cloth of
compassion but it has a little problem. The problem is
credibility. Canadians remember that it is the party that would
gut medicare. Canadians know that they are the members who would
eliminate the Canada pension plan. Canadians are not prepared to
believe that the Reform Party is truly on the side of the
victims. They know if the Reform Party were in power, the
victims would get nothing.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the minister should read the newspaper. He will find out
what the public is having trouble with right now and it is not
the Reform Party.
For weeks the health minister has been exaggerating the number
of hep C victims who were infected before 1986. He does this to
scare Canadians, to make them think we had to throw these sick
people out of the compensation lifeboat.
Will the health minister stop pulling numbers out of the air,
table the documents in this House to back up his claim? Will he
put up and shut up?
The Speaker: Let us quiet down a bit. Colleagues on both
sides, I would ask you to be very judicious in your choice of
words. I will permit the hon. Minister of Health to answer the
question if wants to.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will go half way. I am prepared to put up if he will do the
other half.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, officially
the negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment
have been suspended for six months. However, we have learned
that technical negotiations, as they are called, will continue
in the meantime within the OECD.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether or not negotiations have
indeed been suspended for six months?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am able to refer
to a ministerial statement issued by the OECD which states that
the group will meet again in October of this year.
I should also point out that the Canadian Conference of the Arts
has issued the following statement talking about my minister:
“Minister Marchi has done much to make the process of—”
The Speaker: The hon. member for Repentigny.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary has just told us that negotiations will
continue behind closed doors.
Canada was calling for negotiations to continue in the future
under the aegis of the WTO so that developing countries could
take part.
Since the other members of the OECD do not seem to agree with
this, what will the Government of Canada do?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now I can reply to
the secrecy charge. The bulletin says “The minister has done
much to make the process of negotiating trade agreements much
more transparent to the Canadian public. The CCA has been most
favourably impressed with the ease of access to Canadian trade
negotiators and information about the process itself. The
minister has ushered in a new era for these negotiations where
interested Canadians can inform themselves and participate in the
shaping of ideas and positions of Canada—”
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting that the backbench is good for asking those lobbed
questions but I have a question for the Minister of Health.
A moment ago the minister said that he would come half way, that
he would put up when it came to putting up the numbers on how
many hepatitis C victims deserve to be compensated here in
Canada. He has been using figures as high as 60,000. The centre
for disease control says that there are probably only 15,000.
When he says he will put up, does that mean he will table those
documents today in the House of Commons? Let him show how many
hep C victims really deserve that.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
every health department in the country, every minister of every
government in Canada worked together on this issue. We examined
the history. We had estimates. Some provinces had looked at
trace back programs. We operated on good solid information in
coming to the position we developed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, he
said he would put up. I take it that means he is going to put up
the documents. He said he would come half way. We take the
minister at his word on this one, I think.
Will he put forward today, table the documents today, to show
how many hepatitis C victims were infected by hepatitis C
contaminated blood before 1986? Will he put those numbers before
the House today, like he promised, so we can get on with the
debate on those numbers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has not kept his part of the bargain.
We also said that governments across this country had good
information when they came to their position. They developed an
agreement based on the assessment of the facts developed by
departments of health across Canada. Indeed some provinces
actually had trace back programs that identified specific numbers
of people infected by bad blood.
We proceeded on good information in developing this policy.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Finance.
1445
The auditor general was very critical of National Defence. He
stated, with proof, that the military wasted over $2 billion on
equipment it did not need and on products that failed to meet
its safety requirements.
Will the minister continue to look the other way and try to make
people believe that their money is well spent for the military
or will he decide to take every means possible to correct the
situation?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many of the comments the auditor general
made are very helpful to the Department of National Defence. I
should point out that his comments deal with what has gone on in
the past. Some of these purchases relate to things that were
done by the previous government prior to our taking office in
1993.
We learn lessons from all these. We have made changes and we
will continue to make changes in future to make sure that our
military gets the equipment it needs and make sure it is cost
effective and is money well spent in defence of this country.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONE INFORMATION HIGHWAY
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
What is the minister doing to assist with the development of a
francophone information highway across Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe that everyone should be proud that Canada is
the first country in the world to have a college that is
accessed by computer. This Canadian francophone college is
called Collège Boréal. It owes its funding to the support of
parliamentarians.
Second, before long, I hope we will be able to announce that we
in Canada have the first virtual university in the world. It
too will be in French, here in Canada.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I had a question prepared today but I am not going to
ask it.
Thousands of Canadians are watching on these cameras, thousands
of people infected by hepatitis C. The Minister of Health said
he was going to put up for these people. Is he going to put up
for those victims or is he going to tell them to shut up like he
has told us?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have had ample occasion during the last four weeks in this
House and elsewhere to discuss this difficult issue. Throughout
the debate we have made it very clear this government, along with
every other government in Canada, has taken a responsible
approach to offer to pay cash to those who were harmed because of
fault on the part of the people who should have run the system
better. For all the others our most important moral duty is to
make sure there is a health care system there to protect and look
after them as they become ill.
We intend to respect both these responsibilities.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, nobody in the House disagrees that this is a difficult
decision. Everybody on this opposition side and indeed most of
the people in the minister's party want to see a resolution for
these people.
1450
Watching today is Jennifer from my constituency who contracted
hepatitis C after surgery. Once again, is the Minister of Health
going to close the door on these people or is he going to give
them a window of opportunity and some hope by providing
compensation while they are unable to work, while they are unable
to—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
our first and most important obligation to Jennifer and all the
other victims referred to yesterday, including all the victims I
have met in the last 12 months, is to make sure we have the best
health care system in the world, to make sure our social
programs, whether disability benefits or others, are available to
them in their time of need.
This government, along with all other governments in this
country, has come to a responsible decision on compensation so
that we can preserve the things that Jennifer needs most.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health says the file on compensation for
blood injured Canadians is closed. It is not closed for Darlene
Nicolaas who got hepatitis C from a transfusion in 1985. It is
not closed for Susan Wish whose husband is too ill to coach his
children's sports teams.
The minister just said he is prepared to put up. I want to know
from him what he is prepared to put up. Are there or are there
not any specific measures for excluded hepatitis C victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the governments of Canada dealt with the file of compensation and
it is closed.
There is a second file on the desk of every minister of health
of every government in this country. It is called medicare. It
is called quality health care for all Canadians.
For Darlene Nicolaas, for Susan Wish and for all the other
victims we can bring to mind, our most important responsibility
is to make sure that through medical research, through quality
care, through innovations we have talked about like home care and
pharmacare, we provide what those victims need most.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister in this House has many times made the
incredible statement that compensation for blood injured
Canadians would bankrupt the health care system.
I want to ask the Minister of Justice if she can tell the House
today how much money she has budgeted for fighting hepatitis C
victims in the courts. Why is there money for lawyers and not
for blood injured Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this $1.1 billion is offered to blood injured Canadians,
Canadians injured by reason of fault on the part of those
responsible for administering the system.
There are 12 governments in this country committed to quality
medicare, health care throughout the country for all victims of
all illness and all harm, and medical research. That surely is
the first and most important responsibility of government.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, last fall the Conservative Party revealed a
potential case of influence peddling within a ministerial
office of the Government of Canada.
At that time the President of the Treasury Board denied that his
office had any connection to the illegal activities going on. At
that time it was still under investigation.
Today in a Montreal courtroom it was confirmed that Liberal
Party worker and fundraiser Pierre Corbeil pleaded guilty to charges
of influence peddling.
Can the minister repeat to the House today that no one in his
office had any connection with the illegal activities of Pierre
Corbeil?
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has
completed a full investigation of this matter. Today, the only
person charged by the RCMP has made a court appearance and the
case is closed.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, today,
Pierre Corbeil pleaded guilty of influence peddling. The crown
attorney has released the document used in evidence against him.
According to our sources, it seems clear that this information
originated with Jacques Roy, executive assistant to the
President of Treasury Board in his Montreal office.
Can the minister still deny his office's involvement? Can the
House have the real answer this time?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP was
alerted by a government minister who called for an
investigation.
A complete investigation was carried out, including the
allegation referred to by my colleague in the House. The
investigation is now complete, the charge has been laid, and the
judge has rendered his decision. The case is closed.
* * *
1455
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ministers of energy and environment met last week in
Toronto to approve a process to examine the impact, cost and
benefits of implementing the Kyoto protocol. They agreed that
climate change is an important global problem and that Canada
must do its best to address it.
What is Canada doing to ensure it meets the commitment we made
in Kyoto?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
announce that the Minister of the Environment has signed the
Kyoto protocol at the UN today. I am also pleased to say that
Canada is one of the early signatories of this protocol.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this side of the House does not want to hear anything
more from this health minister. The public does not trust him.
We do not believe his statistics. He cannot even provide the
numbers. We do not trust his excuses for abandoning the victims.
If this minister had any principles he would have resigned weeks
ago. This minister has lost the confidence of the House. He has
lost the confidence of the Canadian people.
There is only one question left to ask him. When will he tender
his resignation as Minister of Health?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to all members of parliament who said that this was not
a vote of confidence, the hon. minister confirmed that it was.
We have confidence in the Minister of Health. He was the first
in Canada to raise the issue and worked to make sure that all the
provinces were involved in order to offer compensation to the
victims of hepatitis C.
* * *
[Translation]
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
Last week in Halifax, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said that
the measures that will be implemented when TAGS ends will apply
only to those still receiving benefits under TAGS next August.
Can the minister corroborate his colleague's statement and, if
he can, under what principles will he exclude close to 20,000
fisheries workers, with no support? How? And under what
criteria?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when there was a crisis in the
fishery in 1993 because of poor management by the government
that preceded us, we set up a $1.9 billion program to come to
the rescue of over 40,000 workers.
We are obviously fully aware that this contract had a certain
number of conditions, which were implemented and which helped
people in recent years.
Now that we see that the stocks are not returning as we had
hoped, my colleagues and I are working very hard to make the
decisions that will help people cope with the environment in
which they will find themselves in August.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice and follows
from my colleague's point.
The Minister of Health has said that if he were to compensate
the pre-1986 hepatitis C victims it would bankrupt the health
care system.
To the Minister of Justice, now that she has had a moment to
think about it, how much money is available within the Department
of Justice to defend against those cases? Why is there money for
lawyers? Why is there not money for pre-1986 hepatitis C
victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
while we are talking about fanciful calculations, maybe the
minister could tell us how much money we saved in legal fees and
how much time we saved by offering meaningful compensation to
those infected between 1986 and 1990.
1500
We have put the money where it should be, which is in meaningful
compensation for those harmed by those responsible.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier the Minister of Health indicated that he would prepared
to put up documents. We formally ask the House that the minister
table those documents pertaining to hepatitis C victims prior to
1986 today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, I do
not believe that is a point of order. I would seek the counsel
of the clerk to find out whether that is indeed a point of order.
The minister is not required to table the document unless he has
quoted directly from the document. He may be invited to do so,
and we invite the minister to table the document, as requested.
However, the minister is not required to do so unless he quotes
directly from it.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to
present in the House, in both official languages, the
government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled “Canada and the
Circumpolar World: Meeting the Challenges of Cooperation into
the Twenty-First Century”.
On behalf of the government and especially the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I would like to express
our appreciation for the efforts of the standing committee in
producing such a substantive report which highlights the
importance of northern circumpolar issues in Canada's foreign
policy agenda. These issues are of particular significance given
Canada's current chairmanship of the Arctic Council.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to a petition.
* * *
1505
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table the second report of the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food which concerns Bill C-26, an act to
amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food
Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, and to repeal the Grain
Futures Act. The committee studied the bill, which was referred
to it on March 27, 1998 by the House, and has decided to report
the same with amendments.
I take this opportunity to thank all members of the committee
from all sides for their co-operation and a job well done. I
also thank the officials and the witnesses who appeared before us
and the committee itself.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 30th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of
reference from the House of Commons of Thursday, February 22,
1998 in relation to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999, in regards to Vote No. 20 under Privy Council
Chief Electoral Officer. The committee reports the same.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-395, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan
(early pension entitlement for police officers and firefighters).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been requested by police
officers and firefighters for quite some time. It would amend
the Canada pension plan to provide for early pension entitlement
for police officers and firefighters. It would provide for
reduced benefits at age 55 and for unreduced benefits at age 60.
It addresses the special needs of these two occupations, namely
that they are dangerous occupations and at times the lives of
these individuals are on the line during the course of their
duties.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
RIGHTS OF PARENTS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have quite a number of petitions. I am pleased to
present another petition with the signatures of 25 concerned
Canadians, mainly from Kitimat, B.C. The petitioners believe the
removal of section 43 would strengthen the role of bureaucrats
while it would weaken the role of parents in determining what is
in the best interests of their children and therefore would be a
major unjustified intrusion by the state into the realm of
parental rights and responsibilities.
These petitioners are suspect of the government's motives as it
continues to fund research and court challenges by groups that
advocate the removal of section 43.
The petitioners request parliament to affirm the duty of parents
to responsibly raise their children according to their own
conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's
Criminal Code as it is currently worded.
BILL C-68
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the next major petition which I am presenting has 91
pages with 2,275 signatures. These citizens are concerned about
violent crime and they want safer streets. They are concerned
that the government is now implementing stricter gun controls
despite the fact that in 1995 a Canadian Facts survey showed that
90% of Canadians do not believe that will solve violent crime.
These petitioners request parliament to repeal Bill C-68, the
Firearms Act, and to redirect the hundreds of millions of dollars
being wasted on registering legally owned guns to other more cost
effective measures to improve public safety such as putting more
police on the streets, having more women's crisis centres and
more suicide prevention centres.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
this petition which is signed by constituents living in
Wallaceburg, Dresden and Tupperville. They request that
parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the
year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a
binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
1510
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORT
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of over 5,000 residents of the town of
Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, I have the honour to present a petition
asking Parliament to regulate the passage of trains on tracks
around Salaberry-de-Valleyfield to ensure greater safety for cars,
pedestrians and children, who are at considerable risk when
trains run through town.
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
presenting a petition on behalf of Canadian residents who are
deeply concerned and believe that the provocation defence as it
is currently used in femicide and wife slaughter cases
inappropriately and unjustly changes the focus of the criminal
trial from the behaviour of the accused and his intention to
murder to the behaviour of the victim who from then on is
identified as the one responsible for the accused violence.
Therefore the undersigned request that parliament review and
change the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code.
CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition signed by several people from Edmonton, Alberta
who say that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission, the CRTC, on July 22, 1997 refused to license four
religious television broadcasters, including one Roman Catholic
service and three multidenominational services, but on the same
day the CRTC licensed the pornographic Playboy channel for
television service. They also say that the CRTC from its
founding has systematically refused to license Christian
broadcasters, but has consistently licensed sexually explicit and
violent programming.
Canadians have a constitutional right to freedom of religion,
conscience and expression. Therefore these petitioners pray that
parliament will review the mandate of the CRTC and direct the
CRTC to administer a new policy which will encourage the
licensing of religious broadcasters.
I am pleased to present this petition in accordance with
Standing Order 36.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of
Canadians, including Canadians from my riding of Mississauga
South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children
is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
Also the petitioners agree with the National Forum on Health
which stated that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families who make the choice to provide care in the home for
preschool children because the Income Tax Act does not take into
account the cost of raising children.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against those
families who choose to provide care in the home to preschool
children.
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to table a petition this afternoon containing 50
pages and a thousand names of my constituents. The petitioners
ask parliament to amend the Canadian Food and Drugs Act to define
herbal products and health food products as food rather than
drugs and to protect their access to these products.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present another petition, this time from 525 citizens
of Peterborough and surrounding area who support the development
of a bio-artificial kidney project in Canada.
They have signed their signature on behalf of 18,000 Canadians
who suffer from end-stage kidney disease.
This petition was collected at the instigation of Ken Sharp, at
such places of work as Rocky Ridge Drinking Water Limited;
Lillico, Bazuk and Kent, barristers and solicitors; Howell,
Fleming, barristers and solicitors; and Michael Davidson, a
lawyers' office.
The petitioners call upon parliament to work in support of the
bio-artificial kidney which will eventually eliminate the need
for both dialysis or transplantation for those suffering from
kidney disease.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have many petitions to present, but all on the same theme.
There are two different forms of the petition. They all have to
do with the multilateral agreement on investment, the
negotiations around which have broken down or have been suspended
in Paris as a result of the efforts of many of the same people
who have signed these petitions.
The petitioners call upon parliament to reject the current
framework of MAI negotiations and instruct the government to seek
an entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve
a rules based global trading regime that protects workers, the
environment and the ability of governments to act in the public
interest.
Now that the current framework of the MAI has been rejected this
petition from these particular petitioners becomes even more
possible and hopeful.
1515
The other petition I am presenting is also on the MAI. It calls
on parliament to impose a moratorium on ratification of the MAI
until full public hearings on the proposed treaty are held across
the country so that all Canadians can have an opportunity to
express their opinions about it.
One of the commitments made by ministers at the end of the
negotiations in Paris was that there would be further public
consultation. We also hope that this prayer on the part of the
many hundreds of petitioners might also be met by the government
in coming weeks and months.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker I
have two petitions. The first one concerns the abolition of
nuclear weapons.
AGE OF CONSENT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition concerns the age of consent. It is one of a
series of petitions I presented to parliament on this issue.
A further 142 petitioners from British Columbia call upon
parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to raise the age
of consent for sexual activity between a young person and an
adult from 14 to 16 years of age.
They list the reasons. They are very good reasons, and I am
pleased to present the petition on their behalf.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present a petition signed by 530 people from the
Saskatoon area of the constituency of Wanuskewin.
They want the Young Offenders Act to be repealed and replaced
with measures that hold young criminals accountable for their
actions, public safety to be put first and amendments brought in
to the Young Offenders Act.
SENIORS BENEFITS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of
constituents who are in their 50s and are completely freaked out
by the rumours we are hearing about the seniors benefit package.
They have a whole number of concerns which I will not read. They
are simply saying “Forget it. Don't proceed with any changes
without complete consultation”, which is highly doubtful.
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition on another issue. It is from a number of people from
Kamloops who I suspect have been filling out their tax returns
and feel they are getting gouged by the tax system.
They are calling upon parliament to undertake a fair tax reform
process.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the last
petition I have to present is on the issue of the MAI.
The petitioners recognize that it is on hold until October. They
point out a whole number of reasons why they do not like the MAI
as they understand it.
They are calling upon parliament to reject the current framework
and to instruct the government to seek an entirely different
agreement by which the world might achieve a rules based global
trading regime that protects workers, the environment and the
ability of governments to act in the public interest, something
rather unusual.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by many Canadians from St.
Catharines, Niagara Falls, Stoney Creek, Welland and a number of
other communities in Ontario including Hamilton, Grimsby, and
Lincoln.
These citizens are very concerned about the Liberal government
negotiating the multilateral agreement on investment. They are
very concerned about the Liberal government giving away the
rights of Canadians, present and future.
They are calling upon the Liberal government to reject all the
comments of Donald Johnston from the OECD, a former Liberal
cabinet minister, who is saying the MAI may still be alive.
They are saying to the government that it must have an entirely
different agreement based on a rules based global trading regime
that protects workers, the environment and provides local
governments with the ability to act in the public interest.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition under Standing
Order 36 on behalf of many Canadians.
The petitioners call upon the government to reconsider its
position on the multilateral agreement on investment. They raise
many concerns about the impact on our health care system, on
social programs, on our culture, on the environment and on the
health and safety of workplaces.
Now that discussions on the MAI have been suspended it is
particularly relevant that these petitioners call upon parliament
to seek an entirely different agreement by which the world might
achieve a rules based global trading regime that protects
workers, the environment and the ability of governments to act in
the public interest.
* * *
1520
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 82 could be made an order for return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Mr. John Duncan:
For each year
between 1985 and 1997 (inclusive), what was the total tonnage of
fish caught by foreign vessels inside Canada's 200 mile limit,
including allocated quota, traditional quota given under
bilateral agreements or treaties, permitted by-catch quota, and
quotas based on stocks delcared surplus to Canadian needs?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the failure of
the government to respond to Question No. 21 which was tabled in
the House on October 2, 1997, seven months ago. I have regularly
asked the government when it would reply.
The parliamentary secretary has constantly been vague, verging
on stonewalling when asked questions about a response to this
inquiry. The question concerns visits of ministers to the
Drummondville-Trois Rivieres vicinity during a time that we now
know—it has been confirmed—a Liberal fundraiser was engaged in
criminal activity.
We keep hearing the words “timely fashion” and “in due
course”. There is every reason to believe that ministers of the
crown were used as props in these nefarious activities. I invite
the parliamentary secretary to outline for the House what actions
he has taken during the time period when we have been repeatedly
asking for this very basic straightforward information.
I want to know if the parliamentary secretary is refusing to
come clean on this or if we will actually get some answers. There
has been an admission of criminal involvement in this matter. We
want a response and we want one soon.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Question
No. 21, I looked into the matter previously and I will look into
the matter again.
It is my understanding that it is a question which involves a
number of departments and such questions take longer than those
which involve one department.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this matter involves only one department. Question No.
33 was asked on October 28, 1997, with regard to the refusal of
sport fishing lodges, in particular the lodges owned by the Oak
Bay Marine Group, to provide catch data during the summer of
1995.
I am fully aware that the minister may be reluctant to respond
to this question because it concerns the actions of Velma McColl
on behalf of the sport fishing institute at that time. She is
now employed as his west coast assistant.
I have been asking about this question persistently and I would
like to know when I can expect the answer.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Question
No. 33, I looked into it very recently and it is my hope that the
answer to this question will be presented in a timely fashion.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, this point of order
concerns Question No. 56 which was asked on December 2, 1997.
The question again concerns the failure of the B.C. sport fishing
institute to provide timely catch data to the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans.
I can understand perhaps the reluctance of the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans to respond to the question because shortly
after the minister went fishing with Randy Wright of the Oak Bay
Marine Group the charges which had been laid against the company
were dropped. I can understand why.
I would like to know when I can expect an answer. I have been
told countless times that I could expect it in a timely fashion
and so on, but I would like to know when we can expect an answer
to the question.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I note the concern
regarding Question No. 56 as I did on the previous occasion when
the member outlined the history of the particular question.
I will again look into the matter and do my best to see that the
answer is delivered as soon as possible.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, this point of order
concerns Question No. 51 which was asked on December 1, 1997 and
the aboriginal commercial fishing in British Columbia.
I have been led to believe that an answer to the question has
been provided, but the minister was not happy with the reply and
sent it back to his officials.
1525
I can understand why the minister is reluctant to respond to the
question. He has been constantly misinterpreting to the public
the response of the Provincial Court of British Columbia on this
issue and ignoring the Supreme Court of Canada. He is again
reluctant to answer this very important question.
We need an answer to the question. We want it now. We are
getting stonewalled on it time after time.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I will also note Question
No. 51 along with Questions Nos. 33 and 56.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that Motion for the Production of Papers No. 15 be called.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all
documentation relating to compensation for Canadians who
contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood products between 1978
and 1986.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
propose that Motion P-15 be transferred for debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Accordingly Motion
P-15 is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that Motion for the Production of Papers No. 9 be called.
That an Order of the House do issue for (a) copies of all safety
evaluations and inspections of NAV CANADA by Transport Canada;
(b) any safety evaluation reports by NAV CANADA copied to
Transport Canada; (c) all audits of NAV CANADA by Transport
Canada; and (d) all minutes of the joint committees of Transport
Canada and NAV CANADA on safety.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I propose that Motion P-9
be transferred for debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Accordingly Question
P-9 is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions
for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
COSTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal
Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable
Canada to implement the agreement for the implementation of the
provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management
of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and
other international fisheries treaties or arrangements, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in
support of this bill which paves the way for Canadian
ratification of the United Nations fisheries agreement. You have
given its full title so I will not repeat it but will simply
refer to it as the UN fisheries agreement.
The bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the
Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement certain
provisions of the UN agreement. I cannot overemphasize the
importance of this United Nations fisheries agreement and what it
can accomplish in the cause of conservation of fish stocks for
this generation and for future generations.
1530
I begin my remarks by briefly outlining the background of the
agreement and what it means to Canadians. I will elaborate on
these points in greater detail but I would like to start with the
overall picture.
[Translation]
The UN fisheries agreement was concluded in August 1995 at a UN
conference arranged to discuss problems of conserving and
managing straddling stocks and highly migratory species. The
agreement was ready for signing in New York on December 4, 1995.
Straddling stocks migrate for much of their life cycle beyond
the jurisdiction of the coastal states and in the high seas
where they may be found on either side of the 200-mile limit.
Highly migratory species migrate in high seas and in the marine
areas of coastal states. Both types of stocks have been
overfished in the high seas.
The problems with the straddling stocks occur in several areas
of the world: on New Zealand's Challenger plateau, along
Argentina's Patagonian shelf, along the coast of Chile and Peru,
in the Barents Sea, along the Norwegian coast, in the heart of
the Bering Strait, in the Sea of Okhostk and, as the hon.
members are well aware, along the Grand Banks of Newfoundland
outside Canada's 200-mile fishing limit.
[English]
What have been the effects of this unregulated fishing? The
Food and Agriculture Organization told the grim story in its 1995
report “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture”. I quote
from that report:
In 1989 world fish production reached a peak of 100.3 million
tonnes. Marine catches subsequently declined as a result of
significant overexploitation. About 70% of the world's marine
fish stocks are fully to heavily exploited, overexploited,
depleted or slowly recovering.
The Food and Agriculture Organization report identifies key
causes of this global depletion of fish stocks. One is fishing
industry overcapacity and the provision of subsidies to ensure
continued operation of vessels. Another cause is the failure to
take the precautionary approach to resource management. A third
cause the FAO cites is inadequate control of fishing activity,
resulting in widespread overfishing contrary to conservation
measures.
Overfishing by foreign vessels outside 200 miles has been a
major factor in declines in northwest Atlantic straddling
groundfish stocks of cod, flounder and turbot. These declines
have devastated hundreds of Canadian coastal communities. They
have left more than 30,000 fish harvesters and fish plant workers
unemployed in our Atlantic Canada region.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea allowed
coastal states, that is, states which border on the oceans,
exclusive rights to control fisheries within 200 nautical miles
or 370 kilometres of their shores.
[Translation]
However, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea does not
specify what the states' legal rights and obligations are
regarding straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in high
seas. The new fisheries agreement fills this gap left in the
Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Canada played a leading role at the conference on straddling and
highly migratory fish stocks, which resulted in the UN fisheries
agreement, and in the lengthy negotiations that led to it.
1535
The agreement will come into force once the required 30 states
have ratified it. These states will therefore help develop a new
legal framework for high sea fisheries. This framework will
ensure effective regulatory control and enforcement to protect
straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in high seas.
[English]
When it is fully implemented, the United Nations fisheries
agreement will provide a significant deterrent to unauthorized
fishing of straddling stocks on the high seas. The parties to
the agreement will have to comply with management measures made
by regional fisheries conservation organizations such as NAFO,
the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.
The agreement will give coastal states such as Canada the power
to take action outside 200 miles if the flag state is unable to
control its vessels. The flag state is a state that licenses the
vessel to fish.
Finally the UNFA will also provide for binding and compulsory
settlement of fishing disputes among states. The UNFA is good
news not only for Canada but for the whole world. Overfishing of
these straddling stocks on the high seas deprives coastal states
of legitimate catches and threatens the viability of this
critical food source for future generations.
A word on the history of Canadian involvement. Canada can take
great pride and a great deal of credit for this United Nations
fisheries agreement. It is important that we understand the
tremendous Canadian effort and the Canadian involvement in
bringing us to where we are now. By recalling this effort, I also
want to show how important it is that Canada continue its
international effort. I also want to show how crucial it is that
we show an example to the world by the way we manage our own
fisheries.
Canada signed the United Nations fisheries agreement along with
26 other states on December 4, 1993. Fifty-nine other states
have also signed. Seventeen, among them the United States,
Russia, Norway and Iceland, have now ratified the agreement.
The UN fisheries agreement strengthens and supplements the high
seas fisheries provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea. It does so through specific rules
designed to ensure the long term conservation and sustainable use
of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.
Hon. members are well aware of the depleted state of our
straddling Atlantic groundfish stocks. It was not always so. For
almost 500 years fishers harvested from a seemingly limitless
bounty of cod in the waters of the Grand Banks. From the
earliest settlement of Canada, in fact even before, commercial
fishing provided the economic base for many in the area in
question. Cod and other groundfish stocks were once abundant but
by the mid-1960s and in particular by the mid-1980s they declined
sharply due to excessive fishing by both foreign and domestic
fleets.
I would like to say a few words about the 200 mile limit and
NAFO.
[Translation]
In 1977, new developments at the UN Conference on the Law of the
Sea prompted Canada to declare a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone
and to exercise strict control over this zone.
Canada was not the only state to take such action. Other coastal
states also declared a 200-mile limit. In most cases, all major
ocean resources were within national jurisdiction, but not in
Canada.
The Canadian 200-mile zone does not include the Grand Banks
southeast of Newfoundland. Approximately 10% of the area known
as the nose and tail of the banks is outside the Canadian
200-mile limit.
Important groundfish stocks like cod, sole, halibut and perch
straddle this limit and have been harvested commercially in
international waters outside Canadian jurisdiction.
1540
In 1977, we drew a line in the ocean, but straddling stocks do
not see it and do not stay within that line.
In 1979, the responsibility for conservation of fish stocks in
the Northwest Atlantic outside Canada's 200-mile limit was given
to NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.
[English]
NAFO now has 17 contracting parties: Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba,
Denmark for the Faroe Islands and Greenland, Estonia, France on
behalf of St. Pierre and Miquelon, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Latvia,
Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, the European Union,
and the United States of America.
NAFO's responsibilities include straddling stocks on the nose
and tail of the Grand Banks and other fish stocks on the Flemish
Cap, a part of Canada's continental shelf which lies outside our
200 mile limit.
In 1982 another breakthrough for conservation occurred when the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was signed. Even
though that convention did not come into force until 1994, some
12 years later, its fisheries provisions have been considered
customary international law. I would like to cite two important
articles of that convention.
Article 118 provides that states must co-operate in the
conservation and management of the living resources of the high
seas and use regional organizations such as NAFO to work toward
that United Nations goal. Article 119 requires all states to work
together to maintain or restore populations of harvested species
at levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield.
The creation of NAFO and the signing of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea did not save our straddling
stocks. As is well known, in the mid-1980s the European Community
used the objection procedure in the NAFO convention so as not to
be bound by the quotas established for NAFO stocks. The European
Community catches were far above the quotas set by NAFO.
Then another problem arose. Vessels from states that were not
members of NAFO, including Panama, the United States and Korea,
began to fish in the NAFO area despite having no quotas.
At that time we began a major Canadian conservation campaign. In
1989 scientific evidence showed that there was a serious decline
in fish stocks in areas where overfishing had been prevalent.
Canada launched a comprehensive campaign at home and abroad aimed
at ending overfishing by foreign vessels in the northwest
Atlantic Ocean.
In 1990 Canada hosted the St. John's Conference on High Seas
Fishing. There, experts from key coastal states joined together
to launch a new initiative to develop more effective rules for
high seas fisheries.
In 1991 in another advance for conservation the European
Community adopted most NAFO quotas for the following year, 1992.
In May 1991 in Santiago, Chile, another significant step was
taken in the quest for effective controls in the high seas
fisheries. A meeting of experts was held on high seas
conservation around the world. At that meeting three countries,
Chile, New Zealand and Canada, developed a text of principles and
measures based on the conclusions reached at the St. John's
conference. The text of principles and measures became known as
the “Santiago text”.
In 1991 NAFO began discussions on improving surveillance and
control in the regulatory area and eliminating non-NAFO fishing.
Steps were taken by the European Community and other NAFO members
to improve surveillance and control and to stop fishing by
non-members. A European Community fisheries patrol vessel was
assigned to the NAFO regulatory area for seven months of the
year.
1545
In 1992 the European Community took stronger steps to control
fishing by vessels of its member states. The European Community
patrol vessel was to be in the NAFO area for 10 months of the
year. The European Community fisheries were closed when NAFO
quotas were reached. Canadian surveillance and inspection
confirmed that the European Community had complied with the
closure and the NAFO fishing rules.
At its 1992 meeting NAFO unanimously accepted a ban on fishing
for northern cod outside Canada's 200 mile limit for the
following year 1993. NAFO also decided on improvements to the
surveillance and control systems, improvements that were to go
into effect for the 1993 season. The European Community agreed
to all NAFO conservation decisions made at that 1992 NAFO annual
meeting.
[Translation]
It was also in 1992 that the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development was held. During that conference,
better known as the UNCED conference or Earth Summit, Canada got
global support to organize an intergovernmental conference on
high seas fisheries management, including that of straddling and
highly migratory stocks.
During the long negotiations that led to Rio's Earth Summit,
Canada took the lead in drafting the initial UNCED text on the
problems associated with high seas fisheries. That document was
eventually incorporated in the chapter on oceans adopted by the
UNCED conference.
That draft document basically included the Santiago text, to
which I just referred.
UNCED participants had to deal with various issues and submit a
series of non-binding recommendations. For these reasons, coastal
states concluded that UNCED's recommendations should include the
holding of a UN conference exclusively on the conservation and
management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.
[English]
Also in 1992 as a result of strong pressure applied by Canada,
the republic of Korea agreed to withdraw three of the six vessels
it had in the NAFO regulatory area by April 1993 and to phase out
the use of Korean crews on third country vessels which were
operating in the NAFO area. Korea withdrew its vessels from the
NAFO regulatory area at the end of April 1993 and became a
contracting party of NAFO in the following year.
As a result of continued diplomatic pressure applied by Canada,
Panama also agreed to impose sanctions on Panamanian vessels that
violated conservation measures of NAFO. Those actions included
fines and removal from the registry.
In May 1994 Canada became the first nation to become party to
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's compliance
agreement regulating high seas fishing. Parties to that
agreement must control high seas fishing by vessels flying their
flags to ensure they do not undermine conservation decisions of
international or regional fisheries management organizations such
as NAFO.
Canada had participated actively in negotiating the FAO
agreement. The agreement required acceptance by 25 nations to
come into force. So far, 10 acceptances have been received.
It was also in May 1994 that Canada took another powerful step
for conservation. Parliament passed new legislation. The
amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act introduced as
Bill C-29 enabled Canada to take action against stateless vessels
and vessels flying flags of convenience outside the 200 mile
limit.
The law had an immediate impact on all such vessels clearing off
the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
Bill C-29 constitutes an effective deterrent to the return of
these flag of convenience fishing vessels to the nose and tail.
1550
One serious conservation issue remained, Greenland halibut or
turbot which was not a stock initially managed by NAFO quotas.
The Greenland halibut had been fished entirely in Canadian waters
until the late 1980s. Then when other major groundfish stocks
declined, the Greenland halibut became the object of a large
scale foreign fishery outside 200 miles primarily by Spanish
vessels. Abetting this development was the fact that more of the
Greenland halibut stock had moved out of Canadian waters.
[Translation]
In February 1994, Canadian researchers surveyed Greenland
halibut stocks along the Labrador coast and eastern
Newfoundland. Their findings were surprising. The biomass had
decreased by no less than two-thirds since 1991.
A still greater reduction was detected in the number of large
fish. Their findings indicated as well that the population
included a higher proportion of young fish, three or four years
old. If they were to contribute to increasing the stocks, these
had to be left to age and reproduce.
Greenland halibut cannot reproduce before they are at least ten
years old.
In June 1994, the NAFO Scientific Council re-examined the
Greenland halibut situation, and warned that deep-sea fishing
levels in all of the sub-zones were in excess of what stocks
could sustain.
[English]
Canada immediately responded by reducing its domestic quota off
Baffin Island, which is in division O of the NAFO charts, by more
than half and by terminating a fisheries development program in
area 2GH which is the area off the coast of Labrador. Canada also
substantially reduced its quotas for divisions 2 and 3 and
limited access to harvesters who had fished in those areas.
At its annual meeting in September 1994, NAFO agreed for the
first time to establish a total allowable catch for Greenland
halibut. That total allowable catch of 27,000 tonnes was a
significant reduction from annual catches of more than 60,000
tonnes in previous years when NAFO had not set a total allowable
catch for the stock.
I now come to the 1995 turbot dispute. At a special meeting
held from January 30 to February 1, 1995—
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Unfortunately there is not a quorum in the House for this
very important piece of legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the hon. member
calling for a quorum count?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I am calling quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Do we have a quorum?
An hon. member: We do not have it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
1600
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a quorum.
The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Hon. David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity of getting my voice back.
I am actually getting to an interesting part, which is the
turbot dispute of 1995.
At a special meeting held from January 30 to February 1, 1995,
which marked a substantial discord, a majority of the NAFO
members agreed on a sharing arrangement for the total allowable
catch of turbot, or Greenland halibut as it is also known.
These decisions divided the total allowable catch in this way:
Canada, 16,300 tonnes; the European Union, 3,400 tonnes; Russia,
3,200 tonnes; Japan, 2,600 tonnes; and 1,500 tonnes for other
NAFO members. However, that was not enough to save the stocks of
turbot.
Shortly thereafter the EU lodged an objection and set its own
unilateral quota which was five times higher than the allotted
quota of NAFO. Therefore, on March 3, 1995 the then minister of
fisheries and oceans, my predecessor, the hon. Brian Tobin, now
premier of Newfoundland, announced that the Government of Canada
had amended its coastal fisheries protection regulations so that
Canada could protect Greenland halibut on the Grand Banks from
the Spanish and Portuguese vessels of the European Union. Until
that date the regulations had applied only to flags of
convenience and stateless vessels.
Hon. members know what happened next. Canada took action under
the legislation and on March 9, 1995 seized a Spanish fishing
vessel, the Estai, and charged its master under the Coastal
Fisheries Protection Act. Fisheries' patrol vessels also cut the
net of another vessel.
The inspection of the Estai's hold when it was brought
into St. John's showed that the vast majority of the product on
the vessel was processed from undersized turbot. The net which
the master had cut loose and which Canada later recovered had a
mesh size of 115 millimetres, but it had a liner with a mesh size
of 80 millimetres, which was 50 millimetres smaller than the NAFO
requirement of 130 millimetres for Greenland halibut.
Canadians everywhere, in every province, applauded the action
and so did the people of other countries. Canada's strong stand
in defence of fish stocks struck a sympathetic chord in other
fishing communities right around the world. Especially strong
support came from communities in other coastal states that had
suffered from foreign overfishing.
We had thousands of telephone calls, faxes and messages of
support from outside our borders. In fact, some other European
Union countries, such as Britain, France, and of course the
Irish, started to fly the Canadian flag as a mark of support.
1605
British parliamentarians urged their government to stand with
Canada in the dispute and the British government did take a
public stand on the need for tougher enforcement of conservation
measures.
The British government also blocked several attempts by other
members of the European Union to impose trade sanctions on
Canada.
By April 15, which was some six weeks after the seizure of the
Estai, Canadian and European negotiators reached a new
conservation agreement. Under that agreement a new mandatory
fishing enforcement regime would govern all Canadian and European
Union vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area. The agreement
included: independent, full time observers to be on board vessels
at all times; enhanced surveillance by satellite tracking;
increased inspections and quick reporting of infractions;
verification of gear and catch records; timely and significant
penalties to deter violators; new minimum fishing size limits;
and improved dockside monitoring.
In May 1995 Spanish authorities ordered a Spanish vessel to
return to a Spanish port after officials of the Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans retrieved an illegal net
suspected of coming from that vessel. That enforcement action
gave us reasons for cautious optimism that the agreement with the
EU would be effective.
[Translation]
September 1995 marked another important step. At its annual
meeting, NAFO adopted the control measures of the agreement
concluded between Canada and the European Community as control
measures for all contracting parties effective 1996. They were
welcomed as the most rigorous series of measures of any
fisheries management organization in the world. At this
meeting, NAFO decided to continue its moratoriums on dangerously
weakened straddling cod and turbot stocks.
In Saint John's, Newfoundland, in October 1995, Canada hosted
the very first meeting of North Atlantic fisheries ministers.
This meeting brought together representatives of Canada, the
European Union, Ireland, Russia, Norway, the Faeroe Islands, and
Greenland.
All participants agreed to implement the cautious approach to
fisheries management. They agreed to manage resources with
respect for ecosystems. They agreed to restore resources in
order to attain optimum yields. They agreed to work together in
fisheries sciences. Finally, they agreed to ratify the new UN
agreement and to encourage others to do the same.
[English]
At the September 1996 NAFO meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia,
Canada won the right to effectively determine the total allowable
catch for northern cod, that is, cod in NAFO regulatory area
2J3KL. The total allowable catch will govern the level of
catches both inside and outside the Canadian 200 mile limit.
When the fishery in the NAFO regulatory area is resumed, the
NAFO decision will limit catches in the NAFO area outside 200
miles to a maximum of 5% of the total allowable catch. This
arrangement must be renewed in the year 2005. This measure
ensures that no fishery can commence until Canada sets a total
allowable catch.
Unregulated catches of northern cod outside of Canada's 200 mile
limit were a contributing factor to the serious depletion of this
vital stock.
At the 1996 meeting and again in 1997 NAFO confirmed the
moratorium on northern cod as it had for most of the other
straddling stocks of cod and flounder on the Grand Banks. This
is vital to continue the process of rebuilding these resources.
When the northern cod stock rebuilds to the point that fishing
can again take place safely, the threat to foreign overfishing
will no longer be there as it has been in the past.
In September 1995, following the Canada-EU turbot agreement of
the previous spring, NAFO, with the aim of eliminating foreign
overfishing, adopted new conservation and enforcement measures.
1610
These measures took effect in January 1996, including a two year
pilot program for independent, full time observers on board NAFO
member vessels, satellite tracking on 35% of a fleet's vessels in
the NAFO regulatory area, as well as mandatory dockside
inspections and quick reporting and follow up on infractions.
These measures were hailed as the toughest measures of any
international fisheries management organization in the world.
Since the new conservation and enforcement measures have been
put in place there has been a sharp decrease in the number of
infringements by NAFO member vessels. This decrease is an
obvious sign that the NAFO enforcement regime has become
significantly more effective.
NAFO's implementation of new conservation and enforcement
measures was the cornerstone in the recovery of Greenland halibut
and other flatfish stocks currently under the NAFO moratorium.
We are now seeing a glimmer of hope for a modest recovery of the
3LNO yellowtail flounder stock which had been under a NAFO
moratorium for the last three years. At the 1997 annual meeting
NAFO agreed to reopen, subject to a number of conditions, the
yellowtail fishery. The TAC, the total allowable catch, was set
cautiously at 4,000 tonnes, 97.5% of which was to be fished by
Canada. Recovery of that stock is good news for Canadian fishers.
I hope that this limited opening signals the beginning of
recovery for other NAFO managed stocks.
NAFO's observer program, with 100% coverage in a NAFO regulatory
area, is a key element in ensuring the conservation and
rebuilding of important groundfish stocks in the northwest
Atlantic.
At the September 1997 annual meeting in St. John's, NAFO members
agreed to extend 100% observer coverage for another year. It has
again been extended and NAFO members will consider implementing
100% observer coverage on a permanent basis effective January 1,
1999. This decision, however, is subject to amendments to
improve the current scheme which may reduce cost without
compromising the effectiveness of current conservation efforts.
[Translation]
I would like to outline how the UN fisheries agreement, once
fully implemented, will act as the main tool to protect from
overfishing straddling fish stocks in the waters of Atlantic
Canada.
The fisheries agreement contains strict provisions regarding
regulatory enforcement on the high seas by member states of the
organization responsible for the management of regional
fisheries or subregional organizations, such as NAFO.
It states that coastal states and states that fish on the high
seas must work together to develop measures to ensure the
conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks by applying a number of general
principles.
[English]
Those principles include a requirement to adopt measures to
ensure the long term sustainability of such stocks, an obligation
to apply the precautionary approach to management and a
requirement that conservation and management measures for
straddling and highly migratory fish stocks on the high seas and
those coastal states in their exclusive economic zone for the
same stock be compatible.
Once these provisions come into effect Canada will be able to
implement conservation and management measures in its 200 mile
zone secure in the knowledge that a significant deterrent is in
place to ensure the effectiveness of these measures and that they
will not be undermined by fishing on the high seas by vessels
from states party to the UN fisheries agreement.
In order to ensure that the conservation and management measures
for straddling and highly migratory fish stocks on the high seas
are respected, the UN fisheries agreement imposes strict
obligations on the various parties.
States whose vessels fish on the high seas are required to take
such measures as may be necessary to ensure that their fishing
vessels comply with the regional conservation management measures
and that they do not engage in any activity which undermines the
effectiveness of such measures.
Furthermore, the flag state is required to take very specific
measures for compliance and enforcement, including the immediate
investigation of any suspected infraction and the application of
effective penalties for breaches of its laws and regulations
concerning conservation.
1615
What if parties are unable or unwilling to enforce high seas
conservation management measures against vessels flying their
flag? In such cases the UN fisheries agreement authorizes an
inspecting state to take enforcement action against those
vessels.
The agreement provides that in any high seas area covered by a
subregional or regional fisheries management organization or
arrangement a party that is a member of such organization or a
participant in such arrangement may board and inspect fishing
vessels flying the flag of another state party to the UN
agreement whether or not the latter is a member of the
organization or participant in the arrangement. In practice this
means that Canada as a NAFO member could board and inspect a
vessel of a NAFO or non-NAFO member that is party to the United
Nations fishing agreement.
If evidence of an infraction is found, the flag state will be
notified and must respond within three working days and either
investigate itself or if the evidence so warrants take
enforcement action or authorize the inspecting state to
investigate.
[Translation]
When there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel has
committed a serious offence, as defined in the agreement, and
that the flag state has failed to act or take the necessary
action, after three working days, the inspecting state may take
steps, including bringing the vessel to port to pursue the
investigation.
In such cases, the inspecting state shall advise the flag state
of the name of the port where the vessel must go and forward the
findings of any subsequent investigation.
At any time, the flag state may decide to take steps to meet its
obligations under the agreement.
If and when it does so, Canada, as the inspecting state, must
return the vessel to the flag state, along with any information
available concerning the conduct and conclusions of the
investigation.
[English]
For Canada this means these provisions will permit Canadian
enforcement action in the NAFO regulatory area against vessels
flying the flags of states parties to the United Nations
fisheries agreement whether or not they are also members of the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.
The UN fisheries agreement also makes provision for compulsory
and binding dispute settlements concerning the interpretation or
application of the UNFA itself. At Canada's initiative the UN
fisheries agreement provides for compulsory and binding
settlement in any dispute concerning the interpretation or
application of subregional, regional or global fisheries
agreements related to straddling stocks or highly migratory fish
stocks such as the NAFO convention.
This provision establishes a mechanism that could be used to
settle future disputes arising out of the future use of the NAFO
objection procedure unless NAFO adopts its own dispute settlement
procedure in the meantime.
If a dispute is not settled by the state parties concerned by
means of their own choice the UN fisheries agreement mandates
recourse to the provisions set out in part 15 of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea whether or not the state
parties concerned are also parties to that convention. Where a
state, party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea, has chosen a compulsory or binding settlement procedure
under that convention that will also apply to dispute settlements
under the UN fisheries agreement.
Under both the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
and the UN fisheries agreement state parties may choose at the
time of signature ratification or accession or thereafter from
among the international court of justice, the international
tribunal for the law of the sea and either general or special
arbitration.
The amendments before us will enable Canada to ratify the
fisheries agreement. The amendments will enable Canada to
implement new high seas enforcement provisions.
They will enable Canada to authorize foreign state enforcement
authorities to take enforcement steps against Canadian vessels
suspected of committing a violation outside our waters.
1620
The bill when adopted will repeal the Canadian Fisheries
Protection Act definition of straddling stocks which refers to
fishing occurring in Canadian waters and adjacent areas. Why?
Because the United Nations fisheries agreement straddling stocks
can occur anywhere in the world.
The bill also creates new offences to enable Canadian
enforcement authorities to take action against the vessels of
participating states. It will provide regulation authority under
the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to include implementation of
the UN fisheries agreement.
I think there are many good reasons for us to ratify this
agreement. It is a further step in the development of the
protection of our fish stocks on the east coast, stocks which
straddle both the Canadian area and the international area.
I believe this agreement should meet with the approval of all
members of the House and I urge them all to support this bill.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the
hon. member for Yukon—Multilateral Agreement on Investment.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Saanich—Gulf
Islands and my colleagues in the Reform Party to speak on Bill
C-27. This bill is the enabling legislation that will implement
the United Nations fisheries act.
I find it hard to stand here today and speak about
this although I do agree with the minister that it is
important. However, I had to make my way through groups of
protesters from Newfoundland this week whose livelihood has been
devastated by the collapse of our fishery and who will see their
TAGS benefits expire in a couple of days. What is the minister's
response to them? Why are we going to ratify the UN fisheries
agreement, UNFA?
This government is asking Canadian fishermen to forget about the
fact that it has taken over three years to bring this
legislation to the House.
The government is asking fishermen to forget about the fact it
promised TAGS benefits to them until May 1999. The government has
reneged on this promise and is now about to cut them off in a few
months. The government is asking the fishermen to forget about
the fact that they have been provided with no real long term
solutions. We are going to talk about this at length.
There are no solutions to resolving the crisis that this
government has created except throwing money at it and hoping it
will go away; $3.4 billion and we are no better off today than we
were when this government took office in 1993. This government is
asking Canadian fishermen to forget all these facts because today
we are debating Bill C-27.
That was quite a technical speech the minister gave and I am not
too sure how many viewers, unless they are really involved,
understood what was going on. I will try to put this in terms
they will understand.
The United Nations fisheries agreement will ensure long term
conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks such
as flounder and turbot. These stocks go back and forth across the
200 mile line off the coast of Newfoundland. I agree completely
that we need control of these stocks. We need rules and
regulations in place.
I am going to criticize this legislation because it does not do
that. This is an issue we heard at length when we were
travelling in our committee. Let us go back a little and look at
exactly what this legislation does.
I think it is important to point out to all the people listening
that it requires 30 signatures, 30 countries to adopt this
legislation, to ratify this legislation in their own country
before this takes effect. I think there are 16 or 17 countries
to date that will have ratified that.
1625
This is really going to do nothing for a long time. We are
years away from this ever taking effect.
This actually started way back in 1982, 16 years ago. That was
UNCLOS, the UN convention on the law of the sea. When that
agreement was negotiated, and ironically it was a Liberal
government in power in 1982, the agreement was full of holes.
Nothing ever became of it. It was brought back before the UN in
1995 under the UN fisheries agreement in order to plug some of
the holes and do something with it.
Brian Tobin was the minister at the time. I am reading from a
news release dated August 4, 1995: “Tobin foresees permanent end
to foreign overfishing when new UN convention is implemented”. I
will read a few paragraphs from the press release because I do
not believe that is what is going to happen today.
Canada played a leading role in the conference, which approved
new international controls on high seas fishing. Canada's major
concern was to end foreign overfishing of cod, flounder and
turbot on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
The new UN convention provides for binding and compulsory
dispute settlement. As well, for the first time, international
law will prohibit any unauthorized fishing of straddling stocks,
thereby making fishing by flag of convenience vessels illegal. To
ensure that vessels abide by the new international rules, the new
UN convention authorizes Canada to take action outside 200 miles
where the flag state fails to control its vessels.
In fact this is not going to do that. I think the intention was
there but our government has watered down this enabling
legislation. It will not be able to enforce it.
“This new UN convention, when fully implemented, will protect
straddling stocks better than Bill C-29”, Mr. Tobin said.
Bill C-29 was brought in by this government in 1994, the
Canadian Fisheries Protection Act, and that was the legislation
the Government of Canada used to seize the Estai, to bring
that ship back to port, to press charges against the captain and
the vessel.
He went on:
“Until the new UN convention is fully implemented, the
Government of Canada will stand ready to exercise powers granted
to it by Parliament under Bill C-29. These powers will no longer
be needed to protect straddling stocks once the new UN convention
is fully implemented”.
What he is saying is that we are going to get these new laws by
this international agreement and we will not have to rely on the
former legislation, the Canadian Fisheries Protection Act.
Let us go to the bill. We can have all the legislation we want
but if we cannot enforce it, it is not much good to us. There
are two sections that are quite troublesome.
Section 16.2(1) says:
After boarding a fishing vessel of a participating state, a
protection officer who believes on reasonable grounds that the
vessel has contravened section 5.3 shall without delay inform
that state.
That says that once the protection officer boards that vessel he
has to inform the flag state. If we have a Spanish vessel out
there in violation, he has to inform Spain.
Section 16.2(2) says:
A protection officer may, with the consent of the participating
state, exercise the powers as provided for in section 16.1.
Before he can board this vessel he has to get the consent of the
flag state of that vessel. That is arguable. Some will say not
but the way the bill is worded it is left open for
interpretation.
Let us say he gets permission of the flag state. Then section
7.01(1) comes into play:
A protection officer who believes on reasonable grounds that a
fishing vessel of a participating state found in an area of the
sea designated under subparagraph 6(e)(ii) has engaged in
unauthorized fishing in Canadian fisheries waters may, with the
consent of the participating state, take any enforcement action
that is consistent with this act.
1630
The frustrating part of this legislation is that if they go
outside the 200 mile limit on the nose and tail or the Flemish
Cap of the Grand Banks and find a foreign vessel in violation of
our laws or in violation of an international agreement, the
Government of Canada or the enforcement officers must first go to
the flag state of that vessel and get permission to board it. If
they get permission to go on board and they find that the vessel
is in violation and there are charges which can be laid they have
to go back—and this is absolutely true and is in the bill, I
read it word for word to the House—to that flag state and ask
for permission to press charges against the vessel.
Let us go back to March 1995. I will read a paragraph or two
from the book Lament for an Ocean by Michael Harris. It is
subtitled “The Collapse of the Atlantic Cod Fishery: A True
Crime Story”. I will start on page one. This will set the scene
for what happened in March 1995 when the old legislation, the
Fisheries Protection Act was used to press charges against the
Estai. This is the scene our fisheries officers were up
against.
It was the other shot that was heard around the world. The
50-calibre machine gun bursts from the Cape Roger, three in
all, marked the first time since Confederation that Canada had
fired on another country in defence of the national interest.
When the order came to open fire, the officers aboard the
fisheries patrol vessel were so taken aback, they asked that the
command be repeated. The fateful words crackled once more over
the ship's radio: an initial burst was to be fired over the bow
of the Spanish trawler Estai, the next rounds into her
screw 60 seconds later if she refused to stop. After warning the
Spanish captain to move his crew forward, Captain Newman Riggs
nodded to Bernie Masters, who adjusted the sights on the Cape
Roger's heavy gun and sucked in a deep breath as his finger
squeezed the trigger.
This was when a Spanish vessel was illegally fishing straddling
stocks off our coast. Our enforcement people went to take
control of that vessel. There was a four hour pursuit, a very
tense moment. We were engaging in an “act of war”, as the book
goes on to tell. We had the right to do so. We had the laws at
that time to suggest that we could go out. They boarded the
vessel and brought the vessel back to port. They held that
vessel until appropriate charges were laid. The captain of that
vessel was detained and we are proceeding and prosecuting on
that.
If that same incident occurred today, if a foreign flag state
vessel was out there fishing illegally, that is the very thing
for which this legislation is supposed to be the saviour. I
agree that we do need some international agreements. What would
happen today is our control boats would go out. Their
observations would be that the Estai was fishing illegally.
Then they would have to ask our government to get permission
from the Spanish government and ask if it would be okay for them
to board the vessel.
I agree it is open for debate. There is some inconsistency in
the way it is worded. It is arguable. I do not know how long
that would take. It took four hours of hot pursuit. The vessel
actually cut its nets, dropped them to the bottom of the ocean
and tried to run away.
Let us say they got permission to board after they observed what
was being done. They knew the vessel was fishing illegally and
they wanted to bring the vessel back to port. No sir.
They could not do that. They would have to stay onboard and
inform the flag state, which was Spain in this case. They would
have to get permission first to lay charges. Then the vessel
would go back to Spain. We would never see it again. We would
never be able to follow it up.
1635
The minister of fisheries at the time stated that this new UN
fisheries agreement would be the saviour, that it would give us
some teeth. We have taken the teeth out of it. My research has
shown that of the 15 countries that have ratified the UN
fisheries agreement, not one has clauses like the ones Canada has
put into its legislation which take the teeth right out of it. I
find it unbelievable.
There are members in this House who travelled with me and the
rest of the fisheries committee and who have great interest in
this matter. They are listening today. We travelled to
Newfoundland and we heard these concerns. They want somebody to
stand up and fight for the fishermen out there.
We heard the minister for about 40 minutes today. He told us of
all the wonderful things the government has done over the last 10
years. He went over a chronology of all the great things. We
heard words like major conservation program and when the stocks
recover.
I suggest that the minister look at the record. I ask him to
look at the record of this government with respect to the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the management of the
fish. I have never seen such a dismal failure.
There is no confidence from the fishermen. There is no
confidence from the people of Newfoundland. I understand that
the federal government buildings in Newfoundland have been taken
over by frustrated fishermen. I do not blame them. When I went
there these fishermen told me that they want to work and pay
taxes. They told that to the Liberal government prior to the Tory
days, but all we hear from this government is that it took over
this mess.
The government does not accept responsibility for what it has
not done over the past five years and even before that. Back in
the eighties these fishermen were telling that Liberal government
that there was something wrong, that the fish were not there, and
nobody listened. We have heard this over and over again in
committee. We have heard evidence from scientists who were
ordered to be silenced.
I have talked about this legislation and that they have to get
the consent of the flag state to board the vessel and get the
consent of the flag state to lay charges. Imagine that a police
officer sees a young person committing a crime. Then he
discovers he has to call the young person's parents before he can
talk to him. After the police officer talks to the parents, he
has to get their permission to arrest the young person. This is
the same type of scenario. We have to take control of these
straddling stocks and we have not done so. There should be an
agreement but we should be putting some teeth into it so we can
actually enforce and take control.
I am sure that as this day proceeds the minister or somebody
from the government will tell us that they had no option, that
these clauses were agreed upon in the agreement negotiated at the
UN in 1985. I am sure they will say that they had no other
option, that this is what was agreed upon and they had to put
this in the enabling legislation.
It is ironic. Bill C-96 died on the Order Paper last April. It
was brought before the House about 10 days before the last
election. Bill C-96 has exactly the same title as this
legislation, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the
Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, and
it goes on. It is exactly the same. Section 1 is the definition
of straddling stocks and in section 2 the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act is repealed.
1640
Let us get to the sections I am talking about. This is the same
government. This enabling legislation is for that very same
agreement.
Looking back, Minister Tobin went out with our navy and
50-calibre guns and took charge. At that time the current
Minister of Veterans Affairs was the minister. This is what he
put in the enabling legislation:
A protection officer may, subject to subparagraph 6(e)(iii), in
respect of any fishing vessel found within Canadian fisheries
waters, the NAFO Regulatory Area or an area of the sea designated
under subparagraph 6(e)(ii),
They are just saying that they can board it. Then it goes on to
the placing of arrests:
A protection officer may, subject to any regulations made under
subparagraph 6(e)(iii), arrest without warrant any person who the
officer suspects on reasonable grounds has committed an offence
under this Act.
It allows the custody and seizure of vessels, the seizure or
delivery into the custody of such person the minister may direct.
The minister retains control.
The problem with this enabling legislation is that it has no
teeth in it. The government has taken all the teeth out of it.
They have to ask for permission. This is absolutely ludicrous.
How long is that going to take? Is it really practical?
I would like to support this, but we need to go back to enabling
legislation much like what we had a year ago which had some teeth
in it. The government could actually do something.
The other frustrating part of this whole agreement is that the
minister brought this legislation in for first reading in
December. He has been the minister for almost a year. Our
fisheries on both coasts are in a state of crisis. The
government comes in here and is proud of the situation when there
are thousands of people in Newfoundland who have occupied federal
offices out of frustration.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has tabled
reports. I can read some of the recommendations. I agree that
foreign overfishing is a problem. We made nine specific
recommendations.
One, the committee recommended that Canada withdraw its support
for any turbot quotas assigned to foreign nations, and it goes
on.
Two, the committee recommended that Canada cease giving
permission to Canadian companies to hire foreign vessels and
foreign crews to catch fish in Canadian waters. We heard all of
these concerns. These are real concerns.
Three, the committee recommended that Canada withdraw its
support for the redfish quotas given to foreign nations. It goes
on and on.
I could read the entire report. I am not sure if the government
has read it, because it is not acknowledging it. It is not
adopting it.
The government has come in with enabling legislation for an
agreement that was negotiated three years ago. The first
agreement was back in 1982. I do not know if it is just going to
go to sleep and say that it has fixed the problem with fishery.
This is a disgrace. There are so many problems out there,
starting with the foreign nations. Some nations have four times
the quota on certain species that Canadian fishermen have. An
example is tuna. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 120 to 125
tonnes go to Japan and Canada's quota is 30 tonnes. One fish is
worth $30,000.
This government will not put its people first. The bureaucracy.
I have asked the minister in this House if he will move the
management of the fishery from Ottawa closer to the resource.
Right now there are 1,100 bureaucrats in Ottawa. I am sure there
are a lot of good people but I cannot believe that we are
managing the fishery from Ottawa.
1645
We have to move the management of the resource out to where the
resource is on the coast. That makes sense. That is what the
fishing community is asking for. We need to bring the provinces
in as partners in trying to get this issue back on track.
I am not suggesting that the government can divest its
responsibility but it definitely needs to include the provinces
at the table, which it is not doing right now. I would ask the
government to look at issues like this one.
When I raised these concerns with the minister, he suggested
that I should be aware there are more taxpayers in Ontario than
there are in British Columbia. This is not about Ottawa versus
B.C. or Ottawa versus St. John's. This is trying to put the
interest of the fishery first.
This report was written by 16 members of parliament. The first
nine recommendations I am referring to with respect to foreign
overfishing were supported by every person on the committee—nine
members of the Liberal government including the parliamentary
secretary—and we have had no response from the minister. In
fact he stood in the House earlier and stated that no fish were
given to foreign nations unless Canadian fishermen had first
crack at them. We know that is not true. That is absolutely
false. We have heard this from fishermen after fishermen when we
travelled out there and in committee. It is absolutely wrong.
I find incredibly frustrating what the government is not doing.
We need Bill C-27 with some changes, I might add. Enabling
legislation the way it is worded now will not amount to a hill of
beans. We have to do something about that before we can support
the legislation. We have to amend it.
The government has to do a lot more. It promised the TAGS
program to all people in Atlantic Canada until May 1999, and it
is about to cut them off. In the coming days about 3,000 people
are to be cut off. These people were given letters, went to the
banks and relied on the program. The government has gone against
its word. It has not come through. It is absolutely terrible.
With respect to the agreement let us go off on another vein. All
the minister talked about was the Flemish Cap and the nose and
the tail of the Grand Banks. To a lot of listeners out there
there is another straddling stock, although it is not technically
a straddling stock, and that is the salmon out in British
Columbia.
We know the coho is facing extinction and again the government
is doing nothing. The minister has been in power for almost a
year and we are no better off today than we were four or five
years ago. It is terrible. Fishermen out there are in a crisis
situation. They are losing their livelihoods.
Some would argue that we are really talking about the salmon
which would fall into that category. They swim in and outside
the 200 mile limit. They are highly migratory species. What was
negotiated was straddling stocks and highly migratory species.
However the legislation is silent with respect to that.
I will go out on a limb. At the time Minister Tobin was
negotiating I would suggest his interests were primarily
Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. British Columbia was put
somewhere on the back burner.
Salmon are considered an andromous species. The act only
applies to highly migratory species and straddling stocks. An
andromous species is one which begins its life cycle in fresh
water, lives in the oceans but returns to fresh water to spawn,
for example salmon and trout. The agreement is silent on that.
Why is the minister not in New York or at the UN fighting for
British Columbians and for Canada? We are on the eve of another
fishing season in British Columbia and absolutely nothing is
being done.
1650
We saw the frustrations last time. We have been constantly
after the minister not to wait until the night before this
fishing season starts but to do something about it now.
The government appointed a new negotiator, the one person it has
who stood up and fought for the people of British Columbia. Mr.
Fortier. I suggest he resigned out of frustration because he was
not getting any backing from the government. He worked very
hard. He was the one person that we had who actually fought for
the people of British Columbia on the American fishing dispute.
He is gone. We have a new negotiator. We are back to square
one. Where is the minister on that? I did not hear one word
from him on that.
It says in the act that it only applies to highly migratory
species and straddling stocks and the definitions are to come
under the UN convention. These definitions were arrived at in
the conference on straddling stocks.
The UN fisheries agreement does not apply to salmon. Why not?
Where is the minister? He has lost the confidence of the people
of British Columbia. I represent his neighbouring riding and,
believe me, the people of his own riding are frustrated. They
want action. They want something done and the government is not
doing anything.
I ask the minister to start doing something in these other
areas. He has an opportunity to look at the interest of the
fishery as the committee did. Ten of the sixteen members of the
committee spent a week to 10 days travelling throughout Atlantic
Canada and spent a little better than a week in British Columbia.
Right now that committee is travelling through other parts of
the country where there are fishery concerns. They are listening
to the people. They are listening to fishermen. They are
listening to provincial representatives from the legislative
assemblies of those provinces. They are listening to the
fisheries ministers of those provincial legislatures.
However there was nobody from the government's department on the
Atlantic trip. They did come on the Pacific trip. They did not
come to listen to the people of Atlantic Canada. They did not
come to listen to the people of Newfoundland. This is an
absolute disgrace.
Some would way I am digressing from Bill C-27, but the minister
spoke on this wonderful bill saying that it would solve the
problem. First, it has no teeth. Second, it needs approximately
14 countries to ratify it before it takes effect. Is that the
best the government can do for the last three years and this
minister for the last year? Is that the best he can do?
I would be embarrassed if I had to come into the House and say
that is all I have done in the last year as minister of fisheries
and oceans. Why is he not fighting for Canada with the United
States on the Alaskan fishing dispute? We have heard his
comments on newscasts down there that he may have to cut Canadian
quotas in half in the name of conservation if the Alaskans
continue. That is what he is telling the Americans when he goes
there.
We need somebody who can stand up and fight for fishermen. The
government should be here announcing that it will not go back on
its word, that it will honour its commitment to continue to pay
recipients of TAGS until May 1999 who are now overtaking federal
offices in Newfoundland out of frustration.
I have met with these fishermen. They have said to me “We
read in your report that you were against TAGS”. I explained to
them that we should be giving them TAGS until May 1999. That is
what my colleagues and I believe. The government has to honour
its commitment. Fishermen want to go to work. That is what they
have been telling us. They do not want truckloads of money. They
want to go to work.
We need to move the management of the resource out to the coast.
We have to instil confidence in DFO. We have to get rid of the
politicization. We have to get rid of the corruption. We have
to get rid of some of the regulations in the sealing industry
which prohibit the export of seal products. These are all things
the people of Newfoundland want to do. We have to get rid of
foreign quotas and make sure that our Canadian fishermen have
access to the quotas first.
I have heard arguments from the department saying that it is not
economically feasible for our guys to do that and that it will be
given to Cuba because it would cost our fishermen 21 cents per
pound to catch them and they can only sell them for 19 cents.
1655
Why are we not investing in the infrastructure? Why are we not
finding some way to put these guys back to work? Why are we not
looking at the fishery of the future, identifying what species
are there and ensuring that our people have access to them? Then
we could look at what we could do to make sure the industry will
be sustainable and viable in the years to come?
What do we have? Bill C-27 is what we have. It is pretty
impressive for the minister, is it not, to bring in enabling
legislation on something that was negotiated three years ago
after being in the House for a year as Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans?
If the government and the minister do not get off their butts
and do something they will have a crisis, a revolt in
Newfoundland. They will have a revolt in British Columbia. These
people are frustrated beyond imagination and what they are doing
in Newfoundland is evidence of that. They are very frustrated.
There is no confidence in the government.
I have written a note on my speech on the positive side and I am
not sure I have found a positive side in the last 10 or 15
minutes. On the positive side of coming to parliament has been
being able to work with the fisheries committee, to sit down with
16 members from five political parties, to leave our political
baggage outside the door, to try to bring forward witnesses and
to make recommendations for the benefit of the fishery.
It is interesting to note there are eight members of the
government on that committee. There has been a few exceptions
but generally that is what we try to do. Sixteen members of
parliament from five political parties are in agreement. We know
how hard it is to get 16 members of parliament from the same
party to agree. We have witnessed that in last few days. It is
difficult to get 16 members of parliament from five political
parties to agree.
We did that in the east coast report, and the government is not
even looking at it. There are good recommendations in there that
look at foreign overfishing. There are suggestions in there
about moving resources from Ottawa to the fishery. The minister
is just brushing it off.
I ask the government to take a hard look at the report. There
needs to be some more work done on Bill C-27 so that it will have
the teeth it needs for our enforcement officers to actually do
something with it. We need international agreements. I am in
full support of that. However we have to go a long way before we
solve the fishing crisis. This is not a drop in the bucket.
I ask the minister to listen to what I have said. It is time he
started acting instead of giving us smoke and mirrors.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
there have been consultations with regard to the notice of motion
in my name with reference to the 29th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I understand that there would be unanimous consent for an order
that this motion be deemed to have been put and a division
thereon demanded and deferred to Tuesday, May 5, 1998, at the
expiry of the time for the consideration of Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to
move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That one member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
and Government Operations be authorized to travel to Calgary,
Alberta, from May 3 to May 6, 1998, in order to attend a
conference on climate change.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent for the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1700
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
think that you will find unanimous consent in the House for the
following motion. I move:
That six Members, or Associate Members acting as their designated
substitute, of
the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government
Operations be authorized to travel to Prince George, B.C. from
May 7 to May 10, 1998 to attend the Forest Expo
Conference.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed to?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an
act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada
Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the Agreement for the
Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to
the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and
Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and other international fisheries
treaties or arrangements, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I am rising this afternoon to speak to the famous
Bill C-27 which, I will remind those who have just joined us, is
the act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the
Canada Shipping Act.
I must begin by admitting that I am somewhat disappointed to
have to speak to this bill today, With all the problems there
are with the fisheries, I do not think I would have started with
this one, if I were the minister.
I will give one example of what is going on in Newfoundland
today. The people of Newfoundland are out in the streets
protesting to let the government know they have a problem and
need financial support under TAGS. In response, the government
pulls Bill C-27 out of a hat, to amend the Fisheries Protection
Act. However, does that really solve their problem?
I will try to review the situation in the time I have at my
disposal today.
I will try to trace the history of this bill. I have said that
this bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the
Canada Shipping Act. However, I should also describe its intent.
It is intended to implement the agreement to apply the
provisions of the UN convention, which came into effect on
December 10, 1982.
The subject chosen for discussion today is the conservation and
management of groundfish stocks. So there were provisions in
the United Nations fisheries agreement, or UNFA.
This bill started with the December 10, 1982 convention on the
law of the sea. Between the two, there was the famous Bill C-29,
which we voted on in this House and which was the legislation on
the protection of the straddling stocks, in which the Bloc
Quebecois participated with pride, because protection of the
stocks was important.
We were aware we were writing international law with the former
Bill C-29, because the other provisions did not exist. There
were no treaties or arrangements between countries. In other
words, all the member countries fishing in the Atlantic agreed
on the principle, but few of them agreed on how to honour it.
Third, after the famous Bill C-29, there was the UN fisheries
agreement, UNFA, which has just arrived and which contains
provisions drawn from the convention on the law of the sea.
I would first like to say that no one opposes the principle. In
general terms, the Bloc will support Bill C-27.
We naturally have some reservations about the bill and we will
have the opportunity to speak at report stage in the House and
in committee before third reading and passing of the bill.
I would mention two reservations today, and some of my
colleagues will have an opportunity to speak. The first
reservation concerns measures for monitoring and boarding
vessels at sea.
1705
If they say they want the means to ensure respect for these
principles, what will those means be? What I want to point out,
first of all, is the lack of transparency of these so-called
measures.
We had the same problem during debate on Bill C-29, an act to
amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The government
decided to establish these measures by order-in-council. In other
words, cabinet decided behind closed doors.
It must not be forgotten that the public in Canada and
throughout the world will have to live with these measures. If
the government wants its legislation to be complied with by the
whole world or by all Canadians, it is only fitting that it be
debated by the 301 members of the House.
The second aspect of Bill C-27 about which the Bloc Quebecois has
reservations is the UNFA management philosophy that the
government is trying to introduce in Bill C-27. I know that
this is not easy for those listening at home, so I will try to
explain.
Not only does the bill contain measures to board and inspect
vessels suspected of contravening our Canadian legislation, or
NAFO's legislation, but it contains a management philosophy.
I do not wish to contest the management philosophy set out in
general terms in this policy, but I have some questions. What
is Canada's management policy? What does it have as a
management policy?
I was elected in 1993. We already had moratoriums on fishing
back then. In the spring of 1994, Mr. Tobin, then fisheries
minister, introduced the program known as TAGS, or the Atlantic
Groundfish Strategy.
A strategy implies having an active tool, but is it the case?
At least, Mr. Tobin had the political courage to give a figure.
He expected he would have to reduce by 50% the size of the
industry, of the catch. Again, at least he gave a figure and, in
doing so, he got the debate going.
What has happened to that debate? What has happened since 1994?
The Prime Minister was obsessed with reducing the deficit.
Because of a lack of funds, the government opposite was penny
wise and pound foolish. Indeed, four years and $1.9 billion
later—although that money was needed to provide financial
support to fishers and plant workers—the government still has
no idea, no vision about the future of fisheries. Worse still, I
do not think it has even started working on the issue. This is
very serious.
The Bloc Quebecois does make criticism, but it is constructive
criticism. I want to talk about the most recent report of the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. My colleague from
the Reform Party alluded to it earlier.
The report includes unanimous recommendations. One way to define
an approach is to first identify the problem. Then, together we
can look at the solutions that each one of us puts forward.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans—and I have not
yet blamed any party in this House—identified one problem,
among others. It blamed the federal government—regardless of
the party in office—for the poor management of fisheries in
Canada and in Canadian waters.
Many members opposite refuse to believe or to hear this.
1710
Why? We did not blame any one party in particular. But what can
we do now to try to correct the situation, again thinking in
terms of constructive criticism?
After indicating that the problem was poor management by the
federal government, the committee recommended, among other
measures, that the department review its management procedures
and its ways of setting quotas and determining the total
allowable catch.
So far, regardless of which party we represent in the House,
this issue does not present any real problem. Why do we not
discuss it?
It is serious because they are preparing to pass a bill that
imply the existence of management measures and approaches,
whereas Canada has none.
All representatives of the Canadian fishing industry have said,
some more crudely than others, “We do not trust the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans any more.” That is the main point.
In the meantime, the Minister of Human Resources Development and
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are lobbing the ball back
and forth in an effort to come up with a way to provide
financial support to workers and fishers. Neither has specified
any criteria, set up a committee or consulted the public. There
are lots of avenues to explore.
I have a lot to say, but I am afraid of running out of time.
Time is rushing past.
What are we going to do to get around this? We explain the
basis and they come back with the potential result of the work
begun—Bill C-27—which is supposed to contain management
measures and approaches.
The other point I would like to raise, still in connection with
the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries—
[English]
Mr. David Price: Madam Speaker, I would like to call for
quorum. There seems to be a lack of respect on the other side of
the House for people speaking.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1715
[Translation]
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have quorum. Resuming
debate.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Madam Speaker, I was saying that Bill C-27
showed a lack of vision and management philosophy. I indicated
my sources with respect to the public.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has pointed out
that the main problem is that the federal government is to blame
for poor management. In its report, the committee also
indicated a way of restoring this credibility, which consists in
reviewing management methods and ways of establishing total
allowable catches.
I would like to cite article 5 of the United Nations Fishing
Agreement or UNFA. This document was written in general terms.
I also want to look at the purpose of Bill C-27. What is its
real purpose? We do not have to pass a bill to allow a
participating country, such as Canada, to ratify the agreement.
It is therefore false to say that the bill is being introduced
in order to implement the international agreement.
We will look at the specific purpose of the bill. Does it help
us provide better protection for our straddling stocks? Bill
C-29 already does that. Does it sort out British Columbia's
problem, as the Reform member said. No.
The first conclusion I come to today is that Bill C-27 serves
primarily to introduce a red herring. All the while the
government is urging the House, when there is a quorum, to
debate the fishery, it is trying to give the illusion that it is
doing something about the fishery problem. The real problem
sits across the way and the real impact can be seen in the
streets of Newfoundland and it will soon be seen in the streets
of New Brunswick and the Gaspé.
There are a number of problems facing the few remaining small
fishing operations—it is too bad I did not think to bring the
list with me—the plan for managing the crab fishery in zone 12
for example, which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has yet
to resolve. This concerns Quebec, particularly the Gaspé
Peninsula, and New Brunswick.
Instead of having us believe that Bill C-27 is incredibly
important, why does the minister not try to resolve the crab
management problem? That is something he could do. It would have
a direct, immediate impact. This would put bread and butter on
the table for many families.
Life in the regions follows the seasons. When the ice starts to
melt, it is time to go fishing. Wait too long and the water gets
too warm; there will be strawberries in the fields but crab
shells will be soft and their flesh white. So, what is the
minister waiting for?
It is fair to say that there is no crab fishery plan. I think
there are temporary ones for the shrimp fishery. We are hearing
complaints from crab fishers in the Sept-Îles area as well. What
is the minister waiting for to look into it? These are issues
that need to be resolved and which would have an impact in the
short term.
Let us get back to Bill C-27 now that I have let off some steam.
As far as I could see in perusing it, Bill C-27 sets out some
general management principles. Canada has not yet developed its
own policy, as I said earlier.
I would like to quote a section—section 5 and its five
paragraphs—stating general principles for managing fisheries.
1720
In article 5(a) one of the wishes contained in the United
Nations Fisheries Agreement is to promote optimum utilization.
What is the department's or the minister's opinion on this?
Most of all, what is the industry's opinion? Nobody has asked,
and I believe they are entitled to have the first say.
In article 5(f), still in that international agreement which
Canada would like us to sign with Bill C-27, reference is made to
fishing gear. I will spare you all the details, but it ends
with mention of “environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing
gear and techniques”.
What is the meaning of this? Did anyone ask the industry what
this represents?
What are they thinking about, when we see Canada preparing to
commit to such a thing? This can be interesting.
It is true that, if the government wants MPs to pass a bill to
help it sign an international agreement, it needs to go first to
the grass roots. It could sign it directly, I tell you. If it
can, let it not bother us with it.
Still under “general principles”, I have another little
question. It will be a good exercise at the same time. We will
see whether the Minister of Fisheries himself has read the
famous agreement he wants so badly for us to adopt.
Article 5(i) states “take into account the interests of
artisanal and subsistence fishers”. Here is another good
question. Does this mean that Canada is prepared to allow
artisanal fishing when the fishery starts up again?
So, we no longer have offshore or midshore fishers. What is
Canada's position on this issue? What is the industry's
attitude? What will fishers think? What will the processors who
will receive the resource think? There is an impact, but we do
not talk about it.
We are told “Pass this bill and all our problems will be solved.
That is how we managed to stop that Spanish boat, the Estai”.
This has already been done with Bill C-29. The minister does not
know what he wants.
These questions will have to be answered. And I only read three
paragraphs of clause 5. Already, if the minister was willing to
have a debate, we could get some idea as to whether Canada hopes
to have an industry that will more or less operate in this or
that fashion. But we do not know that and the government is
introducing legislation to protect our stocks. It is tabling a
bill that will confirm a management philosophy, but we still do
not know what it thinks.
We still do not know what this implies.
The main problem is that we need to answer these questions to
deal with the fate of those who are concerned about TAGS.
The Minister of Human Resources Development seems like a nice
guy. I am taking this opportunity, since he is sitting across
from me. While he may try to show a great deal of compassion in
the House when we put questions to him during oral question
period, his job as human resources minister is to help people
retrain, after they have been declared surplus.
But who will declare them surplus in the fishing industry, if
not the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans? I hope the latter will
assume his responsibilities and not leave them to the
parliamentary janitor, even though I have a lot of respect for
him. Someone must be in charge.
Someone must get the debate going on this issue, but it is not
being done right now.
I am very concerned by what the government opposite is doing. I
do not know who will sit on the committee to be set up by the
Minister of Human Resources Development. First, the members of
this committee must have some idea of what our industry will
look like, before determining what must be declared surplus.
1725
Something else is not included. The government is trying to
regulate the fate of the industry and protect our stocks, but
under the Canadian Constitution, the federal government is
responsible for the catch. Processing, once the fish is landed,
is a provincial matter. Everything is related.
The image is distressing: a live fish is federal and a dead fish
is provincial. It is not because I come from Quebec that I
underscore this point and say there are problems. If I am the
first to say so, it does not matter because others will say the
same thing.
There is an impact on the provinces. The Minister of Human
Resources Development knows full well the number of workers
involved on land.
He knows a lot of people are involved. In the Gaspé we have
always said that one fisher provides work for five people on
land. Everything is connected.
I want to say, in relation to article 5, that Canada has not had
discussions with the fishing community—those who catch and
process—on the general principles of management in the UN
fisheries agreement. I wonder what provincial ministers are
waiting for before initiating discussions with them?
Before Christmas, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, during
an opposition day debate on a Progressive Conservative motion
dealing with an eventual fishing policy, recognized that one
reason the Atlantic groundfish strategy did not work was that
the provinces may not have been sufficiently involved.
To my way of thinking, that does not mean they were not involved
enough financially, but that they were not involved enough in
resolving the problem.
This is the sort of debate we need. There is a little time yet
before the House adjourns and before the ministers take their
holidays, which are perhaps justified. But I do not want them
to leave on holiday without providing some security for the
public, which will be faced with the end of the Atlantic
groundfish strategy in August 1998. The people of Newfoundland
and the Gaspé have got the message and that is why they are in
the streets today. It is their only recourse. They say they
have no choice.
I see time is passing, please tell me at the end of the day how
much time I will have tomorrow morning, because I have a lot
more to say.
That is the start and that is what needs to be done. Tomorrow
morning I will be back and will carry on.
I will suggest other approaches, but the message the public is
waiting to hear is that we at least agree on what the problem is
and that, once it admits there is a problem, the government
agrees on a timetable for trying to do something about it.
The public also expects the government to be transparent in its
approach and share its criteria, to be sure that it has not
forgotten anything. Nobody will be hurt because there are not
yet any names attached, but we can agree on wording and
objectives. That will give us enough to go ahead with. Later
on, after we have looked at it together, figures can be added
and responsibilities assigned, if that is what we are asked to
do.
I am all for decentralization to the provinces. I would like
those who are not to adopt the approach I have just outlined,
which is to define the problem and seek a solution, and not to
rule out any solution a priori, but to consider them all.
Bill
C-27 does not address the problem, and that is what I would like
to continue to do. It is also a way of improving Bill C-27,
because management philosophy comes up in this agreement. If
the members opposite have not seen it, it is time they went back
and read the United Nations Fishing Agreement and did their
homework. Then we can talk.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok will have 13 minutes in
which to conclude his speech.
1730
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-262, an act to amend the Criminal Code (probation order), be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are times in this Chamber when one
realizes the responsibility that we have as members of
parliament, indeed the privilege, of being able to come to this
place where laws are made in Canada and have direct input such as
I have at this point.
The bill I have brought to the attention of the House has arisen
from a situation that is not unique in my constituency but which
was drawn to my attention in 1996. It is not unique in my
constituency that when we have crimes committed the presiding
judge has the opportunity, at the time of sentencing when the
sentence is two years less a day, to include in the file, indeed
in the sentence, terms of probation. In the case of giving a
sentence in excess of two years less a day unfortunately that
provision does not exist in criminal law.
From time to time governments come forward with omnibus
legislation in particular in the area of justice. Omnibus
legislation is simply a gathering together of all the bits and
pieces of improvements that can be made to Canada's Criminal Code
and moving this forward through the House of Commons to clean up
a number of details.
There is no way this bill is inspired by any partisan interest
whatsoever. This is a bill that I am sure would receive the
support of all members of this Chamber. It is a simple piece of
fine tuning on existing legislation that would improve Canada's
justice system.
I confess I am not a lawyer. In some circles that would be seen
as a bonus. However, we will leave that one where it sits. I am
a simple layman who went to a lawyer and said what is the
improvement that should be made, and it is from that that this
legislation flows.
What was the situation? Unfortunately back in 1996 a 34 year
old man was convicted of beating his own 28 day old son, a very
despicable crime. The judge at the time of sentencing noted this
individual had a prior record of doing this kind of thing. It
was the judge's contention that if there had been some sort of
provision in the sentencing in either the first or second
instance the wife of this man, the woman who bore this child,
would have been aware that she would have to be more protective
of her own child. There would have been the possibility that
such a union would not have taken place in the first place
This is a very difficult case. I am not trying to tack on to
this sentencing by this judge. I am not trying to make a
mountain out of a mole hill. I am simply saying that the judge
was right. This is as good an indicator as any.
Judges should have exactly the same opportunity as they have in
sentencing two years less a day to affect the outcome and the
considerations at the time of probation.
1735
I read from a news report at the time:
At the time of the sentencing the judge criticized the federal
laws from preventing him from attaching a probation period to the
sentence.
I now hope that [my] proposed legislation will take
into account the conditions at the time of sentencing to allow
judges to attach probation periods to federal sentences.
It is this kind of fine tuning that allows all hon. members of
the House to come to this place and say here is a problem, what
can we do to fix it. However, as private members we are thwarted
by the system within the House. As I said at the beginning of my
address I am very pleased and privileged to have the opportunity
to come to the House to make a plea for this change on behalf not
only of my own constituents but all Canadians and to improve the
justice system. At the same time as a private member I am really
constrained as to how far I can take this.
I brought the bill to the House following that instance in 1996.
We are already in 1998. This is a two year process. In the
intervening period of time there has been an election where the
people of Kootenay—Columbia chose me to come back to the House
so again I presented the same bill to the House.
The bill then goes into a lottery. I have three bills in this
hopper at this time. My name was drawn and I had to choose one
of the bills. I considered this bill to be the most important of
the three I have presently in the system.
We then go before a committee that makes a judgment as to
whether these bills are going to become votable. If it is
votable it will be able to move from this Chamber after second
reading to committee.
I am fully aware that the justice committee is exceptionally
busy at this time. There is a tremendous amount of pressure on
the committee. There is no intent with this minuscule change
that we are talking about to add to this already onerous
workload. It is a simple matter of saying here is an
improvement, could we get this small improvement included in a
future omnibus bill that will be brought forward containing many
other bits and pieces of improvements to the legal system. That
is my direction.
I went before the committee and said could we make this votable
so that the House could move the proposed bill to the committee.
That committee in its wisdom said, for whatever reason, it is not
important enough and that it will not permit this to be votable.
Therefore it seems logical that with the committee's having
arrived at that decision I should ask for unanimous consent of
this House to permit this to become a votable bill. I do not
expect a tremendous amount of debate on the bill but at the end
of the day that the House allow this to move forward to committee
work. I ask for unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there is some good
reason why the government would not want to see this moved to
committee in its present form. I would ask for unanimous consent
for the intent of this bill, the wording, to be drawn to the
attention of the justice committee to become part of what it is
doing in terms of improving Canadian law.
1740
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I do not really know
how the intent of a bill could be taken to a committee. Perhaps
if during the intervening debate the hon. member is able to put
the intent into words it could be presented. Perhaps the
committee could read the transcript of these proceedings and
derive the intent from that.
With respect, I do not believe this is a motion I am able to
present to the house.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I will listen to the
perspectives of the government and the other parties. As I make
my wrap-up comments I will do that for you.
[Translation]
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-262, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (probation order), introduced by the member for
Kootenay—Columbia.
This bill has only one clause. It is intended to replace
paragraph 731(1)(b) of the Criminal Code with the following:
The provisions of sections 731 and 731.1 of the Code currently
deal with probation orders.
They were updated and modernized with the in depth reform of
sentencing, which was completed in Bill C-41, a bill the House
passed in the first session of the last Parliament. It became
chapter 22 of the 1995 Statutes of Canada and currently is
included in part XXIII of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Section 731 enables the sentencing judge to subject a delinquent
to a probationary order. Under paragraph 1(a) the court may
defer sentencing and order probation if no minimum sentence is
provided for the offence at issue.
[English]
It is this last limitation which the hon. member proposes
parliament remove from the section. Judges would then be allowed
to attach a probation order to any sentence of imprisonment no
matter how long.
There are a few other related provisions to which I draw the
attention of the House. Section 732.2(1) describes when a
probation order comes into force:
a) on the date on which the order is made;
b) where the offender is sentenced to imprisonment under
paragraph 731(1)(b) or was previously sentenced to imprisonment
for another offence, as soon as the offender is released from
prison or, if released from prison on conditional release, at the
expiration of the sentence of imprisonment; or
c) where the offender is under a conditional sentence, at the
expiration of the conditional sentence.
Section 732.2(2) provides that no probation order shall continue
in force for more than three years after the date on which the
order came into force. Section 732.1(2) sets out the mandatory
conditions which must be contained in a probation order and
section 732.1(3) provides a list of optional conditions.
It might be useful for hon. members to be reminded of some of
these conditions:
(i) the consumption of alcohol or other intoxicating
substances, or
(ii) the consumption of drugs except in accordance with a medical
prescription;
(d) abstain from owning, possessing or carrying a weapon;
(e) provide for the support or care of dependants;
(f) perform up to 240 hours of community service over a period
not exceeding eighteen months;
(g) if the offender agrees, and subject to the program
director's acceptance of the offender, participate actively
in a treatment program approved by the province; and
(h) comply with such other reasonable conditions as the court
considers desirable, subject to any regulations made under
subsection 738(2), for protecting society and for facilitating
the offender's successful reintegration into the community.
1745
That final reference, the so-called basket clause, underlines
the fundamental purpose of probation which is to protect society,
but also to facilitate an offender's successful reintegration
into society.
That is also the purpose of parole or conditional release. It
is parole which provides that reintegration for offenders
sentenced to sentences of over two years. I will have more to
say about that later.
Let me give two examples of the span of control that probation
can provide. It is quite common to see a conditional sentence,
for example two years less a day, accompanied by a three year
probation order containing similar conditions to those found in
the conditional sentence order.
This protects society by providing a five year period of control
and supervision over the offender with conditions that can be
tailored and indeed changed over time to reflect changing
circumstances and needs.
An offender sentenced to, say, 18 months in provincial custody
could be under a period of probation supervision for up to three
years. This, too, is commonplace and a sensible societal
response to crime.
It may be useful to give some historical perspective on the use
of probation in Canada. Probation started in this country in
1889 under the authority of an act to permit the conditional
release of first offenders in certain cases.
Our first Criminal Code, passed in 1892, provided that first
offenders convicted of offences punishable by not more than two
years' imprisonment could be released on probation of conduct
under a recognizance.
Subsequent 1921 legislation provided for the supervision of
probationers in the community and thereafter most provinces
enacted legislation creating probation services. There is no
federal probation service.
If the hon. member's proposals were carried through, there would
be potential for conflict with the role and understanding of
parole and other forms of conditional release for federal
offenders.
Penitentiary sentences already incorporate an appropriate range
of supervised releases which have been carefully put in place for
the safe and controlled reintegration of offenders into the
community.
As recently as late August the government introduced a new
sentencing category to the Criminal Code called long term
offender. A court which designates an offender as a long term
offender can sentence the offender to a penitentiary sentence
followed by a period of long term supervision of up to a maximum
of 10 years which begins when the period of incarceration,
including parole, expires.
This is only one example of the measures that have been
implemented to ensure the protection of society. There are many
more. To illustrate, there is work release, escorted and
unescorted temporary absences, day parole, full parole, statutory
release and long term supervision.
Let me take a moment to describe these supervised releases in
more detail so that members of the House can appreciate the
comprehensive range of release mechanisms that are in place at
the present time for the safe reintegration of federal offenders
into society.
First, there is work release which is a release program allowing
a penitentiary inmate to work for a specified duration in the
community on a paid or voluntary basis while under supervision.
Generally, an inmate is eligible for work release when he or she
has served one-sixth of the sentence or six months, whichever is
greater.
The institutional head has authority to grant a work release of
up to a maximum period of 60 days under specified conditions
which always include supervision.
Correctional authorities grant work releases to carefully
selected inmates who perform work and services of benefit to the
community, such as painting, general repairs and maintenance of
community centres or homes for the aged. Work release is one of
the first steps in the safe, gradual reintegration of offenders
into society.
Then there is the escorted temporary absence. This is a short
term release to the community under escort. Most inmates are
eligible for such an absence at any time during the sentence.
The duration of an escorted temporary absence varies from an
unlimited period for medical reasons to not more than 15 days for
any other specified reason.
The institutional head may authorize an escorted temporary
absence. In certain instances involving lifers, National Parole
Board approval is required.
For example, escorted temporary absences are granted to allow
inmates to obtain treatment that is unavailable in a
penitentiary, to attend critically ill family members and to
prepare for other types of conditional release.
1750
[Translation]
Then there is parole. This is a form of conditional release
which enables some offenders to serve part of their sentence out
in the community, provided they comply with certain conditions.
Since most offenders will eventually be released, the best way
to protect the public is to help them to reintegrate with
society through a gradual and supervised release mechanism.
Parole is a privilege, not a right, and the National Parole
Board has the power to grant or deny it.
In order to reach that decision, board members carefully examine
the information provided by the victims, the courts, the
correctional authorities, and the offender. A number of factors
are taken into account, but protecting society is foremost.
This is followed by statutory release. Generally speaking, the
offender is entitled to be released into the community once he
has served two-thirds of his sentence. As is the case for
parole, offenders who have been given statutory release serve
the final third of their sentence in the community under
supervision, provided they comply with certain conditions.
[English]
Every long term offender is subject to standard conditions such
as keeping the peace. Special conditions can be added to ensure
close supervision of the offenders, such as electronic monitoring
and monetary participation and counselling. Correctional Service
Canada provides the supervision.
In conclusion, the hon. member's proposal would create a
potential conflict with the role of parole and other forms of
release appropriate for federal offenders.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to this bill. I
am encouraged that the hon. member has brought forward this
legislation. It is an interesting reflection of what he has
experienced in his own constituency. I commend him for that.
I am glad to hear him recognize how busy the justice committee
is. In fact, I came here tonight from the justice committee
where we have been meeting for most of the day. We had the
opportunity to question the commissioner of correctional
services, a timely witness given the bill that is currently
before the House.
As the government member pointed out, the bill would seek to
replace a section of the Criminal Code and provide judges with
the power to provide a probationary period for an individual who
is convicted and sentenced to more than two years less a day. For
those who are not familiar with the reason for that distinction,
it should be made clear that offenders who are sentenced to two
years less a day serve their time in a provincial correctional
facility, while those who are sentenced to two years or more
serve their time in a federal penitentiary. There is a
difference. There is a distinction.
Having been a legal aid lawyer for some time I am aware of the
many different programs available in the different jurisdictions
to assist offenders in reintegrating into society. Those are all
calculations which any defence counsel will make in discussions
with the crown. They are all calculations made in the sentencing
process.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice talked
about the potential conflict between different programs. I
appreciate that, yet I fail to see reasons for not supporting
this legislation which is a common sense approach.
The member for Kootenay—Columbia said he is not a lawyer. He
is, in fact, a lawmaker. I understand how confusing it can
sometimes be to read through these sections for those who are not
schooled in the law. Those of us who practise law on a regular
basis are familiar with them. I will not refer to the Criminal
Code too much, but I think there are some provisions worth noting
in addition to those noted by the parliamentary secretary.
Part of the reason people argue against this kind of bill is
that the court cannot foresee what will happen to an offender in
two years. The reason the court has the power to place the
probationary conditions referred to on an offender of two years
less a day is because the court still maintains some control over
that offender. Realistically, if the offender is sentenced to
four or five years, the court cannot gauge what kind of progress
that individual will make in an effort to rehabilitate himself or
herself to re-enter society.
1755
I think that while that is a compelling argument, it is not one
that necessarily stands in the way of this proposed change
because the code also provides at subsection 732.2(3):
A court that makes a probation order may at any time, on
application by the offender, the probation officer or the
prosecutor, require the offender to appear before it and, after
hearing the offender and one or both of the probation officer and
the prosecutor,
(a) make any changes to the optional conditions that in the
opinion of the court are rendered desirable by a change in the
circumstances since those conditions were prescribed,
(b) relieve the offender, either absolutely or on such terms or
for such period as the court deems desirable, of compliance with
any optional condition.
I think that is in favour of the legislation proposed.
There are those who would say we do not know where the offender
is going to be in three years. If an offender is sentenced to a
period of time, accepts the help offered in a facility to
rehabilitate himself or herself, they can come back to court and
ask that the conditions in the probation order be lifted. If in
the opinion of the court they are no longer a threat to the
public, the court has the power to lift the order.
I find myself commending this piece of proposed legislation
because I think it provides the court more remedies to try to
rehabilitate an offender.
I find it heartening that the hon. member sees value in
providing offenders with a period of probation. It is heartening
to see that the hon. member recognizes that greater options for
probation and parole are mechanisms to reintegrate the offender
into the community. The system is not simply restricted to
sentencing him to time.
This bill will give the judge the option. Instead of having to
say that the offence is serious, but there are compelling
circumstances for the offender and, therefore, he does not want
to sentence him to five years, he can sentence him to three years
with a period of probation for two years.
It will allow the judge to have more flexibility in sentencing
the offender to less time with a probationary period. I must say
that it comes as a surprise to me that this would come forward to
allow the court to do that, but I see some merit in it.
There are some problems with it. It is too bad it is not being
referred to the justice committee, but our plate is full right
now with a number of pieces of legislation that have been
referred to us. It is an interesting piece of legislation which
would provide the court some flexibility and I thank the member
for presenting it to the House.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I will indicate at the outset that I am in support
of Bill C-262 which was first introduced in October by the hon.
member for Kootenay—Columbia.
It is not often that we in this House have an opportunity to
debate a piece of legislation that, while brief in detail, could
have a very important impact on protecting the public at large.
As mentioned by previous speakers, and in particular my
colleague from Nova Scotia, we have an opportunity in the House
to impact directly on our criminal justice system. The Minister
of Justice has stood in this House many times and in response to
questions from the opposition benches has said there are no
simple answers.
That may be partly true but at times there are simple answers.
This bill in its present form is a very straightforward and
simple answer to a problem that exists in our Criminal Code.
1800
My colleague from Nova Scotia has already spoken about some of
the nuances that exist when it comes to sentencing, the
principles of sentencing and the difference between a provincial
and federal sentence and the designation of two years plus or
minus a day. I will not go into detail on that.
There is an opportunity here to allow judges to have greater
discretion in the sentencing process, that is, judges who in the
first instance place sentences on offenders and put in place
conditions in the instance of a provincial sentence. Judges are
in a unique position to assess the circumstances of the offence.
They would have the benefit of the input of defence and crown
counsel. They would have potentially heard a trial and made
rulings of fact. Therefore the judge in the first instance has
the unique opportunity to craft a sentence that is best aimed at
meeting the principles of sentencing which are reformation and
rehabilitation, not to mention the protection of the public and
society's denunciation of certain criminal acts.
This bill allows judges to become more involved in the process
for sentences that go beyond the two year mark. I would like to
commend the hon. member as well. This is a unique and
straightforward bill he is bringing before the House.
I want to make a few comments with respect to the Reform Party's
position on this. In the past we have heard derogatory remarks
in this House from members of the Reform Party about judges
generally. I am not going to get into the details of that.
It is important to note that this bill gives judges more
discretion. It is very important that we in this place do not
stand up and be overly critical of a certain institution, such as
judges, and then turn around and want to empower them with
greater discretion in what I would interpret as a means to give
judges greater respect and control within the justice system.
Bill C-262 clearly gives judges additional power. With that
comes additional responsibility. Although judges have been given
greater discretion by this legislation, I caution Reform members
about some of their comments about judges generally. When
members of Canada's Parliament refer to judges in this
institution I do caution them.
As referred to earlier, the justice committee has a great deal
on its plate. I would like to inform the hon. member that I took
the opportunity today, because I knew this piece of legislation
was coming forward, to ask the director of Correctional Service
Canada what his reaction would be to this initiative. I was
interested by his response.
The director felt that it was not necessary. He felt that there
were sufficient safeguards in place and that Correctional Service
Canada and the parole board had the ability and were in a better
position to craft the conditions of release when a prisoner had
served his or her time or, as we have come to know it, a portion
of his or her time prior to being released. I was somewhat
surprised that he responded so quickly with that. As I indicated
earlier in my remarks, I think this opportunity to have judges
craft a sentence in the first instance early in the process might
have long term ramifications.
One thought which came to mind while I was listening to some of
the remarks of the other speakers would be that the parole board
or Correctional Service Canada would have the discretion to add
or subtract certain conditions based on the progress of the
offender or the rehabilitative steps the offender had made while
incarcerated, depending on whether it was a long term or a short
term sentence. The parliamentary secretary to the minister has
referred to the fact that it is perhaps not necessary because for
long term sentences the parole board or Correctional Service
Canada are in a better position to assess that progress.
1805
Again I hearken back to my earlier remarks. It is very
important in all the steps an offender goes through from
apprehension to eventual release into society that all the
interested parties should have and through this legislation could
have greater input into the process.
I want to refer quickly to a couple of cases. These are factual
cases before the committee.
One involves an individual by the name of Raymond Russell who
was a convicted killer. On May 29, 1996 he murdered Darlene
Turnbull in her Vernon, British Columbia home. At the time Mr.
Russell had been released on full parole and was boarding with
Ms. Turnbull. Problems came to light as a result of a Corrections
Canada inquiry after the fact. The Canadian Resource Centre for
Victims of Crime has done a great deal of research into this
case.
The National Parole Board in conjunction with CSC did the
report. It focused on the fact that there was a lack of exchange
of information. It highlights the fact that apparently in many
instances a breakdown in information exchange is occurring in the
justice system. It poses very grave consequences for the public
at large if all that information is not available.
In the context of this bill, we have an opportunity for judges
early on to have input into long term sentences. They would then
be subject to those conditions the judges might deem appropriate
in the first instance and would be subject to review from the
contemplated time of release to see if they were still
appropriate. Although the Minister of Justice has said that there
are no simple solutions, I would suggest that this is a very
simple change that could take place. We should embrace it.
One thing Canadians have hoped for and have come to expect is
that we should be looking for solutions that make the law more
pliable and more applicable. If that involves updating or
changing the law, we should encourage that.
There are times when the law could be made simpler. It could be
made more user friendly. It could be more user friendly for
police officers who have to be the first line of contact when the
law is broken. It could be more user friendly for victims and
people who are brought into the system through no will or no want
of their own.
Another case involves Michael Hector who was a convicted armed
robber and on parole when he was involved in the murder of three
innocent people in the Thunder Bay area. He was on parole at the
time he committed these heinous crimes. Prior to his release the
National Parole Board had granted him day parole. It came to
light that factually some of the conditions that had been placed
upon him were not being followed.
It highlights again the need for appropriate conditions to be in
place. They have been described in some cases as abstention from
alcohol, non-association with prior comrades, or staying away
from playgrounds in the case of a sexual offender. Those types
of conditions could be diagnosed. Perhaps I am using that word
inappropriately.
A judge in the first instance could make that determination and
put those conditions in place. They could be reviewed prior to
the offender's release, whether that is two, four, six or eight
years down the road. They could be reviewed by the parole board
and deemed to be appropriate or not appropriate. The important
thing is the conditions are there and everything humanly possible
is done to ensure that the proper conditions are in place.
I support this piece of legislation. I commend the hon. member
for bringing this bill to the floor of the House. I am sure the
policing community, the victims advocate community and the public
at large would see this as a positive change to our Criminal
Code. I am encouraged that all members have spoken favourably on
it.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, we support this
legislation.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am also glad to
participate in the debate on Bill C-262 presented by the member
for Kootenay—Columbia.
Criminal justice issues such as this one are of much concern to
all Canadians and to myself.
1810
The proposed bill would amend the Criminal Code. More
specifically it would amend it such that it would allow a court
to direct that a federal offender, that is to say any offender
serving two years or more, comply with a probation order.
Currently as it stands, the court's authority to impose a
probation order is limited to provincial offenders. That is the
way it should remain.
If the hon. member's proposal were carried through, there would
be potential for conflict with the role and understanding of
parole and other forms of conditional release for federal
offenders. Frankly what would be the point if it is going to
confuse the issues?
Federal sentences already incorporate an appropriate range of
supervised releases which have been carefully put in place for
the safe and controlled reintegration of offenders into the
community.
As recently as last August the government introduced a new
sentencing category to the Criminal Code called long term
offender. A court which designates an offender as a long term
offender will sentence the offender to a penitentiary sentence
and a period of long supervision of up to a maximum of 10 years
which begins when the period of incarceration, including parole,
expires.
This is only one example of the measures that have been
implemented to ensure the protection of society. There are many
more I could give. To illustrate, there is work release, escorted
and unescorted temporary absences, day parole, full parole,
statutory release, and long term supervision as I have just
mentioned. Let me take a moment to describe these supervised
releases in more detail so that members of the House can
appreciate the comprehensive range of release mechanisms that are
in place for the safe reintegration of federal offenders into
society.
First there is work release, which is a release program allowing
a penitentiary inmate to work for a specified duration in the
community on a paid or voluntary basis while under supervision.
Generally an inmate is eligible for work release when he or she
has served one-sixth of the sentence or six months, whichever is
greater. The institutional head has the authority to grant a
work release of up to a maximum period of 60 days under specified
conditions which always include supervision.
Correctional authorities grant work release to carefully
selected inmates who perform work and services of benefit to the
community. Work release is one of the first steps in the safe
gradual reintegration of offenders into society.
An escorted temporary absence is short term release to the
community under escort. Most inmates are eligible for such an
absence at any time during their sentence. The duration of an
escorted temporary absence varies from an unlimited period for
medical reasons for example to not more than 15 days for any
other specified reason. Again the institutional head may
authorize escorted temporary absences at his discretion. In
certain instances involving lifers, National Parole Board
approval is required.
For example, escorted temporary absences are granted to allow
inmates to obtain treatment that is unavailable in the
penitentiary, to attend critically ill family members and to
prepare for other types of conditional release. An inmate may be
granted an escorted temporary absence to meet with the staff of a
community residential centre where he or she wishes to reside or
to confirm employment as part of his or her release plan.
An unescorted temporary absence is another form of short term
release but without an escort. Most inmates in the penitentiary
system are eligible for unescorted temporary absences at
one-sixth of the sentence or six months into the sentence, again
whichever is later. Lifers and inmates with indeterminate
sentences are not eligible for unescorted temporary absences
until three years before their full parole eligibility date.
Maximum security inmates are not eligible for this type of
release.
An unescorted temporary absence can be for an unlimited period
for medical reasons and for a maximum of 60 days for specified
personal development programs. Unescorted temporary absences for
community service or personal development can be for a maximum of
15 days, up to three times per year for a medium security inmate,
or four times per year for a minimum security inmate. The
duration of other types of unescorted temporary absences ranges
from a maximum of 48 hours per month for a medium security inmate
to 72 hours for a minimum security inmate.
Then there is parole. Parole is a form of conditional release
which allows some offenders to serve part of their sentence in
the community, provided they abide by certain conditions imposed.
Because most offenders will ultimately be released into their
communities, I believe the best way to protect the public is to
help offenders reintegrate into society through a gradual and
controlled supervised release.
1815
Parole is a privilege rather than a right and the National
Parole Board has discretion whether to grant that parole. In
determining whether to grant parole board members carefully
review information provided by victims, the courts, correctional
authorities and the offender. In arriving at a decision the
board considers a number of factors, above all the protection of
society.
There are two types of parole, day parole and full parole. Day
parole requires the offender to return to the institution or
halfway house each evening unless otherwise specified by the
National Parole Board. Most federal inmates can apply for a day
parole at either six months into their sentence or six months
before the full eligibility date, again whichever is later.
Day parole is normally granted up to a maximum of six months.
Lifers, those serving for first and second degree murder, and
inmates serving indeterminate sentences are eligible three years
prior to full parole eligibility date. Day parole therefore
provides inmates with the opportunity to participate in community
based activities to prepare for full parole or eventual statutory
release.
Full parole is a conditional release which allows an offender to
serve the remainder of a sentence in the community. It is the
culmination of an offender's gradual structured and controlled
release program. Under this form of release an offender may live
with his or her family and continue to work and contribute to
society.
Next there is statutory release. As a general rule an inmate is
legally entitled to be released into the community at two-thirds
of the sentence. Similar to parole, offenders on statutory
release serve the remaining third of their sentence in the
community, again under supervision provided they abide by certain
conditions. However, not all inmates are entitled to statutory
release.
As I mentioned, there is a new sentencing category recently
added to the criminal code called long term offender. This
procedure is similar to the dangerous offender category process
in place and applies to offenders convicted of sexual offences
such as sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual
touching, sexual exploitation, exposure, aggravated sexual
assault and sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm.
The procedure is also applicable to an offender who committed
another offence with a sexual component.
An offender designated as a long term offender at a special
sentencing hearing will be sentenced to a penitentiary sentence
and a period of long term supervision for up to a maximum of 10
years which starts when the period of incarceration, including
any parole, expires. A court can impose long term supervision
where in its judgment the risk presented by the offender can be
managed in the community through appropriate supervision.
Every long term offender is subject to standard conditions such
as keeping the peace. Special conditions can also be added to
ensure close supervision of offenders such as electronic
monitoring and mandatory participation in counselling.
Correctional Service Canada provides the supervision in these
cases.
The hon. member's proposal is well intentioned but falls short
of the impact intended by the recent changes to the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act added to the Criminal Code brought by
the government to enhance the protection of the public. At the
risk of repeating myself, federal probation would create a
potential conflict with the role of parole and other forms of
release appropriate for federal offenders.
Federal sentences already incorporate a comprehensive range of
supervised releases for the safe and gradual integration of
federal offenders into the community. Probation is a part of a
variety of supervised releases which are suitable for provincial
offenders and that is where the probation should remain in my
opinion.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise this afternoon and address Bill C-262 put forward
by my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia. I would
also like to compliment the member for Sydney—Victoria for
showing us the distinction between the sentences of two years
less a day and two years and beyond.
I understand the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia has
responded to the concerns of a judge in his riding and the need
for trial judges to have input on probation orders. I compliment
this member of the bench for coming forward with constructive
comments.
In many cases it is true that trial judges have a detailed
knowledge of a case that may not be accurately reflected at the
time of probation. For reasons outlined by the hon.
parliamentary secretaries, such traditional discretion concerning
parole in all cases may be in conflict with the existing role of
parole and other forms of release appropriate for federal
offenders.
1820
For reasons discussed by the hon. parliamentary secretaries, the
government feels that Bill C-262 may contravene the fundamental
purpose of probation which is not only to protect society but to
facilitate the offender's successful reintegration into society.
While in these cases of sentences over two years judges may not
have influence, an important fact to keep in mind is that victims
do. A balance has been struck between the rights of the victim
and the rehabilitation of the offender by the ongoing involvement
of the victims and the victims' families. They are the ones who
should also influence probation decisions and conditions.
The conflict of Bill C-262 and the comprehensive range of
releases has already been discussed by my colleagues. This
discussion on Bill C-262 should be unnecessary in light of the
far ranging reforms made to sentencing in Bill C-41 in the first
session of the last parliament. Bill C-41 was a response to and
a product of over 14 years of effort to achieve comprehensive
reform in the sentencing process as part of the criminal justice
system in Canada.
The need for reform in the sentencing process has long been
recognized by judges, parliamentarians, lawyers and by Canadians
themselves. For over a decade there have been calls for such a
reform, a royal commission on the subject, the law reform
commission, the Canadian Sentencing Commission which reported in
1987, and in 1988 an all-party committee of the House which had a
comprehensive set of recommendations with respect to sentencing,
conditional releases and corrections.
While many of those recommendations were reflected in the
government's sentencing bill, my hon. colleagues opposite chose
to reject the entire bill. Here they stand today asking for
changes in sentencing that may well have been addressed in 1995.
If this judicial problem existed at that time it would have been
prudent of the member for Kootenay—Columbia to have meaningfully
participated in a debate on the fundamentals of that bill rather
than on the semantics.
Under the terms of that bill Canadians now have a say through
parliament on the purpose and the principles of criminal
sentencing for the first time. Previously, parliament's role in
sentencing was limited to setting certain maximum levels of
incarceration and rarely minimum levels rather than dealing with
the policy objectives of the sentencing process.
Bill C-41 brought together a statement of the purposes and
principles of sentencing, the rules governing procedure and the
admissibility of evidence in the process, and the various
sanctions the courts may impose to punish, to deter, to
rehabilitate, all in a form that represented the collective view
of parliament. The changes proposed then, unlike the one today,
were broadly accepted by criminal justice professionals, the
provinces and the territories.
The establishment of a statement of purposes and principles was
endorsed by the Canadian Sentencing Commission, the justice
committee of this House and the former law reform commission of
Canada.
Through Bill C-41 parliament provided the course with clear
guidelines. It effectively granted discretion to the judiciary.
Parliament stressed the need to punish certain types of behaviour
by clearly stating that the purpose of sentencing must be to
denounce unlawful conduct, to deter offenders and other persons
from committing crimes and to separate offenders from society
where necessary. This provided judges from coast to coast to
coast with much of the discretion to sentence according to the
motivation and severity of the crime rather than being boxed in
by the word of the law.
The statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing
provided that a sentence must take into consideration the will to
protect society, to assist in rehabilitating offenders in
promoting their sense of responsibility, and to provide
reparations for harm done to victims of the community. A general
principle that ran throughout Bill C-41 was that jails should be
reserved for those who should be there. Alternatives should be
in place for those who commit offences but who do not need or
merit incarceration.
What alternatives will be available? For the first time Bill
C-41 introduced diversion for adult offenders. At the discretion
of the investigating officers and the appropriate authorities,
persons charged with minor offences, in particular for the first
time, could be sent into a parallel stream away from the
courtroom to be counselled or to be helped to overcome whatever
problem led to the infraction. This government saw fit that
judges have a great deal of discretion in determining whether
alternative sentencing was appropriate. To date courts continue
to have probation as an appropriate sanction in the cases that
require it.
Bill C-41 was only one of the many initiatives in the area of
criminal justice this government has implemented in order to
provide a balance and a comprehensive approach to the challenge
of crime in Canada. We have worked hard and long with the
judicial community to form policy that addresses its unique
considerations.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it has been interesting to listen to government members today.
They have talked about this bill in terms of release mechanisms
for offenders. We heard from the last speaker that this bill
should be unnecessary because of Bill C-41 introduced in 1995.
I point out to the government that the offence that prompted my
moving this bill took place in 1996 and that the presiding judge
in my constituency clearly did not find the provisions in Bill
C-41 to be adequate to answer the problem. Perhaps the problem
is best reflected in the comments that have been made by the
government.
1825
The government has addressed this bill strictly or almost
exclusively from the point of view of release mechanisms for
offenders. This bill addresses the rights of the victims and the
responsibility of the government, the law makers of this land, to
see that the people who are affected by these criminal acts are
more properly protected.
I was interested in the qualified support from both the NDP and
the Progressive Conservatives. I was encouraged by the NDP
member when he said this is a common sense approach. That was
also reflected in the words of the Progressive Conservative
member.
The one problem with the bill that appears to have become clear
is that the presiding judge probably would not have any way of
knowing and cannot foresee what kind of progress the offender
might make. The remedy to that has been proposed, particularly by
the speaker from the NDP. It could come back to the sentencing
court. The presiding judge who was there at the time of the
conviction and the sentencing would be able to have some input.
As has been pointed out by the Progressive Conservative member,
the bill I have proposed would allow more flexibility within the
judicial system.
I ask for unanimous consent that Bill C-262 be withdrawn, that
the order for second reading discharged and the subject matter
thereof referred to the standing committee on justice for further
study.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it is quite disappointing
that the government would have such a closed mind on this matter.
To recap, the government takes great pride in enacting
legislation in the previous parliament which it says solves all
the problems. We have a situation in my constituency that I am
sure is not unique where the judge says there is not sufficient
latitude. I have support of colleagues in the House on this side
speaking of a common sense approach and allowing more
flexibility.
It is just regrettable that the government cannot see fit to
look at options presented to it in good faith by people on this
side of the House. That is all that I have to say.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the chance to follow up on my question about the multilateral
agreement on investment, providing a broad based public
consultation, and having the government do that so the people of
Canada can participate.
Before taking that step, the government should analyse the
implication and the impact of the multilateral agreement on
investment on our democracy in light of being locked in to it for
20 years, the impact on employment and environmental standards
and the subjugation of lower levels of government in relation to
the conditions of the multilateral agreement on investment.
We were concerned about the potential implications of national
treatment for foreign companies and want the government to table
the analysis particularly when it comes to first nations
governments and their ability to look after their people or
territorial or provincial governments.
1830
By consulting the people, the government will show it is
concerned about trade in the country and who will benefit the
most, which should be the people and not just the owners of large
amounts of capital.
The Canadian economy has always been global. That has never
been a question. However it is how we organize that global
interaction and who it is to benefit, the people of the country.
It has always been the objective to have good levels of wages and
to sustain our health care and education system and not to remove
the people's choice for democracy.
In the case of the multilateral agreement, the federal
government should not sign the agreement or any other agreement
unless there is a binding agreement protecting the abilities of
provinces, territories and the national government to protect
their interest over the long term and not be subjected to the
short term interest of foreign investment.
We ask the government to let us know what kind of consultation
it is willing to undertake and what time schedule it is looking
at. Considering the agreement has made a pit-stop as it is
called in negotiations, this is the perfect time to do an impact
analysis and consult the people of the country on what direction
they want their government to take when it comes to international
trade.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
concern expressed by my colleague across the way. It is the
right and responsibility of every citizen of the country to be
concerned and as fully informed as possible on all these issues.
My friend should understand that interaction between two
countries goes both ways. There is the part of any agreement
that resides in Canada and there is the other part that resides
in the other country. In other words, when investment takes
place part of that agreement is designed to protect our
investment in other countries. It is a complete two way street.
My friend talked about consultation. I should like to read into
the record part of a bulletin from the Canadian Conference of the
Arts in terms of consultation. It points out that the minister
has done much to make the process of negotiating trade agreements
much more transparent to the Canadian people. He has ushered in
a new era for negotiations where interested Canadians can inform
themselves and participate in the shaping of ideas and positions
Canada takes to the negotiating table.
In other words this process was initiated by my minister. It is
well under way. The people of Canada are now able through
mechanisms we have established to make their views known.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): A motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.)