36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 96
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 30, 1998
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNEMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| NATIONAL SECURITY
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1010
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1015
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1020
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1025
| CREDIT OMBUDSMAN ACT
|
| Bill C-396. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1030
| PETITIONS
|
| Group Crime
|
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
| Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Bioartificial Kidney
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Hepatitis C
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1035
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1040
| CANADA SHIPPING ACT
|
| Bill C-15. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Bill C-15. Third reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1045
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1050
1055
| Mr. Michel Guimond |
1100
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1105
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
| COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Second reading
|
1125
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1130
1135
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1140
1145
1150
1155
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1200
1205
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
1210
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
1215
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1235
1240
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1245
1250
1255
1300
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1320
1325
1330
1335
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1340
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1345
1350
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ROAD TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| GOVERNMENT COMPENSATION
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| MICHEL LACHANCE
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| JOHN BASSETT
|
| Mr. David Price |
1400
| THE LATE CARLO ROSSI
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
| THE LATE MAURICE TREMBLAY
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| UMUGENZI FOR REFUGEES.
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1405
| CANADIAN NAVAL RESERVE
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| ISRAEL
|
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| ISRAEL
|
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1410
| ISRAELI PEOPLE
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| CORNWALLIS NAVAL MUSEUM
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| QUEBEC ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| FORESTRY
|
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1435
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Michel Guimond |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Guimond |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1440
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TREASURY BOARD
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1445
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1450
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| TREASURY BOARD
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1455
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1500
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Auditor General's Report
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1505
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Leader of the Opposition
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| The Speaker |
1510
| THE LATE BILL SCOTT
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1515
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1520
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tributes
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1525
| COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Second reading
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1530
1535
1540
| Division on motion deferred
|
1545
| CANADA EVIDENCE ACT
|
| Bill S-5. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Bill S-5. Third reading
|
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1550
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1555
1600
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
| Mr Richard Marceau |
1640
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1645
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1650
1655
1700
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-244. Second reading
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1705
1710
1715
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1720
1725
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1730
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1735
1740
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1745
1750
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1755
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1800
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Training for Young People
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1805
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
| Rail Transport
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1810
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1815
| Hepatitis C
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1820
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 96
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 30, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
GOVERNEMENT 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 four petitions.
* * *
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the public report of the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service for 1997.
I ask that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to present to parliament the solicitor general's
annual statement on national security, having tabled today the
1997 public report of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
The public report provides parliamentarians and the public with
a review of the global and domestic security environment.
Canadians value safety and security. Whether it is defined from
the health care, environmental, consumer protection or law
enforcement perspective, Canadians see public safety as a key
component on how we define ourselves as Canadians.
[Translation]
Public safety is my mission; it is the mission of the Department
of the Solicitor General.
[English]
Whether it be pursuing the goal of more effective corrections,
fighting organized crime or maintaining national security, CSIS,
the RCMP, the correctional service and the National Parole Board
are dedicated to public safety.
Today I want to focus on the efforts the government is making to
protect Canada's interests and to safeguard our citizens from
threats to their safety and security. As the CSIS public report
underlines, the 1990s have been a decade of great change
dominated by increased instability worldwide and the escalating
use of violence for political and ideological purposes.
Terrorism, including state sponsored terrorism, is an all too
frequent occurrence. CSIS has a mandate to forewarn and advise
the government on such activities, providing threat assessments
and helping to ensure effective consultation and information
sharing with appropriate agencies.
CSIS, the RCMP and other federal departments work together to
investigate and monitor the threat of international terrorist
activity in a common mission to protect Canadians and Canada's
interests here and abroad.
Canadians can expect to see a range of tough measures against
those who abuse our democratic system and our institutions to
further their deadly aims. I will outline some of the measures.
Canada is a signatory to the United Nations convention on the
suppression of terrorist bombing offences and the convention on
the safety of UN and associated personnel. The government plans
to introduce legislation to ratify these conventions.
We want to make it much more difficult for terrorist groups to
raise funds in Canada. This is a global as well as domestic
problem and we are working with other G-8 countries to help
develop approaches to handle this problem while not impinging
upon legitimate humanitarian fundraising activities.
We also want to make it much more difficult for terrorists to
enter Canada and to abuse our immigration process to avoid
justified removal from the country. The Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration is developing proposals on these issues as part
of her broader reform.
1010
My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has announced that she
will bring major amendments to our laws on extradition to help us
better meet our international commitments and to ensure that
Canada is not a safe haven for criminals around the world who
want to avoid justice.
I reiterate the commitment I made in this House last November to
introduce legislation that would help the RCMP and other law
enforcement agencies to combat money laundering. While these
mechanisms are designed to counter organized crime, we anticipate
there could also be benefits for counterterrorism efforts.
The RCMP and CSIS play key roles in national security. These two
agencies of my portfolio are marshalling all the resources in a
co-operative and integrated fight against threats to our national
security. CSIS has a key role to play in exchanging information
with other countries and providing relevant criminal information
and strategic analysis to Canadian law enforcement.
Several countries are active in trying to steal leading edge
technology from Canada. CSIS has a mandate and a responsibility
to investigate these matters.
In a world driven by economic advantage we do not expect to see
such activities diminish and CSIS will continue to develop
co-operative arrangements with other security and intelligence
services in pursuit of our security objectives.
The government is studying the issue of creating modern
legislation to replace the badly outdated and overbroad official
secrets act to address the threats Canada faces today.
I welcome the opportunity as well to brief the recently created
special committee of the other place that will be examining our
counterterrorism arrangements.
In this brief canvass of national security I have emphasized
that the global situation is unsettled, often dangerous and hence
has important implications for Canadian public safety. We are
working hard on both the domestic and international fronts.
Canada will be front and centre at the Birmingham summit of the
G-8 next month to deal with threats to Canada's national security
and our national interests.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
the comments by the hon. Solicitor General of Canada.
In the four or five minutes I have I would like to touch on a
number of issues. It is reported that we have a huge number of
modern day war criminals in this country. The greatest threat to
any nation is always the problems within a nation. The threats
from outside our nation when they become part of our nation are
the greatest threats, whether criminal activity, harbouring those
who are wanted for acts of genocide or other heinous crimes in
their home countries and who are now living in our society, or
whether it is those who are here because they want to steal the
secrets we have, whether military, economic or industrial.
Until we strengthen our institutions we have designed through a
democratic manner over the years to ward off these threats we are
just speaking idle words.
I welcome the words of the hon. solicitor general but we must
back those up by strengthening CSIS not only in numbers but also
wherever it is practical and possible to give it greater
legislative powers. We must strengthen the RCMP and not continue
to whittle away at its budget. We are under strengthed. We must
reinforce that. We must also stop allowing our military to rust
out in the manner that has occurred over the last 10 or 15 years
or more.
We must strengthen those institutions that protect national
security, our economic security and our societal security from
those external forces that once they become internal forces pose
the most dire threat to the stability of this country in all
these areas.
This government had better be prepared to reinforce the budgets
of these institutions that we rely on to protect our security,
the security of our industries and the high tech development
occurring, to protect those secrets from encroachment and
incursion by forces outside of our country that have almost an
open door to move across our borders into our country and set up
their espionage organizations to take these secrets from our very
high tech society in this country and use them against us.
1015
I welcome the comments of the solicitor general. Let us see
some action behind those words. He can rest assured that he will
receive support from the Reform Party caucus of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak today in this debate.
In tabling the 1997 public report of CSIS and delivering his
annual statement on global and domestic security, the minister
reflects the government's desire to remain transparent and
accountable regarding the management of security intelligence
issues.
Because all procedures used by CSIS cannot be disclosed, we
should hope that security intelligence is gathered in a
legitimate fashion. Of course, the minister stands up for his
department, but troubling facts are regularly reported by the
press.
In fact, how can the minister reconcile the statement he just
made with the following facts?
On April 4, based on the contents of a 24-page SIRC document
dated July 18, 1997, the Toronto Star reported that CSIS had
abused and endangered a vulnerable refugee claimant by promising
him asylum if he spied on fellow Tamils. While he had not yet
gone through the regular immigration process, CSIS held up the
possibility of his being admitted to Canada in exchange for his
co-operation.
In addition, this SIRC report follows up on the fact that, in
1996, a person by the name of Thalaya Singam Sivakumar went
public with his story. Mr. Sivakumar claimed that he worked for
CSIS for five years because the agency promised he would be
allowed to stay in Canada. But in 1994, CSIS broke off its
relationship with Sivakumar and it now claims it never promised
him anything.
The same SIRC report indicates that CSIS had intervened in the
immigration process in other cases in order to recruit
informants. A former high ranking member of CSIS, Ian Macewen,
who headed the counterterrorist section for seven years said
that CSIS tried to help its better informants. He added that,
on four occasions during his years of service, CSIS intervened
in the immigration process to obtain immigrant status for such
people.
The Toronto Star, once again, reported on April 15 that another
refugee claimant had accused CSIS of trying to force him into
spying. The individual in question, Mr. Singh, comes from
India, and more specifically the state of Punjab. His story is
dangerously like the preceding one. He made a formal complaint
against CSIS last month.
In the light of these facts, we are forced to condemn this
practice of CSIS and request that these matters be studied
thoroughly.
The minister announced earlier that a special Senate committee
would review Canada's antiterrorist mechanisms. I would remind
him that senators are appointed and do not represent the public.
As they are accountable to no one, I question their ability to
properly represent the concerns of Canadians.
I would ask the minister to replace the special Senate committee
he wants to set up with a committee of the House of Commons.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
too am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the New Democratic
Party.
I welcome the minister's statement on national security. I
think he will recognize and agree with me that this is of
importance to every single Canadian in every community of this
country.
Sometimes we are left with the impression that terrorism and
organized crime are problems that affect only the major urban
centres in this country, and particularly those on the coasts
where the importation of narcotics by certain groups is of real
concern. In Montreal the existence of biker gangs that engage in
warfare are of concern.
Many of the root causes of crime and the issues that cause
people to be concerned about safety in their communities can be
traced back to the influence of organized crime. It is something
that every Canadian, whether they live in Ingonish, a rural
community in my riding, or Winnipeg where there are concerns
about gangs, or Vancouver where there are concerns about the
ports, ought to take an interest in. I am sure they will watch
the movements of the minister on the issue of organized crime.
1020
It is an issue that requires national attention. In the last
year, as I have indicated, we have realized the biker gangs and
the organized crime which is present at Canada's ports. I have
raised these issues in the House on many occasions. There are
allegations of infiltration and involvement in the ports.
We know that Canada has been placed on the United States list of
nations about which they are most concerned in terms of money
laundering. This is something that this country ought to take
seriously. I welcome the solicitor general looking into that
because it is something that we have to be very careful of.
The increased globalization, the increased freedom of capital to
flow from one nation to another, with limited checks and
balances, has opened the door for organized crime to infiltrate
this country. The opening of the ports, the reduction of tariffs
and the cutbacks of police agencies that can properly monitor
what happens in this country and what goods come in have given
more power to organized crime.
I welcome the initiative. We need to allow our police agencies
to become technologically advanced and ensure that they have the
proper and the necessary tools to fight organized crime which is
becoming increasingly technologically advanced in this country.
I welcome the comment that the Minister of Justice will bring in
laws on extradition. I will not hold my breath, but I look
forward to hearing them.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party I welcome the initiative.
We are concerned about organized crime in this country, as are
most citizens. We look forward to the dialogue.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada in response to the solicitor
general's statement on national security.
I am also pleased that this forum is being utilized by the
government and that we had the opportunity to hear a ministerial
statement on such an important area. It is a very timely
appearance by the solicitor general.
As has been mentioned by previous members, there has been a
great deal of talk in this area. The solicitor general has
repeated his pledge from last summer and again last fall to
introduce new legislation on money laundering and cross-border
currency controls. The fact remains that to date we have not
seen that. There has been a great deal of consultation, which
again I believe is a very important part of the process, but I
would encourage the solicitor general to act on these
initiatives.
Canadians are concerned about justice and security issues. They
require more than just rhetoric. They require concrete action.
We have heard a great deal about the intention to crack down on
money laundering and cross-border currency controls since
September of this year. To the government's credit it did pass
anti-organized crime legislation in the spring of 1997. However,
like many of these initiatives, I would suggest it was not a full
effort. There continue to be huge loopholes in the federal
legislation, particularly when we look at what Canada has done
compared to other countries.
As an example I would cite the U.S. State Department's report,
“International Narcotics Control Strategy”, which singled out
Canada as an easy target for drug related and other types of
money laundering. The report goes on to compare Canada to
countries like Columbia, Brazil and the Cayman Islands as
countries which are open to money laundering and places to hide
illegal money.
That report identified the fact that Canada's international
position is not glowing. Lack of federal legislation leaves our
country open to this type of illegal activity.
This, in light of some of the other developments that have
happened in this country, in particular the government's
decision to disband the ports police, causes grave concern for
opposition members as well as the Canadian public at large.
The problem remains. In the 10 months since the solicitor
general has taken this post there have been many promises made,
but we have yet to see the delivery of those promises. Canada
continues to be open for business as far as organized crime is
concerned.
The solicitor general did assure Canadians on Monday that he was
on the job with respect to organized crime.
1025
He also told us that he was going to bring biker gangs to their
knees and eradicate organized crime. This is again a lot of
tough talk, but we are waiting patiently and encouraging the
solicitor general to act on these initiatives.
I would also put before the House the opinion of Scott Newark,
the executive director of the Canadian Police Association. He
offered this statement very recently to the solicitor general:
“Anyone can talk tough. Let's see some action. Here is a guy
who has some power, but I have not seen him exercise it yet”.
We have to be concerned when members of the policing community
say those things. Mr. Newark went on to say “We are not
interested in what the government says any more. We have had
some very constructive and doable things that have run into a
wall of indifference”. I am very concerned about the confidence
in the policing community when those sorts of comments are being
made publicly by a gentleman like Mr. Newark.
The solicitor general outlined specifically some of the positive
measures of his department and the initiatives to improve
national security that would result in changes to our Immigration
Act, the Extradition Act and the Official Secrets Act, among
other statutes. I would certainly hope that these measures do
not have a long shelf life.
I commend the solicitor general for identifying the priority
area of CSIS. When this organization began a decade ago many
assumed that the end of the cold war would result in a decrease
in the need for international security. Sadly, this has not been
the case.
Certainly in Canada we have seen a rise in the area of organized
crime. This perhaps poses one of the biggest threats to national
security at this time.
Page 9 of the 1997 CSIS public report states: “There are many
activities in addition to the traditional threat activities which
cause or have the potential to cause threats to the public safety
of Canadians and the national security of Canada”. Therefore,
our focus may have to shift on the internal threats posed by
organized crime.
In conclusion, I applaud the engagements of the solicitor
general on behalf of CSIS to form intelligence activities, to
enhance the protection of computer infrastructure, to review our
counter-terrorism strategies and to apprise the government of
foreign and domestic activities which may compromise public
security. However, with that said, I am still concerned about
the lack of resources to effectively implement these very
laudable plans. Since the government took office in 1993 there
have been more than 700 employees cut from CSIS, more than
one-quarter of the total workforce.
I urge the solicitor general to engage his cabinet, in
particular the finance minister, to see that this is not just
talk and that these plans are going to be implemented. Like my
colleagues, I look forward to working on the justice committee
with the solicitor general.
* * *
CREDIT OMBUDSMAN ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-396, an act to establish the office of Credit
Ombudsman to be an advocate for the interests of consumers and
small business in credit matters and to investigate and report on
the provision by financial institutions of consumer and small
business credit by community and by industry in order to ensure
equity in the distribution of credit resources.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will set up the office of a
credit ombudsman to investigate and report on the availability of
financial institutions to consumers and small business people
throughout the country. The office will act as their
representative and advocate to make sure the financial
institutions are serving the communities and citizens of this
country in the way financial institutions should serve Canada.
I recommend this bill to the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1030
PETITIONS
GROUP CRIME
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present a very
important petition signed by some 5,000 concerned residents of
Sault Ste. Marie.
The petitioners strongly believe, as I do, that violent group
crime by teenagers is a growing problem in Canada. I join these
concerned citizens in calling on parliament to conduct a
nationwide study of this very serious problem and to enact
tougher penalties for participation in such criminal activity.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Edmonton Southwest, I
have a petition to present to the House on the multilateral
agreement on investment asking that public hearings be held
across the country so that Canadians have the opportunity to
express their opinions about the agreement before parliament
ratifies it.
BIOARTIFICIAL KIDNEY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present another petition from petitioners in support
of the development of a bioartificial kidney in Canada. It is
signed by Ken Sharp and 300 people from the Peterborough area.
These citizens note that there are 18,000 Canadians suffering
from end-stage kidney disease. Kidney dialysis and transplants
have been a successful and important form of treatment, but they
believe these services are inadequate. They call upon parliament
to support the bioartificial kidney which will eventually
eliminate the need for both dialysis and transplantation for
those suffering from kidney disease.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will
be answering Question No. 13 today.
.[Text]
Mr. Greg Thompson:
Why did the government leave out key recommendations contained
in the draft report of the Review of Section 14 of the Patent Act
Amendment 1992 (Chapter 2, Statutes of Canada 1993) submitted to
the Ministries of Health and Industry by the Standing Committee
on Industry in April 1997 and why, in particular, was
recommendation N concerning the repeal of the linkage regulations
left out?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): The government was
not involved in finalizing the report of the Standing Committee
on Industry, which completed its review of section 14 of the
Patent Act Amendment Act, 1992 and presented its report to the
House of Commons in April 1997.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest all other questions be
allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday in the House
I asked the parliamentary secretary again when he expects to
provide an answer to Question No. 21 which was asked on October
2, 1997.
This is bordering on lunacy. It is bordering I suspect on a
breach of parliamentary privilege when a person has to get up in
the House and ask 10 times when the answer is going to come. Not
only are we not getting the answer, we are not even being
provided a timeframe as to when that answer might come.
Because of the high regard I hold for the parliamentary
secretary, I do want to put him on notice that this issue is not
going to go away. The case is not closed. I would like to have
some idea when we might expect an answer to Question No. 21.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
you know Routine Proceedings were in the afternoon yesterday.
Following those proceedings I did follow up the member's request
with respect to Question No. 21. I have not heard anything
further about it this morning. I will continue to pursue the
matter.
The Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
HEPATITIS C
The Speaker: Today I received a letter from the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois requesting an emergency debate. I give him the
floor.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 52, I wish to request that the House
hold an emergency debate regarding federal government
compensation for all contaminated blood victims.
The federal and provincial governments signed an agreement on
March 27, 1998 to compensate all those who contracted the
hepatitis C virus through contaminated blood between January 1,
1986 and July 1, 1990.
Under this agreement, those who contracted the hepatitis C virus
through contaminated blood before or after the dates mentioned
in the agreement are not eligible for compensation.
Despite repeated requests from all opposition parties, the
federal government still refuses to compensate victims excluded
from the agreement with the provinces.
1035
As justification, the federal government invoked the agreement
signed with the provinces. Government members suggested,
however, that the government might re-examine its position if the
provinces were prepared to propose extending the compensation
program to all victims.
Yesterday, one of the parties to the agreement took a stand
against the federal government's position.
The Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed the following
motion introduced by the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, and
I quote:
That the National Assembly, subsequent to the motion passed
unanimously on December 2, 1997, declare its support, on
humanitarian grounds, for extending the existing compensation
program to all contaminated blood victims not covered by the
program.
That the costs of extending this program be funded by
the federal government, since the Government of Quebec is
already covering the costs of all care and services provided to
these individuals.
That the Government of Quebec urge the
federal government to follow up on this resolution and encourage
the other provinces to make a similar request of the federal
government.
In light of the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous vote, it is
our view that the House of Commons should immediately and on an
urgent basis consider its request. Members will understand
that, for humanitarian reasons, we cannot allow those who
contracted the hepatitis C virus from contaminated blood and who
are ineligible for compensation to remain in uncertainty.
I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make it possible for the
House to truly play its role, and for all parliamentarians to be
able to express their views freely, unfettered by party
politics.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to give favourable consideration to my
request for an emergency debate on humanitarian grounds.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should remind all members of this
House that, under Standing Order 52.(4), to which the hon.
member just referred—
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Tell that to those who are dying.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if we have the right to rise on a
point of order, we should also have the right to see that the
Standing Orders are complied with. Standing Order 52.(4) reads
as follows:
The Speaker shall decide, without any debate, whether or not the
matter is proper to be discussed.
[English]
Further, Standing Order 52(3) states:
When requesting leave to propose such a motion, the Member shall
rise in his or her place and present without argument the
statement referred to in section (2) of this Standing Order.
In the future I would certainly hope that the rule being invoked
by members be at least followed by the same members invoking it.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, in view
of what happened at the National Assembly in Quebec last night,
fundamental changes have taken place in the circumstances
surrounding this issue. There certainly should be an emergency
debate.
The Speaker: Today I did perhaps give a little extra
time. I accept responsibility for that. The hon. government
House leader is correct. I and other members are well aware of
the regulation he is referring to.
[Translation]
I received the letter earlier this morning. I read it and I gave
it careful consideration. I also paid close attention to the
comments of the Bloc Quebecois leader and, in my opinion, this
request does not meet the requirements of our Standing Orders.
[English]
I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order
32(2)(b), because of the ministerial statement Government Orders
will be extended by 21 minutes.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1040
[English]
CANADA SHIPPING ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-15, an act to
amend the Canada Shipping Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee.
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time, by leave now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as always, I consider it a
privilege to speak about Bill C-15 on the third reading debate.
Before I discuss the bill, the Minister of Transport and I would
like to acknowledge the important role that has been played by
the members of this House and the Standing Committee on Transport
who have undertaken an examination on the proposed legislation.
As hon. members will recall, this bill is the product of the
first phase of a two track reform to overhaul the Canada Shipping
Act, an act that is in serious need of major reform.
Bill C-15 will bring about change for the shipping industry,
change that is recognized as necessary and highly anticipated. It
is a modern statute that can only benefit the marine sector and I
am pleased to see the process of the overhaul proceeding so well.
As the bill enters third reading debate, I am happy to report
that provisions of the bill have been favourably accepted.
Concerns have been addressed by the standing committee and minor
amendments proposed to the legislation have since been included.
Changes to Bill C-15 would not have been possible without the
dedicated efforts and review of the bill by industry. Industry
involvement resulted in government amendments which have improved
the wording of the statute.
Key amendments to Bill C-15 include the removal of the section
of the bill which updated the regulation-making authority for the
licensing of small vessels.
As previously stressed, this government is sensitive to the
concerns raised by my colleagues in this place. I am pleased to
say that the committee was able to have a thorough discussion on
the issue of small craft licensing.
The results are that the proposed section that caused concern
has now been removed, while leaving the existing provisions of
the act unchanged to permit continuous operation of Canada's
licensing system which enables law enforcement agencies and
rescue groups to locate and identify vessels. This change will
provide the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with sufficient
opportunity to review the regulation-making authority for the
licensing of small vessels.
In addition, industry requested an amendment to clarify the
government's intent regarding regulations for the control and
management of ballast water in order to ensure that all ballast
water was not treated as pollutant.
The statutory power to manage ballast water and to reduce
harmful organisms being introduced into Canadian waters will now
be available for all Canadian waters, including the Arctic. This
will further strengthen environmental protection and enforcement
mechanisms and will reduce the threat of harmful aquatic
organisms.
I am also very pleased to see this progress. It further
supports the desire to continue with the overhaul of the Canada
Shipping Act to produce new legislation that is modern and which
will help industry operate safely.
To recap, this proposed legislation consists of a new addition
to the act that outlines the objectives and framework of the act
where this previously did not exist. This will provide focus and
direction for the entire statute.
As well, the modernization of the ship registration and
ownership provisions coupled with the other urgent amendments
included from former Bill C-73 truly helped set the government's
direction.
We will achieve our goals of simplified legislation that is up to
date, consistent with federal regulatory policies and able to
successfully contribute to the economic performance of the marine
industry. Industry stands behind us as we move toward a new
statute and the government stands behind its commitment to
deliver.
1045
As efforts are made by Transport Canada to modernize the
national transportation system it is recognized that modern
shipping legislation is vital to meet the demands of a global
marketplace and to prepare Canada for the upcoming century. We
are mindful of the need for Canada to remain competitive
internationally as this is the very essence of a successful
economy.
Throughout the process of consulting and subsequent drafting of
this legislation officials from the Department of Transport have
spoken at great length with industry, including shipowners, ship
operators, seafarers, unions and the marine legal community.
I take this opportunity to thank these industry groups for their
participation in this reform and their ongoing contribution and
support for the new legislation. I am thoroughly convinced and I
am sure every member of this House will agree that this new
legislation represents an important step toward modernizing
Canadian marine legislation.
I urge all my fellow colleagues, all members of parliament, to
lend their support in order to pass this bill so it can also pass
through the Senate in a timely fashion.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned, Bill C-15
did not receive much attention in committee from stakeholders.
The general consensus among the people in the marine industry
seems to be they would like this legislation passed in order to
get it out of the way and do away with any regulatory
uncertainty. I do not believe there is any debate on this side
of the bill.
There are some non-commercial ramifications, however, to the
marine act. As the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned, in
committee we did try to address the very well founded concerns of
the millions of citizens who own small boats subject to
regulation by DFO.
A section was removed from the bill during the clause by clause
examination. This would have permitted the governor in council
to require the registration of small boats for a fee. I am very
grateful this section is no longer included but under our system
almost anything is possible under orders in council, and
unamended section 108 of the existing marine act could still be
used to achieve that same purpose.
Section 108 has been in place since 1936 and it has not been
abused, but this government, unlike any other government in my
memory, loves to make regulations, loves registering things and
loves to collect fees. It is a disease. It likes to collect
fees on firearms, pleasure boats and, who knows, perhaps electric
toothbrushes. In any event, we can only maintain an attitude of
watchful caution.
A recent DFO publication entitled “Your Safety Comes First” is
a classic example of what I am referring to about bureaucracy
running amok, the busy work of desk sailors with nothing useful
to do. I have had many expressions of concern from people who
feel the coast guard has lost its compass and is totally at sea
with its intrusive, impractical lists of not dos and don'ts.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, my sincere apologies to my
hon. colleague. Fellow parliamentarians should have the
opportunity to hear his words, but given that I do not see a
quorum in the House at the moment, I think we should give this
gentleman the opportunity to have his speech heard properly.
1050
The Deputy Speaker: I do not see a quorum. Call in the
members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum. The hon. member may
resume his remarks.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I will read into the
record a couple of samples from “Your Safety Comes First”.
These are some of the requirements for vessels up to six metres
in length. This would include canoes: a buoyant heaving line of
at least 15 metres or an approved throwable floating device;
distress signals; a watertight flashlight and a heliograph or six
Canadian approved flares, of which at least three must be of
either type A, B or C and at least two of type D; navigation
equipment; a sound signalling device and, if the vessel is
operated between sunset and sunrise or in periods of restricted
visibility, navigation lights that comply with the collision
regulations. If the vessel is not power driven, navigation lights
could be replaced by a watertight flashlight.
Gee, thanks. And of course all canoes must now be equipped with
tow lines. The people who wrote this little guide did have some
compassion, though. They said that if a boat does not have a
motor it does not require fire extinguishers. It amazes me that
they realize that.
I understand this little bureaucratic effort was partially
prompted by concerns over the proliferation of jet skis and of
overpowered nuisance craft in recreational areas. These are
genuine concerns but these problems could be easily addressed by
rigorously enforced local ordinances prohibiting their use in
certain venues. Do not let them run the Sea Doos through the
swimmers. This is why we have local law enforcement. The dead
hand of federal authority is hardly necessary.
These are merely cautionary remarks since they deal with
something that is possible within existing legislative
constraints. We can only be vigilant and ready to respond to the
wave of complaints that will inundate us when the decision is
made to put licence plates on all canoes, if big nanny does
everything she would like to do.
As far as the new registration and regulation regime for
commercial vessels is concerned, the Reform Party has no
objections and we will support the legislation.
1055
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-15. My comments will be
brief, if I am not interrupted.
As the parliamentary secretary and member for Hamilton West
rightly pointed out, the purpose of this bill, which has the
unanimous support of the Canadian and Quebec marine communities,
is first and foremost to modernize an act which, if I am not
mistaken, dates back to the beginning of the century.
As is always the case at report stage, the government can be
assured of our party's co-operation and participation to ensure
that this legislation is passed quickly and referred to the
Senate which, unfortunately, is a totally useless institution.
If we had only one House, as is the case in a number of
democracies, we would not have to solicit the approval of a
group of non-elected people rewarded for their political loyalty
with patronage appointments.
So, we are in favour of this bill being passed quickly. As I
said, there is unanimous support from the marine community, and
there is a need to modernize the existing legislation.
In the next few minutes, I would like to insist on a specific
issue.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
was right to express his appreciation of the co-operation of the
members of this House in the steps leading up to where we are
today. I will return the compliment by pointing out that he has
made changes at the request of the Bloc Quebecois and others by
withdrawing the clauses on mandatory registration as well as the
charges for small vessels.
I pointed out to him, both in private and in committee meetings,
that, if the government followed through with its plans, I could
guarantee that there would be widespread protests and
demonstrations, since many small boat owners feel that the
bill's intention to charge small vessels and require their
registration is totally ridiculous.
We are not talking here about motor boats on Lac Des Deux
Montagnes, but the requirement to register pedal boats,
rowboats, sailboards, canoes and kayaks.
An hon. member: Life preservers will be next.
Mr. Michel Guimond: The government has shown it could be
reasonable by agreeing to delete those clauses.
I urge the owners of vessels of this type, including pedal
boats, rowboats, sailboards, canoes and kayaks, to watch out,
because in the past the government has shown some open-mindedness
and withdrawn some clauses, but then sneaked them back into an
omnibus bill on a Friday evening when there are fewer MPs in the
House, since we are working hard in our ridings. This would not
be the first time the government has pulled such a sneaky trick.
I therefore call upon the owners of these vessels, the people
who live in the Gaspé, Lower St. Lawrence, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean,
Lanaudière and Charlevoix regions, where there is a lot of
recreational boating, hunting and fishing and where people like
to go out for a relaxing paddle and a little fishing after
supper with their dogs and children, to be very vigilant.
1100
People in the regions should watch out because the government
may be tempted to bring these proposals back again. The 44
members of the Bloc Quebecois have been warned and they too will
be vigilant in looking after the interests of Quebeckers.
I have pointed this out to my colleague, the hon. member for
Trois-Rivières, who is the Bloc Quebecois critic for the coast
guard, as well as to the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who is our critic for
fisheries. He will monitor legislation from Fisheries and
Oceans, because the government might try to sneak something back
in.
I thank the government and commend the fact it took advantage of
Bill C-15 to correct an aberration and an unacceptable situation
with respect to the Lower St. Lawrence pilots' pension plan. I
thank the government for ensuring that the corporation in
question will not be sued or suffer the inconvenience of
possible lawsuits.
I thank the government for updating the provisions relating to
the Lower St. Lawrence pilots' pension plan. The pilots' minds
must be on what they are doing, which is first and foremost
marine safety and environmental protection in our waters, and on
the St. Lawrence river in particular.
Their minds must also be free to withstand the attacks of St.
Lawrence ship owners who keep asking, every 18, 24, 30 or 36
months, that compulsory pilotage be abolished in Canada. We know
that the ship owners' lobby is very powerful because of the
contributions it makes to the Liberal campaign fund.
To conclude, our party will support this bill at third reading.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak against Bill C-15, an act to amend the Canada
Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts,
brought forward by the Minister of Transport.
We in the New Democratic Party agree it is time to bring some
clarification and we have heard that the Canada Shipping Act is
second only in size and complexity to the Income Tax Act and
could use some updating, as could the Income Tax Act. The New
Democrats believe it is time to reform the Canada Shipping Act.
Bill C-15 intends to do just that by adding a preamble to
clarify its objectives, definitions and interpretations and to
lay out the roles and responsibilities of the Minister of
Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans . Currently
there is no introductory part.
However, my party has concerns with the bill. I will not go
into as much detail as I did at second reading but I do want to
take the opportunity to say that it is somewhat annoying as to
how we have dealt with Bill C-15. Sometimes it is difficult for
MPs to find that a bill is up one day and then not, then up again
and then we wait for months. For organizations and persons
outside government it can be a strenuous task to follow the
process of a bill, as with Bill C-15.
The bill is being presented as just a housekeeping bill and we
should not worry too much about it. For the people in the
maritime sector some of the changes are worrisome and critical,
and these are some of the concerns.
It is common knowledge that sailors' human rights are often
violated on foreign vessels. We cannot accept in Canada to lower
the working conditions of sailors. We do not want a system in
some countries of the third world where sailors have no rights
aboard a ship, where they are at the mercy of the company they
are working for. Press articles have indicated that federal
fisheries observers are afraid some foreign ships they are
assigned to are in such poor shape they could break apart and
sink. We cannot expect it is only fishing vessels that are in
bad shape. This was certainly verified by presentations at the
port state control meetings in Vancouver last month.
It is worrying to think that the minister will hand over the
inspections of the ships from Transport Canada inspectors. Even
if the inspections were to be handed over to classification
societies there is still cause for concern. It is no wonder that
each year statistically 10 bulk carriers sink without a trace,
usually taking a 25 person crew with them. Yet the crews are
mostly from third world countries we have never heard of.
1105
It is very obvious when classification societies are allowed to
operate without government supervision, the market sets the
standards for safety with the job always going to the cheapest,
usually least safe operator.
Are we ready to accept such a system in Canada? We suffer from
the cuts to airports. We suffer from the privatization of port
police. Are we now going to have to suffer because ship safety
goes down? We cannot put our safety or the environment in
jeopardy.
As I stated at second reading, I strongly oppose the
government's authorizing any person, classification society or
other organizations to conduct the inspections.
This section is contrary to the stated objectives of the new
act. Privatization of inspection will not encourage viable,
effective and economic marine transportation. What it will do is
increase bottom line pressures to cut corners and do things the
cheapest way rather than the safe way. It is very worrying to
think that the minister will hand over the inspections of these
ships from Transport Canada.
Were this amendment to pass into law, the job of inspecting oil
tankers and chemical tankers operating in Canadian waters could
become patronage appointments. The classification societies
include disclaimers of responsibility in all their documents and
several court cases over the years have shown them immune from
being sued, even where there is evidence of negligence.
A further point of concern is in section 317(1), inspections by
others. The revenues generated by Transport Canada ship
inspections will now be handed over to the private sector. A
figure of $12 million per annum has been stated. Canada must
compete with the United States. We are at a competitive
disadvantage.
We have heard concerns that ships under 15 tonnes will be exempt
from mandatory registration under the act. Their registration
will be optional under section 17. The department's logic is
that the registration of the large number of small vessels is
neither practical nor necessary. However, tow boats under 15
tonnes tow equipment and fuel barges as well as log tows
competing with vessels which are registered and required to meet
Transport Canada's vessel standards.
The unregistered vehicles not only undercut vessels which meet
standards, they are doing work which is hazardous to the
environment and to marine traffic. Often their equipment does
not meet the standards and their operators are not certified.
Some of the major objectives in the Canada Shipping Act are to
protect the health and well-being of individuals, including the
crews of ships, promote safety in the maritime transportation
system and protect the marine environment from damage due to
navigation and shipping activities.
If the act is intended to provide a level playing field, then
all vessels engaged in commercial activities should be registered
and inspected regardless of tonnage. As well, the act should
require risk assessment in standards of equipment and
certification. Registration should be required for all vessels
towing fuel barges or other hazardous goods. It is important for
the safety of our waterways.
It has also been brought to my attention that with the downturn
of the fishery on the east and west coasts, many fishermen have
turned toward tourism as an alternative source of income. This
has led to an increasing number of tour boats. These boats may
be under 15 tonnes. Are we going to put our tourists at risk on
boats that are not duly inspected because they are less than 15
tonnes? Let there be no misunderstanding. I am not suggesting
that small pleasure craft need be inspected.
Another area of concern is the regulation respecting the control
of ballast water. In a move to protect Canadian waterways from
outside pollutants, ballast water must be exchanged while at sea.
There was concern that by referring to products brought in by
ballast water as pollutants, this would be subject to more
stringent enforcement. To me that was a good thing. I have been
to the Vancouver port and heard the praises of the
representatives with regard to their clean water which they noted
in conjunction with the exchange of ballast water.
I sincerely hope the changes in this section do not decrease
Canadian standards and do not increase pollutants into Canadian
waters, whether it be oil or outside water species.
To conclude, Bill C-15 is an improvement over the previous act.
But there are still many areas of concern. As a result my party
will not be supporting the bill.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today on behalf of my colleague, the member for
Cumberland—Colchester, to say a few words on Bill C-15, an act
to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
1110
The Canada Shipping Act, as we are all aware, is one of the
oldest pieces of legislation still in effect in Canada. It was
enacted in 1936. It is the primary legislation today for
governing Canadian ships in Canada's jurisdiction.
With the reorganization of both the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans and the Department of Transport, new emphasis and a
clearer outline of ministerial responsibilities of both these
departments is now needed. The merger of the Canadian Coast
Guard with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was completed
with the responsibility for coast guard functions being
transferred to DFO with the exception of harbours, ports, ship
safety, pilotage and crown corporations.
Transport Canada now has the prime responsibility for overseeing
the reform of the Canada Shipping Act. However, some sections of
the act will fall within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
specifically those relating to pleasure craft, search and rescue,
wrecks, and pollution preparedness and response.
The reform that is currently under way will help simplify the
regulatory framework and make the shipping act more consistent
with current regulatory policy. In the end, reforms should help
contribute to a better economic performance in the marine
industry.
The government has chosen to carry out these reforms in a two
step approach. The first step takes place with Bill C-15. Under
Bill C-15 there will be a new general part that will be added to
the beginning of the act followed by a revision of the existing
part one that will deal with ship registration, ownership and
mortgages.
Part two of the reform to the act will deal with the remaining
parts of the shipping act, specifically areas of safety,
certification, conditions of work, accident investigation,
navigation, wrecks and salvage and economic and environmental
issues.
At this time it is my understanding that part two of the reform
is estimated to be ready next year in 1999. We anxiously await
these reforms. We look forward to reviewing and debating the
issues that will emerge at that time.
Bill C-15 will enable Transport Canada to assume complete
responsibility for ship registration and related activities. The
Minister of Transport will be permitted through this act to
appoint a chief registrar who will be responsible for the
registration of ships. The registrar will deal with specific
information such as the name and description of the Canadian
ship, the official number and its registered tonnage, the name
and address of its owner and details of all mortgages registered.
That gives Transport Canada the responsibility for ship
registration currently performed by Revenue Canada, customs and
excise division.
This legislation will require that every ship that exceeds 15
tonnes gross tonnage is owned only by qualified people and that
those not registered in a foreign country would have to be
registered. Also proposed in the bill for the first time certain
foreign ships will be allowed to register in Canada.
We in this party are in favour of many of the reforms included
in this bill. It is important to point out that Bill C-15 was
introduced in October 1997. However, it is essentially the same
bill as Bill C-73 introduced in December 1996. Unfortunately,
because of the election, the bill died on the order paper.
Reforming the outdated shipping act is important and it can
provide significant benefits for Canada such as more employment
and business opportunities for Canadians, a rejuvenated marine
infrastructure and better service for Canadian exporters.
In addition, under sections 35 and 36, the minister
can appoint persons to be known as tonnage measurers who
calculate a ship's tonnage.
1115
The tonnage measurer may withhold the tonnage certificate until
the person requesting it pays the tonnage measurer's fees and
travel expenses. The minister may set limits on the fees and
expenses charged. Although tonnage measuring is obviously
important, we hope that fees and expenses remain reasonable so we
may limit possible additional costs being passed on to shippers.
This is something to consider and watch for in the future.
The current Part I of the act will be replaced with a new Part I
that would modernize the registration of ships. Certificate of
registry will now have an expiry date. The subject of expiration
is understandable in the context of the transitional period
updating the registration of ships from the old act to
registration under the new act.
However, section 48 outlines many sweeping changes that cabinet
may make. One area of concern under this section is the issuance
and renewal of certificates of registry. Although it is
important to have updated registration information about all
ships, we hope that future changes that may be made will not mean
more bureaucracy or excessive costs associated with too frequent
registration requirements. We have to be very careful of that.
It was a concern of the member for Cumberland—Colchester.
Under the bill the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will be
provided with greater authority to regulate pleasure craft. In
this regard we are somewhat concerned that the government not go
too far in the regulation of pleasure craft. If there is a
safety risk we are certainly in favour of it, but let us not have
regulation for regulation's sake. We would encourage caution
here.
We are pleased with certain aspects of the bill. Clauses
pertaining to definitions are important. Passenger safety will
be enhanced by eliminating the specific reference to owner or a
charterer in the current definition of passenger, which in the
past possibly permitted some charterers to get around meeting
specific safety regulations. Therefore we think it is a good
thing.
The member for Cumberland—Colchester wishes to bring the issue
of small vessels to the attention of the House. This legislation
deals mostly with large vessels. It has not taken into account
that small vessels are very often built by manufacturers or
individual owners that may have fallen outside of regulations
that apply to larger vessels. It is important that these
manufacturers comply with construction and manufacturing
standards just as manufacturers of larger vessels do.
We support this bill. It is long overdue. It is unfortunate
the legislation was not passed when it was in the form of Bill
C-73. However, it is here now and we support it, especially
since it has gone through the committee process.
When one of my colleagues addressed this bill at second reading
he expressed concern that the bill would apply to pleasure craft
as if they were larger commercial ships. Given the millions of
pleasure craft in Canada this would, at best, be a bureaucratic
nightmare. At worst it would be a huge tax grab on behalf of the
federal government. I am told that our point of view prevailed
at committee, so the bill's application to pleasure craft will be
amended.
However, we would do well to be vigilant as we have heard
rumblings that DFO will try to do this through existing
regulatory power. We will be watching this matter with some
concern as the future unfolds.
We support this initiative and we look forward to phase two of
the reform which is slated for next year.
1120
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I always do, I sat in my
place and listened to all the members opposite give their
representations. Therefore, I will take this opportunity to make
a comment rather than to ask a question.
I want to respond to the hon. member who just spoke and, as an
aside, respond to members opposite, especially the member of the
New Democratic Party who addressed the issue of delegation of
ship inspections to a classification society. I want to respond
to her concerns and the concerns of her party, even though the
NDP is the only party in this place which will oppose the bill.
The hon. member had an opportunity both in committee and here
today to bring forward a constructive amendment, but there was no
amendment. However, the NDP is still going to oppose the bill.
It is rather confusing, but I guess they can oppose for
opposition's sake.
I want to make it clear to the hon. member and her party that
the objectives of the Canada Shipping Act make it clear that the
Minister of Transport is responsible for all matters relating to
marine safety involving commercial ships. In order to achieve
these objectives the minister is authorized to enter into
agreements respecting the administration of any provision of the
Canada Shipping Act or the regulations. The minister can
authorize any person with whom an agreement or arrangement is
entered into to exercise and perform such powers and duties under
the act as are specified in the agreement or the arrangement.
The proposed provisions in the bill are consistent with this
authority and in no way—and I speak directly to the NDP member—undermine
the overall safety of the marine community. Given that
the minister is delegating this authority to organizations such
as classification societies which will conduct inspections on
behalf of the minister, the minister must be satisfied that the
delegated party is qualified to perform the assigned duties. The
minister will only delegate responsibilities to qualified
organizations or persons.
Classification societies are international, not for profit
organizations that provide ship survey expertise around the world
and, as such, Transport Canada will enter into a memorandum of
understanding with every delegated organization to establish
reporting mechanisms and to establish the qualifications required
for personnel carrying out the delegated responsibilities.
To ensure adherence to agreements and memoranda, any delegation
of authority will be subjected to Transport Canada audit and
quality assurance. These organizations or persons will be
audited by Transport Canada inspectors through spot checks and
documented audits. The department will also conduct inspections
on any shipowners suspected of contravening marine safety
regulations.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member from
the NDP for her interjection. It is unfortunate that while every
party in the House is prepared to support the bill only members
of the NDP are not. I hope this latest interjection by myself
will maybe change their minds at the end of the day. If it does
not and there are no amendments forthcoming, it is rather
puzzling.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
[Translation]
COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed from April 29 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.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok had 13 minutes remaining
when this bill was considered last time.
1125
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I will try in the 13 minutes at my disposal to
continue my remarks and instruct the members opposite on a
potential management philosophy.
An hon. member: There aren't any.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: There may not be many of them, but I am sure
we can rouse them.
To carry on where I left off, I mentioned yesterday to them
that, according to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans, which tabled a unanimous report, a consensus had to be
reached on the fish stocks problem in Canada. The five parties
in the House were unanimous in describing the problem as poor
federal government management.
This is not me speaking, it is what the House standing committee
report said, unanimously.
Second, once we agree on the problem, we can start looking for
solutions. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans,
again unanimously, said an independent committee should look at
the management methods of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
and the methods used to determine acceptable catches, that is,
just how much fishers can catch.
Up to this point the recipe is fine. We can see the approach.
First, we agree on a definition of the problem and, second, on
how to find a solution. An independent committee is not
something that works along party lines. But why go that route?
This is where it gets interesting.
The standing committee is not the only one to say that the
public has lost confidence. So does the advisory committee on
fishery resources. I am told that it too raised the matter of
the fishers' and the general public's loss of confidence in the
management of Fisheries and Oceans.
I have a really big question in mind: Who will administer Bill
C-27 and who will sign the United Nations Fisheries Agreement?
The same gang that is responsible for depletion of the stocks.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
They are being offered an opportunity to get that confidence
back. First of all, the public and the fishers must be
consulted, and agreement reached with them on acceptable means
of management and on total catches, as well as how these will be
determined.
I repeat, the same recipe that was used in the past is the one
being used for the UNFA, and the same gang is still in charge.
They need to put their house in order. Confidence must be
restored.
I have another approach to suggest to the minister. The
Constitution of Canada says that the federal government is
responsible for fish catches. When the minister is questioned
closely, he says he is responsible for conservation. But what
is he saving, the resource, or his people's jobs? This is where
it gets a bit disconcerting.
Everybody is mad at them, even the staunchest federalists are
saying that this no longer makes any sense. If the minister
really wants to think about conservation, let him do so. But
what I want to see, as proof of his desire to do so, is
fisheries plans, which are one way of preserving the resource,
and agreement with the fishers. When we refer to a fisheries
plan, we mean one relating to conservation measures.
Why has the crab fishing plan for zone 12 of the Gulf not been
released yet? Have the biologists not given their opinion?
Yes, they have. Have the fishers and the departmental staff not
reached agreement on the Panel on Ice? Yes. What is left in
connection with conservation that needs to be studied? Is it
not rather the economic questions that are not settled? If it
is economic questions that need to be looked at before releasing
the fisheries plan, is this not exceeding the mandate? That is
another good question.
If he really wants to solve economic problems, I can mention a
few that come under his responsibility, TAGS for instance. It
is also part of his jurisdiction to solve the AFS problem and to
have an overall vision of fisheries. But this has not been
resolved yet.
1130
The standing committee agreed unanimously on its
recommendations, including Recommendation No. 10. He was asked
to extend TAGS with all those who were participating in it from
the beginning until the moratoriums are lifted, or as long as no
management decision has been taken regarding the size of the
industry and its future direction.
In order to decide what this direction should be, the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Human Resources
Development should talk with the provinces. If rationalization
is what they are hoping for, how are they going to persuade the
provinces to go along with rationalizing their plant workers
unless this is tied in with the catch?
Perhaps one approach would be to offer historic quotas. That
would be one way of reassuring the provinces about the
rationalization plan that they will have to come up with.
Since the minister's constant answer to our questions is that
his job is protection, all he has to do is sit tight here in
Ottawa and say “My job is to ensure that the number of fish
taken is not greater than the number I have authorized”.
However, in that case, he should let the provinces, with the
quota they are given, share the resource and reach an agreement
with workers.
That is what should be done, particularly as there have been
some changes since my arrival in Ottawa in 1993. The Minister
of Human Resources Development knows very well that, as a result
of constructive criticism, there are manpower training
agreements with the provinces.
Why would the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not delegate
quotas to his provincial counterparts?
The Minister of Human Resources Development could then say to a
province “You will decide how many people you need and we will
give you money to retrain the rest. But you will do it as you
see fit, in terms of what you have to offer”. Everybody knows
that Canada is a big country, but the problems in the Gaspé are
not necessarily the same as those in St. John's or Halifax.
This is 1998. I understood this a long time ago, and I would
like them to understand it as well. So I am making this
suggestion. I would like the minister to tell me how he could do
otherwise, and to try to answer the question as to how the
provinces can agree to rationalize their fishers if the resource
is not tied to the number of workers.
If we go a little further to give the minister and Canadians a
chance to solve the issue, other management tools must be put in
place. Once the provinces have their quotas and their
traditional share, they should set up unloading facilities.
Why? This is always of interest to the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans. As we know, there are fewer fish than there used to be,
at least in the case of cod, redfish and turbot. But there are
other species of fish. Why are we not able to find a market for
the so-called underused species? It is precisely because they are
not numerous enough or because we are not used to them. We
should get consumers interested in these other species.
Let me give you the example of a fisher who arrived at the port
with 8,000 to 10,000 pounds of turbot, which was its main catch,
6,000 pounds of redfish and, because I put him in contact with
other markets, 1,000 pounds of monkfish.
The turbot brought in between $6,000 and $7,000, since fishers
try to make a trip that will bring in about $10,000. The 5,000
to 6,000 pounds of redfish at 20 cents per pound were worth
$1,000. However, the 1,000 pounds of monkfish, which used to be
thrown back into the water because no one knew this species in
the Gaspe Peninsula at the time, found a market at $1 per pound.
The fisher realized that his 5,000 to 6,000 pounds of redfish
was taking a lot of room on his boat and was not worth more than
the 1,000 pounds of monkfish, which he could handle individually
when lifting his nets.
If we can concentrate on these 1,000-pound catches of monkfish,
skate and other species whose names I do not know or I forget,
it will allow us to develop a distribution network that will
ensure the survival of our fisheries.
1135
How could a province or region of Canada establish such
mechanisms if they do not have the tools? I urge the minister
to be very careful to stick to the existing formula. Everyone
in the Gaspé, Newfoundland and New Brunswick knows that the
resource is migratory, and it does not reach our shores at the
same time and in the same quantities. These are things that
must be considered.
Who is in a better position to take a decision and direct
fishers and markets in the morning, than the person closest to
the dock, who is in contact with them, someone in Newfoundland
who will say “Okay, boys, in the morning I can give you such and
such a contract.
Everyone who finds that in their nets should bring it in”.
Fishers are well aware that it will be a matter of luck, but the
20% or 25% of fish in their holds will perhaps give them their
profit margin in the end. In the Canadian context, this is
difficult to do because people always want wall-to-wall clauses.
I would like there to be discussion with the provinces. If I
take the example of Newfoundland—and I am sure that my colleague
will say the same thing in a few minutes—when Newfoundland
entered Confederation, one of the conditions was that their
fishing rights would be protected. In talking with
representatives from Newfoundland this week, I was surprised to
learn that they are not kept informed by the minister.
The people in Ottawa know more about the future of the fishery
than the public in their own riding, when those are the people
who can see the dock from their window.
Changes are in order. I see my time is running out, but at
least I was able to suggest a few solutions that are instructive
for the members opposite, that let the public know solutions are
possible. We must address this whole problem.
I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting for Bill C-27,
but with reservations. As it now stands, all the bill does is
let the minister sidestep the issue. He is merely giving the
illusion that he is doing something about the fisheries and that
he will try to find an answer to the problem, when he could have
gone to Washington to sign the UN fisheries agreement.
He should start by going down to the docks and trying to sort
out the fishing plans with fishers. People are waiting. Next
week will be the fourth week the crab fishery has sat idle, and
the minister is still rooted to the spot. It is time he took
action.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to express the support of the New Democratic Party for Bill C-27,
which amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada
Shipping Act in order to implement the Agreement for the
Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the conservation
and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory
fish stocks, which straddle the 200-mile zone, and are also known
as straddling fish stocks.
The bill amends Canadian legislation to enable Canada to ratify
the United Nations agreement on the conservation and management
of stocks of straddling fish and highly migratory fish.
The agreement was adopted by consensus on August 5, 1995 at the
UN conference in New York.
It is important because it will help to limit overfishing on the
Grand Banks of Newfoundland and allow the signatories to
formulate new provisions for control on the high seas. It will
also enable authorities to monitor the signatories' intervention
with foreign vessels outside their coastal zones.
Straddling fish are found on both sides of national fishing
limits. They also cross them as they migrate, in the case of
flounder and turbot.
1140
The highly migratory fish, such as tuna and swordfish, also
travel in the high seas and sometimes move through the exclusive
economic zone of coastal states.
This bill is important because it will help protect both types
of fish stocks, which have been the focus of unregulated
overfishing in the high seas. Overfishing is a problem in a
number of places around the world, as on the Grand Banks of
Newfoundland, beyond the Canadian 200-mile limit.
Overfishing by foreign vessels outside and inside the 200-mile
limit was a factor in the decline of straddling stocks of cod,
flounder and turbot in the northwest Atlantic.
Stock declines have had a very serious impact on the economy of
coastal villages in Canada and forced thousands of fishers and
plant workers onto unemployment.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which
came into force in 1994, clearly authorizes coastal states, that
is, those that border on the ocean, to have exclusive fisheries
management jurisdiction up to 200 miles, or 370.4 kilometres,
off their coast.
However, the states' legal rights and obligations with respect
to straddling and highly migratory fish stocks are not clear.
The agreement fills this gap left in the Convention on the Law
of the Sea.
The agreement will come into force once 30 states have ratified
it or acceded to it. So far, it has been signed by 59 states and
ratified by 15, including the United States, Russia and Norway.
Canada will be in a position to ratify the agreement once this
legislation is passed.
Let us hope that the new legal framework for high sea fisheries
will include control measures and effectively protect straddling
and highly migratory fish stocks against overfishing on high
seas. Conservation and management measures would go a long way
to ensure the viability of this critical food source for future
generations.
This bill is required to protect fish stocks outside the 200
mile zone against overfishing. I wonder why the Canadian
government took so long to introduce a bill providing for the
ratification of the agreement. I should not be surprised,
though, since this government is one that drags its feet, and
that has become a habit in the fisheries issue.
Take the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada
Shipping Act for instance.
I just love that name, it sounds so convincing, just like
campaign promises. If I support this recommendation, I do so
mainly in the interests of the people of the Atlantic provinces,
for it is obvious where the old act led us, into a fisheries
crisis, as far as turbot and Atlantic groundfish, and other
species, are concerned.
That crisis has cost the government and the industry thousands
of dollars. When the cod fishery was shut down, we saw how the
Canadian public paid for it in the loss of economic
side-benefits. Canada was one of the biggest cod exporters in
the world. Today, with the small amount of cod we can find
along the coasts, the industry is having trouble getting back
into the market. Lacking cod, buyers have opted for other
accessible species from anywhere in the world, and not
specifically Canada.
This represents a big loss for Canada. The hope that some day
this fishery will become accessible and profitable is still both
vague and far distant. In my region, it is distressing to see
how many boats are tied up at wharves. People's morale is at
rock bottom. Their boats end up just rotting away where they
are moored. Is this normal? No, especially not in a coastal
region such as mine.
1145
We have known prosperity, but now we have fallen into poverty,
deep poverty.
The crisis has had many consequences, the worst of which is the
human cost, the lives devastated by the fisheries crisis. In a
coastal area like mine, fish is the principal resource, and one
which provides the local people with seasonal employment.
For the majority of the fish plant workers, cod is what puts
their bread on the table. Today, however, they have no more
jobs. So, the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy was created. The cod
fisheries have not opened up again, yet TAGS is to end in August.
What will people do? Ask yourself that question. With no work
and no income, the future looks bleak. I wonder why, given that,
under the five-year agreement, the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy
was to end in April of 1999. The government then moved that date
up to April 1998.
Again, the government did not keep its promises. In an attempt
to appease the public, it changed the date to August 1998. Since
the House does not sit in August, we will not be able to rise
and to criticize the government for the problems in the Atlantic
provinces. In August, 26,000 Newfoundlanders and thousands of
people in New Brunswick will be out on the street. In May, 3,000
Newfoundlanders will no longer be eligible for the Atlantic
Groundfish Strategy, nor will half of the New Brunswickers now
benefiting from it. This is unacceptable.
We are not asking the government to throw money at the problem.
We are saying that it must find a strategy to help people in the
Atlantic region. It cannot leave these people high and dry.
There is an unpublished report suggesting that Atlantic
residents should move. Surprise, surprise, I would never make
such a recommendation. We want to stay in the Atlantic region.
We have no intention of moving because of anyone. We must sit
down together in this House and find solutions for Atlantic
residents.
These people are not responsible for the mistake made by senior
public servants, according to the report submitted by the
parliamentarians who traveled to the Atlantic region. That
committee was made up of Liberals, Reformers, Conservatives and
New Democrats. They were unanimous in saying that fisheries had
not been properly managed in the Atlantic region. Today, the
government is turning around and abandoning these people. This
is unacceptable.
Two days ago, I talked to fishers in Newfoundland who told me
that if the program is eliminated and not replaced by another
one, they would take their boats and go back out to sea. They
will not have any choice. The situation will not change if the
government shirks its responsibilities.
The former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Brian Tobin, who
was instrumental in the establishment of the Atlantic Groundfish
Strategy, signed letters with the premiers of New Brunswick,
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. These
premiers are asking the federal government to sit down with them
and find a solution for Atlantic fisheries, for the 26,000
people who will be out on the street in August, which is most
regrettable.
Again today, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is dragging
his feet.
1150
The people from our region, the people in New Brunswick, the
Gaspé and zone 12, have their boats ready to head out to sea.
The fish plants are set to open and employees have run out of
EI. Once again, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is
dragging his feet, at the expense of workers and ordinary folk.
Today, he wonders why a member rises in the House and is
frustrated.
I am expressing the frustration of the Atlantic provinces. I am
expressing the frustration of people from my region. I am
expressing the frustration of families who have nothing left to
eat, nothing left to put on the table. They cannot survive on
welfare.
It is the lives of these people that the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans holds in his hands. He could have announced the
fishing plan last week. Once again, it is not just the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans' senior officials who are dragging their
feet, but the minister himself.
Last week, I rose in the House to ask if he was going to
establish a fishing plan for people in my region, and all he
could think of to say was that it was coming. How far has the
fishing plan got? Has it reached Montreal, Quebec City,
Rivière-du-Loup, Edmundston? We are sure looking forward to
seeing it get as far as Caraquet, I can tell you.
What is the government's role with respect to the present state
of the fishery? What has it done wrong? It is true that the
government has taken decisions such as the one to create the
Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, the FRCC.
When the council was created, the government reassured the
industry that it would serve as a consultant to the fishery and
an adviser to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Since then, the FRCC is trying to fulfil its mandate through
consultations. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans receives
advice from it, but is in no way implementing or considering it.
What is the point of consulting and not considering the advice
and information received? The government is using initiatives
such as this one to avoid reality and sidestep its
responsibilities because, ultimately, it is accountable to the
Canadian public. It should stop looking out for its own
interests.
The problems have not gone away. That is why the government has
now decided to use words like protection, conservation and
processing.
This is why the government should do its job. It should take
our fish and create a secondary and tertiary processing
industry. It should help businesses to take our resource and
develop other products from it for the good of our own people.
This is a truly important industry for our people. We can
almost think of everyone on the Acadian peninsula as one people,
or those along the Newfoundland coast, where fish could be
caught and a secondary and tertiary processing industry
developed, to create jobs.
In the Atlantic region, we would like to see those fine words
translated into action, since they suit the fisheries industry
well. People just want to work, and they see fishing as a way
to do so.
What does resource protection mean? At what price, and which
country will pay that price? Before providing work for people
elsewhere, we should be providing jobs for the people here, for
Canadians. Can the government impose quotas on the fishing
industry and then say to the foreign fleet “Welcome, just help
yourselves”? Meanwhile, our people here are going hungry, and
there is not much on their plates they can help themselves to,
believe me.
Let us stop for a minute and look at the fisheries situation.
What we want is to see it managed, to see the fishery managed
for the benefit of the Canadian public.
1155
The crisis with the fisheries was not the only one. There is
also the employment insurance crisis. The EI fund has $14
billion in it. Shameful, and yet the government is shirking its
responsibilities toward the entire Atlantic region and the
problems of the fisheries, which are of its own doing, since it
allowed foreigners to come and take our fish, while ignoring the
people in our own country.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is refreshing to be in this House today and hear the
member for Acadie—Bathurst, 1997 version, defending the people
in his riding this way. I say the 1997 version of the member for
Acadie—Bathurst, because, previous to the 1997 version, we had
the father of the employment insurance reform, Doug Young, the
man responsible for the economic mess people are living in today.
At the time, however, I was very hopeful. I thought that if the
Liberal government had chosen this person from Acadie—Bathurst,
which was experiencing much the same problems as we were in
Gaspé, and if this person agreed to serve as minister, perhaps
he had a few cards up his sleeve. Today, we have understood—he
had no trump cards. I think that is what the people of
Acadie—Bathurst understood and they did some housecleaning.
To get back to the remarks by my colleague from the NDP, I would
like him to tell us about what the situation looks like for
all the crab fishers, currently waiting, their vessels docked
and their traps all piled up. They are ready to go.
What about the plant workers, whose qualification for employment
insurance, when they manage to accumulate 14 weeks—it takes a
while to—
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. This is a very important issue we are talking about in
the House today. It deals with Atlantic Canada. It deals with
fisheries matters in Atlantic Canada and Quebec and we have one
government member in the House of Commons today.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member is entitled
to his view and I do not disagree, but I must say that it is
improper to refer to the absence of members in the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There
does not appear to be a quorum in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no quorum. Call in the
members.
1200
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I find it
refreshing to see the new member for Acadie—Bathurst taking to
heart the interests of the people in his riding. He is fighting
mad, if I can put it that way. He wants to get people the tools
they need.
I would him to have the opportunity to continue his comments,
because I have heard there are other problems in his province
arising from Ottawa's slowness and poor management of the
fisheries. So, I would like him to continue to inform the House
about this.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments. It is always nice to get praise in the House. I
appreciate his comments.
I explained that there are major problems in the Atlantic
provinces. I understand what Newfoundlanders are going through.
Just this morning, I received calls from people back home who
told me that three fish processing plants would not reopen.
We talked about groundfish, but we should also mention crab, for
which quotas are down to 12,000 metric tons.
Two years ago, these quotas were set at 20,000 metric tons. Can
you imagine the difference in the amount of work when quotas
suddenly drop from 20,000 to 12,000 metric tons? It is almost a
50% drop from two years ago. This means that the crab industry
alone is already experiencing twice as many problems.
1205
The same goes for the lobster industry. In past years, quotas
were set. In fact, they were not quotas but total allowable
catches. Some lobster fishers could catch 20,000 or 25,000
pounds of lobster. Today, they harvest about 6,000 or 7,000
pounds. It is not easy.
This is why I say that the fisheries minister should get
involved.
In 1997, I issued a challenge to the other side of the House,
and I was prepared to get involved. I suggested that the federal
government come to our region, with people who could make
decisions, and organize a conference with members of Parliament,
the federal and provincial fisheries ministers, fishers, and
plant workers and owners, to try to come up with ideas and
solutions together. We can sit down, discuss intelligently and
figure out what we can do for our community.
Whether it is in Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal, people enjoy going
out to eat some nice fish or lobster, but it takes fishers to
catch that fish or lobster. It takes plant workers to process
it. Lobster and crab taste so good, but it takes people to
harvest them.
That is why I say something can be done. I have a number of
suggestions regarding, for instance, secondary and tertiary
processing. Why take our fish and ship it abroad without first
turning it into a finished product? The government keeps saying
that it is not its responsibility to create jobs; it is however
its responsibility to develop the infrastructure required to do
so. I think that together we can succeed.
This is unfortunate for the people in our regions. I have
meetings scheduled for the weekend with people in my region to
discuss the three fish plants that had to close down and try to
find solutions. Hopefully, the answer will not be the one the
fisheries minister gave us last week when he said that the
fisheries plan would be forthcoming.
Did he check with the people in Montreal, Quebec City,
Rivière-du-Loup, Edmundston or Bathurst? In any case, he has not
hit the Acadian peninsula yet.
He should give us our fisheries plan so that we can put our
people to work, because they want to work. He should take
positive action instead of giving answers that do not make any
sense.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the remarks made by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.
I can tell you that, in these times of economic growth, in the
best country in the world, as our Prime Minister often refers to
Canada with its modern technology, it is really moving to hear
this heartfelt plea to fight poverty and help those who are
going hungry. I cannot help but wonder if the problem with this
great country is not one of mismanagement.
Given the $14 billion sitting in the employment insurance fund,
the $50 billion being paid out in interest charges on the debt
accumulated by the Liberals over the years, the $750 million
recently invested in submarines that were not good enough for
England, and the $30 million recently spent on flags, I would
like to ask my hon. colleague if he could feed the people in his
riding with all this money.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his
question.
1210
I am sure we could put this money to good use. There is however
one point on which I disagree. If I were in office, you can be
sure I would not use this money for patronage purposes as the
Liberals do in our region and I would not be buying votes as
they do on a daily basis. Perhaps that is the problem. They have
done so in the past and they still do.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Come on, be nice.
Mr. Yvon Godin: It is very hard to be nice when you know
what is going on, when there is a guy like Doug Young. Our
people are suffering and he is getting millions of dollars from
the taxpayers. It is pretty hard to be nice to your government.
The people of New Brunswick know that. The people of this
country should know that it is pretty hard to be nice to your
government when there are all these expenses and kids are going
to school with no food in their stomachs. It is pretty hard to
be nice. It is pretty hard to be nice to that party. Just look
what it has been doing to the Atlantic region. It was not
without reason that they voted in the NDP in Nova Scotia's last
election.
I tell all Canadians today that the government can say it
worries or the people can say they worry about the NDP because it
spends too much. The NDP has never been in power as a national
party in this country. This country is in debt like we have
never seen and it is not the NDP that did it.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I commend my colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP for their great
speeches. It was nice to see them bring some concern and some
passion to the debate. It is obvious they are aware of the
fishery problems, the conservation problems and the enforcement
problems. They are certainly well versed in the difficulties
faced by their constituents in their ridings and in their
provinces. Again I commend them both for the speeches they gave
this morning.
I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-27, a bill relating to the
conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks. We are talking about cod, flounder,
turbot, tuna and swordfish. These fish are very important for
the livelihoods of Atlantic Canadians, all Canadians and the
entire world. We are talking about a renewable resource, a
valuable protein source for the entire world. That is why I am
pleased to participate in the debate on this bill.
I will support any piece of legislation, measure or initiative
that improves conservation and improves and enhances the
protection of our fishery resources. I will support any measure
that provides for more effective enforcement. In my view this
legislation does all three. I go on record up front as saying
that I do support the initiatives of this legislation. I do
support the ratification of the United Nations fishery agreement.
I agree with previous speakers that it is with regret we are so
late in getting this legislation to the floor of the House of
Commons. We should have dealt with it before because Canada has
been a leader in this United Nations fisheries agreement. We
have led in promoting it and in getting it to this stage.
Other speakers have alluded to the fact that the agreement has
59 signatories. I believe there have been 17 ratifications and a
number of other ratifications are ready to be made. We are at
the point where we are almost too late because we need 30
ratifications before the agreement can come into effect.
I hope the government moves this legislation forward very
quickly so that before we adjourn for the summer we will have
dealt with the bill. It is so important for Atlantic Canada, all
Canadians and the world.
1215
It is a very important measure and there are very important
conservation principles included in this legislation. There will
be an exchange of information, an exchange of science and catch
data. These are all very important to the conservation of our
fish stocks.
We know the great problems we are experiencing in Atlantic
Canada. They have been brought to the forefront of the nation in
the last 48 hours by demonstrations in Newfoundland and Labrador
and by the disruption of government services. That is very
unfortunate.
People may say how is this connected, how does this piece of
legislation, in any way, relate to what is happening in
Newfoundland and Labrador and in Atlantic Canada today. It
relates in this way.
The straddling stocks we are talking about, the fish that
swim inside and outside our 200 mile economic zone, have been
subjected to tremendous harvesting pressure inside and more so
outside the 200 mile limit.
Foreigners for years and years have scooped that fish up once it
went outside the 200 mile limit on the nose and tail of the Grand
Banks, the Flemish cap, what is referred to as the nursery
grounds for juvenile fish. They are nursery grounds, great
feeding grounds where these fish feed and grow. They swim in and
out.
This legislation is very important but it relates to the
situation in Newfoundland and Labrador today in that these stocks
have been decimated. We cannot point the finger at the
foreigners. We have to take some of the blame and some of the
responsibility for where we are today with our fish stocks,
particularly with our groundfish stocks.
It was very discouraging and disconcerting yesterday in question
period to hear the Prime Minister try to blame this crisis on the
previous Conservative government, the previous Tory
administration.
This problem has been building for at least 30 years, the same
number of years the Prime Minister so often boasts about in this
House that he has been a member of parliament. It is about the
same length of time. The Prime Minister has been in more
administrations and in more cabinets and in more government
departments, I would say, than any other member of this House,
certainly sitting today. Therefore he must take some of this
responsibility through the Trudeau years and the Turner years and
now through his own administration.
The Mulroney administration and the Clark administration must
take some of the responsibility as well because they made
management decisions that were not in the best interests of our
groundfish stocks and this very renewable resource worth billions
of dollars to Atlantic Canada per year.
We brought this very rich, renewable resource into Confederation
and we have very little left today. When we brought this
resource into Confederation, who became the custodian of the
resource? It was the Government of Canada. The government was
to look out for, protect, control and manage this resource for
the benefit of Atlantic Canadians and indeed for all Canadians.
It has not done a very good job.
Successive federal governments have not done a very good job at
managing as the custodians of our resources. That is why we find
ourselves in the position we are in today.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans decides the number of
vessels that fish off our shores. It determines the size of the
vessels that fish off our shores. It determines and approves the
harvesting technologies that these vessels use. It determines
the fish quotas, the total allowable catches, how much fish is
caught and when it is caught. All those are decisions of the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans of our national government.
The provincial governments of Atlantic Canada have no
jurisdiction or control. The fishermen have no jurisdiction or
control. The unions have no jurisdiction or control. The
Government of Canada has total control over our fish resources
and management of those very valuable resources.
We have been let down big time by bad decision after bad
decision. That is why we have the very volatile situation in
Atlantic Canada today. People do not know where they are going
to turn. Their futures are very uncertain.
Some days the federal government tells them they should move to
some other province in Canada to find work.
Others suggest they go on welfare. These are proud, hardworking
people. It is not a very pleasant thought when you have worked
25 or 30 years in an industry, working 12 months a year, and
someone tells you to pack up your bags and move out or go in the
welfare line. Unless the government comes up with an acceptable
plan and program for those people that is exactly what they are
facing.
1220
I have had people call me who are 55, 56 years of age and ask me
“What are we going to do? We own our home here. We are not well
trained. We are not well educated. All we have done all our
lives is work in the fishery. What advice can you give us?” It
is a difficult question. Where are they going to find work? If
they do find work how much will they be paid? At least they own
their homes where they are now and they want to continue to live
and work there.
That is the dilemma these thousands of people we have talked
about in the last number of weeks find themselves in. This is a
crisis that has been caused by mismanagement by the federal
government, mismanagement of their resource, the people's
resource, a common resource, a very valuable renewable resource
that has been totally and grossly mismanaged by the Government of
Canada, not by any other government in Canada.
The government has to admit its responsibility. It has been
very devastating to those people and that is why we see what is
happening in Newfoundland and Labrador today. Those people want
an answer. They want a future. More and more of them are
willing to accept early retirement. More fishermen are willing
to sell their licences and get out of the industry, but that will
not take care of all of them.
Thousands have already gone and become better educated and
better trained and found employment in other professions.
Thousands have left the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
There are communities with no young people left. When you go to
these communities all you find are people who are in their mid
fifties and sixties, basically retirement people. What are we
leaving behind to continue with our rural way of life and the
social fabric of those communities?
People do not understand this. It is very disturbing when you
come to the House of Commons representing more of those people
than any other member, which I do. I have more TAGS clients in
the riding of Burin—St. George's than any other riding in this
country.
I come here day after day and I try to bring the message to the
federal government. I see so few members here who even want to
listen or participate in this important debate, particularly
those from Ontario, those who are most resisting any help to
those people, the 99 or 100 who are so opposed to helping the
people of Atlantic Canada, who resist in caucus week after week
and heckle MPs from Atlantic Canada who get up and promote the
cause of their people. That is what is happening.
An hon. member: Not true.
Mr. Bill Matthews: The member can say not true all he
likes. I know full well it is true. He can have his chance when
he stands in his place in debate. He can stand in his place and
give his side of the story and we will see then what he supports
for the people of Atlantic Canada.
There have been some concerns raised about Bill C-27,
particularly about the procedures of boarding and what happens
after our enforcement officers board a vessel. There are those
who still think and are saying publicly that we must have
approval of the flag state before we board a vessel.
I have been briefed by officials from foreign affairs and DFO
and I comfortable and accept that this is not the case. Our
enforcement officers can board those vessels if they see fit and
when they desire. If they find a violation then quite naturally
out of courtesy they have to notify the flag state, the state
from which the vessel hails. That is only common courtesy. Then
there is a three day period in which the flag state has to
respond.
The flag state can respond in a number of ways. It can try to
contact another patrol vessel in the area, a NAFO patrol vessel,
send it to the ship and then the Canadian people will move off
and the NAFO vessel will take over. If the flag state does not
respond in three days and that lack of response is concurrence
with what has happened, then the Canadian authorities can take
that vessel to port.
1225
As a member of parliament and a person very concerned with this
type of legislation because of all the implications for the
people I represent, I feel the legislation is a move in the right
direction. It will enable us to better enforce the high seas.
It will enable us to better detect violations on the high seas
and it will enable us to deal with those situations which for
years have gone on undetected in a lot of cases but which when
detected nothing has happened to the violators.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the Estai affair
which got so much attention in this country just a few years ago.
We used force on the high sees and fired a shot across the bow
of the Estai and brought the vessel to St. John's,
Newfoundland. We found juvenile turbot caught by a liner in a
net of the Estai. It was an international incident.
What is ironic is that after all the kerfuffle and the hundreds
of thousands of dollars spent in that arrest, using our military
vessels and our coast guard vessels, putting the crew of the
Estai up in the Hotel Newfoundland, an approximate cost of
$100,000, the end result was that the Estai was given back
to the Spanish, the fish were given back to the Spanish,
including the juvenile turbot, and the half a million dollar
court bond that was posted by the Estai was given back to
the company.
It cost $100,000 of taxpayer money to wine and dine the
Spaniards in the Hotel Newfoundland and the costs that were
incurred in the enforcement and the actual arrest of the vessel.
We all remember Captain Canada. That was the end result of the
Estai affair.
The legislation in my view will certainly improve on those kinds
of situations. By merely signing on to the agreement, the people
and the countries involved in the agreement are going to concur
and subject themselves to boarding and enforcement, even in NAFO
regulatory areas where before they would come in and not be
subjected to any kind of enforcement. Because they are a part of
the agreement, when they fish in NAFO areas they will now be
subject to NAFO regulations, a very important step forward.
I want to go back again to the situation we face in Newfoundland
and Atlantic Canada today. I plead with the Government of Canada
to move quickly in responding to the needs of those thousands of
Atlantic Canadians. There is a big economic and social problem
in Atlantic Canada and it has been caused by the downturn in our
groundfish industry.
The fishery in Atlantic is by no ways dead. The export value of
the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador last year was $550
million, quite significant. What has happened is that people
have diversified into other species. What we once called
underutilized species are no longer underutilized. There are no
fish inside our 200 mile limit today that are underutilized.
They are all very valuable, resources we have to value add to and
create more employment and more value for our people.
I plead with the Government of Canada to deal with the very
serious crisis because it is a crisis, as I have said before,
that has been caused by years and years of bad management
decisions. Fish given to foreigners is totally a decision of the
Government of Canada. The number of vessels that fish any one
particular stock of fish is decided by the Government of Canada.
The size of the vessels is decided by the Government of Canada.
The harvesting technology, whether it is a gill net, a cod trap
or a stern trawler, is approved and concurred in by the
Government of Canada. The amount of fish that has been allowed
to be harvested over all these years on an annual basis has been
decided by the Government of Canada.
1230
All of those decisions have been decisions of successive
governments of Canada. They have contributed to and caused this
very serious problem. This government has to accept its
responsibility to Atlantic Canadians.
Fish stocks have not regenerated as quickly as we thought they
would. Some of the southern stocks are showing signs of
improvement, but northern cod definitely is not. It is the
responsibility of the Government of Canada to look out for those
people whose lives have been ruined. It is going to take another
five or ten years for this situation to improve and for fish
stocks to regenerate.
People's lives have been ruined because successive governments
have decimated their fish stocks. Those governments were the
custodian of the fish stocks. It is the responsibility of the
Government of Canada to look after these people until the stocks
regenerate and they have a future working in the industry. In
most cases it is the only job these people ever had. I plead
with the government to do that.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to commend previous members on their speeches in support of this
particular piece of legislation.
I would remind the member for St. John's East that when this
government came to power in 1993 the now premier of Newfoundland
was fisheries minister. He went to cabinet to find out what
plans had been made to continue the support for the Conservative
compensation plan and he found there was not a nickel. There was
absolutely no plan to do anything with the people who were coming
off the Conservative compensation package. That government, during
the time of the most massive cuts in the history of this country,
found $1.9 billion to put toward the TAGS program in support of
the liability which the federal government had to the people of
Newfoundland and indeed Atlantic Canada.
There is blame to go around. There is a lot of blame to go
around. We can spread it as thick as we want to. However, the
fact is that TAGS is running out.
In deference to my colleagues from Ontario, if the hon. member
had been at Liberal caucus meetings—and perhaps some day he
might be—he would have heard the report of the Ontario caucus.
The number two concern in that report was for the government to
address as quickly as possible the problems with TAGS in
Newfoundland.
I think the hon. member owes the members of parliament from
Ontario an apology for the accusations he made that they are
doing everything they can not to help the fishermen from
Newfoundland who are suffering because of the groundfish
collapse.
It is okay to pass the blame. We will take the blame and past
governments will take the blame. John Crosbie stated in his
book that when he was the minister of fisheries his problems
occurred when he was dealing with the provincial premiers. The
provincial premiers put on the pressure. The unions put on
pressure to keep the quota as high as possible for the people in
order to get qualified for work during the fishing season.
With that I would ask the member for Burin—St. George's to
address the comments he made to the members of parliament from
Ontario who, indeed, support, in every way possible, the
government moving on a new TAGS. The old TAGS, as I am sure he
will agree, was far from perfect. The new TAGS must address the
shortcomings of the old program.
1235
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's comments and his questions.
Just let me say that before TAGS there was NCARP which was
brought in by John Crosbie, the same man who had the unenviable
task of imposing a moratorium on northern cod stocks in Atlantic
Canada. It was a very difficult decision, but he did what he had
to do.
TAGS was not perfect. One of the big problems that we
experienced with TAGS was the underestimation by HRDC even after
NCARP had expired. There was a couple of years of NCARP and then
TAGS was brought in. However HRDC underestimated the number of
people who would be eligible for TAGS income benefits by 50%. It
then took money out of the early retirement and licence buy out
components to put into income support because that was what was
needed to put bread and butter on the table for thousands of
Atlantic Canadians.
The bungling and mistakes with TAGS goes back to the Department
of Human Resources Development Canada. It underestimated, after
all of this crisis and those years of involvement with NCARP, the
number of people who would be involved.
There are some success stories with TAGS. There are hundreds
and hundreds of success stories of people who went on to other
professions and to post-secondary institutions to become better
educated, better trained, who found new jobs. These are the
stories that are not told often enough.
With respect to the Ontario caucus, I am very pleased to hear
that it is supporting a new program for Atlantic Canadians. I
welcome the support of those members and I thank them.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier
(Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, you see how practical it is that my riding's name lists
four RCMs; now, everyone in Canada will know the names of the
RCMs around the Gaspé peninsula.
I too would like to congratulate the member for Burin—St.
George's. Clearly this is someone who really looks out for the
people in his riding and who has a deep interest in the
fisheries sector.
I worked with him on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans and I must say that I was impressed with the way we
worked together, with the fact that we came up with points on
which nobody toed the party line.
I am also impressed that a group of Conservative, New Democratic
and Liberal parliamentarians from Newfoundland has come to get
its views across to the various caucuses here in the House. I
know that my colleague has met with them.
Bill C-27 contains certain management measures. Having worked
with me on the standing committee, the member for Burin—St.
George's knows that there are serious problems. We agreed that
the main one is the poor management by the federal government,
irrespective of the parties.
The member for Egmont, on Prince Edward Island, referred just
now to John Crosbie, who said that decisions were difficult
because the provinces and unions put pressure on them to
maintain the TAC, the total allowable catch.
The question I want to ask my colleague is as follows. Does he
still mean to recommend, even to the people from his province,
that the department's management methods and the methods for
setting the TAC be reviewed and does he still mean to encourage
the provinces to take part in this exercise?
In in the standing committee's report, we urged the government
to have this review done by an independent committee. If we want
to restore confidence, that is where we should start. Once
again, Bill C-27 is a red herring, but if an independent
committee were struck, at least we would be able to get down to
some serious talk.
[English]
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his compliments.
I think the hon. member is referring to the FRCC, the Fisheries
Resource Conservation Council, but I am not sure. When he talks
about management decisions and quotas, I think he must be
referring to the FRCC which on an annual basis makes
recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
There was some concern raised in the standing committee, and by
people who appeared before the standing committee, which held 15
public meetings and heard from 5,000 to 6,000 people. Concerns
were raised about the independence of the FRCC. People thought
it was not far enough removed from the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans.
1240
They felt that it should be totally removed from the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans, that it should be more independent.
There was a feeling that it was being influenced by people in the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
I do not know if that is what the hon. member is referring to or
not. I had difficulty understanding the question.
In the setting of quotas, with harvesting practices and
management practices, we have to consult more and more with those
involved in the fishing industry. For too many years we went
through the process of saying that we were consulting, but we
really did not listen. That is why we have this big mess today.
We did not consult enough and listen to those directly involved
in the industry.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to some of the
comments, but also to put on the record my personal feelings and,
I believe, the feelings of the vast majority of my constituents
and the feelings of the Ontario caucus.
As the member for Egmont pointed out, I do not know where the
member for Burin—St. George's gets his information, but the
Ontario caucus is solidly behind the efforts and the concerns in
looking for an opportunity to provide assistance to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and, indeed, all of Atlantic Canada.
This is an issue that really defines the country of Canada. I
say that because we are a country that wants to share from sea to
sea to sea all the benefits, windfalls and financial strengths.
We want to share all the good things about Canada with one
another.
There are many examples of what I often refer to as
gate-equalization. In 1949 when Newfoundland joined Confederation
there was a pact. There was a reason for doing it. The hon.
Joey Smallwood spoke about the strength in unifying and joining
Canada, becoming part of this great nation, and the benefits that
would be attributed to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The member for Burin—St. George's made some excellent points.
It is interesting that the member for Acadie—Bathurst as well as
the previous speaker spoke in support of the bill, and yet the
games continue to be played. Why do we not get on with it? The
opposition members insist on calling quorum. For what purpose?
To delay the passage of the bill? They know full well, and the
people at home know, that members do not sit all day in this
chamber. They are in committee. They are in meetings. They are
in their offices. They are phoning their constituents.
Furthermore, it is against the rules in this place for people to
make reference to members being absent.
I understand that members opposite have a strategy. They are
upset. They like to win certain votes and they have not won, so
they have developed a strategy to be disruptive. Frankly, that
is not going to solve this problem, as the member of the New
Democratic Party and the member of the Conservative want to do.
There is support. Strong support. Many of us, myself included,
are urging members of cabinet to come up with a solution. I
believe that the solution should not just be the son of TAGS. The
solution has to be sustainable growth. The solution has to be
new opportunities for Atlantic Canada. Why would a guy from
central Ontario, Mississauga West, even care about this kind of
issue? I can tell members that I honestly believe my
constituents care.
1245
When I was in the Ontario legislature I had the opportunity to
travel to Newfoundland on a couple of occasions. One of the best
experiences my wife and I have ever had was after our public
accounts committee had finished its meetings in St. John's, we
rented a car and we drove through the Avalon Peninsula. We did
the bed and breakfast routine and we got to know the people of
the Avalon Peninsula.
Kitty Sullivan's Kitchen is a very famous stop down the coast of
the Avalon. We stayed overnight. We talked with Kitty Sullivan
about her past, about her husband's life as a fisherman. He had
passed away and her two sons were carrying on the family
tradition. She has flaming red hair. With tears in her green
eyes she talked about growing up in that spectacular part of the
world.
I do not know what it was but it created an affinity. Maybe it
is my Irish roots. They say on a clear day from Kitty Sullivan's
Kitchen you can actually see Ireland. I do not know, maybe you
can. It was not a clear day. As we all know, there are not a lot
of clear days in that part of the world, but it is a wonderful
part of the world.
It is an absolute human tragedy, what has happened in
Newfoundland and Labrador with the fisheries. Other members have
said there is enough blame to go around. Obviously there is. We
have to accept our share.
We are the government and we have to come up with a plan. I
believe we will. I believe that this government cares about what
happens there, but as I said, just making it a son of TAGS is not
the solution. There has to be a long term plan.
People in Newfoundland are demonstrating right now. On tax day
they have taken over the Revenue Canada building. They know how
to make a point in that part of the world. They are making a
point. It is a valid point and a real concern.
I want members to know that this member from Ontario cares about
what happens in Atlantic Canada. As a national government we
have a responsibility to make sure that we look out for Canadians
right across this land.
We went around the bottom of the peninsula and up to the top to
beautiful communities, Heart's Desire, Heart's Delight, Heart's
Content. They are absolutely amazing places. Canadians should
go and see Newfoundland and Labrador.
In fact, I was scheduled in the March break to go with the
member for Labrador on a snowmobile trip in Labrador.
Unfortunately he took ill. He is back with us now, but he took
very seriously ill and we had to postpone the trip.
The reason he asked me to join him was that I had spoken out on
an issue that was very important to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador. It was the lobby campaign headed up by the
International Fund for Animal Welfare against the seal hunt which
was trying to close down the seal hunt.
Aside from the fact that in a community like mine in Mississauga
there are a lot of transplants from Newfoundland and Labrador, I
spoke up because of what I saw as misleading information, a lobby
campaign funded by American money, a lobby campaign designed to
mislead the Canadian public. I received probably 400 phone calls
all of them computer generated into my voice mail. That kind of
trickery, that kind of deceit, no matter what part of Canada we
are from, no matter what party we represent, is not something we
should be willing to tolerate.
I spoke out. I wrote a letter to the editor saying that I was
astounded. I did it in anger because I was fed up with the
misinformation. We talk about the damage to the cod, the damage
to the fisheries. Premier Tobin was quoted today. He said in a
speech last night at a fundraiser “You know, the seals don't eat
at McDonald's or Burger King; they eat fish. They eat a lot of
fish”.
1250
There is a seal hunt with five million seals in the herd. There
can be no doubt when we have a quota set at 283,000 seals to be
harvested out of a herd of five million, seals have to be part of
the problem. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand.
I wrote a letter to the editor which was published in a couple of
newspapers. I will read part of it:
I take strong exception to any group that spreads lies and
misinformation to the Canadian people to further its own,
somewhat myopic view of the world. The seal hunt is highly
regulated and anyone who breaks the law, and I admit there will
naturally be some who do, will be charged and dealt with under
the full extent of the law. Other law-abiding citizens, who rely
on these animals for food, survival and jobs, should be allowed
to work at their trade without harassment.
I believe my constituents would agree with that sentiment.
One of the members mentioned in the House that nothing came of
the Estai affair. I want to correct the record on a few
things.
One of the speakers yesterday made remarks, which I will get to
in a moment. Frankly he should know better because the area he
represents is Saanich—Gulf Islands. He represents the other end
of the country from Newfoundland but definitely represents an
area where there is concern about overfishing and everything that
goes with that.
The member for Burin—St. George's said that nothing came of the
Estai affair. He ridiculed Premier Tobin, called “Captain
Canada” by people around the world for his crusade.
I am in the middle of reading the Michael Harris book Lament
for an Ocean. It is an interesting book. It details at some
length the events which took place when Brian Tobin, then the
minister of fisheries for the national government, stood up to
the overfishing trawlers from Spain. It details the courage.
The book details what went on in cabinet in getting the support
which allowed Mr. Tobin to actually use force.
I understand that the member for Burin—St. George's is an
opposition politician. I understand he is not of the same party
provincially or nationally as Mr. Tobin, but let us give some
credit where it is due. He claims nothing came as a result of
that effort. The fact is we became an internationally respected
nation willing to stand up for the protection of the fishery,
willing to stand up to foreign ships taking baby fish in very
tiny nets and adding to the destruction of the fish stock. We
did stand up and we should be proud of that.
It is most unfortunate that a member in this place from
Newfoundland would actually stand up and denigrate those efforts.
Did they solve all the problems? Obviously not. This bill will
not solve all the problems either but it will go a long way
toward putting in place the enforcement mechanism the Canadian
Coast Guard needs to be able to board trawlers where it is
suspected there have been violations.
I want to correct the record from a debate yesterday by the
member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I will quote what he said from
the Evening Telegram: “During debate in the House of
Commons Wednesday, Saanich—Gulf Islands MP”—I will not name
him since I cannot—said Bill C-27 that implements the provisions
on straddling stocks is actually more restrictive than current
measures in Canadian and international law”.
An official with the department has corrected him in this
article. I want to do so on the record in this place.
The official said: “There is nothing in the bill that limits
our right to board vessels. The powers that are in it are the
same powers that are in the agreement. We are only giving
ourselves the powers the UN agreement says we can do”.
1255
Bill C-27 is the legislation Canada needs to implement the
United Nations agreement on straddling and highly migratory fish
stocks. Some members mentioned that this agreement could apply
to salmon. That was another issue put forward yesterday. I do
not have a problem with opposition members disagreeing with the
government. All I hear is opposition members saying that they
support this bill but then they put forward statements that are
simply not correct, and they need to be corrected.
Some have said that this could apply to salmon. The intent of
this agreement was to strengthen sections of the UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, that apply to straddling stocks and
highly migratory stocks. As an anadromous species, salmon is not
covered by these definitions. These people know that, so why
would they put out information that they know is false? I guess
they are just desperately looking for something negative to say
about the government even though they support the bill.
Canada cannot unilaterally change internationally negotiated
agreements and add stocks that were not covered by the agreement.
As Bill C-27 is an implementation bill, it can only reflect what
is in the UNFA.
Some members, including the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands,
have also raised concerns about the procedural requirements in
Bill C-27 for boarding vessels. I will set the facts straight.
The member should know better than to make those comments in this
place.
Under Bill C-27 Canadian enforcement officers can board and
inspect vessels of states party to the UNFA agreement without
first obtaining consent of any foreign state. If a violation to
the fishing measures is found, the enforcement officers must
notify the flag state. As some members have said, the flag state
then has three days to respond to such a notice. During that time
period, the enforcement officers remain onboard the ship. They
may search and seize, secure, conduct an investigation to obtain
any evidence they may need to prove the accusation of a
violation.
After the flag state has been notified and given 72 hours, there
are three possible scenarios. The member opposite knows it and
should have said it.
First, the flag state may respond by consenting to Canada taking
additional enforcement action against the vessel. This could
include, as occurred in the case of the Estai, bringing the
vessel to port to continue the investigation.
Second, if the flag state responds with appropriate measures to
investigate and take enforcement action, then the enforcement
officer would turn over that vessel to the flag state for further
action. If they agree with the allegations or charges, then it
only makes sense. The member for Burin—St. George's complained
about the cost of putting up the Spanish sailors in Hotel
Newfoundland. The second option means that we would not have to
do that.
Third, if the flag state does not respond within the three day
period, the enforcement officers could take the vessel to port
and continue their investigations. We have seen that happen.
Canada has the hard-nosed attitude to deal with this.
This bill now gives us the teeth to deal with problems on the
high seas.
1300
All these procedures apply only to vessels from states that are
party to the UNFA and are listed under the CFPA regulations. I
want that on the record. For vessels from states that are not
party to this agreement, the current provisions of the Coastal
Fisheries Protection Act will continue to be applied. It is very
important to remind this House that Bill C-27 must be read with
this together. It does not stand on its own.
With the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, this bill is not
replacing what we already have. It is an additional tool that
Canada can use to stop foreign overfishing of straddling and
highly migratory stocks on the high seas.
While I appreciate that there is tremendous passion in their
concern for constituents in Newfoundland and Labrador, I would
hope opposition members would stop playing games, support this
bill and let us get on with the solution.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to address the House on behalf of the
member for Vancouver Island North.
If the train leaves the station and you are not on it, it is
particularly difficult to be the tour guide. The train I am
talking about carries Canada's interest in fishing on the high
seas. It seems that, with the exception of the half hearted
introduction of Bill C-27, nobody from Canada is on that train,
nor do they have any interest in trying to catch it.
Sixteen years have now gone by and this government has still not
ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Canada was very much in favour of this convention from its
inception in 1973 until 1982 when it was adopted at the UN. The
law of the sea was negotiated with leadership from both Canada
and the United States but to date neither country has ratified
it.
I have been in this House when the member for Davenport, a
member on the Liberal side, a former environment minister in the
Trudeau government, asked this government to ratify the law of
the sea, and yet it has still not been done. This is one of the
government's own members, a longstanding member in this House.
Why is Canada dragging its feet? Perhaps it says something
about this government and past Liberal and Conservative
governments that a convention so heavily favoured still has not
been ratified by Canada.
If it takes 16 years to ratify something with which the
government agrees, it is not hard to imagine how difficult it is
to move the agenda with this government on issues that are not so
straightforward.
The law of the sea is an umbrella agreement that deals with many
topics other than fisheries. It deals with the preservation of
marine living resources, offshore oil and gas, shipping, maritime
boundaries and the resolution of marine disputes, among other
issues.
It required the ratification of 60 nations before it could come
into effect. This threshold was reached in November 1994 and
now, in 1998, over 100 nations have signed on. Sadly, Canada is
not one of those members. The United States still has not
ratified the law of the sea because it has issues with deep sea
mining provisions. What is Canada's excuse?
The subject of the legislation before us today, Bill C-27, which
enables the government to ratify UNFA, includes the subject of
straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. These
fish stocks were not considered in detail during the law of the
sea discussions but because the law of the sea is an umbrella
agreement, it allows for subsidiary agreements like UNFA to
expand on topics such as straddling and highly migratory fish
stocks.
Unfortunately Canada now finds itself in the unpleasant
situation of looking at the straddling and highly migratory fish
stocks agreement, UNFA, which we signed in 1994, and the law of
the sea agreement, which we signed in 1982, knowing we have not
ratified either one even though we agreed to them when they were
introduced. We still agree with them.
1305
Why has the government been so slow to move on both the law of
the sea and the UNFA? One reason might be that Canada has a case
pending in the International Court of Justice in The Hague. This
case arose from the action when Canada unilaterally seized the
Spanish trawler Estai back in 1995.
Canada might be concerned that we could be liable for the action
taken under former Bill C-29 amendments to the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act passed in May 1994 and which allegedly allowed
Canada to take this unilateral international action.
However, this argument does not make sense with respect to the
law of the sea. It does not make sense because in 1982, when
there was no Estai incident, Canada took no actions to
ratify the law of the sea. Some experts even say that
ratification of the UNFA will not make any difference to the
Estai international court case.
However, let us just take the worst case scenario. If Canada
were to lose in the international court there might be some small
embarrassment to the minister of the day but certainly it would
not put Canada in any great jeopardy. In fact, the Estai
is still out there fishing today. The Estai is Spanish and
Spain ratified the law of the sea in January 1997 and is a
signatory to the UNFA.
The real issue may be that Bill C-27 might get blown out of the
water. How might this happen? It flows from the ratification of
UNFA that signatory states are then subject to all the
enforcement provisions. Spain and Canada are both signatory
nations. The real concern may therefore be that a loss at the
international court could jeopardize Bill C-27 amendments to the
Coast Fisheries Protection Act which allowed Canada to take
unilateral action outside the 200 mile limit on behalf of
straddling stocks. If our actions are held to have been illegal
then Bill C-27 would also be illegal.
If that is the real concern then why is this government playing
games by pretending all is well and entering into the second
reading of this bill if it has no intention of carrying it
forward until proceedings at The Hague are adjudicated?
We know that when the Estai case comes up again in the
international court in June of this year, Canada will merely be
arguing that the ICJ has no jurisdiction to try the case.
We know from the briefing we received from DFO on the bill we
are debating today that it is the federal position that once UNFA
is ratified the enforcement provisions of the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act will continue to apply to those vessels that
belong to non-signatory nations or flags of convenience.
One thing we know for sure is that during the Estai
incident, Canada did demonstrate an interest in pursuing Canada's
interests aggressively in the international arena. Other than
that singular time, Canada's international posture on fisheries
issues is extremely weak.
All evidence demonstrates that we consistently drop the ball
into the international arena. In fact, we wonder why Bill C-27
has been drafted so that a new section of the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act, section 7.01, states that Canada has to get the
consent of a signatory state before it can take enforcement
action against one of these vessels. Imagine, we have to get
consent before we go after it.
I would like to support the intent of Bill C-27. However, I do
not agree with the clause in section 7.01 which reads “with the
consent of the participating state”. If there are obligations
imposed on the states ratifying UNFA to comply with agreed
conservation measures then why should a coastal state need the
permission of another signatory to enforce those conservation
measures?
Is Canada pursuing the best interests of Canadians in the
international arena when it comes to Canadian issues? The
evidence clearly demonstrates this government continues to drop
the ball on these issues.
For example, there is a growing number of fishermen on the west
coast who have determined that there is a better future in
fishing outside the 200 mile limit than fishing inside.
1310
They have realized that there is a large biomass to be
harvested. They have the opportunity, the expertise and the
boats. They have invested in high seas fisheries. They have
joined vessel owner associations along with boat owners from
other nations.
There is an international fishery in the mid Pacific. Many
countries that fish there have a vital interest in highly
migratory stocks. Highly migratory stocks are one of those two
fish stocks along with straddling stocks which are the subject of
UNFA legislation.
There are approximately 100 west coast Canadian fishing vessel
owners represented by the Western Fishboat Owners Association,
some of whom are Canada's distant water ocean going fishing
fleet owners. These boat owners fish primarily for albacore tuna but
are also licensed for yellowfin, bluefin and skipjack tuna as
well as other species. Some of the members' vessels operate in
the north Pacific all the way to the Japanese 200 mile limit, the
whole north Pacific. Some operate in both the north and the
south Pacific albacore tuna fisheries.
In addition to the Canadian vessel owners who have approximately
20% of the ownership, the majority of membership in the WFOA is
American. The Canadian government is not actively representing
Canadian interests in this international fishery. However, the
United States government is an active participant in what will be
the third set of talks coming up in June about the management
issues of this high seas fishery.
Previous talks have been held in the Solomon Islands and the
Marshall Islands. The U.S. state department is there as is the
Western Fishboat Owners Association.
Where is the Canadian government in all this? Is our government
representing Canadian interests in the Pacific Ocean? Apparently
not. Canadian boat owners have been asking where are we, where
is our government. The legal counsel for the WFOA is puzzled by
our lack of interest. The U.S. state department is certainly
pursuing American interests, yet the Canadian department of
fisheries is absent. Canada needs to get its act together and
quickly.
I ask the minister, if we are going to have representatives from
DFO and foreign affairs at the next meeting in Tokyo in June, to
make sure Canada's public interest and fishermen's rights are not
forgotten in the discussion during the creation of new rules to
govern the Pacific international fishery.
Our fishing interests deserve better representation. Our nation
deserves better representation and our fishermen deserve better
representation. One of the issues which we vigorously championed
in the development of the law of the sea and UNFA was the
management of highly migratory stocks. This issue is being
debated in the Pacific and we are not there.
Canadians are out fishing on the high seas for tuna and other
large migratory fish. A portion of these Canadian licensed boats
can fish tuna in U.S. waters between the 12 and 200 mile limit in
the U.S. as well as international waters but they cannot fish
within Canada's 200 mile limit because of restrictions on their
Canadian licence. That is a paradox. They can fish in U.S.
waters but not in Canadian waters.
American boats have no such restrictions in Canada or the U.S.
because of the bilateral tuna treaty and because the U.S. does
not prevent American boats from fishing within American waters.
We have the bureaucratically driven nonsensical situation where
some Canadian tuna boats with DFO licensing are the only boats
excluded from fishing in Canadian waters. Only in Canada, you
say. Of course this policy continues to be under review by DFO
but it does not make any sense. Can we hope for a quick
resolution?
For this reason and others it is estimated that 80% of Canadian
fish landings from the tuna fleet are in U.S. ports.
Unfortunately when Canadian boats do this there is an under
reporting of Canadian fish landings. According to the statistics
I have seen it looks like Canada does not catch many fish in the
north Pacific and none at all in the south Pacific. This is
simply not the case. The problem is with the reporting system.
DFO does not keep track of what Canadians catch on the high
seas. That is a fact. It will quote statistic but they are
totally meaningless because they are not accurate. If a Canadian
boat lands its catch in the U.S. there is no mechanism for
counting it as Canadian.
We are totally reliant on others for the statistics. The
majority of Canadian vessel catches are currently recorded as
U.S. landings by their national marine service and this bolsters
the U.S. catch at the cost of the Canadian catch.
1315
When it looks like Canadian fishermen are not fishing in the
Pacific and when the Canadian government does not represent its
people at international meetings, then the result will very
likely be that Canada will get left out entirely in allocation
and conservation decisions. The government should be looking at
what the U.S. is doing on the issue because according to our own
fishermen, they are doing a good job.
The Canadian government is displaying absolute blindness on this
issue. The Pacific resource for tuna and other species is being
increasingly exploited. So far there are no conservation
concerns and with some species we are only scratching the surface
in terms of sustainable harvest. There is a lot out there. There
is immense potential and Canada must be a player.
What invariably occurs in these circumstances, and we have only
to look at the bluefin tuna in the Atlantic as an example, is
that as conservation concerns develop, countries negotiate
allocations based on historical catches. This is the key,
historical catches. We are rapidly going to arrive at this
situation in the Pacific and Canada is simply ill prepared.
Without historical data that Canadians have been catching fish
on the high seas, and we do not have that, we will not obtain our
allocations. Without the allocations we also become non-players
in terms of management and conservation issues. Here we are a
major player and we are going to be the Switzerland of fishing
because of our DFO and because we have not managed this issue
correctly.
There are two things that Canada must do immediately to address
this issue. Canada needs to invoke a protocol to establish data
collection. Canada must immediately commit to be an active
participant in the high level Pacific migratory fish discussions
at the next meeting in Tokyo in June. We cannot stand on the
station any longer; we have to be on the train.
I would like to point out some gaps in the UN fish agreement,
noting that Bill C-27 is merely the enabling legislation that
will allow Canada to ratify UNFA whenever it so chooses. UNFA
cannot be used with respect to fish other than highly migratory
and straddling stocks. It cannot be used to help with the
Pacific salmon treaty. This is not a reason not to ratify, but
it certainly is a limitation.
Even though salmon do not fall into categories of fish
contemplated by UNFA, Canada's international position with
respect to international fisheries issues will be enhanced once
we ratify.
Another gap in UNFA relates to quotas and to allocations.
Although UNFA is a multilateral agreement, ratifying it will not
avoid the necessity of entering into separate treaties or
subsidiary agreements with foreign nations. The terms of
reference in UNFA are very broad and do not address quotas and
catches. We know from our experience with the Pacific salmon
treaty that these specifics have to be addressed in separate
negotiations.
What plan does the minister have to act decisively? This
government has been unable to get the United States to agree on
smaller catches of salmon on the west coast. The minister states
that conservation is his first priority, yet some species of
salmon are simply disappearing. What assurances do we have that
this government will be any more effective when discussing other
species of fish on a multilateral basis with more nations than
just the U.S.?
Many people may be surprised to learn that Canada is not in the
top 10 list of fishing nations. On the international scene there
are powerful interests at work and if we snooze, we lose. We have
a rightful place in the world fishery. We also have obligations
with respect to conservation and it will not help us if we do not
sign on to these international agreements.
In conclusion, if we do not have a presence, we will not have a
voice. By its inaction the Canadian government is contributing
to Canada's weak position. Now is the time for commitment. Now
is the time for action. Hopefully the government will take heed
and do the right thing.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I
would like to commend the member for Mississauga West who spoke
previously for his support for the TAGS program and the support
of his caucus for the Newfoundland fishery.
He mentioned there were a lot of Newfoundlanders in his riding. I
am sure they are enjoying themselves there, but they would prefer
to be in the communities where they were born and grew up in.
1320
The past speaker reminded us that we are talking about two
oceans when we pass fisheries legislation, and also the fish
committee that is in the north, and there are three oceans that
this bill impinges upon and that is why it is so necessary to
have it. He raised the matter of the Estai. The member for
Burin—St. George's was saying why it cost us $100,000 to
prosecute in that particular event and why we had to return to
Spain the various bonds that were required. That is why we have
this bill today. We knew that in an international court we would
have lost those cases because the legislation that we have before
us today was not in force. We are here today to take care of
that and to make sure that a predator or a pirate ship will be
prosecuted if it is caught ravaging our stocks on the nose and
tail of the Grand Banks or the Flemish Cap.
Even as we debate this bill today, massive fishing power is
being deployed on the high seas. Large vessels armed with the
latest technology are zeroing in on the world's dwindling fish
stocks on the high seas. There are flags of convenience vessels
that can and do plunder the oceans of the world. They are
getting away with it because they operate in the global commons,
that is, they fish the high seas that belong to no one and lie
outside the authority of any single state.
The legislation before us today amends the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act. When they are
amended, Canada will be in a legal position to implement the UN
fisheries agreement. That agreement will provide a needed step
to deal with the world's fish pirates.
The Brundtland commission, or more properly, the World
Commission on Environment and Development, made the following
comment about the global commons. I quote directly from the
commission's report written more than 10 years ago, in 1986:
Without agreed, equitable and enforceable rules governing the
rights and duties of states in respect of the global commons, the
pressure of demands on finite resources will [eventually] destroy
their ecological integrity.
In other words, unless we move to stop the plundering, we face
destruction of many fish stocks around the world. Time is
running out.
That was only one of many similar warnings. The United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization reported that disastrous social
and economic consequences await the worldwide fishing industry
unless fleets are reduced in size, subsidies are eliminated, and
fishing activity on the high seas is regulated.
The legislation before the House today represents those agreed
to equitable and enforceable rules that are needed for the
conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks in the global commons.
When we pass this legislation and prepare the necessary
regulations, Canada will be in a position to join that handful of
nations that have ratified the United Nations fisheries
agreement, UNFA. A total of more than 59 have signed the
agreement and 17, including the United States and Russia, have
ratified it so far. We will build the momentum needed to get the
30 ratifications required for entry into force.
When Canada ratifies the UN fisheries agreement, Canada will
underline its commitment to settling fisheries disputes with
other nations through negotiation and co-operation.
In 1994 Canada was the first nation to sign the UN Food and
Agriculture Compliance Agreement for vessels fishing in the high
seas. The agreement committed us to exercising licensing control
over any Canadian vessel fishing the high seas.
Canada was the prime mover and is among the strongest supporters
of the UN fisheries agreement. That is one reason why we should
support this bill, so that we can add Canada's name to the list
of those who have agreed to work toward a sustainable harvest of
protein from the high seas.
1325
The UN fisheries agreement rests on three pillars. First, the
agreement sets out the principles on which conservation and
management must be based for straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks. One of these principles is the
precautionary approach. That means when it comes to setting
catch limits, net and mesh sizes and so forth we agree with the
UN fisheries agreement to err not on the side of high hopes or
greed but on the side of caution. Conservation measures on the
high seas must be similar to the measures enforced within
national waters. That means we cannot have incompatible regimes
for straddling or migratory fish inside the 200 mile limit of
coastal states and outside the 200 mile limit.
Also in setting up the conservation regime, we agree to use the
best available scientific information. That is an important
point. Under this principle, states will not wait for so-called
better information to come along before they limit their catch.
We will not be swayed by those who argue that we do not have
enough information to set limits accurately. We will not listen
to those who say “let us study the problem some more and then
decide”. That is an old dodge. It has been used from time
immemorial to delay action and maintain the status quo. If we
maintain the status quo we will not have to worry about setting
limits because there will not be any fish left to conserve.
No one should think I am suggesting that we should stop or cut
out our research programs. We should increase them. Indeed the
UN fisheries agreement calls for the parties to commit themselves
to continued and increased research. That applies especially to
the collection of high quality data, for it is on the basis of
this information that we set fishing limits.
The second pillar of the UN fisheries agreement is credible
enforcement. Unenforced conservation and management measures are
not worth the paper they are written on. We will enforce our
conservation and management decisions co-operatively along with
other parties to the agreement.
The primary responsibility for enforcement will continue to be
with the flag state, the nation that, like Canada, licenses and
regulates fishing activities. But the agreement enables states
concerned about conservation on the high seas to take effective
enforcement measures.
The agreement sets out a framework for action against vessels
that break the rules by states other than the flag state, but
there are clear safeguards against the abuse of these powers.
Canada has no wish to deprive those who fish on the high seas of
their right to do so. I am referring to vessels from those
countries known as distant water fishing states. We do not want
to end their legitimate use of the high seas, but we do insist on
an end to the abuse of the high seas by them or anyone else.
Regional and subregional fisheries management organizations will
play the major role in conserving and managing straddling fish
stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. In fact it is groups
such as these, and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization,
NAFO, is one example, that establish the specific measures we
must take to conserve and manage fish stocks. NAFO sets measures
for the conservation and management of stocks that straddle our
200 mile limit. ICCAT, the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, sets them for highly migratory
stocks, specifically swordfish and tuna, that move through the
high seas and through the exclusive economic zones of many
countries.
The third pillar of the agreement is a commitment to settle
disputes peacefully. The UN fisheries agreement provides for a
number of methods to settle fisheries disputes. Some of these
are non-binding, but if these methods fail to resolve the
dispute, there is provision for compulsory and binding
procedures. My colleagues will have more to say about these
particular provisions.
In the little time left to me I would like to return to the
enforcement issue. What will happen under this legislation in
those cases where fisheries inspectors know that a serious
violation has taken place in the international waters within our
200 mile zone?
First of all, what is a serious violation? Some are listed in
the legislation and some are brought in through regulations which
incorporate by reference the relevant provisions of regional or
subregional fisheries management organizations. The agreement
specifies fishing in a closed area or during a closed season,
exceeding a quota, fishing without a licence, using prohibited
gear, or fishing for a stock under moratorium.
1330
As well, a vessel may commit minor violations that cumulatively
can be regarded as a serious disregard for conservation and
management measures. Here is what the agreement allows.
Canadian officers may board and inspect fishing vessels of any
other state to verify compliance with conservation and management
measures; that is, any other state whether it is or is not a
party to the agreement.
Where there are clear grounds to believe a violation has been
committed, the protection officer will notify the flag state
which is then expected to take appropriate action against the
vessel. If it does not respond or if it does not begin to fulfil
its obligations to fully investigate and does not take
appropriate action within three days, our officers can search and
seize evidence and bring the vessel to port.
Actually, the legislation goes beyond this. We can take action
when any fishing vessel from a state that is party to the UN
fisheries agreement contravenes conservation measures adopted by
a local fisheries management organization and we can do that
whether or not the state in question is also a member of the
organization. This is a breakthrough in the development of the
International Law of the Sea.
Under the United Nations fisheries agreement our protection
officers may take charge of a vessel until the flag state fulfils
its obligation to investigate fully and promptly and then take
follow up action. As it stands now, under NAFO for example, if
the flag state cannot be contacted our inspectors must leave the
vessel even if they discover a serious violation.
The United Nations fisheries agreement procedure is another
significant breakthrough.
Enforcement is vital if we are to properly conserve and manage
straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. However, we
cannot rely exclusively on these provisions. The real goal of
the agreement is to create an atmosphere of mutual trust coupled
with effective enforcement to ensure the sustainable exploitation
of these many important living resources of the sea.
I would like to conclude by quoting Ambassador Satya Nandan of
Fiji. It was Ambassador Nandan who chaired the conference that
produced the UN agreement. He said:
In essence, this agreement provides for the conservation and
sustainable use of the fish resources of the oceans. In place of
conflict, it provides a framework for co-operation.
That is something that Canada has always sought. I urge all
hon. members to pass this bill and thus permit Canada to ratify
this important agreement.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier
(Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity to give my regards to the hon.
member for Egmont, who was the chair of the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans in the last parliament. I understand the
hon. member is familiar with the issue, but I would like to see
if he will be more progressive than his party, he who had such
progressive ideas regarding Bill C-27.
First of all, I would like to ask him a question. The Bloc
Quebecois has indicated its intention to support the principle
of Bill C-27, adding however that we have much to do this spring,
and this week in particular, besides debating Bill C-27.
Regarding the rationale for this bill, the government claims it
will enable it to implement the agreement, which is not true
since it can do so without our consent.
If it takes the time to ask for our consent, then we should be
able to take the time to go into the details. I say details
because the UNFA is not wishful thinking nor a collection of
generalities.
I would like to know if the hon. member plans to put pressure on
his minister to ensure, in return for the favour we are doing
him this week by discussing Bill C-27, that the Atlantic
groundfish strategy is renewed as soon as possible and that work
on the crab management plan for zone 12 is progressing so that
it can be tabled by the end of the week.
Finally, I would like the hon. member to tell me if his
government has started giving some thought to what type of
fisheries and vision of the future it will put forward.
1335
Does he at least plan to put pressure on his minister to hold
consultations in this respect? The hon. member opposite, who is
a good man, listed and described the various penalties but I am
still waiting for him to talk about policy thrusts. For example,
what fishing gear and vessel should be favoured in view of the
size of the fish that will be allowed to be caught in the
future, since there is a decline in fish stocks, as we know.
I would like to hear the hon. member for Egmont on this point.
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for his question. I know he stayed in Ottawa to debate
this bill. His committee is travelling in the Northwest
Territories at the present time and I am sure his presence will
be missed. I am sure I would miss him if I was there.
He has a number of questions and I think some of them have
already been answered this morning. One of his questions
concerns TAGS, about which considerable pressure is coming to
bear on the government. We know that the old TAGS was far from
perfect. There were a lot of holes in it. We intended to help a
lot of people with that $1.9 billion, but many are still in need
of assistance.
The reason is because part-way through the process we took money
allocated for the buy back program and for training and put it
into personal support because of the underestimation of the
number of people that would be included in TAGS. The program was
running out of money very rapidly, so money was taken out of two
vital sectors and used for income support when it probably should
have been used to take fishermen out of the program altogether.
The new program must be designed to take people out of the
fishery, but also to ensure that there are enough fishermen left
to have a sustainable groundfish fishery off the Atlantic coast.
The member also mentioned zone 12 crab. I think he is aware
that probably this week the zone 12 management plan for crab will
be announced by the minister.
The only way a fishery can be continued in Canada, whether it is
on the Pacific, on the north or on the Atlantic coast, and the
only way for small fishing villages to survive is to have a
sustainable fishing industry. If we continue to overfish, as we
have done in the past, we will continue to have the same attitude
and pressures that were prevalent when some of our fish plant
workers did not get enough work and pressure was put on for them
to continue to work so they could collect EI. That created a
reliance on the EI system.
This type of thinking has to change. We have to think of the
resource first. If there are not enough fish, there are not
enough fish. It takes a while. I know we are dealing with
families. We are dealing with the ability of individuals to put
food on their table, but at the same time if we continue in this
way there will come a time when no one will have any weeks in the
fish plants in Atlantic Canada. We have to look at managing the
resource in a sustainable way so that it will be there not only
for the present but for the future.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
quite ironic that we have a situation where too many people are
chasing too few fish and relying on this resource to support
themselves and their families.
This is not new. We experienced the same thing a few years ago
in the forestry industry. The same thing has happened in other
natural resource industries.
I think the message which we have to give clearly and
unequivocally is that we have to work on the renewal of the
resource. We have to diversify our economy so that we do not
rely on one source of revenue coming from one natural resource.
We have to have a renewal mechanism which will help it to grow.
I want to commend the government on its initiative.
1340
Frankly, whether we like it or not, were it not for the actions
of this government I would be surprised if we had an
international agreement that deals with fish stocks.
I want to ask my colleague to enlighten us a little on the
program established by the provincial governments of Atlantic
Canada to diversify their economies so they can deal with some of
the difficult situations which the people of Atlantic Canada are
facing.
Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Ottawa Centre for his question and for his concern on this topic.
I think it is vital for any part of Canada not to lose its
greatest natural resource, that is, the people who live in those
areas, including those on the coast of British Columbia who have
been displaced because of the decisions taken regarding salmon
stocks. They no longer were able to earn a living for themselves.
Therefore, they had to sell their licences and move on to
something else.
The most devastating part of the mismanagement of any resource
is the displacement and uprooting of people, whether it is on the
west coast, in the forestry industry or in Atlantic Canada.
What we should keep in mind above all else is that in order to
retain the health of our coastal communities the resource has to
be in a healthy state to provide a living and work for people so
they can stay there, bring up their families and educate their
children so they can contribute to the area when they mature.
The diversification issue is something that Atlantic Canada has
been grappling with since Confederation. At Confederation the
Atlantic provinces had one of the healthiest, most vibrant
economies in the new nation. The economy was very diversified.
Through various actions taken by the national government,
especially on tariffs, the free trade that we had with a lot of
countries in the Caribbean, in the New England states and in
Great Britain was diverted into high tariff policies which made
our industries very unsustainable.
In order to build up the country, Atlantic Canada had to get
into something new and diversify because it was competing on the
north-south axis in a very inequitable manner.
It is only now, since the free trade agreements, that we are in
a position to restart our economic engines in Atlantic Canada and
to renew our connections with the Caribbean, which we had for
centuries, with the eastern United States, which have
approximately 175 million people, and with western Europe.
With that and with time I think the hopes are great for
Atlantic Canada and the future is very bright.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my colleague, the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, for getting me involved
in the debate on Bill C-27, which is aimed at implementing the
United Nations Fisheries Agreement and thus ensuring that Canada
can ratify this convention by bringing its internal legislation
in line with the convention.
I would, moreover, like to start by mentioning the worthwhile
contribution of one of my friends in negotiating that
convention. Paul Fauteux, who has been at the Department of
External Affairs for some years, was one of the key negotiators
for Canada when the convention was being negotiated under the
auspices of the UN.
My comments will focus on two matters that need to be raised
during the debate at second reading of this bill and could also
be the subject of more thorough debate when it is examined in
committee. I will also address the international aspects of the
bill and the convention it implements.
1345
The first question I wish to raise today in the House is the
connection between this bill and the prior bill, C-29, passed in
1995, which also amended the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act,
authorized Canada to extend its jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile
fishing zone, and allowed it to board ships in order to ensure
compliance where straddling stocks were concerned.
It must be kept in mind that, at that time, the debate addressed
whether or not these new legislative powers were legal according
to international law.
The Government of Canada, and the Bloc Quebecois was in
agreement, considered such measures licit. Consequently, the
bill gave the government jurisdiction, power that had not
previously been accorded in international treaties, which the
United Nations fishing agreement has just rectified.
However, debate continues, because a case is pending before the
International Court of Justice, that of the Estai, which raises
the question of the compliance of the 1995 legislation with
international law in both extraterritorial and penal terms,
since this legislation provided for the boarding of vessels,
something that will be permitted in future under the treaty
adopted by the United Nations.
The question remains, however. What is Canada's attitude to
countries that are or are not signatories to the UN fisheries
agreement? Will Canada keep its legislation?
Will it want to apply legislation to countries that have not
sighed the UN fisheries agreement or will it simply ensure that
the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, as amended by Bill C-26,
remains the only law to apply in the matter?
This question is all the more important because it could
influence the International Court of Justice's understanding of
the matter before it and in the light of the arguments adduced,
if it considers it has jurisdiction in the matter.
Another question needs to be asked and answered. Will Canada,
which, in 1995, made the bill conditional on its acceptance of
the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, want to
go another route and remove this condition so that the
International Court of Justice could have jurisdiction on these
matters, which had been outside its jurisdiction?
In my opinion, these questions warrant reflection and have not,
up to now, been thoroughly debated, but should be, and, I hope,
will be in committee.
This also raises the general issue of the value, under
international law, of unilateral legal documents drafted by
states. In the past, Canada has at times insisted on drafting
such documents, including for the Arctic, on the grounds that
while certain unilateral documents may not necessarily comply
with international law, they should be drafted to promote
changes to it.
There is unquestionably a degree of success here, and we will
not criticize a party for drafting unilateral documents that do
not necessarily comply with international law, when this is done
to ensure that the law will adjust to facts that are real and
material.
1350
The second issue of an international nature which I want to
raise in this debate has to do with the powers that the governor
in council would have to adopt delegated legislation and adapt
regulations to implement the provisions of other international
fisheries agreements or treaties to which Canada is a party.
I am referring in particular to clause 3(2) of the bill, which
amends sections 6(e) and 6(f) of the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act. It seems that this clause will give the governor
in council what is probably an excessive power under common law,
to the extent that he can exercise this power without any
involvement of the House of Commons, Parliament or parliamentary
committees regarding the implementation of international
treaties.
We should certainly take a close look at this provision, to
ensure that the implementation of international treaties is not
even further removed from the control of democratic and
parliamentary institutions which, in our opinion, already do not
have the powers they should have.
I therefore urge that this provision, and the issue of the role
of the House of Commons and of Parliament generally in
implementing, and even signing, treaties be examined as part of
the debate on this bill.
Other issues can certainly be addressed in committee. I would
like to assist my colleague, the member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, and will be at the
committee's disposal to look at ways of improving this
implementing legislation so that the UN fisheries agreement is
incorporated into domestic law in accordance with the
international obligations that will arise from Canada's
ratification.
Canada played an important role in negotiating this convention.
It is regrettable that only now, in April 1998, is this issue
finally being debated in the House of Commons, since the idea of
introducing and passing implementing legislation for the purpose
of ratifying the UN fisheries agreement had already been
mentioned in the February 1996 throne speech.
I would hope, as would my party, that the government will be
more diligent in these matters and move much more quickly than
in this instance to introduce a bill in the House of Commons for
the purpose of implementing international treaties.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I spoke yesterday on this and I understand some members
from the government side were quoting me earlier today. They
said I was wrong. We are talking about the two provisions which
have been debated at length in the House. I said that an officer
or an enforcement person would have to get permission to board a
vessel. I went on to say that I agreed that was arguable. My
point was that this legislation is vague. One section states
they can board and then advise the flag state while the next
section states that before they can do that they have to get
permission. I wanted to put those comments on record.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, it was
questions and comments and not another opportunity to be on
record. If the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry wishes to
respond, feel free.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I am going in the same vein
and I was speaking on a point. My friend just alluded that this
bill has no teeth. This government has argued that it had to
follow the UN convention.
That is what this legislation is all about.
1355
Last April just before the government called the election, it
tabled enabling legislation for the same bill, but ironically
these same clauses were not there. The minister at the time did
put some teeth into it, the very same legislation. I notice some
of the members on the opposite side are shaking their heads. I
would offer that legislation to them. They are welcome to
contact me and I will give them a copy.
This was negotiated in 1995. They brought in the enabling
legislation in 1996 and it died on the order paper when the
election was called. I remind members that we can put some teeth
in the legislation and it is beyond me why the current minister
has watered it down so it has no effect. It is supposed to allow
our enforcement officials to have the ability to act when foreign
nations are fishing illegally and breaking our rules. UN
conventions allow them to act.
We all know when the Estai was fishing illegally in 1995
that is what they did under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
The new legislation takes all the teeth out of it. They have to
get permission from the flag state before they can lay a charge.
The Speaker: I hate to interrupt the member in full
flight. It does my old heart good. I know that. As it is almost
2 o'clock I wonder if we could proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
ROAD TRANSPORT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again this
week, the Government of Quebec, through its acting premier and
transport minister, was afraid to tell the whole truth about
truck accidents on Quebec's highways.
It did not publish the complete report on serious and minor
injuries sustained in truck accidents, as opposed to those
sustained in accidents involving cars and other road vehicles.
Why was there a 32.5% increase in serious injuries to occupants
of trucks?
Why was there a 16.5% increase in minor injuries to occupants of
trucks?
We are calling on the Government of Quebec to tell the whole
truth about truck accidents in Quebec, including the real
figures, in the next two weeks.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT COMPENSATION
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
Cuba the Prime Minister spoke of the winds of change. Tuesday
evening a bitter cold wind cut through the House; innocent blood
victims dismissed by the whip. The vote closed the file on lives
destroyed before 1986.
Yesterday a frosty wind of change chilled Hong Kong war veterans
to their souls. Brutally enslaved by Japan, now dismissed by
Canada, Hong Kong veterans too are left without hope. “A dollar
a day is more than enough for the victims of slavery by Japan”.
That is the minister's chilling retort.
The winds of change come from hearts of ice against the will of
most. Who is next on the Liberal deep freeze list of the winds
of change?
* * *
[Translation]
MICHEL LACHANCE
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nippissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to salute a super star of the horse racing
world.
Michel Lachance was born on a farm, close to the small village
of Saint-Augustin, in Quebec. He has won over 8,000 races, and he
is the only Quebec horseman to have won more than $100 million
in purses, which is a tremendous accomplishment.
I know him personally, since I had the privilege of racing
against him. Michel Lachance is also a man of great qualities,
who has worked very hard to reach the pinnacle of his
profession.
Thank you Michel Lachance for representing your family, your
province and your country so well. We wish you all the best in
the future.
* * *
[English]
JOHN BASSETT
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the flag over the Peace Tower flies at half mast today in honour
of a great Canadian.
1400
John Bassett passed away Monday after a lengthy illness. He left
an indelible mark on the Canadian landscape. John Bassett served
as major in the Black Watch Regiment during World War II. He was
a media pioneer, a sports enthusiast, a businessman and a Tory.
When I was 11 years old John Bassett, who was a friend of the
family, gave me my first job bundling inserts for his first
newspaper, the daily Sherbrooke Record.
A graduate of Bishop's University in Lennoxville, Quebec, my
hometown, John Bassett ran for office for the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada on two occasions.
He was once a proud owner of interests in both the Toronto Maple
Leafs and the Toronto Argonauts. John was a member of the privy
council, a companion of the Order of Canada and the Order of
Ontario.
On the behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I
convey my condolences to his wife Isabelle and their family.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE CARLO ROSSI
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Monday,
the House paid tribute to Carlo Rossi, a man who played an
important role in the riding of Bourassa. Since I was not here,
I would now like to pay homage to him.
Our former colleague, Carlo Rossi, died on April 11, after a
lengthy illness.
Mr. Rossi was first elected as the member for Bourassa in 1979.
He had joined the Montreal urban community's police force in
1948, and was a criminal investigator with the rank of
lieutenant from 1971 to 1979.
He had a reputation as one of the best negotiators in
hostage-taking incidents.
Mr. Rossi was awarded the silver medal by the Queen, and he
received the gold medal of the Canadian Bankers Association, in
addition to being the recipient of the merit award of the
Kiwanis and Rotary clubs.
The former member for Bourassa, who was also vice-president of
Carrefour Jeunesse Rosemont, was first elected to the House of
Commons in 1979, and re-elected in 1980 and 1984. He was
appointed parliamentary secretary to the Minister of State for
Multiculturalism on March 1, 1982, and became acting whip in
1984.
Carlo Rossi will be remembered as a tireless worker who was very
involved in his community. We offer our sincere condolences to
his family and friends.
So long, Carlo.
* * *
THE LATE MAURICE TREMBLAY
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean has just lost an eminent physician, Dr.
Maurice Tremblay.
This very humane, humble and generous man has left his mark on
many. In 1954, after completing his studies in Boston and
Paris, the young pediatrician devoted himself body and soul to
the care of his young patients, at a time when there were many
dangerous childhood diseases, including polio, scarlet fever and
meningitis.
He was also very concerned about the children in the Chicoutimi
orphanage, and visited it regularly, free of charge.
Along with several colleagues, Dr. Tremblay founded the Institut
médical de Chicoutimi, and was also instrumental in the creation
of family centres.
I speak for all the patients and friends of Dr. Tremblay in
offering my most sincere condolences to the family in their
great loss.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this year the Canadian Cancer Society celebrates its 60th
anniversary and April is also cancer campaign month.
I call on all Canadians to answer the knock at their door and
donate generously to a worthy cause. The cancer society is an
organization which is dedicated to ending the pain and suffering
of an illness that has touched the life of each and every
Canadian in one way or another.
I also call on this government to end its two tier approach to
funding of cancer research in Canada. Although the incidence and
fatality rates for prostate cancer and breast cancer among
Canadian men and women are virtually identical, the federal
government will give the National Cancer Institute over $4
million for breast cancer research but it will not give them it
red cent to help find a cure for prostate cancer.
Like hepatitis C, this is yet another example of a Liberal
government which puts power and politics ahead of people and
principles.
During cancer awareness month let Canadians be aware that this
federal government will not cough up a dime to help find a cure
for disease which will—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Toronto
Centre—Rosedale.
* * *
UMUGENZI FOR REFUGEES.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to bring to your attention an
organization that provides invaluable experiences for refugees in
my riding called Umugenzi for Refugees. Umugenzi when translated
from Burundi means friends of refugees.
When refugees arrive in Toronto after fleeing war and
persecution in their homeland they are faced with an overwhelming
challenge to adjust to their new surroundings. Umugenzi for
Refugees is a non-profit organization that provides role models,
community contacts, volunteer work experiences and skills to new
Canadians as they begin their new lives in Toronto.
Three years ago members of Umugenzi for Refugees launched the
Rukundo project to provide volunteer opportunities for new
Canadians. Rukundo when translated means helping someone in
need.
1405
The Rukundo project connects its participants with an agency in the
community that will provide them with training and experience in
their chosen field. It has reached some 400 seniors, 200 people
living with mental illnesses and 500 refugees.
I wish to thank Umugenzi for Refugees for all its hard work with
refugees in Toronto and its contribution to the vibrant
multicultural society of our city.
* * *
CANADIAN NAVAL RESERVE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 1998
marks the 75th anniversary of the naval reserve in Canada.
Located in 24 cities, the naval reserve is made up of individuals
who have chosen to dedicate a few hours every week and a few
weeks every year in the interest of serving their country.
These part time military volunteers represent more than
one-third of the navy's total strength. HMCS Carleton located in
my riding of Ottawa Centre is the second largest naval reserve in
Canada and includes 264 volunteers who perform extraordinary
deeds in difficult situations.
Naval reserves from across Canada are always ready to help in
emergencies, like with the floods in the Saguenay and Manitoba
and recently during the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec.
I would like to thank these dedicated men and women of the naval
reserve for their commitment to helping others and for their
service to this country. They have demonstrated what it truly
means to be Canadian.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this week one of Canada's leading crime fighters became the
latest victim of the infamous Young Offenders Act.
Bob Runciman resigned as Ontario solicitor general on Monday
because his government quoted the mother of a young offender in
its throne speech, thanking Premier Mike Harris' boot camp
initiative for “giving us back our son”.
Bob Runciman is a man of unimpeachable integrity who has
distinguished himself through his tireless campaign for law and
order and his determination to put young offenders back on the
right track.
It is a bizarre irony that the same Liberal Young Offenders Act
which allows many young criminals to go unpunished has marked the
reputation of an honourable man such as Bob Runciman.
If any minister should resign over the debacle of the Young
Offenders Act it should be the federal Minister of Justice for
her failure to introduce amendments which would reintroduce
justice into the concept of the youth justice system.
* * *
ISRAEL
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is Israel's 50th birthday, Hag Sameach.
Euphoria greeted the UN vote declaring the state of Israel.
Finally, out of the ashes of the Holocaust, the rebirth of the
Jewish homeland arose. It is this century's success story. This
land of great diversity reflects differing cultures and languages
and has reclaimed green pastures from desert land, lifted rocks,
terraced land, utilized every drop of water, learned and
developed new technologies to once again make this desert bloom.
The vision, the end goal, is to ensure that the fundamental
principles of justice, fairness and equality that have been the
pillars of this people would find life and reality in this new
emerging democracy. And yet within this diversity of land and
people we find extreme contrasts and challenges. As the state of
Israel matures, its people will learn to live in peace and
prosperity with its many neighbours.
The people of Israel will achieve this goal. Am Yisrael Chai.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday,
April 26, 1998 Guatemalan Bishop Juan Gerardi was murdered. His
crime was to release a report on human rights abuse under a
former military regime.
Guatemala participated in the summit of the Americas where the
Prime Minister of Canada indicated that leaders of 34
democratically elected governments in the hemisphere committed
themselves to respect human rights everywhere in the Americas.
But unfettered globalization is bringing the clashes between
trade and human rights to the centre of international activities.
Sadly our country is taking the position that trade is ahead of
democratic development and human rights.
We wish to alert this government that its foreign policy of
constructive engagement is not fostering human rights with our
trading partners but is bringing the social values of repressive
regimes into our own country as expressed by the autocratic
attitude of the Prime Minister and evidenced by the attack on
University of British Columbia students during APEC.
The citizens of this country are demanding that our deeper
obligations are to promote and defend international human rights,
not to support the abusers.
* * *
ISRAEL
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
from Metulla to Eilat, the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea,
Israel is celebrating her 50th anniversary.
This year Israelis and Jews from around the world gather to
celebrate our collective past, question the present and propose
solutions for the future.
Israel, a rare democracy in the Middle East, is the homeland of
the Jewish people. For the past five decades with the incredible
immigration of nearly 750,000 Russian Jews, the miraculous
immigration of the Ethiopian Jews and of course the World War II
European Shoah survivors, many Diaspora Jews now call Israel
home.
1410
Starting as a dream in the desert by a handful of people through
sweat and determination, Israel has blossomed into a modern day
nation with close to six million people living within its
borders.
As people celebrate in Israel and around the world, on behalf of
my constituents in the riding of Thornhill, I extend a hearty
Mazel Tov to the state of Israel. May your borders be safe and
may all your people live in harmony. Shalom.
* * *
[Translation]
ISRAELI PEOPLE
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois wishes to extend its best wishes to the people of
Israel on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the creation
of the State of Israel.
After centuries of statelessness and victimization at the hands
of tyrants, the most ghastly instance of which was the
Holocaust, the Israelis have seen the fulfillment of their
dream, a dream shared by many peoples, to live in their own
country,
The legitimate dream of living in one's own country has too
often been overshadowed by wars and conflict which endure to
this day.
The signature of the Oslo accords created real hope among the
international community and opened the door to negotiations
which might encourage lasting peace in the region.
Today, the peace is still fragile and we hope the numerous
efforts invested in democracy and lasting peace in the Middle
East will soon bear fruit.
The May 1999 deadline on the question of the definitive status
of the occupied territories and the Gaza Strip is coming up
fast. We are hoping for an agreement on this matter, so that
all—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Nova.
* * *
[English]
CORNWALLIS NAVAL MUSEUM
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on May 3 the
residents of Cornwallis will celebrate the official opening of
their new naval museum.
Sadly, stained glass windows that were donated to the former
base by our naval personnel to commemorate the battle of the
Atlantic, have not been returned.
The Department of National Defence removed these windows
following the closure of the base, choosing to transfer them to
its Halifax base chapel. The minister appears to be sympathetic
to returning these windows to the new naval museum, yet a final
decision is still pending.
Our veterans presented the gift to the Cornwallis base with the
understanding that they would be proudly displayed for all to
see. On Friday I went to our military base in Shannon Park,
Halifax to get a glimpse of these windows. My entry was met with
resistance. I do not think this was the intent of our veterans
when they donated these windows.
These windows mean a lot to the residents of Cornwallis. I ask
the minister to give these people something to really celebrate
on May 3 by returning the windows to their rightful owners.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ECONOMY
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Mouvement Desjardins expects that, within two years, Quebec will
have nearly overcome its historic economic lag behind the rest
of Canada. This will be expressed in terms of a level of
unemployment under 10%, something that has not been seen for 10
years.
Quebec's remarkable performance is due in large part to large
scale investment. Nearly $3 billion in private investments have
been made in our regions.
Quebec is preparing to enjoy a period of economic prosperity not
seen since the quiet revolution and which is also thanks to the
good government of the Parti Quebecois under Lucien Bouchard,
who got us out of the financial and economic quagmire inherited
from nine years of Liberal rule.
I therefore encourage this House to delight in this good news
and to denounce the charlatans who are trying to make political
hay by denigrating Quebec with their lies.
* * *
FORESTRY
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St.-Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians own 10% of the world's forests. We take this
responsibility very seriously. Forests are vital to our health,
our well-being, our environment and our economy.
[English]
That is why I wish to inform hon. members of this House that the
eighth national forest congress is taking place this week in
Ottawa from April 29 to May 1. Some 350 of the most influential
members of Canada's forest community will convene at the Ottawa
Congress Centre where a new national forest strategy will be
presented and the second Canada forest accord will be signed.
Together they will form a progressive agenda for continuing
action toward the goal of sustainable forest management across
Canada over the next five years. I welcome this event.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
a witness stated that there was a party atmosphere among the boys
who watched the assault on a 16 year old boy that left him lying
unconscious in a pool of blood.
“They were just having a good time, they were laughing it up”.
These are the words of Rob Parsons, the youth co-ordinator for
Lambrick Park church. The youth was assaulted while on his way
home from a church youth group in my riding of Saanich—Gulf
Islands.
1415
My constituents are still trying to deal with the similar
incident of Reena Virk. These are just two examples of why the
Minister of Justice must deal with changes to the Young Offenders
Act today.
I will be holding a Young Offenders Act forum in my riding on
May 11 where students, legal professionals and the general public
will tackle the growing problem of youth violence in our
communities.
Canadians are working together to resolve this crisis. The
minister has the power to put teeth into the Young Offenders Act.
She has the power to be part of the solution not just for my
riding but for all of Canada. Until this happens she is the
problem.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's last defence against the
government's shameful treatment of hepatitis C victims is
crumbling away.
Last night the Quebec assembly unanimously agreed that
compensation should be paid to all victims of tainted blood.
This morning the Ontario health minister endorsed the same
position. Quebec and Ontario governments have changed their
position on this issue.
Will the federal government now admit that its original position
was wrong and change its position as well?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there was absolutely no change in their position.
They said if the federal government will pay they will be happy.
If they want to pay we will be happy too. Responsible government
is you put your money where your mouth is.
For example, Ontario has reduced taxes by $5 billion and it does
not want to have more money to help the people it wants us to
help. It should be a responsible government and not play cheap
politics.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister avoids the central issue. Daniel
Johnson, the Liberal leader in Quebec, persuaded the Quebec
assembly to support the principle that all the victims should be
compensated.
It is the principle. If you accept the principle you can deal
with the money question, the cost sharing, afterwards. Will the
Prime Minister endorse the principle that all the victims of
tainted blood should be fairly compensated?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, make a decision and ask for the price later. Is that
responsible government? Yes, there are a lot of people in our
society who are suffering. Should we take responsibility for
everybody who has a permanent difficult disease when there is no
government responsibility?
Some members of parliament are always complaining because we
want to put more money in social and economic programs. They tell
the nation the money should go to the reduction of taxes and the
reduction of the debt. It is just pure simple hypocrisy.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I urge all of us to be very
cautious in our use of words and I ask all of us to stay away
from the word hypocrisy.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has run out of excuses. Justice
Krever presented the medical and legal evidence for compensating
the victims.
Now there are two provincial governments endorsing the principle
that all the victims should be compensated.
Will the Prime Minister now acknowledge that the only obstacle
to a fair and compassionate settlement for these victims is his
own ego, his own pride and his own stubbornness?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we met with the provincial governments. We were the
ones who initiated the program. They were not interested.
The Minister of Health had meeting after meeting, trying to
persuade them to put up money. Health is a provincial
responsibility. We put up $800 million. They put up only $300
million. We had to fight with them.
Today we have the very courageous Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Harris.
Let the government pay. Intervention in provincial affairs.
Running the health care system for them.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
1420
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Joey Haché
is 15 and hepatitis C infected. He is here with us today.
He has some questions for the Prime Minister who said that he
would rather spend money on pensions for young Canadians that
might not get one when they retire rather than compensate
hepatitis C victims.
Joey's question: “Did it ever occur to the Prime Minister that
some young Canadians, like myself, might not make it to
retirement age because of hepatitis C?”
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are people who unfortunately are facing a
difficult situation. I know some very young people who have MS
and who will have a very tough life. I can name a lot of people
in this nation who have all sorts of diseases. We have
established a system of welfare in Canada to help these people.
We have free medicare to help these people. These are the very
programs the Reform Party always wants to cut when there are
votes in the House of Commons.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister forgets that MS did not come from the federal
regulators.
Joey goes on: “The Prime Minister made mention yesterday in
the House to the effect that even though we might not be
compensated, we will still have the health care system to fall
back on. I went to that health care system for a life saving
transfusion and look where that got me”. He ends by saying: “I
am the Prime Minister's conscience”. Joey says that he will not
go away until the Prime Minister compensates all the victims of
hepatitis C.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was the responsibility of the government from 1986 to
1990. At that time when the problem existed a commission was
created. We have received the results. The report said that it
was for that period of time that the government was responsible.
We took that file and went to the provincial governments. None
of them wanted to do anything until pressured by the Government
of Canada. Today, they said nicely to do something, and we will
not do it.
Mr. Harris cut taxes by $5 billion. He does not have a cent for
Joey Haché who is in the gallery today.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a
motion calling on the federal government to show compassion and
compensate all victims of hepatitis C.
This motion was put forward by the Quebec Liberal Party, which,
starting this evening, will be led by a person whom the Prime
Minister referred to as “reasonable man”.
Today, the Government of Ontario gave its support to this
motion.
Will the Prime Minister reconsider his position and act on the
Quebec government motion, supported by—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to know if the leader of the Bloc Quebecois will ask
the leader of the Quebec government, who is so compassionate,
whether he plans to pay his share of any compensation paid out
to these people.
These are the people who, on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, were
refusing to contribute and defending their position. Today, they
are showing so much courage that they are asking the federal
government to do their job, since the provincial government will
not do it itself.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, did I
hear correctly what was said by the Prime Minister, the man who
reduced his deficit by taking money away from the provinces and
the poorest of the poor in our society, the sick and the young?
Should he not be fair and equitable, instead of prancing about
in the House, to the applause of a bunch of subservient members?
I am not asking him to be generous, just human, if he can.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask of the Quebec government to be human too. The Quebec
health minister, who made certain statements and has just been
disavowed by his leader and his party, should do the honourable
thing.
We for our part stand behind our health minister and do not pull
the rug out from under his feet. That is the essence of a
responsible government, one that assumes its responsibilities
and does not pass the buck on to others.
1425
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government
cannot deny it is in a better financial position than most of
the provinces, because it took billions of dollars away from
them in the area of health care and continues to do so.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, if he wanted to act
responsibly, he could compensate all victims of hepatitis C from
the $4 billion budget surplus?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would just like to quote what Mr. Bouchard said barely 48 hours
ago “Are we going to go beyond the fault and force governments,
even where there is no fault, to compensate injury? If that is
to be the case, we must remember that taxes will go up and the
quality and breadth of services are likely to be reduced. There
are extremely profound consequences” he is afraid to face.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the
Prime Minister justify spending millions on legal costs rather
than on compensation for victims? What sort of choice is that?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what
we witnessed yesterday in the National Assembly was a totally
cynical act—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, it is becoming increasingly
difficult to hear you.
[English]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am sure we want to hear the questions and
the answers. I encourage all of us to listen when a member is on
his or her feet speaking. The hon. leader of the New Democratic
Party.
[Translation]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government
keeps telling us it has the support on hepatitis C. But the
common front is cracking everywhere. Quebec and Ontario are
calling on the federal government to compensate all victims.
Does the government intend to review the compensation program?
Will the Prime Minister use Canadians' money to compensate all
victims?
It is not a question of generosity, but a question of justice.
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will quote the NDP Saskatchewan health minister, Clay
Serby, who said on April 23, 1998: “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 is not
Saskatchewan's opinion only. This is the collective wisdom of
all the provincial health ministers across the country whether
the provincial governments are Liberal, Conservative or NDP.
I know it is the responsible thing to do. I repeat that—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
1430
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
health minister's flimsy defence is collapsing like a house of
cards. The Manitoba health minister has made it clear that the
federal government was never prepared to consider full
compensation. It turns out that the bogus talk about principles
was merely to mask the real issue, money.
Will the health minister go back to the provinces to put more
money on the table and negotiate fair compensation for all of the
victims of hepatitis C? Yes or no?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what has collapsed is the integrity and position taken by Ontario
and Quebec. What has collapsed is the position they took with us
that all victims during a period when governments were at fault
should be compensated and beyond that there is no basis for doing
so.
It is clear from what the hon. member said that she is not aware
of what her own party members have said and done in Saskatchewan.
They favour this approach. They favour this agreement because it
is the right thing to do.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration criticized her former premier on the
grounds that his demonstration of humanity and flexibility comes
too late and that he should have taken action when she was in
his cabinet.
The minister also says that political courage and principles
come at a price.
Where is this government's humanity? Where is the political
courage of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health to
listen to the provinces and to reopen the agreement in order to
include all hepatitis C victims?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
almost all of the provinces did not want to do anything at all.
And it was because the Minister of Health put pressure on them
that they backtracked and agreed to pay $300 million, while we
are paying $800 million.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
government is running out of provinces to hide behind.
Canadians were unable to bank their own blood before 1986 and
had no control over whether they were infected with tainted
blood. But the health minister and the Prime Minister do not
care about that. They care more about class action suits. It is
not the first time they have dragged innocent people through the
mud for class action suits. They should be doing the right thing
and they refuse to.
I ask the Prime Minister, the next time he appoints a Minister
of Health, will he appoint a doctor instead of a lawyer?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I make someone a minister it is not because of his
profession but because of his intelligence and his human
qualities. This Minister of Health was the first one to try to
do something with this file.
I see all these people now who did not want to do anything at
all who signed very reluctantly are now dropping crocodile tears
stating that the feds should pay and not them. They should be
responsible. That is what people—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot believe this. Yesterday we asked the discredited health
minister to prove how many Canadians were infected with hep C
before 1986. He refused. We will do what he will not. Recent
provincial surveys in both British Columbia and Nova Scotia
indicate there could be as few as 15,000 nationwide. That is
15,000 too many.
Will the Prime Minister stop pitting Canadians against hepatitis
C victims, admit he is wrong about the numbers and compensate all
victims who contracted this disease from tainted blood in the
supply?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should know that Mr. Justice Krever himself
accepted the numbers that were produced by the director of our
laboratory centre for disease control. If the hon. member would
read the Krever Report, which he likely has not, he would see
that Dr. Paul Gully's numbers for the number of people infected
in the relevant period was accepted by the Krever commission.
In any event this decision was not made on the basis of numbers.
It was made on the basis of a proper principle that these
members apparently do not understand. That is, you do not pay
cash to people because they have become sick; you pay cash as
damages because you did something wrong.
As for those who are sick, this country has the best medicare
system.
1435
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
quite frankly I do not think Canadians want to hear any more from
this discredited health minister.
Fearmongering about the total number of victims is not working.
Liberals in Quebec and B.C. know the Prime Minister is playing
some bogus numbers game and now so does Ontario. Wait and see
who else is going to come on board.
Why is the government refusing to produce the real numbers of
those who became infected with hep C before 1986?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Justice Krever accepted the number estimate prepared by the
director of the laboratory centre for disease control of the
Department of Health. He was prepared to proceed on the basis of
that analysis.
This decision was not made on the basis of numbers. Perhaps
that is the way the member would approach it, by calculating
numbers. We approach this on the basis of principle and we
developed a proper public policy.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
A number of government members have said that the fight to
compensate hepatitis C victims would continue. Some even added
that if the provinces were to reconsider their initial position,
the issue would have to be revisited.
Now that the situation has changed, with the resolution passed
by the Quebec National Assembly and the position adopted by
Ontario, should the Prime Minister not go beyond partisan
politics, as the Quebec government did yesterday, reconsider his
position and agree—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt. The Right Hon. Prime
Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
would have been nice if, yesterday, Quebec's premier and its
health minister had said that, because they are compassionate,
they are going to give money. Instead, they passed the buck to
the federal government.
Whenever we take action, they blame us for getting involved. Now
that there is a problem, they are burying their heads in the
sand and trying to blame others, instead of assuming their
responsibilities.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to make history by beginning
the third millennium with all sorts of festivities and projects,
but how can he end the second millennium on such a tragic note
as the hepatitis C issue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we provided $800 million for hepatitis C victims, while the
provinces only contributed $300 million.
Quebec was among the provinces that did not want to pay. For
days on end, it tried to take cover. Now, in a show of bravery,
it is passing the buck to the federal government.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have listened to this debate for a week now. I can only conclude
that what this is all about is the Prime Minister's precious
little ego.
We know that the public wants to compensate hepatitis C victims.
We know that the provinces want to compensate the victims. We
know that the backbenchers want to compensate victims even though
they could not find the courage to vote in favour of
compensation.
Why will the Prime Minister not admit that he will not
compensate victims because of his ego? Why will he not admit
that he made a mistake?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, those people have a great social conscience. Where was
their courage when they voted against the human rights act
amendment in the House of Commons? Where was their courage when
they voted against employment equity legislation? Where was
their courage when they expelled Jan Brown and Jim Silye because
they had too much compassion?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
looks like the little guy from Shawinigan is really the big ego
from Shawinigan. That is what it boils down to.
The fact is that the government did not have to bring in a
confidence motion on this vote. The Prime Minister did not have
to pummel his backbenchers into submission.
Why will he not admit that he has made a mistake? Why is he
letting his big ego stand in the way of doing the right thing?
Why will he not help hep C victims?
1440
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are helping the hep C victims for the period when it
was clearly determined that the government had responsibility.
Between 1986 and 1990 it could have tested properly. It did not
do its job. When it was confronted with the problem it created a
commission to postpone the solution.
We took on that problem and we are doing what a responsible
government has to do, which is to compensate when it has
responsibility. Otherwise it will have, to be equitable, to
compensate everybody who is handicapped in life because of some
sickness.
* * *
[Translation]
TREASURY BOARD
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to give the Prime
Minister time to examine his conscience, I will address my
question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Under our parliamentary system, each minister is fully
responsible for his officials and, more importantly, his
political assistants, who act in his name daily.
How can the President of the Treasury Board think the Corbeil
matter is closed, when he himself is responsible, through a
political assistant, for providing for solicitation purposes
lists of businesses awaiting financial assistance?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police was informed of certain actions by a
minister of this government as soon as the accusations were
made. An investigation was made of all the facts, including
those referred to by my colleague.
The RCMP laid only one charge. The decision has been handed
down now in the case of the individual charged.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is all very
well for the minister to say his lists are available to certain
individuals for consultation. In his view, what interest could
a Liberal fundraiser have in these lists other than for
soliciting funds with the blessing of the office of the
President of the Treasury Board, under his responsibility?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again,
all these issues were discussed last fall. A full RCMP
investigation was held at our request. It was completed and led
to only one charge. The RCMP has all the facts, and now a
judgment has been rendered.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Liberal backbenchers have been waking up lately in the morning
having a little bit of trouble looking in the mirror. Some of
them feel used and some of them feel dirty. If they do not they
should.
My question is for the Prime Minister. He keeps saying that the
provinces are the problem, that the provinces will not buy into a
compensation package for all victims.
Ontario and Quebec have agreed to the principle that all hep C
victims should be compensated.
Will he enter into negotiations with those provinces to see how
we can compensate all hep C victims? Will he do that?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what a cynical political position: the Government of Quebec and
the Government of Ontario reportedly saying they really should be
paid something to raise the hopes of the victims, and then they
say “We are not going to contribute a nickel”. What a cynical
political position.
The government had the courage to say to Canadians and to those
with hepatitis C that it would accept responsibility for that
period during which governments should have acted. Those
governments of Quebec and Ontario should also have the courage to
be frank.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
governments of Ontario and Quebec have the decency to be
compassionate and that is something this minister has not got
anything left of.
I do not believe this minister any more. I do not believe him
when he says that he could—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this
minister any more and I do not think Canadians are believing this
minister.
1445
He has the responsibility to look after the sick and the needy
and he is failing in that responsibility.
What I want to know, not from the minister but from the Prime
Minister, is will he enter into negotiations with those provinces
today to see how we can develop a compensation package for all
hepatitis C victims who contracted the disease through tainted
blood? Will he do that now?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member speaks about compassion, but we know how this
crew treats victims. I watched them when I was in justice. They
take a victim of crime and exploit them shamelessly. They are
doing the same thing with health issues. They are taking
innocent victims of health problems and diseases and exploiting
them for their own narrow political purposes.
This group is shameful in its conduct.
* * *
[Translation]
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
premiers of the Atlantic provinces and of Quebec have sent a
letter to the Prime Minister of Canada calling on him to
establish compensatory measures as promptly as possible in order
to help the fishery workers dependent on TAGS.
Since the future of 40,000 workers depends on this, does the
Prime Minister realize that it is essential to put a TAGS-like
program in place promptly, particularly since the conditions are
still the same as they were at the time of its creation?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1993, as soon as we realized
there was a problem, our government implemented an extremely
important program. The members opposite are now calling for a
similar program after criticizing the original one. So they
should not ask us for something similar.
We are aware that the situation is a serious one, because the
fish did not come back as we had hoped. The ministers in our
government concerned by this problem are working very hard at
this time to ensure we will have a humanitarian approach to
helping the people in this difficult situation after the month
of August.
* * *
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Under the MAI foreign investors will have to obey Canadian laws
even if it affects their bottom line. Can the minister inform
Canadians whether Canada will be obliged to compensate a foreign
investor for any perceived loss or actual loss to their profits
as a result of complying with Canadian law?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the most succinct
answer is no.
Canada will only accept an MAI that provides a narrow
interpretation of expropriation; that is, the historic
interpretation as practised under Canadian law at the present
time. We will not sign an MAI that goes beyond that
interpretation.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
look where we are now. Provincial support is crumbling for the
hepatitis C deal, yet the cold-hearted Liberal Prime Minister is
standing firm.
The government and the Prime Minister is telling victims like
Joey Hache “We will see you in court”.
Can the Prime Minister tell me exactly how many lawyers he has
hired to fight Joey Hache and the other victims of tainted blood?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it appears that the provincial position, at least on the part of
Quebec and Ontario, is that they are still very much a part of
the agreement. Premier Bouchard was quite clear in saying
yesterday that he remains supportive of the agreement.
However, the cynical part of what he has done is to go beyond
that and say that all victims should be compensated and Ottawa
should do it. That is completely unacceptable. It is cynical,
it is cruel to victims and it is entirely inappropriate.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians do not want to hear a weak excuse from this discredited
health minister. These victims do not want to fight the
government in court. What they want is to be compensated fairly.
They are being forced to take the government to court.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Does the
government really think it is compassionate to deny sick victims
compensation, yet, on the other hand, be willing to spend
millions of dollars on lawyers to fight the victims of poisoned
blood?
1450
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what we have done as governments is to offer cash compensation to
people who were harmed through fault. For those who are ill,
including all of those with hepatitis C, provinces like Quebec
and Ontario would do well to look to their responsibilities to
deliver services to the sick, services that are consistent across
the country, services that respond to their needs.
Instead of playing cheap political games, the governments of
Quebec and Ontario should not hide from their own responsibility
of providing quality health services.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Ontario and Quebec have changed their minds on this
government's limited compensation package for hepatitis C.
The Manitoba government is critical of this government on this
matter. We on this side of the House believe that all provinces
should follow suit.
Since the provincial solidarity that the minister has boasted so
much about is gone, will he now go back to the drawing board,
contact the provinces and arrive at a compensation package that
is fair for all blood injured Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): The hon.
member refers to Manitoba. The first three times that I met the
Manitoba health minister on this issue he would not hear at all
about any compensation for anyone. The Government of Manitoba
refused completely to talk about it. So did the governments of
other provinces. So did Ontario, saying there was no way it was
prepared to talk about compensation.
It was only because of the leadership of the federal government
that 22,000 victims of hepatitis C have been offered $1.1 billion
in compensation.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba minister of health has clearly said
that if the federal government is prepared to live up to its
responsibility the provinces certainly would be prepared to meet
with it to discuss this further. “Certainly I will be”, he
said.
Will this government accept its regulatory responsibility and
come back with a fair compensation package for all blood injured
Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
after long and arduous efforts we dragged the Government of
Manitoba into an agreement in which it became a junior partner,
contributing to compensation for the group that was harmed by
governments which did not act when they should have.
To listen to this hon. member suggesting that the Government of
Manitoba is in some position where it is taking a higher moral
ground is impossible for me to tolerate.
This government led the efforts and this government produced an
agreement that offers compensation to 22,000 victims of hepatitis
C.
* * *
[Translation]
TREASURY BOARD
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
October 9, the President of the Treasury Board admitted to the
House that he had discussed with Jacques Roy, at his Montreal
office, the whole issue of information leaks and influence
peddling.
On several occasions, the minister denied any involvement by his
Montreal office. We now know that Jacques Roy, the minister's
assistant, was indeed Pierre Corbeil's source of information.
Can the minister tell us when he was apprised of his employee's
activities, under which mandate and authority his employee
leaked the information to Pierre Corbeil, and why the minister
omitted to inform the House? We want to hear the truth today.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, it
was a minister of this government who asked the RCMP to conduct
an investigation.
The investigation took place. All the facts were provided to the
RCMP. After its investigation was completed, the RCMP laid
charges against one person. That person has now admitted his
guilt and the judge has handed down his ruling.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this file is not closed. Last fall the President of
the Treasury Board denied the involvement of his office in the
Pierre Corbeil affair, yet it was his special assistant, Jacques
Roy, who provided confidential information to help a Liberal
Party fundraiser, a now convicted criminal.
The President of the Treasury Board has denied that link all
along. In light of what has happened, will the President of the
Treasury Board take some responsibility in this action, reopen
the investigation and tell us what happened? Come clean.
1455
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the RCMP has just finished its investigation. It was asked by
the government to do an investigation. It was given all the
facts. It has looked at it at length. It has accused one person
and that person has now accepted that he is guilty.
The RCMP has made its investigation with all the facts. There
has been an accusation, it has gone to the judge and a judgment
has been rendered. There is nothing more to do.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
has been 10 years since the death of J.J. Harper who sparked the
aboriginal justice inquiry in Manitoba.
Could the Minister of Justice inform the House how the federal
government is helping to rehabilitate non-violent aboriginal
offenders?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the aboriginal justice
initiative or strategy within the Department of Justice is one
that is aimed at involving aboriginal people more directly in the
administration of justice.
Under the strategy we recently signed an agreement with the
province of Manitoba and with the aboriginal council of Winnipeg.
We will be providing matching funding of $750,000 over the next
two years to develop an urban court diversion program. Under
that program we will be working with urban aboriginal non-violent
offenders in a way that is culturally sensitive.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government says that the hepatitis C file is closed.
I would suggest the only thing closed around here is the Prime
Minister's mind on this issue.
In the past 24 hours the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have
both reversed their decision on this bad deal.
We know how the Prime Minister convinced his backbench MPs to
toe the line. They were threatened.
What threats will the Prime Minister use against these two
provinces? How will they too be punished?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they did not change their minds. We had to drag them to
the table and they accepted only partial responsibility. Today
they are running away.
It is the cheapest type of political tactics to pass the buck to
somebody else. They invite people to dinner and run before the
bill arrives. I have never done that.
* * *
[Translation]
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
Twenty workers were laid off at SPAR Aerospace in
Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue as a direct result of the loss of the
contract to build the Canadian satellite Radarsat II. Worse yet,
the company did not create 450 high end jobs as planned.
Why did the Canadian government and the space agency decide to
award the contract to a company in Vancouver when the SPAR bid
had the largest Canadian content?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course in putting together a procurement contract of
this importance, and it was a very big contract, many standards
were imposed including a standard for Canadian content.
I would like to say that the proposal received from MacDonald
Dettwiler Corporation of Richmond, British Columbia was the
winning proposal. It won a contract worth close to $300 million
and it won it fair and square.
* * *
[Translation]
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government's Atlantic groundfish strategy is a failure.
Yesterday, thousands of fisheries workers took to the street to
denounce this government's management of the program. The
minister said he would be compassionate. However, according to
another one of his department's internal reports, the
government's response is to let Canadians starve to death to
force them to relocate.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
When will you stand up and defend—
The Speaker: My colleague, members must always address the
Chair. The Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as soon as the problem was
identified in the Atlantic region, our government was the first
to go to the people.
1500
The program you repeatedly denounced and criticized was a
generous one. I can tell you one thing: it ends in August, and
my colleagues and I are working very hard to ensure that we will
be able to provide collective and individual assistance in an
intelligent and responsible way given the situation the workers
will be confronted to come August, since the fish are not coming
back.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw to members' attention the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Hu Kuangdi, Governor of
Shanghai of the People's Republic of China.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw to members' attention the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Alexandru Athanasiu, Minister of
Labour and Social Protection of Romania.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the government House leader the business
remaining for this week and the business for next week.
I would also like him to point out to the House earth shattering
business, something that might be of interest to most Canadians
and not just some Liberals.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to make this
answer as earth shattering as the question.
Today we will continue with second reading of Bill C-27, the
coastal fisheries bill. If that is not earth shattering enough,
we will then follow it by Bill S-5, the human rights act
amendments.
Tomorrow we will start debating Bill C-30, the Mi'kmaq education
bill. Then we will finish any business not completed from today.
If the business of today is complete, we will not call any other
business after Bill C-30 tomorrow.
On Monday we will call Bill C-3, the DNA bill at report stage.
We will stay with this bill on Monday in the hope of completing
it. It is our hope that we will have the bill completed at third
reading by mid week.
Tuesday shall be an allotted day for the New Democratic Party.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order concerning a breach of the rules of
confidentiality during the lock-up for parliamentarians prior to
the release of the auditor general's report on Tuesday, April 28.
The point of the lock-up prior to the release of the auditor
general's report, as with lock-ups prior to the budget, the
estimates and similar documents, is to provide parliamentarians
and their staff as well as journalists time to study the document
in confidence so that they are able to comment on it in a
considered way when it is tabled in the House of Commons.
It is crucial that those present at such lock-ups preserve an
absolute confidentiality in order to preserve the privilege of
the House and to have all important documents tabled first in the
House before being made public in any way. In order to preserve
such confidentiality, participants at the lock-up are asked to
surrender cell phones upon entering the lock-up to prevent the
premature release of confidential information.
1505
It was brought to my attention by New Democrat staffers who were
at the lock-up prior to the release of the auditor general's
report of Tuesday, April 28 that staff members of another
political party were witnessed using cell phones from within the
lock-up. These people know who they are and I am not interested
in naming them.
This constitutes a very serious infraction of the rules of the
lock-up and a threat to the privileges of this House. Mr.
Speaker, I ask you to investigate the matter in consultation with
officials of the auditor general and report to the House if you
find an infraction has taken place. I ask you to inform the
House what action you will be taking as a result to make sure
this does not happen again.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to comment on this. After I was made aware of this
supposed infraction I talked to staff that were in the lock-up.
This is apparently what happened.
Apparently the lock-up went on for a couple of hours. When
staff and others go into the lock-up for the auditor general's
report they turn in their cell phones and so on, which was done.
Apparently at the end of the session as the auditor general's
staff members were cleaning up, saying the lock-up was
essentially over, they delivered the cell phones back to the
people who were in the room. This was three or four minutes
before the technical expiry of that lock-up time. When the cell
phones were returned, one of our staff checked his messages. I do
not think he misused his cell phone. He did it at the last
second when it was returned to him by the staff. There was no
malice intended. There was no breach of confidentiality.
We can check to make sure they are not delivered back at the
last minute. Perhaps we should do that. I do not think there was
any intent to break the spirit of the law here.
The Speaker: Quite a few Speakers previous to me have
ruled consistently that these lock-ups are under the auspices of
the auditor general. They do not come under the purview of the
House of Commons per se. The reason I permitted the second
intervener was so we could get more information. In any case, I
would rule that it is not the responsibility of the House of
Commons per se. It is outside of our purview.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIVILEGE
LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during
Oral Question Period, the leader of the official opposition
referred to comments I had made a month ago on the Radio-Canada
program Enjeux. He put my remarks of a month ago in a
completely different context and inferred that they were made
with respect to the hepatitis C controversy.
I would like the leader of the official opposition to recognize,
for the record, that his comments were out of context and
therefore inappropriate under the circumstances.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, this is not a question of
privilege, but it is certainly a point of clarification, if you
will.
[English]
For us this is in a context of how we interpret different things
being said. Although the hon. member has put it on the record as
to exactly what was made, there is no question of privilege in
this case.
* * *
1510
[Translation]
THE LATE BILL SCOTT
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I had the
privilege of serving in this House with the hon. Bill Scott,
when we were both in government.
For over 28 years the former member for Victoria—Haliburton was
wise in the defence of the interests of his constituents, and
in recognition of his many years of service Prime Minister
Mulroney elevated him to the rank of member of Her Majesty's
privy council.
It is with enormous regret that we learned of his passing.
On behalf of the caucus and the Progressive Conservative
Party of Canada I wish to express my deepest sympathy to those
he leaves in mourning, especially his wife Betty and his
children Guy and Laurie.
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with deep regret that I rise today to remember the
late William C. “Bill” Scott, a dedicated constituency
politician from my riding of Victoria—Haliburton.
I had the privilege to serve as member of parliament after Mr.
Scott retired, before the 1993 federal election. Mr. Scott was a
kind man who placed an emphasis on his duty to constituents. He
was very approachable and his good will attracted people to him.
Before entering federal politics, Bill played important roles as
director of Agricultural Societies of Ontario, past president of
the Lions Club, hockey referee with the Ontario Hockey
Association and the Ontario Minor Hockey Association and as
an associate member of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 441,
Kinmount.
He started his political journey as reeve of the township of
Snowdon. Mr. Scott won the Progressive Conservative riding
nomination over seven other candidates in 1965. He was never
challenged for that nomination after that.
Mr. Scott was first elected a member of parliament in 1965 and
he served an astonishing eight terms representing
Victoria—Haliburton.
Mr. Bill Scott was born and raised in Kinmount, a small friendly
community in the riding. He always remembered where he was from
first and foremost. Bill Scott dedicated his spare time to the
Kinmount fair, one of the most successful rural fairs in Ontario.
His involvement began as a youngster and led to president of the
Kinmount fall fair board. His involvement in the fair was very
important to the community and to all those who attended the fair
year after year.
Bill Scott had an active beef farm which enabled him to be very
aware that agriculture was an important industry in the riding.
He was a strong supporter of volunteers. Wherever he had the
opportunity to praise volunteers and the work they did he took
full advantage to do so.
In Ottawa Bill served many years as a member of parliament. On
July 1, 1992 he was elevated to the Queen's privy council. He
also served as Assistant Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons
in 1979 and was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Veterans Affairs in 1989.
Bill Scott used both Ottawa and his riding to effectively serve
for 27 years in this House as a politician.
I will always admire Bill Scott for what he did for
Victoria—Haliburton. Bill's family gave this country a
hardworking politician committed to improving his hometown, his
riding and his country.
My sincere condolences go to his wife Betty, daughter Laurie,
son Guy and all the family. We thank Bill for a job well done.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the official opposition to
acknowledge the passing of and pay tribute to a former colleague,
the hon. Bill Scott.
Few MPs can match Bill's tenure in the House of Commons. He
served this institution and the riding of Victoria—Haliburton
with distinction and honour for 28 years, from 1965 to 1993. That
means Bill was re-elected in seven general elections, certainly a
statement of the trust his constituents placed in him.
When people speak of Bill Scott they speak with warmth and
affection. They speak of him as an icon among grassroots
politicians. They refer to Bill as having served his
constituents in a selfless manner and say he was a gentleman. I
knew Bill and served in two parliaments with him. I concur with
their sentiments.
1515
Constituents will say that Bill went beyond the call of duty as
an MP. No problem or person was too small. Expediency was not
in his vocabulary when it came to helping people. No matter how
you voted, you could count on Bill for help. Despite his success,
it never went to his head. This was truly a statement to Bill's
dignity and sense of duty.
Bill served two terms as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Veterans Affairs. He was appointed to the Privy Council in
1992 in recognition of his work in parliament, his community and
his country.
Bill will also be remembered for his work at the municipal
level, first as a reeve in the township of Snowdon, and for his
long term commitment and work as president of the Kinmount Fair
and the Agricultural Society. Both of these were passions for
Bill.
On behalf of my Reform colleagues, I extend to his wife Betty,
daughter Laurie, son Guy, his sister Margaret, their families and
his grandchildren our sincere and deepest sympathy. Bill will be
missed by those who knew him. His indomitable spirit lives on in
this hallowed precinct and in the community he served and loved.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to join other members of parliament in paying tribute to Bill
Scott.
I had the pleasure of sitting here with him from 1984 to 1993.
When I arrived here in 1984 as a Conservative member, I noticed
on the list of elected members that Bill Scott had been here
since 1965. I wanted to know how he had managed to survive for
so long in politics. Indeed, in 1984 it was said that the
average political life of a member of parliament was four and a
half years, taking into account the fact that a number of
byelections had been held. What had Bill Scott done to
survive all these changes?
I went to meet him in his office, and he spoke about his riding
with love and passion.
He told me all that he was doing in his riding and said that
debates in the House were not necessarily his priority. Even
though he was a man of culture and a good speaker, and even
though he knew the issues very well, he preferred to work in his
riding.
I remember that the year we both got elected he was once
reprimanded by his whip, because he had not shown up here when
he was supposed to be on duty. Instead, he had attended what he
felt was an important meeting in his riding.
He had a passion for his people. Some say that he could name
almost everyone who lived in that beautiful riding of Ontario.
He could name every vote getter—important members of the
Optimist Club or of any other association—and would see them
often, consult them and ensure re-election with a strong
majority.
Another of his passions was agriculture. He spoke of it often.
He often attended meetings of the Standing Committee on
Agriculture, of which I was also a member.
I would like to mention that he was an effective member, with
high regard for colleagues in his party and in the entire House.
He was flexible, but he was very firm about his deep
convictions when debating in the House or in committee.
When we wanted him to do something in the House and he had
something to do in his riding he would smile and say “I take
orders only from the people in my riding”. He set an example
and I thank him for it, because it is no doubt partly due to his
good advice to me in 1984 on the need to work in one's riding
and to care for one's fellow citizens that I have managed to
keep my seat in this House for the past 14 years.
I would like to offer my condolences and those of the Bloc
Quebecois to his family, his wife, his children and to his
friends and party colleagues.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I served in this House with Bill Scott for 14 years. I did not
know him particularly well. I do not know what kind of a sense of
humour he had but he might have seen some irony in the fact that
for someone who served here for 28 years, he had at that moment
more colleagues in other parties, Reform, Bloc and the NDP than
he had in his own party as a result of the election that he chose
not to run in.
1520
I remember him as a humble man who did his constituency work
extremely well. I think his constituents attested to that time
after time after time. He is a lesson to all of us who think
that the bravado, the rhetoric and the theatre of this place has
something essential to do with the job of a member of parliament.
It is certainly a part of what makes parliament tick but we know
there are good members of parliament who are not part of the
daily theatre of this place and who are content to do a good job
on behalf of their constituents, to work behind the scenes and to
render a service to their constituents and to their country.
All of us are very honoured to pay tribute today in particular
to the memory and to the work of Mr. Scott. On behalf of my
colleagues in the NDP, I extend our condolences to Mr. Scott's
family and pay tribute to his long career of service to
parliament and to his constituents.
The Speaker: My colleagues, four of the five
interveners today referred to the fact that they served with Bill
Scott. I did too. Bill was a quiet gentleman.
I recall a story after I had been elected in 1974. The
Liberals—I was one way back when—were in the lobby and Bill
Scott was there. I was brand new and I did not know anybody. I
drifted over to him and said “What did you think of caucus this
morning?” He said to me “We are not allowed to talk about what
goes on in caucus”. I said “It is okay, we are in the same
caucus”. He said “No, we are not”. He was the kind of guy
who you took for granted was one of you, whoever you were.
Bill Scott's family was very important to him. I met his wife
on a number of occasions. He served this House well. I think
the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona said that he did his work
quietly, and he did.
I do not know if you would use the word “effectively”, but I
would use that word when it comes to the work Bill Scott did for
his constituents. He was also a good party member. He
understood many of the problems parliamentarians have when they
are brand new.
I for one very much respected him. I always sought him out when
I could. He had a good sense of humour. He was a jovial man and
a good parliamentarian.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TRIBUTES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I would like to raise a matter with
respect to tributes. I did not raise it the other day but I
noticed that today you began the tributes to Mr. Scott by going
to a person from the party that Mr. Scott belonged to. I think
that is proper and I understood that to be the procedure.
The other day I was, to say the very least, not very pleased
when we were doing tributes to Father Bob Ogle and you recognized
the secretary of state first instead of me who was rising to
speak on behalf of my party.
I did not raise it that day because I did not think Father Bob
would want me to, but I raise it now for future consideration.
We need to get straight what the procedure is. I would hope it
is as I understand it and that simply a mistake was made the
other day.
The Speaker: The hon. member has every right to feel
a little sad about the way it was handled. It was my fault.
What happened, very simply, was that sometimes I am given a list
of people who are going to intervene and sometimes we have the
member who is sitting from that riding. I thought this was one
of those times and that is what we decided to do. It was not.
As a general rule, the hon. member is absolutely correct in that
we usually go to the party that the person served. I apologize
to him directly. I take full responsibility for it. It will not
happen again.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1525
[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. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak to Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal
Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act.
[English]
This bill amends Canadian legislation to enable Canada to ratify
the United Nations fisheries agreement on the conservation and
management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish
stocks. The United Nations agreement relating to the conservation
and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory
fish stocks was adopted by consensus on August 5, 1995 by a UN
conference in New York City.
Straddling fish stocks do exactly that. They straddle or
migrate across the outer limit of national fisheries waters of a
coastal state and the adjacent high seas. Examples are flounder
and turbot. Highly migratory fish stocks, such as tuna and
swordfish, migrate through the high seas and in some cases
through the exclusive economic zone of coastal states. Both
categories of fish stocks have been subject to unregulated
overfishing on the high seas. The problem exists in several
parts of the world, including the Grand Banks of Newfoundland
outside Canada's 200 mile zone.
Overfishing by foreign vessels outside and inside the 200 miles
has been a factor in declines in northwest Atlantic straddling
groundfish stocks of cod, flounder and turbot. These declines
have devastated many Canadian coastal communities economically,
leaving thousands of fish harvesters and fish plant workers
unemployed.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which
came into force in November 1994 clearly allows coastal states,
that is, states which border on oceans, exclusive rights to
control fisheries within 200 nautical miles or 370.4 kilometres
of their shores. What is not clear are the legal rights and
obligations of states regarding highly migratory fish stocks and
straddling fish stocks on the high seas. The UN agreement helps
to fill this gap in the law of the sea convention.
The bill we are discussing, Bill C-27, contains provisions for
enforcement against unauthorized fishing in Canadian fisheries
waters.
The UN agreement regarding straddling and highly migratory fish
stocks will come into effect following 30 ratifications or
accessions. Fifty-nine states thus far have signed the agreement
and 15, including the United States, Russia and Norway, have
ratified so far. Canada will be in a position to ratify this
agreement after this legislation is passed. Therefore, it is
very important that we pass this legislation.
It is hoped that a new legal system for high seas fisheries will
provide for effective control and enforcement to protect
straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks from the
overfishing which is taking place on the high seas.
Proper conservation and management of these stocks could make a
significant contribution to ensuring the sustainability of this
important food source for our future generations. I think the
key that is very important here is the question of
sustainability.
The east coast report which was recently tabled by the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has a quotation on its cover
“Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our
likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea”.
The key word is dominion, not destruction.
Today what has really happened with our fisheries is that rather
than man exercising dominion and wise ruling over this resource,
there has been a gradual mismanagement and destruction of it. We
only have to look at the fact that cod has now been placed on the
endangered list.
We can also look at the lobster fishery.
Unfortunately today if we go to the east shore in my province of
Nova Scotia we can see one fishing village fighting with another
fishing village over lobsters. There are not enough lobsters in
one area to satisfy the fishers and the license requirement
there. Yet there seems to be an overabundance in another area.
We have this inequality.
1530
As we know, when resources become tight, when there seems to be
an unfair distribution, then conflict often develops.
Unfortunately we have community being pitted against community
because of the mismanagement of the fisheries to the point where
there are insufficient resources to satisfy the requirements of
the villages. This is a very sad state.
On top of that, when we have a program such as the Atlantic
groundfish strategy coming to an end, and we do not see any real
program or alternatives being presented by the government to face
up to this crisis which is developing in our communities, again
it becomes very sad. We know there are people in these
communities who rely on that program to carry them through to the
point where they can earn and look after their families. Without
something to replace it in a meaningful way, or without some very
positive efforts being made to deal with the issue, we are going
to see a lot of frustration as we are already seeing in the
communities affected as this program comes to an end.
What this is saying to all of us is that we have to move away
from that bottom line which government far too often looks at.
That is the economic situation. Far too often governments focus
only on the dollar as opposed to what the dollar is intended to
do, which is to serve and help people. Far too often people do
not look beyond the dollar. They want to balance the budget.
They want to define programs in terms of an economic value,
forgetting about the social hardships being caused and what has
to be done to alleviate them.
We see this with the current proposals with respect to the
hepatitis C victims where government can narrowly define the
number of people it feels should be helped based on a dollar line
rather than on compassion, fairness and what is right. The
argument is that if we compensate everybody we are not going to
have enough money to go around. We know that is not true. When
government wants to it can find the money to do other things. It
can find money to assist large businesses. On provincial levels
quite often corporations are forgiven loans and outstanding
money. Yet there are programs that are needed to help people.
These are not receiving the attention or the dollars required.
This excuse of not having the money is simply that, an excuse.
When it comes to the TAGS program we have to look realistically
at our priorities. Are we concerned really about helping people
who are in need, exercising some compassion, some fairness or are
we solely concerned with keeping those books balanced? Even then
it is questionable what balancing the books really means.
It is important that we look at that. As I read in the quote
when God said let us make man in our image, certainly the image
of God was not an economic image where the bottom line would be
dollars and cents. The image of God is an image of people
sharing and having respect for one another, helping each other
when they are in need. We need to move away from that bottom line
of the dollar being the sole determinant of whether we are going
to move ahead to help people. We need to move toward fairness and
compassion.
Earlier today I attended a committee meeting. We were looking
at the question of economic development in aboriginal
communities. We were speaking specifically about the northern
communities in this great country. It saddens me every time we
look at Canada's great north where there are very valuable
mineral resources and lots of riches. Quite often non-aboriginal
people have come in and have utilized those resources. They have
not enabled the aboriginal people who are living on that land,
who have prior claim to that land, to benefit in any substantial
or sustainable way from those resources.
When mining operations are developed sometimes the argument is we
give jobs to the aboriginal people and they can work on these
mines but we do not see any real sharing of the royalties and the
riches that come from the lands which were inhabited by these
people.
1535
Again, it comes down to the bottom line. As governments and as
private companies and corporations are we solely interested in
our own gain financially to the point that we forget about
sharing with other people and we forget about loving one another,
respecting one another and making sure that the resources are for
the good of all as opposed to only a few?
These are some of the issues that we have to look at when we are
dealing seriously with the many problems facing our country.
With this bill when we think about the fishing industry, when we
think about the resource there and how we are going to deal with
it for the future for our children and our children's children, I
think we have to look at the priority that we are going to put
forth as we tackle this issue.
Is the bottom line going to be the dollar for us or is it going
to be sharing equitably in the resources that the creator has
given to us to manage and have dominion over? It is high time
governments stop treating people simply as statistics, stop
defining how we are going to handle the problem in terms of
x number of people fitting within x category or
within a certain time frame, and remember that the person who got
sick before 1986 is just as important as the person who got sick
after 1986. There is no distinction in terms of the suffering
these people will feel.
Governments have to realize they cannot make those kinds of
arbitrary distinctions and live in good conscience with those
decisions.
I know many times when I have to make a tough decision and
people ask me how I am going to wrestle with that, I say that
what is going to really count for me is at the end of the day if
I put my head down and go to sleep feeling that I have done what
is right, I have done what my heart has dictated as opposed to
what my pocket book may dictate, then I can rest with an easy
conscience. We have to exercise that kind of feeling, that kind
of attitude when we are dealing with these issues.
It saddens me sometimes when I come to this House and I sit in
this very important Chamber as we are doing the nation's business
to see the manner in which question period conducts itself. I
have said it before and I will say it again. I feel it is wrong
when we are dealing with serious issues which affect the lives of
people that we are screaming back and forth at one another. We
are not listening to each other. We are not hearing what people
are saying. We are not showing proper respect. That goes to the
core of this entire issue of how governments respond to people.
We have to listen. We have to hear what people are saying. We
have to understand each other. This cannot be done if we are
trying to have one-upmanship, one on the other, trying to
outsmart the other person with some wise remark which has no real
meaning or relevance for the people who are suffering and the
people who are looking to us to address their problems.
I say to the members of the House, if we want to be serious
about the issues which confront our nation, national unity, the
issues dealing with aboriginal peoples, the TAGS program and the
fishers who are suffering as a result of the end of that program,
all these things, we must truly deal with these issues from the
heart and not from the pocketbook, not from the budget book.
I am sure if we do that we will certainly find answers and move
things forward in a real way which is going to be effective,
meaningful and help the citizens of this country.
I think this legislation will give us some control over our
shores and over the fishing industry and will hopefully will
bring some order to the way in which the fishery conducts itself
so that the end result of helping people in our communities will
be accomplished.
It is with great pride that I say that we support this bill and
I would certainly be pleased to answer any questions.
1540
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, by looking around the
Chamber I notice we do not have enough members to represent a
quorum in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member is
asking for a quorum.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a quorum.
Is the house ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The division stands
deferred until Monday, May 4, 1998, at the end of Government
Orders.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find
consent in the House to further defer the vote until Tuesday next
week at the end of Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1545
CANADA EVIDENCE ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-5, an act to
amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in respect of
persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act
in respect of persons with disabilities and other matters and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Justice) moved
that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When shall the bill
be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Justice) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill S-5 deals with several issues of interest to persons with
disabilities. This government fully recognizes that it has an
important role to play in ensuring that Canadians with
disabilities are treated as full and equal participants in the
mainstream of our society.
[Translation]
In December 1995, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the
Status of Disabled Persons recommended that the legislation be
reviewed to reduce the difficulties faced by persons with
disabilities.
[English]
In October 1997 after conducting extensive consultations from
coast to coast, the federal task force on disability issues
headed by the hon. solicitor general called upon the federal
government to present amendments to the criminal law and to human
rights legislation as soon as possible. Bill S-5 honours this
request.
The Canada Evidence Act would be amended to recognize in
legislation that communication assistance should be provided to
any witness who has a communication related disability, and that
any sensory method could be used for the purpose of identifying
the accused.
[Translation]
The Criminal Code would be amended through Bill S-5 to allow
witnesses with communication disabilities to use videotaped
evidence. The Criminal Code would also be amended to include a
series of changes designed to encourage persons with
disabilities to serve on juries.
[English]
The Criminal Code would also be amended to create a new offence,
section 152.1, prohibiting the sexual exploitation of vulnerable
disabled persons so that persons with disabilities will not be
sexually exploited. The committee has made recommendations to
improve the section. The point is well taken and Bill S-5 as
amended responds to the concerns raised.
The other important part of this bill is the package of
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act which provides
protection against discrimination at the federal level. This
bill will enhance those protections for all Canadians.
The key element is the addition of an express duty to
accommodate to the act. This amendment will require employers
and service providers to accommodate the needs of persons
protected by the act except where it would cause undue hardship.
The duty to accommodate is of vital importance to persons with
disabilities as well as to groups such as religious minorities.
The law will help to ensure equal access to the workplace and to
goods and services.
1550
There are other important changes to the act. This bill will
extend the substantive protections of the law. For example it
will prohibit compound discrimination involving discrimination on
more than one ground. The law will also allow complaints where
there is a discrimination in the provision of goods and services
but an individual victim has not stepped forward. This amendment
will ensure that there is no discrimination without redress.
[Translation]
There are also important changes to the prescribed remedial
actions to make the act more effective. For example, the maximum
penalty for pain and suffering would increase to $20,000 from
$5,000.
Finally, some of the changes proposed by this bill concern the
institutions responsible for enforcing the act. The Canadian
human rights commission will report directly to parliament on an
annual basis, which will symbolically attest the independence of
the commission.
[English]
The human rights tribunal will be reconstructed as a smaller
permanent tribunal with members with experience and expertise in
human rights matters. A small permanent tribunal will adjudicate
cases with greater expertise and efficiency. This new tribunal
will operate in conformity with the principles of independence
and impartiality.
These are some of the highlights of the proposed changes to the
Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Evidence Act and the
Criminal Code. Together these amendments represent an important
step forward in our efforts to ensure that every individual is an
equal member of our society. That is the commitment of this
government.
The amendments contained in this bill are aimed at breaking down
the barriers so that persons with disabilities and other
individuals and groups can participate as full citizens of our
country.
Underlying this endeavour are values which are important to
Canadians such as equality, fairness and justice. That is what
we are committed to. These are important values and ones which I
know all my colleagues support. I am therefore very pleased to
commend this bill to members of the House.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill S-5.
I cannot resist the temptation when we have a bill labelled S-5
instead of C something, to comment again on the erosion of
democracy around here. It is still very offensive to me that
instead of coming through the House of Commons which is the house
of representational government, all members here having been
elected by the people out there, instead of having a bill come
from this House, it comes from the Senate.
I do not wish in any way to take two hours to talk about the
Senate today. That has already been done. But I think it is
appropriate at this occasion to draw attention to the fact once
more that we have things turned around here. The Senate should
be elected.
In this country we believe in democracy. We believe in
representational government. We believe in, as this bill states,
the worth of individual people. How is it then that there is a
body of people in government that has such tremendous power over
our well-being, over the way our rules are designed that govern
us, that is not even elected? I find that particularly
offensive. The people in my riding and certainly in my home
province of Alberta do as well. That has to be changed.
It would be really wonderful if the Senate were truly elected.
Then when it came up with a bill labelled S-5, from the Senate of
Canada, we would say fine, it is from a parliamentary body that
is equal to this place. We would not have to feel that we were
somehow being made second class citizens here because a body that
has no accountability, at least technically it does not and
practically it does not appear to have either, is lording it over
us.
I cannot help but talk about that.
1555
Then there is a second thing which was so well illustrated here
just a few days ago. Even in this House, where members are
elected, they are not given the freedom to vote the way they
believe their constituents would want them to vote, or the way
their hearts and their conscience would demand. Now how do you
say this and still stay friendly? We have trouble right here in
river city, river city being the city of two rivers, Ottawa. That
trouble is due to representational democracy where the reflection
of the will of the people of Canada is vested in the power that
is given to a very small group of individuals.
I for one am very happy and very proud to be in a party where I
am required to represent my constituents. Not only am I
permitted to do so, but I am out of step with my party if I fail
to do so. That is very important.
I talk about the Senate lacking legitimacy. To a degree what
has happened in this place over and over again in this parliament
and previous parliaments under Liberal and Conservative
governments is the party whips have these clones I guess we would
call them. I do not want to refer to a barnyard animal so I will
just call them clones. And we know the most famous clone happens
to be one of those barnyard animals which makes a baa noise. I
will not talk about that at all. It is really unfortunate that we
do not have true democracy.
If we had true democracy we would end up with better rules. It
is not right for me to say that I am always right. I know that
is a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, but I will confess and admit
that. I have on occasion been wrong and I will be wrong again.
The strength of society is that when I make an error those around
me will point that out. They will say “Sir, you are wrong”. If
enough of my trusted friends say that to me, I am quite likely to
change my mind.
In fact I changed my mind very recently on an issue when talking
with a friend. I believe very strongly in something, not a
principle but a process that we were following. This individual
told me the process was flawed and gave a reason why the process
was flawed. After talking with him for half an hour I told him
it pained me deeply to admit it but yes, he was right and I was
wrong.
I have to admit that yesterday I made an error. One of my
colleagues asked me what the area of a circle is if when one
walked around it it was one kilometre in circumference. I
computed it. My colleague said he did not think my computation
was correct. I said I would check my arithmetic. We worked at it
together. I am a math major and I taught math for 31 years. I
have to hang my head in shame and say I made a mistake. I
actually made a mathematical error and here I am right across the
country now via the wonderful television channel CPAC confessing
that I made a mathematical error and that my colleague corrected
me. Having realized that I was wrong, I admitted that I had made
a mistake.
To me that is a strength. When someone can show me evidence
that something is wrong then I am really a fool if I do not
change my mind. That is really the essence of it.
The real strength of democracy is that if we have true
democracy, surely the best and most valuable legislation, that
which is best for our society, best for our taxpayers and best
for our children will bubble to the surface like cream rises to
the top. Or at least it did in my day. Before everything was
homogenized and pasteurized and everything the cream would go to
the top. The best laws would bubble to the top if we allowed
interaction where I would say to my colleagues “You have a vote
and I have a vote. Let us discuss the issue. Let us debate
it”.
1600
Still on this topic of democratic accountability and true
democracy in this country, yes, this bill came from the Senate,
but what is going to happen to it here? Will the individual
members be able to look at the items in the bill? Will any of
them be able to say “This bill has a serious flaw or two and I
would like to see it amended”? Will that happen?
I wish it could. I wish it would. There are indeed a few
things in here which should be amended. There are some flaws,
but the fact of the matter is that our observation and our
experience has been that an amendment can be ever so fine but it
is turned down.
Even if it is presented in committee it is turned down, not by
those who have heard our reasoned arguments, but by the
instructions that come down from the minister who says to the
members of the committee “Don't approve that amendment”. That
is wrong. There is a flaw in our process.
I know the parliamentary secretary is asking whether we proposed
amendments to this bill. The answer is no, we did not. Why? I
suppose there is perhaps a streak of cynicism setting in with
some of our members who say “What's the use? It doesn't happen
anyway”.
Maybe that is not what happened here, but it happens over and
over again. It certainly has happened in the committees that I
have served on. Members work their buns off trying to make good,
reasoned amendments. More than once in committees I have
convinced members, not only in opposition, but also government
members, that an amendment should be adopted.
I taught for 31 years. I think I have a fair ability to judge
body language. I know when people are with me or when they are
agin me. When members say to me “That is a good amendment”, I
know in their heart they would like to vote in favour of it.
When we consider a bill clause by clause in committee those same
members say to me “It is a good idea. I agree with you”. They
say that to me privately or even across the table in committee,
but when it is time to vote they look at their instructions and
oppose it.
That is a fundamental flaw in democracy. It results in laws
being not as good as they could be or as they should be.
I want to talk a bit about justice. This bill will amend
several acts. It will amend the Canada Evidence Act. It will
amend the Criminal Code. It will also amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act.
There is a lot in this bill that is really valuable and really
worthwhile. There is a lot in this bill that is right and that
is worthy of our support as representatives of the people who
elected us. There are also, as I said, some flaws.
I want to spend a few minutes, since I have lots of time in my
intervention today, to speak on the priorities of this
government. I find it incredible that the Minister of Justice
finds this bill the one that should be brought in before we run
out of time in June.
The House will probably break for the summer recess near the end
of June. That is our present anticipation. When we look at the
number of bills that have to be dealt with and the number of
supply days that are left, with only May and June to go, time
will go quickly.
I really wish that this government would take an occasion like
this to bring forward some substantial bills that the people out
there are crying for, that they are demanding and that we need so
desperately.
I think, for example, of the misguided justice system in this
country. It is not even a justice system any more. I am talking
about this specifically because there is a question here about
sexual assault. That is one of the things included in Bill S-5.
1605
I am appalled to see conditional sentencing for people who
physically and/or sexually attack a fellow citizen. Usually it
is a man attacking a woman or an adult sexually assaulting a
child. These are horrendous crimes. If I were to choose
priorities, would I be talking about these little amendments, as
important as they are? Yes, I would. I would spend about 12
seconds on this stuff, pass it and then go on to the important
things.
Is it not terrible that in this country a man can actually rape
a woman and not serve a single day?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Unbelievable.
Mr. Ken Epp: “Unbelievable” my colleague says. Yes, it
is unbelievable. It is unconscionable and wrong.
We have asked the Minister of Justice—
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I am sorry, but in all deference to
the hon. member I would like to ask what the subject of
conditional sentencing has to do with Bill S-5 that we are now in
the process of debating.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair was paying
close attention to the hon. member and in the Chair's opinion the
debate is relevant.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed
relevant since this bill does address the question of sexual
assault against disabled people. However, we are also talking
about the whole justice system. This is part of the government's
agenda and it is my job as a member of this Chamber, and as a
member of the opposition, to point out not only the flaws in this
legislation but also the fundamental flaws in all of the
government's priorities with respect to these things.
Under the rules of conditional sentencing a judge may give a
conditional sentence to a person convicted of the crime of rape
and not even have that person spend a single day in jail. He
gets sentenced, but it is a conditional sentence. It might be a
sentence where he does some community work or something like that
and does not go too far from his house. Those are the different
conditions.
To have a law in place in this country where a person can commit
such a heinous crime and serve no time is wrong. We have asked
the Minister of Justice to amend the Young Offenders Act. We
have asked the Minister of Justice to state explicitly that
conditional sentencing should not apply to violent crimes.
That would not constitute a great deal of time of the House. I
would think the Minister of Justice would be able to bring in an
amendment. I would even be surprised if it filled one page in
both official languages. The amendment would read that
“conditional sentencing does not apply to the crimes of assault,
murder and rape”. How many words did that take? That is an
amendment about which our citizens are saying “It's about high
time”. That is what our government should be doing because it
is important and it is a priority.
Even though I am talking today about Bill S-5, which contains
matters of sexual assault, I am saying that this government has
it wrong. There are some very important things it could do. I
am sick of the Minister of Justice saying “Oh, this is a very
complex issue”. I am sorry, but it is not a complex issue to
say that conditional sentencing does not apply to people
convicted of rape. It is straightforward and simple. It should
be done and it should be done fast. Our members would certainly
support that.
1610
I have some specific statements that I would like to make with
respect to Bill S-5. The bill has a lot of good things in it.
For example, there is a change to the Canada Evidence Act. The
first part of this bill would change that act so that people with
physical disabilities can still give evidence before the court.
They are not prevented from doing that by virtue of their
disability.
There cannot be anyone against that. Here is a person who was a
witness to a crime, or perhaps a victim of the crime, and he or
she is asked to come and give evidence. Perhaps that person
cannot speak. Perhaps that person is blind. Perhaps there are
other conditions that would physically make it difficult for that
person to provide evidence to the court. This is overdue. This
is one of the things that I would support strongly. It would
enable people with various disabilities to provide evidence in
court.
According to this amendment, it is now incumbent on the court to
make sure that every accommodation is made to hear these people,
even to the point that if a person is unable to speak certain
gestures would be agreed upon that would indicate a yes or a no
to questions that asked by counsel. We cannot be against that.
The bill indicates that the Criminal Code will be amended with
respect to the protection of disabled people who are assaulted.
This one deals particularly with sexual assaults. I wish it
would have dealt with the subject more widely. However, in this
particular case the bill will amend the Criminal Code with
respect to sexual assaults.
Sometimes, by association, I am ashamed to be a man. So many
men in our society do such horrendous things to our women and our
children. I am not in any way saying that women do not commit
these serious crimes. However, it is true that most of them are
committed by men.
On the other hand, I am fully committed as a father, as a
grandfather and as a husband to guarding and protecting my wife,
my children and my grandchildren. My granddaughter Kayla will
soon be two. I cannot imagine that anyone would assault her
sexually. If I happened to be in the vicinity, they would have
one bear to deal with. If grandpa was around I would be able to
protect her, right then and there. But what if I am not there?
How do we protect those who cannot protect themselves? We do it
by our laws.
I would like to see extremely severe penalties for adults and
people in positions of power and authority who physically use
that power to overcome a weaker person, to assault them, whether
it is sexually or in any other way. I do not have much time for
those people. I would be very severe with them. The message I
am getting from people is: Why are we coddling these guys?
Our first responsibility must be to protect. This bill does not
deal specifically with the protection of children.
It deals with the protection of people who have physical
disabilities. As I have said in the House before, I have a
disabled sister. She is not able to speak. She has cerebral
palsy and she sits in a wheelchair. This bill deals specifically
with my sister and with the place where she lives.
1615
I am totally confident that staff members where my sister lives
are loving and caring. I have been very impressed when I have
been there. They care for her very lovingly. I am not in any
way implicating the staff members where my sister stays. I am
simply saying I trust them explicitly. But if there were in such
a place a person on staff or otherwise who would attack and
assault a person like my sister, confined to her wheelchair,
unable to defend herself, not even able to cry for help, are we
going to be very easy with that person? No.
This bill, and I am supporting this part of the bill,
strengthens that. If a person has not given consent, and
obviously my sister would not be able to give consent, there is
in this bill a strengthening of the power of the courts to
properly convict the attacker on evidence and put them in jail
for a term not exceeding five years. Five years for that. It
would be longer if I had my way.
That of course is the problem. We deal with these huge numbers
and not with individual people. This bill discusses these things
and even goes so far as to say that if a person believes the
other person has given consent but if that consent has been given
because of being inebriated or because of drug use or whatever,
then consent is deemed not to have been given and the
responsibility lies with the attacker.
Sometimes I despair in our society. I do not know where we ever
came from. I sometimes think it all started with cotton pickin'
Hugh. He did it to us. He opened up the flood gates to say that
our sexual behaviour did not matter. I am here to say it matters
and it matters a lot. A person who cannot control his or her
sexual behaviour is dangerous and we need to make sure innocent
people, people who are disabled, are protected from such people.
It is certainly unfortunate in our society that we have come to
the point where we think we can do anything we want. We have
even reached the point where there are some in our society who
think they can sexually attack the disabled. That is horrendous
and I am appalled by it.
I support the part of this motion that states we are going to
strengthen our laws in that area.
I need to talk about the amendments proposed to the Canadian
Human Rights Act. I am going to be as careful as I can because I
want to send out the right message. I would like to read this
because this is what this act would put into place in the
Canadian Human Rights Act: record.
The purpose of this act is to extend the laws in Canada to give
effect, within the purview of matters coming within the
legislative authority of parliament, to the principle that all
individuals should have an opportunity equal with other
individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able
and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated consistent
with their duties and obligations as members of society without
being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory
practices based on—
And then there is the list.
What I have read so far we cannot argue with.
Certainly in this wonderful country of ours we would promote the
equal opportunity of people to do what I have just read, to
provide for themselves this life, a life they are able to and
wish to have.
1620
That has limitations. This is where it gets a little dicey
because I am now going to read the list. These are the bases for
discriminatory practices that are prohibited. We cannot
discriminate based on race. We cannot discriminate based on
national or ethnic origin, on colour, on religion, on age or on
sex. I wish they would say gender because sex does imply the
behaviour of sex as opposed to gender, which is talking about our
maleness or femaleness. We cannot discriminate against people
based on sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status,
disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has
been granted.
It says the purpose of this act is to extend the laws in Canada
which will provide for these people all to basically live their
lives to the fullest. There is a problem here. This is not the
purpose of the act. We already had Bill C-33 which amended and
inserted the words sexual orientation into this. Frankly, there
are a couple of categories, and sexual orientation is one of
them, that do not fit into this.
The fact is we are talking here about sexual behaviour and it is
an imposition of one person's sexual behaviour on another
person's interpretation of that.
When we go on to read the bill there are all sorts of rules and
regulations that are brought in by the governor in council, the
minister and his officials, in order to enforce these rules. I
can certainly see where it would be valid for us to say that a
person must do, and this bills talks about it, everything
possible to accommodate the needs of a person who is disabled.
I have worked with disabled people in the workplace. I have
worked with people who are blind. I do not know if members
remember, but there was a person working here in the House of
Commons as a translator, Mr. Conway, who was blind, a wonderful
person and very competent. A person with no eyesight usually
develops an exceptionally fine sense of hearing and he did a
wonderful job. I had occasion to speak to him.
Yes, it is correct for us to do whatever we can to accommodate a
person with physical disabilities in the workplace. I agree also
we ought not to be saying to a person they cannot work here
because they are the wrong colour or the wrong race. That is
unconscionable. We need to ask people if they are capable of
doing the job. I agree even to the point of saying we should
make some special effort to accommodate those who have
disabilities which we need to work together on.
When someone applies for a job as an accountant who happens to
be in a wheelchair, I think it is totally appropriate for us to
go that extra mile and make sure that office has wheelchair
accessibility to all rooms.
If a person is hearing disabled, let us go that extra mile. Let
us provide a hearing device or perhaps a teletype unit. That is
old age now. It was 25 years ago that we provided teletype
devices for people with hearing disabilities.
How do we provide to overcome the disability of a sexual
orientation? We all have one. It is an undefined term. It does
not mean a thing. So I simply reflect on the fact that the
Parliament of Canada, having inserted the words sexual
orientation in here without a definition, makes it totally
meaningless.
1625
It really does not say to an employer that a person has to be
helped because of his or her sexual orientation. We all have
one. Like I said, it is meaningless.
There is something else in this legislation that frightens me.
The governor in council may make regulations prescribing
standards for assessing undue hardship. The parliamentary
secretary already said the employer or the landowner must make
accommodation to help the person overcome this undue hardship.
This is the regulatory part of government, the part that is not
debated in this House. In the next section it says that when
these standards are prescribed they shall be published in the
Canada Gazette. In the next paragraph it says when such a
proposed regulation has been published in the Canada
Gazette then there is a time for consultation. If someone has
a problem with these new regulations they will have an
opportunity to appear before the committee, or before the
commission, and to make a presentation and perhaps the
regulations and the standards can be altered based on an input
from someone else.
Here is the most bizarre thing, and again this is a little
flawed. We have not been able to put in a meaningful amendment
and get this changed. It says a proposed regulation need not be
published more than once whether or not it has been amended as a
result of any representations.
This is a serious flaw because people, a lot of employers around
the country, read the Canada Gazette. That is their
reference book. That is how they guide themselves. That is how
they know which laws the government has passed and here it says
that we publish the law in its first form and then it may or may
not be amended but there is no obligation to publish the amended
version. That is wrong. That is an error because basically we
could end up changing the law or even rescinding it and not
properly inform the people. I have an objection to that.
It says this section applies in respect of a practice regardless
of whether it results in direct discrimination or adverse effect
discrimination. That is a bit of a technical term but it has to
do with the fact that sometimes we can give certain conditions,
say for job employment, that would disqualify certain people.
If someone wants to hire a person to drive a bus, implicitly
that does eliminate anybody who cannot see or hear. So it is a
discrimination in that sense against the disabled person but I do
not think anyone in this country, including the people who are
not able to see or hear, would object to that. And so that is a
matter of interpretation. Where do we actually put it? Where is
the line drawn?
It says here that it is not a discriminatory practice for a
person to adopt or carry out a special program in order to help
those whose disadvantages are in here. I really have a problem
with that. This is under the amendment to the Canadian Human
Rights Act. I have a great problem with that.
There are those among us, and the Liberals are in this group,
who think discrimination is solved by discriminating against
somebody else. That is a totally false premise. They are saying
that in order to reduce discrimination against, say, a group of a
certain race, a quota is established that means those people must
be hired and exclude everyone else. I really believe that is,
first of all, an insult to these people.
I have been responsible for hiring both as a private
entrepreneur and also in my job as a supervisor at the college
where I worked. I have hired people.
I tried my utmost to hire based on skills and ability to do the
job. When I hired a person to work on our dairy farm I wanted
that person to have strong hands and strong arms because there is
a lot of heavy work involved feeding the cows and lugging the
pails of milk and water and all these things. That was very
important. I look for the capability to do the job.
1630
When I hired a mathematics instructor I looked at the
qualifications of that person. Can that person communicate? Is
he or she able to teach? I did not ask their race, gender or any
other thing. We have a false premise that says we can correct
these wrongs by simply discriminating against those who are in
the majority. That is a false premise.
I had a guy in my constituency office who said “All my life I
wanted to be in the RCMP. My dad was in the RCMP, my grandfather
was. It is something I have really wanted to do as long as I can
remember”. Lo and behold he came to my office. Why? He was
told do not bother to apply, they are not hiring any of his kind
right now. What kind was he? He happened to be a white adult
male, intelligent, sharp, physically fit, an excellent quality
person to work in our very highly esteemed Royal Canadian Mounted
Police. They said “Do not even bother to apply because you have
the wrong colour skin and you have the wrong gender”, both of
which he could do nothing about. He was discriminated against.
There are some who think by doing that they correct other
discriminations. Wrong.
The way we correct discriminations is by giving everyone an
equal opportunity to become educated, trained, to work, to get to
the place where they are the best of the class. They are the
ones who will move up and get the jobs they want. Under those
conditions this young man would have had the job.
I regret my time is up because I got only half way through what
I wanted to say.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we have
quorum and I think it would be in the interests of democracy to
have quorum in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1635
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
[Translation]
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Etobicoke North,
Training for young people; the hon. member for Lévis, Rail
transport; the hon. member for Tobique-Mactaquac, Hepatitis C.
Mr Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to begin by indicating that I am disappointed about two things.
One is, of course, the small number of MPs present across the
way. It is very disappointing, especially since this bill is so
important to so many of our fellow citizens. During part of the
debate, there was only one Liberal present. That is really
disappointing.
The second disappointment is about this government's practice of
introducing bills in the Senate rather than the House of
Commons. The government's legislative measures should be
introduced and debated in the House of Commons, where the
elected representatives are found, not in a House of unelected
members, who are therefore not representative.
As for Bill S-5, I will start right off by saying that the Bloc
Quebecois supports this bill at third reading.
Its purpose is to enhance the equality rights of the disabled
and to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.
One of the three main objectives of the bill is to amend the
Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code. The amendments to the
Canada Evidence Act will make it possible to use whatever means
are necessary to enable a witness who has difficulty giving
testimony to do so. This would, for instance, include the use
of sign language interpreters for hearing impaired people called
on to testify.
There are also certain amendments to the Criminal Code. Clause
2 of the bill creates a new offence, sexual exploitation of a
person with disability. This is distinct from the general
offence of sexual assault, and is in response to demands from a
number of groups representing the disabled, many of whom we met
with.
One might wonder, however, and I think this is a very legitimate
point, why the sentence is less severe, being a maximum of five
years, than in the case of the general offence of sexual assault
as set out in section 271 of the Criminal Code. We will see how
the case law evolves with respect to this new offence, or
whether charges of sexually assaulting disabled individuals will
still be tried under the already existing general provision.
Other provisions will finally make it easier for persons with
disabilities to serve on a jury. The disabled are full-fledged
citizens and wish to share fully in the rights and
responsibilities of any citizen. Serving on a jury is a good
example.
We are therefore in favour of these amendments, because they
will improve access to the criminal justice system for persons
with disabilities, and because they are a response to
long-standing demands from groups representing the disabled.
Let us now turn to the Canadian Human Rights Act. With respect
to the requirement to accommodate needs, this aspect of the bill
is the one that has understandably received the most attention,
both from persons with disabilities and from federal employers.
We will see how existing case law incorporates this new
provision.
We hope that the obligation to accommodate needs will lead to
better integration of persons with disabilities in federally
regulated businesses.
This is what many groups of disabled persons that we met with
are hoping for and it is a hope shared by the Bloc Quebecois.
1640
We also hope that interested groups and individuals will become
actively involved in formulating regulations on the criteria for
evaluating undue hardship. No one is in a better position than
persons with disabilities and employers—rather than technocrats
in their federal government ivory towers—to establish
regulations following the passing of this bill.
Finally, and I will be very brief, because I do not want to go
on like my colleague before me, I want to speak of the Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal.
At second reading and during consideration in committee, we
expressed certain reservations about the independence of the
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal proposed in the bill.
It is noteworthy that, on February 23, in the matter between
Bell Canada and the Canadian Telephone Employees Association,
the federal court found the existing human rights tribunal to be
unconstitutional because of its lack of independence from the
Minister of Justice and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
We believe Bill S-5 would ensure the tribunal's independence by
drawing on the provisions governing Quebec's human rights
tribunal. Quebec, I would point out, sets the example in this
area.
That said, the proposed tribunal responds to a number of the
questions raised by the federal court, and we believe it would
have greater independence than the existing tribunal. It would
be up to the courts and case law to determine whether this is
so.
Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will support this bill at third
reading.
I now give the floor over to other members.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to the third reading of Bill S-5. I am pleased to
say that the New Democratic Party supports this bill in its third
reading.
Bill S-5 is an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the
Criminal Code in respect of persons with disabilities, to amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of persons with
disabilities and other matters and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
As the critic for persons with disabilities for the New
Democrats I am committed to a legislative process to extend equal
treatment for the disabled and I see Bill S-5 as a step in the
right direction.
Under Bill S-5 the amendments recommended to the Canada Evidence
Act will allow persons with disabilities to participate more
fully in the justice process. For example, in a case where a
person with a mental disability has the capacity to give evidence
in court but has difficulty communicating by reason of a
disability, under Bill S-5 the court may order that the witness
be permitted to give evidence by a means that enables the
evidence to be intelligible. This is an important gain for the
disabled.
The court would also be compelled to provide whatever resources
necessary to assist the person to give evidence, whether it be a
speech therapist, interpreter or mechanical devices for
communications purposes.
Under the amendments for a witness who is sight impaired there
will be also the opportunity to identify the accused by methods
other than sight. For example, when asked in court whether the
witness can identify the accused in the court room, a sight
impaired witness would be able to use methods other than sight
such as voice recognition and scent, and I think these are
positive additions to the Canada Evidence Act.
In terms of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code I
endorse the changes which will extend the protection afforded to
young people in the courts to persons with disabilities. Although
I concur with my colleague from the Bloc, I have concerns about
the lesser penalties for sexual assault for persons with
disabilities as opposed to non-disabled and this is obviously a
concern which remains to be dealt with.
I endorse the amendment which provides support for jurors with
physical disabilities and I support the amendments to the
Canadian Human Rights Act under Bill S-5 which will work to
prevent discrimination against persons with disabilities within
the federal sphere.
A key amendment adds a provision that requires employers and
service providers to accommodate the needs of persons who are
protected under the act.
1645
The duty to accommodate is a concept viewed by persons with
disabilities as being essential to their integration and
inclusion in society. The concept has been recognized and
adapted legislatively through all provincial human rights
jurisdictions.
Duty to accommodate affects how we work, travel and communicate.
It affects basically all of the fundamental aspects of social,
political and economic life for persons with disabilities.
For the past 12 years disabled people have been fighting for a
law that provides duty to accommodate in our federal human rights
act. It has taken a long time because government agendas have
taken precedence over the quality of life of persons with
disabilities.
The present bill represents the perspective of the disabled. It
provides for a positive duty to accommodate those with
disabilities subject to a standard of undue hardship.
Undue hardship is defined with respect to health, safety and
cost. It is important that undue hardship be defined. It is
important to have a human rights policy base for limitations of
undue hardship that will ensure a meaningful duty to accommodate
people with disabilities.
This bill is, however, by no means perfect. The bill needs to
include the assurance that the human rights system at the federal
level is effectively working by ensuring that the training of
investigators at the commission level happens.
A further review of the human rights act and the human rights
commission system is also needed. The process at the present
time is driven by an individual complaint system and that is
problematic. Accessibility complaints usually take two years for
resolution. Usually resolution comes in the form of one person's
complaint being answered. It does not, however, address the same
complaint that many others may have across the country. In other
words, the bill does not deal with systemic problems. It is a
complaint driven process.
In conclusion, Bill S-5 and its gains for persons with
disabilities has been a long time coming. There is still a great
distance to go in closing the equality gap for the disabled in
this country. Bill S-5 is a start and I urge that we move
quickly to pass the bill into legislation.
It is our duty to accommodate the dreams and the plans of our
disabled citizens. They have as much, if not more, to contribute
to this country as anyone. For that reason, I am in support
of this first step.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to follow my colleague from the
province of Nova Scotia. I am equally pleased to rise today to
participate in the debate on Bill S-5.
This bill, as has been previously mentioned by a number of my
colleagues, will amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Canadian
Criminal Code with respect to persons with disabilities. It will
also amend the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to persons
with disabilities and it will make consequential amendments to a
number of acts.
Let me say at the outset that like my colleagues in the
Progressive Conservative Party, and I am sure all members of the
House, I support this legislation. This is a classic example of
non-partisan legislation of which we can be proud. It reflects a
spirit that we do not often see in this House.
This bill was adopted by the Senate in December 1997 with one
major amendment. That amendment was indeed very important since
it dealt with the grounds of discrimination prohibited by section
2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
For one reason or another, the original legislation as tabled in
the Senate did not address all of the grounds of discrimination
prohibited by the charter. The Senate's amendment to correct
that situation was very important.
I would suggest that this amendment which was passed by our
colleagues in the neighbouring House was a very positive one and
I congratulate them for their efforts. It shows that the Senate
can, in fact, constructively participate in this process.
As a result, Bill S-5 came before us rectified and consistent
with all the provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms.
Finally, my last comment on this subject is that the Senate was
very helpful in passing this bill in an expeditious way. It
helped to speed the process that is very important to having this
piece of legislation in place.
I will move to my comments with respect to Bill S-5 as a whole.
The bill sets out a very important principle and one which we
embrace, that is, the attempt to remove the barriers to those who
want to participate fully in society, and I am specifically
referring to those with disabilities.
1650
This bill is a good example of circumstances where the principle
of identical treatment versus equality simply does not always
work. For those individuals and groups who are disadvantaged,
identical treatment does not always lead to equality. This bill
addresses that problem and rectifies it by removing
discriminatory barriers to ensure equality. I fully support this
principle and the bill in its entirety. In general, it is a very
good piece of legislation.
I will first deal with the amendments to the Canada Evidence
Act. Clause 1 of the bill will make two amendments to this act.
First it provides for the use of any different means necessary to
allow a witness who has difficulty communicating by reason of a
physical disability to give evidence in a court. For example,
the use of a sign translator to help a hearing impaired person
testify is a concrete example of how this section will help
improve participation for those with disabilities.
Certain problems might arise. With respect to translation,
there is the question of who would choose the translator. Would
they be chosen by the court or would the person suffering the
hearing disability be permitted to provide a translator? In the
context of a criminal trial, I suggest this is very important and
should be given some specific attention.
The second part of clause 1 will add section 6(1) to the Canada
Evidence Act. This new section would allow witnesses to use any
sensory means, for example their sense of hearing or smell, to
identify an accused person. This would allow a person who is
visually impaired to participate fully as a witness or
potentially, and sadly, as a victim in a criminal trial. It
would allow them to identify the accused.
I have had personal experience in a trial where the victim
suffered head injuries and subsequently lost their sight. The
accused was not apprehended until 12 years later, at which time
the victim was called upon to testify. In that case there was
other evidence to consider and there were other witnesses.
However, that gives a concrete example of how this new amendment
could effectively improve the current situation.
As a whole, these two amendments to the Canada Evidence Act
represent a step forward with respect to the use and application
of technology in our courtrooms. They remove physical barriers
that are present for some people and encourage full participation
in our criminal justice system. The justice system and the
criminal courtroom itself can often be an intimidating
environment, and these are positive changes.
Clauses 2 and 8 of Bill S-5 will amend the Criminal Code of
Canada. The most important of these clauses will create a new
criminal offence. This provision, which will create section
153.1 of the Criminal Code, recognizes that any person in a
position of trust or authority who sexually abuses a vulnerable,
disabled person will be guilty of an indictable offence,
punishable and liable in prison for a term not exceeding five
years or guilty of an offence punishable by summary conviction.
A parallel can be drawn between this new section 153.1 and the
section relating to sexual violence against children, the current
section 153, which also constitutes an offence. In essence, it
is designed to protect a specific and more vulnerable segment of
our society.
At first, although I had some reservations that this new section
was not strong enough because it results in an offence punishable
by a maximum of only five years, it is important to identify
specifically the need to protect those with physical and mental
disabilities. Such an offence is a morally reprehensible act.
The Criminal Code should reflect society's revulsion of such an
act. That is why I had the initial reservations with respect to
the maximum sentence being only five years.
However, the new section sends an excellent message to those in
the population who engage in such horrific activities. It
creates a new specific criminal offence to address that.
1655
I want to also indicate that I was pleased to see that the
government decided to remove the word “invite” from the
description of the offences and replace it by the stronger words
“counsels” or “incites”. This I believe is intellectually
sound and it makes the offence a much more precise one.
I would like to indicate that I support this new section and the
changes to the Criminal Code. I hope it is not going to be used
frequently. As a former crown prosecutor, I think what I would
tend to suggest is that the current section 271, which refers to
sexual assault for anyone, is much broader and calls for a
stronger sentence of ten years as opposed to five. The crown
attorneys of the land are going to have to make those individual
decisions.
Clauses 4 to 7 of the bill also modify the Criminal Code and
make it easier for a person with a disability to serve on a jury.
Accommodation must be made to enable a disabled person to then be
selected as a juror to fulfil their important civic
responsibility, although I must say in my experience that I have
seen many Canadians who, sadly, reflected an indication that they
did not want to be on a jury. But this at least opens that door
for those with disabilities who want full participation in our
justice system. Again it sends an important message.
Clause 8 authorizes video testimony for disabled individuals who
have difficulty communicating directly during a proceeding.
These changes in the Criminal Code I believe are designed
specifically for those with disabilities. The changes will
enable them to have full access to our justice system, which is
something that organizations for the disabled have been long
calling for.
My final remarks will address the changes to the Canadian Human
Rights Tribunal which Bill S-5 in essence creates by virtue of
the legislation. The creation of a tribunal specializing in
human rights is certainly welcome and one that has invoked great
response and is embraced by members of the House.
The Canadian human rights area is an increasingly complex one
and one that has certainly been very litigious over the years.
I would like to raise some concerns, however, about this
tribunal, and previous members have spoken of these concerns.
For example, the Minister of Justice under the legislation will
have a great deal of discretionary power and measures to allow
them to intervene or to invoke disciplinary measures on members
of the tribunal. The fact that the minister can be so directly
involved certainly might raise some concerns about the
independence of the tribunal.
Section 485 also brings forward a concern and that is with
respect to the necessity that full time members of the tribunal
reside in the national capital region. This, on its face,
appears to be some form of regional discrimination. Certainly
there are people throughout the land who are competent to sit on
the tribunal. There are competent individuals throughout Canada
and I would suggest this is again something that might be
re-thought.
I also regret that the motion put forward by my colleague in the
Bloc did not pass at the committee level. That motion proposed
that it be mandatory for a member of a tribunal who is coming to
the end of his or her appointed term to continue to the end of a
particular hearing. That is to say, if they were scheduled to
depart and a tribunal hearing had begun, they would be permitted
to finish the tribunal hearing. I believe this is something
again which could be modified.
Finally, I will refer specifically to the Canadian Human Rights
Act and note that clause 14 of the bill, which will modify
section 14 of the Canadian Human Right Act, specifically adds an
anti-retaliation clause to the act. I believe this is something
that is extremely important which did not exist previous to this
legislation. An anti-retaliation clause means, in essence, that
a person who files a complaint cannot then be open to retaliation
or threat of retaliation by a defendant. This again is an
improvement over the current legislation.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada support this
legislation. We have always been generally supportive of changes
to the criminal justice system for persons with disabilities and
I believe that persons with disabilities in Canada will embrace
the legislation and benefit greatly from it. It promotes the
expansion of access to our justice system and it promotes and
expands access to the courts which in many cases can be very
intimidating for both victims and members of the public
generally.
The jury system will benefit from this and the criminal justice
system generally will benefit. It also clearly expands human
rights in Canada.
1700
For all the reasons I have stated throughout my remarks I
support this bill and I am sure all members of this House will do
likewise.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, could we now see the
clock as 5.30 and proceed with Private Members' Business?
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-244, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Canada Pension
Plan (transfer of income to spouse), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is dedicated to my 16 year old
daughter Whitney who said to me that the bill made so much
sense the government should just do it.
In the words of Dr. Benjamin Spock, despite all the hard work,
taking care of children and seeing them grow up to be fine young
people gives most parents their greatest satisfaction in life.
Intuitively he recognized the linkage between early childhood
development and healthy adult outcomes. Today scientific
research has proved that linkage and sent out a powerful message
calling on governments to invest in children.
Bill C-244 is as much a health bill as it is a taxation bill. It
proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to permit income splitting
between spouses where one of them chooses to provide direct
parental care in the home to their preschool children.
I first introduced this bill in the House of Commons on October
5, 1994 and laid out the substantive reasons why investing in
children was both a fiscal and a social policy imperative.
Research not only sustains that assertion but also provides
compelling evidence that the quality of care during the formative
years is one of the most important determinations of lifelong
physical, mental and social health.
To recognize the importance of societal contribution of
providing direct parental care this bill seeks to provide a tax
break to families by allowing one spouse to pay the other through
income splitting. As a consequence, the stay at home spouse would
also be eligible to earn Canada pension plan benefits and both
jobs and child care spaces would be freed up.
In the past I have also proposed other tax breaks such as the
establishment of a caregiver tax credit or the converting of the
child care expense deduction to a non-refundable tax credit and
extending it to families with a stay at home parent.
Regardless of the approach, the common feature is effectively to
invest in the quality of early childhood care.
1705
With regard to economic considerations, even the most
conservative estimates of savings on health, social programs and
criminal justice costs are $2 return for every $1 invested. It
has not been until recently that researchers discovered just how
significantly early childhood experiences affect the outcomes of
our children. As such, the estimated potential economic return
is likely understated.
In October 1994 before the standing committee on health Dr.
Fraser Mustard, founder of the Canadian Institute for Advanced
Research, presented substantive evidence that childhood outcomes
were not a question of being rich or poor but rather of other
factors related to the quality of care during the formative
years. He also referred to the comprehensive research conducted
by the Carnegie task force on meeting the needs of youth and
children which was published in its 1994 report entitled
“Starting Points”.
Its researched observed that good physical and mental health,
the ability to learn, to cope with stress, to relate well with
others and to have a positive outlook were all rooted in the
earliest experiences of life. They concluded that where, how and
with whom children spend their early years of life are the most
important determinants of health.
I will summarize some of the key findings of the Carnegie
research. At birth the brain is far from fully formed. In the
days and weeks that follow vital neural connections called
synapses form among the brain cells and create maps or pathways
along which learning will take place. The first three years are
crucial in establishing these connections and it is estimated
that 80% of the lifetime development of the human brain takes
place at this time.
The synapses do not, however, form automatically. Babies need
food for their brains as well as their bodies, but not just good
physical nourishment. They also need loving, responsive
caregiving. They need to see light and movement, to hear voices
and above all to be touched and held.
If we conceive of the brain as the most powerful computer
imaginable, the child's surroundings act like a keyboard
inputting experience. The computer comes with so much memory
capacity that during the first three years it could store enough
information that an army of people could input during that time.
What sets the brain apart from the electronic computer is its
fragile and ongoing relationship to the world around it. With
proper stimulation brain synapses will form at a rapid pace,
reaching adult levels by age two. By the end of three or four
years the pace of learning slows because the synapses begin to
wither away. Synapses that are not used are destroyed forever.
The quality of nutrition, caregiving and stimulation that a
child receives determines not only the number of these
connections or synapses but also how they are wired for both
cognitive and emotional intelligence. As with cognitive
intelligence, the development of emotional intelligence appears
to hinge on the interplay between biology and early experience.
How infants are held, touched, fed, spoken to and gazed at seem
to be the key to laying down the brain's mechanisms that will
govern feelings and behaviour. On the other hand, an adverse
environment can compromise a young child's brain functions and
overall development, placing him or her at greater risk of
developing a variety of cognitive, behavioural and physical
difficulties. In some cases these effects may be irreversible.
Researchers have concluded that the incredible pace of learning
in the early years will never again be attained in later years.
Therefore if the brain development is slow at the beginning
playing catch-up is vastly more difficult and costly in terms of
personal sacrifice and social resources.
In April 1997 the Carnegie research was further corroborated by
studies presented at the White House conference on early
childhood development. The principal finding was that the
neurological foundations for rational thinking, problem solving
and general reasoning appear to be established by age one. The
studies also found that spoken language has an astonishing impact
on an infant's brain development.
For example, the number of words an infant hears each day from
an attentive engaged adult is the single most important predictor
of later intelligence, school success and social competence.
The study suggests that infants need not only a loving but also
a talkative and articulate caregiver and that a more verbal
family will increase the child's chances of positive health and
social outcomes. The results further suggest that the period
from birth to three years is so critical that parents actually
play a more critical role in the child's intellectual development
than teachers will at school.
1710
They also reported that before birth genes predominantly direct
how the brain establishes basic wiring patterns. Neurons grow
and travel into distinct neighbourhoods waiting for further
instructions. After birth, however, environmental factors
predominate.
Further support for this research occurred in the fall of 1997
at the international conference of the Society of Neuroscience.
Researchers reported that parental care makes such a lasting
impression on an infant that maternal separation or neglect can
profoundly affect the brain's biochemistry with lifelong
consequences for growth and mental ability.
Children raised without being regularly hugged, caressed or
stroked were found to have abnormally high levels of stress
hormones. Although scientists have reported for decades that
maternal deprivation can cause serious behavioural problems,
researchers now find that neglect can warp the brain's neuro
circuits, leading to higher levels of stress which can impair
growth and development of the brain and the body.
These studies have all been well accepted by the world's leading
child development experts. On April 23, 1998 the Canadian
Institute of Child Health also announced its concurrence with the
research to date. In a booklet entitled The First Years
Last Forever it states:
At birth the brain is remarkably unfinished. The parts of the
brain that handle thinking and remembering, as well as emotional
and social behaviour, are very underdeveloped. The fact that the
brain matures in the world, rather than in the womb, means that
young children are deeply affected by their early experiences.
Their relationships with parents and other important caregivers,
the sights, sounds, smells and feelings they experience, the
challenges they meet, do not influence just their moods.
These experiences actually affect the way children's brains
become “wired”. In other words, early experiences help
determine brain structure, thus shaping the way people learn,
think and behave for the rest of their lives.
One of the overall concerns of the institute is as
follows:
Our youngest children and their families are in a
quiet crisis. The crisis is jeopardizing our children's healthy
development, undermines school readiness, and ultimately
threatens our economy.
As a result, it also concludes that more attention must be paid
to the quality of care during the first three years of life.
Other significant support comes from the national forum on
health which issued its report early in 1997. One of its major
concerns related to early childhood development:
Evidence suggests that deprivation during early childhood can
impair brain development and permanently hinder the development
of cognition and speech. The impact on children's physical and
mental health is significant and can only be partially offset by
interventions later in life. The environment in which children
are raised affects not only the number of brain cells and
connections but also how they are `wired' which, in turn,
influences their competence and coping skills.
The forum concluded there was an urgent need to invest in
children and stated that failure to invest in the early years of
life increases the remedial cost of health, education, social
services and criminal justice costs. It also noted that children
who are poor have more sickness, chronic illness, higher rates of
injuries, more severe injuries and higher rates of death.
The forum states that while it firmly believes the primary
responsibility for raising children lies with parents, it is in
our collective interest to ensure the well-being of our children.
With regard to financial support, the forum pointed out that
Canada is the only western industrialized country that does not
take into the cost of raising children in the family home when
determining how much tax families with children should pay
compared to those without children.
In its interim discussion paper the forum went so far as to say
that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families with
children.
In its final report the forum recommended greater horizontal
equity for families with children by reducing their overall tax
burden to reflect our commitment to ensure that every child has
an opportunity to realize its full potential. In relation to
horizontal equity, the gravest social injustice of all time has
to be the abandonment of the stay at home parent.
Managing the family home and caring for preschool children
continues to be in my view the most important job in the world.
It is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for
its valuable contribution to our society. It is unpaid work but
it is vital work which deserves to be compensated, and that is
the point of Bill C-244.
This raises the question of parental preferences for caring for
children. A 1997 Compass Research survey conducted in Alberta
found that 95% of respondents felt that it was best for infants
and preschoolers to be cared for by a parent.
An earlier Canada-wide poll conducted by Decima Research found
that 70% of parents of preschool children where both parents
worked would prefer to have one of them provide direct parental
care in the home if they could afford it.
1715
Should a parent have to choose between the job that they need
and the child that they love? Norway for example says no and
announced that starting in August 1998 the government will pay
$570 a month per child under three years of age where one parent
provides direct parental care in the home.
The research evidence is irrefutable. The first years do last
forever in terms of physical, mental and social health, but also
in terms of societal health. The 1996 longitudinal survey on
children and youth showed that 25% of Canadian children enter
adult life with significant emotional, behavioural, academic or
social problems. According to Dr. Steinhauer of Voices for
Children, with one in four children entering adult life
significantly handicapped, we can look forward to a society that
will be less able to generate the economic base required to
supply the social supports and services needed by one in four
adults who are unable to carry their own weight.
To meet the needs of children in a diverse society, the
preferred strategy is to provide flexibility, options and choices
so that parents can determine the best possible care for their
children. Given the clear linkage between the quality of care of
children and lifelong health, we all stand to benefit by
investing in children.
In his 1994 economic statement the finance minister acknowledged
that linkage when he asserted that “good fiscal policy makes
good social policy, and good social policy makes good fiscal
policy”. Now that we are well under way to restoring Canada's
fiscal health, the time is right to invest in the health and
social well-being of Canadians in order to secure our fiscal
health over the long term. In that context let there be no doubt
that investment in early childhood development represents our
best opportunity for sustainable returns.
For all these reasons I strongly encourage the Government of
Canada to make investing in children a principal theme in its
next federal budget. Within that envelope, consideration should
be given to initiatives to address among other things parenting
education, prenatal nutrition, fetal alcohol syndrome, early
childhood development, community based child programs, and
taxation of families with children. These are but a few elements
of a pro child policy that will help to ensure not only the
development of healthy children but also of a healthy country.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want
to say a few words on the private members' bill put forth today
by my good friend from Mississauga.
First I compliment him on the work he has done on this issue
over the last few years. I thank him for the copy of his book.
He has put a lot of work into this issue. We should all commend
him for the extra parliamentary hours he puts into this very
worthwhile issue.
I am sure the member remembers that back in November 1990 Ed
Broadbent was retiring as leader of the federal New Democratic
Party. The last speech he made in the House as leader was one in
which he talked about a need to eradicate poverty among children.
I remember that very well. He was sitting about three or four
seats over to my right. He made that speech. There was general
consensus in the House of Commons that it was a very laudable
objective which we should strive for in the next decade. That
decade is almost over. We have less than two years to go before
the new millennium and we probably have more child poverty now
than we did in 1990. We have regressed rather than progressed.
That is a sad commentary on our country, a country with
tremendous wealth and tremendous abundant resources. We are
extremely fortunate that our country has all these resources. It
is like a beautiful necklace of jewels and gold, the resources
that are here in this country. Yet we cannot organize it in terms
of public policy to make sure we bring children out of poverty
and give them an opportunity and a chance. That has to be a very
laudable goal and a very laudable objective.
I certainly agree fully with the member across the way that
investing in children should be an objective not just of this
parliament but for all of us in Canada, the provincial
legislatures, the Parliament of Canada, the municipalities and
likewise because the future of the country is our children. If
we do not invest in opportunities for young people, we are going
to have more crime, more unhappiness, more unhealthiness and more
social problems.
1720
They are laudable goals and objectives. The member certainly
has his heart in the right place.
The member talked about the specific amendment to the tax act
and the Canada pension plan. Again his heart is in the right
place but I have some questions on whether or not this is the
only area that we should move on.
This will enable a taxpayer to make a tax contribution to the
Canada pension plan on behalf of a non-income earning spouse.
More often that would be the female rather than the male. If we
looked at this economically and ran it through a computer model,
we would find that this bill would benefit only a small segment
of our population, mainly the higher income part of our
population. That is the part of the population which may have one
spouse working and can afford to contribute into a tax benefit
program in the Canada pension plan on behalf of the other spouse.
My riding is comprised in part of the inner city of Regina where
there are a lot of low income folks. In those kinds of homes
where only one person is working, probably nine times out of ten,
maybe 99 times out of 100, the spouse cannot afford to make a
contribution, tax credit or not, to the Canada pension plan of
the other spouse.
It is a bit like the spousal RRSP which is a very good idea for
people who can afford it. It has helped a lot of people and we
do not deny that. We are not saying that we should tear it apart.
But when we look at the facts, we find that the spousal RRSP
helps in a great preponderance of cases the higher income people
who can afford to make that contribution. Someone who
hypothetically makes $80,000, $100,000 or $200,000 a year, and
whose spouse is not working can easily afford to maximize his or
her own RRSP contributions and then maximize the spousal RRSP.
With the change in the Income Tax Act as proposed by my friend
from Mississauga South, they could max out in terms of the
taxable contribution to the CPP on behalf of the spouse.
These are some of the problems I have with the bill before the
House today. I suppose the bill would have been more equitable
back in the 1950s and 1960s when there was a greater
preponderance of one wage earner households, back in the days of
Archie Bunker and Leave it to Beaver when the only person
working in the family was the male. In those days it would have
covered a wider sweep of the population. Again it does not mean
the member's heart is not in the right place.
What do we have as alternatives? The main alternative is to
make our pension system more progressive and more encompassing to
cover a broader sweep of people. Instead we now have a federal
government which for new seniors, for people who have turned 60
after December 31, 1995, wants to abolish the old age pension,
the guaranteed income supplement and the tax credit for seniors
and replace them with what is called the seniors benefit. The
seniors benefit will be determined by a means test. In other
words it is going back to the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s before we
had universal old age pensions. The pensions are taxed back from
the wealthier people based on a progressive taxation system.
The current old age pension is a monthly pension that most
Canadians are entitled to. Those benefits are taxed. They
disappear for single seniors whose incomes are higher than
$85,000 a year. If they make over $85,000 a year, there is a
claw back. This was brought in in the Mulroney days. The old
age pension is taken back by the government. For a couple, that
pension disappears after they earn more than $170,000.
There is a progressive scale here. Everybody is entitled to it
but the more money you make, the less you get. When a single
person makes $85,000 a year, they stop getting the old age
pension.
When a couple makes $170,000 a year, then they receive no old age
pension.
1725
In addition to that, there is a guaranteed income supplement. It
is a supplementary benefit that is not taxed and is there for
only the low income old age pension recipients. A poor person in
this country, and I represent a lot of them in the city centre
and small towns in my riding, can receive the maximum guaranteed
income supplement along with the old age pension. The GIS is not
taxable but the OAS is taxable. It is a fair system. It is a
progressive system that is geared to helping those who are the
most in need.
Regrettably what is happening is that this system is going to be
abolished. We are going back to the past. There will be a means
test. People who make a few dollars will not receive an old age
pension or the seniors benefit while those who make a few less
dollars will receive part of the seniors benefit. Starting from
dollar one, a person will be judged as to whether or not they
qualify for the seniors benefit.
That is the concern I have with some of the details of the bill
we are talking about today. The member is going in the right
direction in terms of his heart and is being very thoughtful, but
again I think we could put the money into a more progressive
pension system.
In addition to that, this House just recently voted on the
Canada pension plan. It made it a more regressive plan. It
upped the premiums by 73% over six years. It cut down what
people will receive from the plan during that same period of
time. It particularly hit widows and people on CPP disability,
again going in a regressive way.
It is a sad commentary to have those things happen from a
Liberal government that at one time had a proud heritage of being
compassionate, caring and progressive in this country.
I see the member from Hamilton across the way hanging his head
in shame at the regressiveness. This government is more
conservative than Brian Mulroney back in the 1980s. It is no
wonder the member from Hamilton is hanging his head in shame. He
used to be a progressive Liberal. Now he is to the right of Brian
Mulroney in destroying the old age pension in this country.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Before the hon. member gets all exercised, I just want him to
know that I am working on facts here and that in fact the
benefits received by seniors are not means tested.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members will
know that is certainly not a point of order. It is probably a
point of debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today on Bill C-244, which was introduced by my
colleague for Mississauga South.
This bill would enable a taxpayer to transfer part of his or her
income to a spouse who remained at home to rear children, to
enable this person to make contributions to the Canada pension
plan.
The intent of this bill is a praiseworthy one, greater financial
independence at retirement age for whichever spouse remained at
home to look after children. I say spouse, but generally
speaking that person is still the wife.
The logic behind Bill C-244 is the following: a worker would be
authorized to transfer part of his income to his spouse on his
income tax return. For application of the Canada Pension Plan
Act, the income thus transferred would be considered income from
self-employment. For the recipient, would this self-employed
status confer the tax deductions related to self-employment?
If so, the stay-at-home spouse would pay both CPP contributions,
the employer and the employee share, which would entitle her to
a larger pension upon reaching retirement age.
1730
In order to make such a transfer, the couple must have a child
who is not attending school full time, and the couple must not,
of course, claim child care expenses.
This is where my first criticism comes in. Is this not a way of
using the wife as a tax shelter? The societal view behind this
bill is that women are at home looking after children. There is
an obvious risk that the male partner may ask his female partner
to stay home and look after the children, in order to take
advantage of this tax measure.
This view is contrary to a modern family policy aimed at
improving women's autonomy and their participation in the labour
market.
The family policy put forward by Quebec, with a day care system
for children over the age of three at $5 a day, and the
additional social assistance provided by Newfoundland for day
care expenses are cases in point.
Every major report on women and the labour market released since
the 1970 report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women
in Canada emphasized the fact that child care is an essential
service if women are to participate fully in the labour market.
My second criticism is the following: What about individual
autonomy, especially that of women? There is a risk that the
income transfer will take place on the tax return only, making
the woman dependent on her husband.
This is a backward approach that makes no sense at a time when
the income of EI and welfare recipients is being cut to
encourage them to go back to work.
Besides, it would be unfair not only from a tax point of view
but also for single parent families, most of which are headed by
women who have to put their children in day care so they can go
to work.
I am convinced that women re-entering the labour market would
rather rely on a family policy adapted to their needs like the
one in Quebec than lose their autonomy and be subsidized to stay
at home.
Finally, this tax measure will cost the federal government in
terms of lost tax revenues.
Instead of sinking money in such a controversial measure, the
federal government should transfer to the provinces the money
they are entitled to and let them implement a family policy
suited to the 21st century.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to rise to debate Bill C-244. I commend my hon.
colleague from Mississauga South who is probably the most
distinguished champion of fairness for families in the tax code.
He has a noble record of promoting the importance of family in
Canadian public policy as the basic institution of our society.
This bill is one more effort to his credit. It follows on the
successful passage of his private member's Motion No. 33 in the
previous parliament which also sought to change the treatment of
two parent families under the income tax code.
I and most of my colleagues from the official opposition support
the intention of this bill. As a general rule I oppose proposed
amendments to the Income Tax Act because I believe our 1,300 page
tax code is too complex as it is.
I believe in principle that tax policy ought to be neutral with
respect to the choices that people make and that it ought not to
be a vehicle for social or economic engineering or central
planning. To a very large extent I would submit that the present
tax code has become precisely that.
1735
The hon. member for Mississauga South and I have had, and I am
sure will continue to have, many provocative debates about the
advisability of adopting a flat tax model which would replace the
1,300 page tax code and the several hundred pages of attendant
regulations with a simple, pure, neutral and clean flat tax
system. That is what I would prefer.
The other night I voted against the private member's bill of one
of my colleagues, a bill which sought to provide for the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments for the principal
residence of taxpayers. I oppose measures of this nature in
principle. I seek to remove the complexity from the tax code,
not add to it.
Having said that, the current tax code in all its complexity is
scandalously weighted against the most important institution in
society and that is the natural family, the nuclear family, the
traditional family, call it what we will, apply whatever
adjective we want. The fact is the best social program is a
strong family. The best school and day care is a strong family.
The best day care workers and teachers are good parents who have
time to spend with their children.
For too long legislators, bureaucrats and regulators have sought
to diminish the role of that nuclear family. We have done so by
creating a tax code which actively discriminates against the
choices of many families that opt to have one of two parents stay
at home to raise their children.
The hon. member for Mississauga South gave what I thought was
insightful background data on the remarkable importance of
parental bonding in the rearing of children in their early years.
It almost could be taken as a given that the more parental
contact there is in the early years of childhood, the better the
child rearing experience, the better the child is as he or she
matures, the better the family is, the better society is.
We ought to seek at the very least to create a tax code which
treats families that seek to maximize their time with their
children neutrally or at the very least, as someone proposed, we
ought to make amendments to the tax code to positively
discriminate in favour of such families.
In the current tax code there are no provisions for income
splitting. There are no provisions which recognize that millions
of Canadian two parent families give up a second income, forgo
that extra household revenue in order to make the economic
sacrifices necessary to spend more time with their children.
What do those families get in return from the tax system? They
get utterly no recognition of making what is a responsible, I
would argue the most responsible, social and familial choice. In
fact, if families choose, as many do for legitimate and
understandable reasons, to contract the services of a third party
day care provider, the government says they are permitted to
write the costs of those third party child care expenses off
against their taxes through the child care tax deduction. What
this does in effect is force the one income two parent family to
subsidize through its taxes the choices of two income families
that opt to raise their children through third party day care.
This is completely irrational.
I truly feel for the many hundreds of thousands of families that
feel this discrimination every day and are frustrated by it.
1740
Bill C-244 would seek to mitigate part of this unfairness by
permitting one spouse to deduct payments from another spouse for
the raising of children at home. This would essentially allow
families to contract for child care services in the house as
opposed to doing it as a third party contract with some profit or
non-profit day care operator.
A wife who works in the workforce can say to the husband “You
are going to be my day care provider for our children. I am
going to pay you to stay at home to raise the children and you
are not going to be penalized”, or vice versa. It does not
matter which gender is involved. What matters is the principle
that families ought not to be discriminated against for making
choices they believe are right.
During the election campaign as I went around my broadly middle
class constituency with many young families, I found no issue
that resonated more strongly with many of my constituents than
the need for tax fairness for those families. These measures
would go a long way toward providing that kind of fairness.
If I could use this opportunity to make an advertisement for the
policy proposed by the Reform Party in this respect, we have
proposed converting the child care tax deduction into a
refundable credit that would be available to all families, to all
parents. This refundable credit would, in a sense, be a subsidy
for low income families that currently cannot take advantage of
the deduction because many families do not have sufficient income
against which to apply the deduction.
A refundable credit would provide recognition of the at home
child care implicit expenses of many low income families. They
would get a credit for it and families all the way up the income
scale would get the same kind of recognition which they now are
denied unless they pay for third party child care.
All members of this House surely must recognize that for too
long we have allowed our laws to discriminate against the basic
institution of our society. It is time to act. For too long too
many governments, this government, the preceding government and
the government before that, built up a tax code that made the
wrong choices about families.
I know many members here agree with me. It is time for us to
work together in a non-partisan way to see that legislation like
Bill C-244 is enacted so that we can allow Canadian families to
make the choices they believe are best for their children.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on behalf of
Progressive Conservatives and all Canadians on Bill C-244.
As well, I commend the member for Mississauga South on this
initiative and on his hard work and diligence in representing and
seeking solutions and assistance in visionary policy on behalf of
Canadian children.
As everyone knows, the importance of child friendly policies are
absolutely essential, especially as we enter the 21st century as
a knowledge based global society. I think it has never been more
important than now to invest in our young people.
I have some difficulty with the complicated nature of the
changes to the tax code. I would echo some of the comments of my
hon. colleague from the Reform Party on this.
As everyone knows, today millions of Canadians are filing their
income tax returns and millions of Canadians have hired
accountants and tax lawyers to enable them to effectively liaise
with their own government.
It is an affront to a democratic society that in an
industrialized nation with a high rate of education, Canadians
need to hire professionals just to deal with their own
governments on something as fundamental as paying taxes.
It is clear that we definitely need to simplify the tax code and
the size of the tax code. I studied taxation law at university
and got a finance degree. The tax code is egregiously
complicated.
I have some difficulty with any measure that serves to further
complicate the tax code.
1745
I do respect the premise under which the member for Mississauga
South brings forward this legislation. If one parent wishes to
stay at home in a family during the formative years of their
child's upbringing I do not believe they should be penalized by
the tax code, which currently is clearly the case.
I am interested also to learn that the hon. member has brought
forward other proposals, including the conversion of the child
care expense deduction into a non-refundable tax credit and
extended it to families with a stay at home parent. I believe
that is the kind of policy that would be less complicating
potentially than the current legislation we are discussing but
would have a similar impact. I think the important thing is that
the intent and the impact is very sound. Again we are supportive
of that intent and that potential impact of tax policy that will
reduce the disincentive currently for families that are trying to
do the right thing and look after their children.
The difficulty with tax policy, like so many public policies, is
the law of unintended consequences. When we have, as my hon.
colleague from the Reform Party has pointed out, a tax code of
1,300 pages it does bring to light the fact that there are a lot
of unintended consequences with a tax code that complicated.
This week in the finance committee we are studying Bill C-36
regarding the creation of the millennium scholarship fund. One of
the witnesses was David Stager, an economics profession at the
University of Toronto. He stated unequivocally that adequate
support in a child's formative years has a far greater social and
economic impact than funding later in life.
An investment in preschool education, particularly prior to age
three, will provide society with a better return on that
investment than an investment in primary education. An
investment in primary education will provide society with a
better return on investment than an investment in secondary
education. An investment in secondary education will provide a
better return on investment than an investment in post-secondary
education.
At a time when we are committing $2.5 billion worth of Canadian
taxpayer funds to the millennium scholarship fund I think it is
time that we really worked together in the House to develop
solutions similar to what the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca has suggested in head start programs, for instance, which
are designed to reach out to high risk children who are most
vulnerable.
One of the studies that was conducted in the United States
accounts for the result that $1 invested in children in high risk
situations up to age 3 will provide society with a return of $7,
I believe, by age 25, if one combines employment insurance costs,
welfare costs, if one considers the costs of the judicial system,
the police and the penal system, all the things that occur
because children are neglected up to age 3.
It is absolutely essential that we develop some way either
through tax policy, and that is one alternative—I respect the
hon. member for Mississauga South for bringing light on this
issue—or through direct programs that would be designed to
effect change in that area. Perhaps it is time for us in the
House to look at a national head start program.
My own preference when I am talking about tax policy is to
simplify the Canadian tax code and thus make it fairer. Not
necessarily reducing all taxes but reducing some of the absolute
gross unfairness that exists in the Canadian tax code. I believe
that if we do simplify the tax code and we do make the tax code
essentially what it should be in the first place, a revenue
generating vehicle and not a vehicle for social engineering, we
can then use social policy to invest strategically in those areas
where Canadians need investment most. One of those areas might
be a national head start program.
To the hon. member across the House who just asked if I filed my
return, no, but I will be shortly. It is so complicated.
1750
The head start program that is currently in Moncton, New
Brunswick was modelled after similar programs in Hawaii and
Michigan. These programs do not address the economic situation
of the parents as much as they address the social aspect and the
interplay between the parent and the child.
My concern with some of Bill C-244 is that it does have the
potential to benefit some families, depending on incomes,
significantly more than other families. I would favour, for
instance, the member's earlier initiative of the tax credit. I
think that is far fairer in many ways.
I urge this House to continue to work in a multi-partisan way to
develop solutions. When we hear a member of the Reform Party
talking about a head start program, I think that is very
positive. When I see a member of the Liberal Party developing
policies relative to the task, I see that we are all looking for
the same end although we may differ on the means. However, I
suggest we continue this dialogue and continue to develop,
debate, discuss and implement policies that will work.
We are again concerned about further complicating the tax code.
There is a strong argument to be made that there is a current
punitive treatment of families trying to do the right thing for
their families. Perhaps that playing field needs to be levelled
in the short term. Tax reform of this nature is better than no
tax reform at all. However, let us keep our eye on the ball for
the long term.
The best policies in the long term involve a simpler, fairer and
less complicated tax code which benefits all Canadians and a
government that is not afraid to invest strategically in the
needs that face Canadians as we enter the 21st century at a time
when it is more important than ever in a global knowledge based
society that our young people are provided with the best
opportunities in the world, that we have a society that is not
only prosperous but fair, that the equality of opportunity is not
just a phrase but a fact in Canada and that we are not having
debates on child poverty in this House 10 years from now.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to first take this
opportunity to applaud my colleague, the member for Mississauga
South, for the dedication and effort he has put into this and
other bills which are ultimately aimed at this country's greatest
asset, our youth.
I am proud to say this government is placing a priority on
supporting Canadian children and Canadian families. The current
income tax system attempts to strike a balance between treating
all individuals the same and considering different family
circumstances. As a result, taxes are collected largely on the
basis of individual income, treating individuals as equals in
assessing their ability to pay.
At the same time, the tax system recognizes that family
circumstances affect ability to pay.
My colleague's Bill C-244 appears to be aimed at putting in
place further recognition of family circumstances by providing
additional measures in support of families with children and a
stay at home spouse. I appreciate the principles behind this
bill. Indeed the tax system already includes a large number of
measures that recognize and help alleviate the extra financial
responsibilities of families with children.
For example, the current personal income tax system allows the
transfer of unused, non-refundable credits from a lower income to a
higher income spouse in order to lower overall family tax
burdens.
I am not certain that the benefits of this bill are distributed
widely enough given the high costs of this measure. Only about
975,000 one earner families with children would benefit under
this proposal. This represents about 8% of Canadian families.
At the same time, the total cost of this measure would be
approximately $1.2 billion in reduced federal income taxes and a
further $800 million in reduced provincial taxes for a total of
over $2 billion. In my judgment this is too expensive given the
small number of beneficiaries.
For example, the $2 billion total cost of Bill C-244 would be
enough to increase the child tax benefit which was received by
over three million Canadian families with children by about $350
per child.
1755
While I share the goals put forward by my colleague in Bill
C-244 of ensuring that Canadian families with children are
supported by the tax system, the specific provisions of the bill
are not the best way to accomplish this. It would be
administratively complex for both government, employers and
individual taxpayers. It would distribute benefits too narrowly
given its $2 billion price tag.
The current individual based tax system achieves a good balance
between equity and administrative efficiency for the vast
majority of taxpayers. The current tax system already contains a
number of measures that recognize the special circumstances faced
by families, the child tax benefit and GST credits, married and
equivalent to married credits.
I can assure my colleague from Mississauga South this government
will continue to work with him and as a government on improving
the benefits the current system delivers to Canadian families in
a fair, efficient and effective manner as the fiscal situation
permits.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in not
congratulating the member for Mississauga South for his
continuous work in this area. I take great pride having a member
in the House who touches the hearts of all members in an area of
expertise that he is devoted to and continually brings to the
attention of the House. This is an area of democracy that brings
home to us the importance a member like the member for
Mississauga South can have. He has made Canadians aware of this
area. He has allowed members to discuss properly and with
decorum a matter that is very close to Canadians. I congratulate
the member for Mississauga South.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank all my hon. colleagues who spoke on Bill C-244. I
appreciate their kind words. As a member of parliament, it can
only help to encourage members to continue to work hard to
resolve some of these issues. I want all members to know that
I'll be back.
I will respond quickly to a couple of points that were raised.
The NDP member suggested there seemed to be something for some
people but not for others. He is quite right. The bill does
focus on the middle class. The member should remember that the
child tax benefit is only for low income Canadians who make under
$25,000 in family income. The middle income earners really do
not qualify for that.
On the other hand, the child care expense deduction is available
for families where both parents work, but it is not available for
those who provide care in the home to their own children. What
is really left out here is the unpaid work, that vital work of
providing care to children, and it is the stay at home parent who
does this. At a time when home based businesses are becoming
more prevalent there may be some more opportunities.
The Bloc member suggested there is an expense and that we should
be careful about spending a lot of money. There is not just an
expense but an investment that would result in lower health care
costs, social program costs and criminal justice costs. We have
to look at investing in the longer term to secure our long term
fiscal health.
Both the Conservative and Reform members talked about the tax
code. Surely we will be moving toward tax reform. I hope we will
get the process started in this parliament.
1800
When we consider the childcare expense deduction, $7,000 for a
preschool child, high income earners where both are working will
get a tax refund of $3,500. A low income earner would only get a
tax refund of $1,750, all other things remaining equal. That
means that someone who is paying $7,000 for childcare gets $1,750
more back if they have a higher income than someone with a lower
income. It makes no sense. There is no fairness. There is no
equity. It should be changed.
I hope this House will look at a way to determine whether or not
the childcare expense deduction is an equitable instrument within
our tax act to deal with the necessary expenses of raising
children.
Finally, my colleague from Hamilton referred to the cost. There
is no question. There is a big outflow in terms of reduced tax
revenue. There are also some inflows to the extent that someone
would withdraw from the workforce and provide direct parental
care. Some unemployed people on welfare or EI are going to take
those jobs, relieving us of the EI and welfare costs. They would
also pay taxes on their income, which apparently we have lost.
There are some offsetting revenues. Not all of them. There
already are some parents who stay at home. They are sacrificing
the opportunity to earn income.
I do understand the mathematics, but I also believe in my heart
that the National Forum on Health is correct when it says that
for every one dollar invested we will over the long term get two
dollars back to cover our health care costs, social program costs
and criminal justice costs.
To close, I want to thank my 16-year old daughter Whitney who
said to me “Dad, this bill makes so much sense the government
should just do it”. She has been a very staunch supporter of
her father who is away so often. She is very interested in the
divorce bill that I had about requiring mandatory counselling
prior to legal separation. She tells me about the circumstances
in her school and about children whose mothers and fathers are
not at home. She is concerned about that. Even at the age of 16
our children recognize that there are problems. They detract
from a child's ability to achieve his or her full potential.
I again thank all hon. colleagues for their very kind words. I
intend to continue to work on behalf of the family and Canadian
children.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired. 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.
TRAINING FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian opportunities strategy that was announced by our
government in the last budget is a very important and significant
initiative. As part of this initiative, Canadian millennium
scholarships will benefit more than 100,000 students. Likewise
the plan will provide assistance to students with their student
debt loads. There are many other advantages and features of the
Canadian opportunities strategy.
The labour market has a supply side and a demand side. The
Canadian opportunities strategy deals mostly with the supply
side. The demand side of the labour market is driven by potential
employers, both private sector and public sector employers.
In my view the Canadian opportunities strategy deals more
particularly with the supply side of the labour market. It
provides Canadians with greater access to education and training.
Many or most Canadians view training and education as a means of
obtaining a job or a career. All Canadians want to be
contributing members of society and to have the means to care for
and nurture their needs and the needs and aspirations of their
families.
The question often boils down to: What do I educate or train
myself for? Most Canadians would like to have some degree of
confidence that the education and training they are acquiring is
providing them with skills that will be in demand in the future.
The Canadian Manufacturers Association reports labour skill
shortages in the following areas: marketing jobs, 29%; design
jobs, 27%; engineering jobs, 26%; machinist jobs, 23%; software
programming jobs, 22%; tool and die jobs, 21%; and on and on it
goes.
1805
These shortages are significant particularly when we look at
unemployment and youth unemployment. The level of unemployment
although much improved since 1993 is currently hovering around 8%
nationally.
It is a well accepted fact that in Canada we are currently
experiencing a shortage of information technology professionals
of between 20,000 and 30,000 people. In my own riding of
Etobicoke North which is quite industrial with aerospace
companies and a pharmaceutical industry, I often hear that some
of their jobs remain unfilled due to what they describe as a lack
of qualified personnel. This troubles me, particularly given the
number of unemployed people in my riding. I refer to the problem
as the skills gap.
Last year I hosted a workshop in my riding and I brought
together business leaders, educators, student career counsellors,
young people and human resource professionals. At this meeting
representatives from Humber College, York University, the
Etobicoke School Board, the University of Toronto as well as
representatives from companies such as Allied Signal Aerospace
and Schukra Manufacturing, and many other stakeholders exchanged
views on the skills gap problem.
I was seeking solutions and ideas at the micro level that
perhaps could also be applied at the national level to deal with
this problem. At this workshop, consensus emerged quickly around
a single theme: the need for industry, public sector employers
and educators to communicate better, to better anticipate the
skill requirements of tomorrow and the future.
One of the complicating factors is the rapidly changing world in
which we live and the continually changing labour market. A
number of us in this House have spoken out on the need for the
federal government to assume a leadership role in bringing
industry and educators together to better plan for the future.
The provinces and the territories clearly have a major role to
play in education and training, but as a federal government we
can use our powers of moral suasion and policy levers to bring
the various parties together and to facilitate a constructive
dialogue.
It was for these reasons that I was very pleased to see in last
September's throne speech a commitment from our government to
develop a plan to match the skills being taught to young
Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In response, the
hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, jobs, economic growth and
youth are top priorities of the Government of Canada and these
are major undertakings. As the hon. member for Etobicoke North
has learned with all the hard work he has done in his riding,
there are no single quick fix solutions nor is it the
responsibility of any one level of government.
I am pleased with the number of measures that have been
undertaken since 1993 which have created jobs and have ensured a
skilled labour force for the future.
For instance as part of our initial red book commitments, the
government promised to deliver on a youth employment strategy to
give young people the skills necessary to succeed in the current
and future labour markets, and we have delivered.
The government has also continued to work with the sectoral
partnership initiative, SPI. It brings together employers,
workers and other stakeholders in a particular industrial sector
to define and address the human resources challenges facing the
sector. Work through this initiative includes the establishment
of sector councils which provide support to the private sector to
develop the infrastructure necessary for the development and
implementation of a particular industry's human resource
strategy.
There are more than 20 sector councils operating, including
councils for software, auto repair service, electrical and
electronic manufacturing, and biotechnology, just to name a few.
The work being done by the sectoral councils is important. In
fact Human Resources Development Canada is currently consulting
with the software sector council with regard to further research
related to skills gaps.
In conclusion helping Canadians find jobs and be prepared for
the changing work world is something that requires a
collaborative effort on the part of governments, businesses,
communities and individuals.
The Government of Canada will continue to work closely with
provinces, industries and other stakeholders so that all
Canadians, including our young people, can assume their rightful
place in the workforce.
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORT
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 1, I asked
the Minister of Transport a question about the relocation of the
Lévis station. I pointed out that I was surprised that the
station would be relocated to a point west of the Chaudière
River, at least eight kilometers further away than initially
planned.
1810
In his reply, the minister seemed astonished by my question. On
April 20, I decided to write him a letter to provide further
information, and I would like to share some of what I said with
the House.
In my letter to the Minister of Transport, I wrote:
First of all, I would like to say that, despite the answer you
gave me in the House, I never told you I was happy that the
Lévis station was being closed, since I have not spoken with you
since February 20.
In a communiqué I issued that same day, however, I said I was
pleased that you had excluded the possibility of having trains
reverse over the Quebec City bridge to the Sainte-Foy station.
As for the rest, I was resigned to your decision, even though I
knew it was not the best solution for the south shore, because
you required that services be maintained at the Lévis station
until a new station is opened on the south shore. At the time,
I thought this station would be built on one of three sites
previously recommended by the mayors of the RCM of
Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
A few weeks later, on March 21, 1998, we learned from the media
in my region that Via Rail intended to build this station at
least eight kilometres further away than the three alternative
sites initially proposed and, worse yet, right in the middle of
an industrial park where the environment was far from
attractive.
Since the idea of closing the Lévis station first came out,
stakeholders have always thought that a new station would reduce
passenger traffic, because of the distance from the downtown
cores of Quebec City and Lévis.
In fact, a study done for Via Rail by SETRA in 1996 forecast a
28.7% decrease in passenger traffic.
Since you asked the
Standing Committee on Transport to make recommendations to you
on ways of making Via Rail's operations more cost-effective, I
have trouble understanding how you could approve an option that
would decrease its revenues and force it to spend additional
money to set up a shuttle between this new station and the
downtown cores of Quebec City and Lévis.
The Standing Committee on Transport was equally astonished on
March 24 when members of the Coalition pour le maintien et
l'utilisation accrue du rail gathered 11,241 signatures of
people in favour of maintaining the Lévis station.
The chairman of the committee, whom I may not name, because he
is sitting opposite, had proposed to other members of the
committee that this relocation be re-examined as part of a tour
the committee was planning to make.
I am not the only one astonished by the Minister of Transport's
decision. Members of the standing committee, members of the
coalition, south shore mayors, and even the mayor of the
municipality in which the new station will be located, Richard
Blondin, also expressed their surprise.
I impatiently await the reaction of the parliamentary secretary
who, I hope, will provide me with more valid justifications than
those I received the other day from the Minister of Transport.
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure the member for Lévis will be elated with this answer. The
station at Lévis on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River is
currently used by VIA for its eastern transcontinental and Gaspé
trains.
The intercity service between Montreal and Quebec City crosses
the river at Ste. Foy and uses the Gare du Palais station in
downtown Quebec City. This service does not use the Lévis
station.
After the normal public hearings process the National
Transportation Agency authorized CN to abandon its Montmagny
subdivision, the south shore line used by VIA to serve Lévis. The
abandonment was originally set to take place February 18, 1997.
However, the line has remained open so that VIA and the
government could look at options for the eastern transcontinental
and Gaspé trains that would continue service to the south shore
area near Quebec City.
In light of CN's decision to abandon the Montmagny rail line VIA
would either have to purchase and upgrade the line or else use
another site to service the south shore. After carefully
considering the options, the Minister of Transport concluded that
temporarily keeping the station open and building a new station
is the most economic way to serve the travelling public.
The minister announced the decision on February 20. VIA has
been asked to conduct a study to ensure that there are no
significant disruptions to customers who will need to travel
between the new station and Quebec City.
In response to the minister's concerns VIA was instructed to
negotiate temporary arrangements with CN to keep the trains
operating to the Lévis station.
The line has been officially abandoned, but VIA has temporarily
leased the tracks from CN.
1815
The decision to relocate the station has the support of the
local municipalities—and I cannot stress that enough—which want
to convert the CN line into a park and bicycle path.
This decision balances the needs of the travelling public and
VIA Rail, as well as the wishes of the local municipalities to
make better use of the existing rail line.
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, in December of 1989 our Progressive Conservative
government announced a compensation package for all victims of
HIV tainted blood. This package was universal and compassionate.
Justice Horace Krever in his report asked that a compensation
package for hepatitis C victims be universal and the health
minister himself promised these victims that it would be
compassionate. This package is neither.
The health minister put on his lawyer's hat and drew an
arbitrary line of January 1, 1986, not based on doing what is
right, but doing what he thinks he can get away with. The result
is that 40,000 innocent victims, who through no fault of their
own were infected with this fatal disease, are being abandoned by
this heartless health minister who cares more about the
government's wallet than he does about our health care system.
When thousands of Canadians, through no fault of their own,
suffered as a result of the Saguenay and Manitoba floods did the
government say “It is not our fault so we will not pay”? No.
It helped everyone.
When millions of Canadians suffered injuries as a result of the
ice storms in eastern Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes this year
did the government try to weasel out of helping those victims
because it did not cause the disaster? No. It put together a
compensation package that was universal and compassionate.
Just this morning the immigration minister stated “If you stand
on principle and have political courage then you must be willing
to pay the price”. I could not agree more. Unfortunately, the
government has demonstrated that it is completely devoid of
principles, has no courage and is definitely not willing to pay
the price.
For the last month the health minister has tried to hide behind
the ten provinces who, because of the 40% cut in health
transfers, had no choice but to sign on to his bargain basement
package. Now we see that the health minister's house of cards is
beginning to fall.
Yesterday the Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous
resolution calling on the government to compensate all hepatitis
C victims. This morning the province of Ontario, this afternoon
the province of Alberta and about half an hour ago the province
of British Columbia echoed that same request.
The only time this government shows compassion to Canadians is
at election time. What is left now for these victims is that
they will have to spend precious years of what is left of their
lives in court fighting for compensation which they should
rightfully receive. Undoubtedly, many will win those court cases
and because the government will have to pay millions of dollars
in legal fees the package will ultimately end up costing much
more than any universal compensation package that could be
announced now.
These victims want and deserve to be compensated. Judge Krever
wants all victims to be compensated. The provinces want all
victims to be compensated. Canadians want all victims to be
compensated. Even the Liberal government's own backbenchers want
all victims to be compensated.
The question is, will the health minister do the principled
thing, do the politically courageous thing, do the right thing
and pay the price? From one human being to another, will he
renegotiate the hepatitis C compensation package? It is time for
this health minister to shape up or ship out.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on March 27 the federal,
provincial and territorial ministers of health announced the
strategy to deal with the hepatitis C infections from our blood
system.
They have worked hard to put together a very substantial plan.
Up to $1.1 billion will be used to address harms that might have
been prevented had things been done differently between 1986 and
1990 in our blood system. This will provide for up to 22,000
people.
Our approach to this terrible situation is one that is not based
purely on court cases, nor is it all about money. It is about
finding the best way to resolve these issues without creating
other problems in the process.
1820
Canadian society has not yet discussed, never mind decided about
no fault insurance for its health care system. We had to be
careful not to embark on that road before these discussions could
take place.
They also had to address the court actions against the federal
government. They could have just allowed those to continue, but
the federal health minister is on the record as having supported
the idea of trying to steer these cases away from the courts
before we started the process leading to the federal, provincial
and territorial governments' announcement last month. Trying to
avoid the courts was something they wanted to see happen and they
are hoping their approach will lead to that as soon as possible.
The Minister of Health has answered questions about the
rationale for hepatitis C assistance. He has explained the
parameters that Canadian governments have established. He has
explained the dangers of being careless in making this kind of
public policy; that is, the dangers of being hasty and
irresponsible.
To the hon. member opposite I say it is not a question of what
is right or what is wrong, it is a question of what is the
responsible thing to do on behalf of all Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.)