36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 32
CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 18, 1997
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-281. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1010
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HEAD START PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Anthony Dudley George
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS TARIFF
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-11. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1055
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1100
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
1105
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1110
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-18. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1125
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-18. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1140
1145
1150
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1225
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1230
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1245
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1250
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1305
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1310
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1335
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1340
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1355
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1400
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GREY CUP
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIVING ARTS CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCOPHONIE SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAILWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
1405
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROBERT NORMAN THOMPSON
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LATVIAN AND POLISH INDEPENDENCE DAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAIL TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TUNISIA
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIBERNIA
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
1410
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRISH FAMINE
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat O'Brien |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCOPHONIE SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC CITY MAYOR
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIBERNIA
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NORTH BRAMPTON YOUTH DROP-IN CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1415
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRBUS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEARCH AND RESCUE HELICOPTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRBUS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1435
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FORMER SINGER EMPLOYEES
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVACY
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1445
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIBERNIA
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1450
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARKS CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EGYPT
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SELF-GOVERNMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1455
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HALIFAX AIRPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIA RAIL
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRBUS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1500
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Drafting Legislation
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1505
1510
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Oral Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1515
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Timing of Presentation
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Oral Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1520
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Drafting legislation
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
1525
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-18. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1530
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
1535
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
1540
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1555
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1610
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1615
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRINKING WATER MATERIALS SAFETY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-14. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1620
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1635
1640
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1655
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1700
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1705
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1710
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1715
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
1720
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
1725
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1750
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARENTING ARRANGEMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1800
(Division 23)
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Goods and Services Tax
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1810
(Division 24)
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
1815
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (QUEBEC)
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1825
(Division 25)
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CULTURAL GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-204. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1830
1835
1840
1845
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1850
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1855
1900
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1905
1910
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1915
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1920
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1925
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay equity
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1930
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1935
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 32
![](/web/20061116183704im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, November 18, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
IMMIGRATION ACT
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-281, an act to amend the
Immigration Act (removal of those convicted of serious criminal
offence).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide
for the removal from Canada of any immigrant or person seeking
immigrant status who is convicted of a serious criminal offence
in Canada. If the order for removal is sought by the crown, it is
mandatory.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
NATIONAL HEAD START PROGRAM
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce in this House a
motion that asks for the unanimous consent of the House to
develop, along with provincial counterparts, a comprehensive
national head start program for children in the first eight years
of life, to ensure that this integrated program involves both
hospitals and schools and is modelled on the experience of the
Moncton Head Start Program, the Hawaii Head Start Program and the
Perry Preschool Program.
This motion could be the greatest single effort of this House to
decrease youth crime in this country that we have ever seen. I
ask the government to work with the provincial counterparts on
this matter.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
* * *
PETITIONS
ANTHONY DUDLEY GEORGE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition for a public inquiry into Ipperwash. This
petition concerns the fatal shooting death of Anthony Dudley
George on September 6, 1995 at Ipperwash Provincial Park where
over 200 armed officers were sent to control 25 unarmed men and
women.
The petitioners ask that the House of Commons support a full
public inquiry into the events surrounding the fatal shooting on
September 6 to eliminate all misconceptions held by and about
governments, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Stoney Point
people.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CUSTOMS TARIFF
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-11, an act
respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges,
to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized
Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief
against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other
charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or
repeal certain acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak
to Bill C-11, an act to simplify and update Canada's tariff
system.
Members will recall that during the second reading debate,
widespread support was voiced for this legislation from both
sides of the House. I am pleased to report that support was also
evident at committee. Indeed, I believe that most members were
of the view that while Bill C-11 is and might be low profile and
somewhat technical, it nevertheless represents an important
contribution to making Canada a more competitive player in world
trade and will in fact help to maintain jobs in Canada.
1015
In that respect, we heard during debate and in committee that
trade is the economic lifeblood of Canada. Clearly then, it is
in our national interest to advance measures, such as Bill C-11,
that simplify importing and enhance Canadian producers' ability
to compete both at home and abroad.
Members will know that the customs tariff is a key component of
Canada's import regime. In my view it represents the nuts and
bolts of import transactions undertaken by thousands of Canadian
importers on a daily basis.
It not only classifies all goods that may be imported into
Canada but also provides for applicable tariffs and import duty
relieving measures to assist Canadian businesses.
Put simply, despite going largely unnoticed by the general
public, the customs tariff touches on the daily economic
activities of millions of Canadians.
It is thus important that we take every effort as we are doing
with Bill C-11 to ensure that the tariff is as efficient and as
up to date as possible. Anything less would in fact entail an
unnecessary burden to Canadian industry.
I remind the House that the Canadian industry has played an
integral role in developing this legislation. Since 1994 when
this initiative was launched, extensive and detailed
consultations have been undertaken with interested parties
regarding the proposals contained in Bill C-11.
As well, to facilitate input and to help secure consensus, the
government has disseminated the proposals as broadly as possible.
In fact, each of the proposals to change the existing customs
tariff has been published in the Canada Gazette.
In addition, letters were sent to all known interested parties
and in March 1996, when a draft of the proposed new simplified
customs tariff was made public, it was placed on the Internet and
on Revenue Canada's electronic bulletin board. To go further,
advertisements were placed in some of Canada's leading newspapers
inviting comments from both industry and individuals.
As a result, the importing and manufacturing communities
strongly support the changes embodied in this bill. They
particularly support the measures for greater simplicity, for
transparency and predictability, all of which should help to
improve the competitiveness of Canadian industries.
Moreover, industry unanimously endorses the implementation of
the new simplified customs tariff on January 1, 1998.
To sum up the virtues of this bill, let me use the words of the
hon. member for Calgary South rather than my own. As he
eloquently put it during the second reading debate, the
cumulative effect is a more predictable, simplified tariff
legislation with less regulatory burden and increased competitive
strength. Very eloquently put.
As I mentioned, this view was confirmed during the hearings of
Bill C-11 in the House standing committee on industry. Clearly
the witnesses from the manufacturing and importing associations
welcomed the benefits of this bill, especially with respect to
the positive effects the legislation will have on their
competitiveness.
Particular mention was made of the duty reductions on a wide
range of inputs used in the manufacturing processes. They also
welcome the streamlining of the existing tariff system to
facilitate the importation of goods into Canada and to reduce
compliance and administrative costs for business.
We did hear some concerns. I first wish to address a concern
that was raised on a policy issue relating to the tariff on auto
parts.
Specifically, some witnesses objected to the inclusion in the
tariff schedule to Bill C-11 of the provision that continues duty
free status for auto parts used by non-auto pact producers as
inputs in assembling motor vehicles in Canada.
The purpose behind this measure being continued in Bill C-11 is
to maintain a uniform manufacturing environment for all auto
assemblers in Canada.
The continuation of a zero tariff on auto parts is consistent
with this objective.
1020
Bill C-11 ensures that Canada will continue to be an attractive
place for automotive investment by maintaining a level playing
field for auto manufacturing in Canada.
I should also point out that this bill contains a number of
measures that all participants in the auto industry will benefit
from. They include the unconditional duty free provisions
covering all production machinery, precision instruments and
apparatus, as well as all materials for manufacturing vehicles,
parts and accessories. That is the one concern.
I also want to take a few minutes to address concerns that have
been expressed by some in the importing community that there may
not be enough time to prepare themselves fully for the scheduled
January 1, 1998 implementation date.
Revenue Canada and Statistics Canada appreciate that there is a
large change over in data that must be installed in importing
systems in order to be ready for the new tariff. That is why
since April of this year there has been an ongoing outreach
campaign by the department of revenue to assist in these
necessary preparations by providing the data required to update
these systems. The efforts are continuing with the issuance two
weeks ago of the printed departmental version of the 1998 tariff.
Updated customs notices are also being issued which taken
together with other initiatives are aimed at ensuring that
importers will have all the necessary information in their hands
prior to the January 1 implementation date.
A second concern has been expressed in that in view of the
timelines for introducing the new tariff, Revenue Canada should
exercise administrative tolerance for the first six months of
1998 and in fact waive any penalties for submitting incorrect
statistical information.
I understand that Revenue Canada has discussed these issues with
the importing community and is prepared to show flexibility
provided that importers make their best efforts to apply the new
tariff correctly. Furthermore, Revenue Canada is prepared to
assist those who need help to identify the proper statistical
information to do so before goods are imported into Canada.
The government has every confidence that the new simplified
customs tariff represents a positive change for the importing
community. For its part, the importing community looks forward to
the benefits the bill will confer, benefits including some $90
million in duty reductions in 1998. Importers are also looking
forward to having less red tape associated with their import
transactions.
These are all issues that not only the importing community has
made reference to, but the business community at large. This is
an area where the government has taken a step forward in reducing
the regulatory burden and easing the administrative burden that
small businesses and businesses in general face. That goes
forward on the competitive issue in allowing our Canadian
companies to compete both domestically and internationally on a
more level playing field.
In conclusion, while there is an effort required to adapt to the
new tariff, it is certainly well worth it. We have seen support
from both sides of the House during second reading debate as well
as in committee. Certainly it is a widely held view in the House
and in industry.
I urge the House to pass Bill C-11 quickly. The faster
Parliament passes this legislation, the more confident the
business community will be that its efforts to adapt to the new
tariff will not be in vain.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-11 today. I want to
indicate that the Reform Party is supportive of the bill. Largely
this is a bill which simplifies and harmonizes Canadian customs
legislation.
1025
When this bill landed on my desk for me to critique it on behalf
of my party I thought we were getting a case of bills, but in
fact it was only one. It was a foot and a half thick. Canada is
simplifying and clarifying our customs codes. We are taking it
down from 11,000 to 8,000 codes. We still have 8,000 tariff
lines for import duties into Canada. We can do even better than
that and I hope we can in the future.
This initiative came from industry. It wanted government to
clean up some of these areas of customs tariffs. The free trade
agreement negotiated some 10 years ago with the United States was
one of the prime motivators to phase out tariffs. The tariffs
between Canada and the United States had been phased out except
in a couple of areas like supply management and textiles, that
type of area. In response to that we were able to clean up a lot
of customs lines.
The Reform Party supports this bill because we are supportive of
free trade in general. We would even go further. We want to
have further trade liberalization and we believe that the only
protection Canadian industry really deserves and needs is
protection from exporters from other countries that are selling
product in this country that is subsidized or protected by tariff
at home.
We feel we can compete head on on the basis of production with
the best in the world. Industry in general is starting to
recognize this. Companies such as Teleglobe have been
privatized. They are saying we should open up investment because
they want to be able to compete with the best in the world. There
is a big market outside of Canada and if we want to do that, if
we want to have trade liberalization in other countries we have
to provide that at home as well.
That means we should move to a freer trade environment
worldwide. We have good networks in place. We have good trade
agreements. We must move further to keep this bicycle rolling
down the road. We must move further to try to reduce tariffs and
subsidies in countries such as those in Europe. By doing so I
believe we will be able to reduce our tariff activity in Canada,
our import tariff regime, even further than the 8,000 tariff
lines we have for the protection of industry. That will mean
industries that compete on the basis of production will compete
head on worldwide in that new world out there. They have to be
competitive as well. If they cannot be competitive, they
probably do not deserve the support of Canada's government in
providing tariff protection for them.
On that basis I would have to say that although Revenue Canada
raises about $3 billion a year on tariffs, there is a very large
bureaucracy that has to administer that tariff structure. We
hear of Canadian government officials who travel to places like
Georgia to check on their carpet manufacturing industry to see if
they are not dumping into Canada. We see they have to be
assessed duties. It is a very expensive regime to keep in place.
There are a number of areas within the Canadian economy that
already have quite a harmonized basis of business. The steel
industry is one example. When we think of trade in Canada we
sometimes think of product moving outside of Canada or into
Canada by the shipload. In fact, most of our trade does not
occur that way. Eighty-three per cent of our exports go to the
United States and most of our exports move across the 49th
parallel day in and day out by truck. It is a small commercial
quantity that is moving to service some need. It might even be
that a parent company is either in Canada or the United States.
We are moving more and more toward a harmonized trade
relationship with the United States in particular. This is
reflected by the fact that we are going to be phasing out our
customs duties in those areas. However, we have 8,000 customs
duty lines left. The sooner we can move to trade liberalization
so Canadian companies can compete head on with companies outside
of Canada that are neither subsidized nor protected by tariff,
the better off we will be and the sooner we will be able to clean
up the rest of our customs lines.
1030
We support the early implementation of the bill and we support
its passage.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
rising today to speak, as my colleagues have before me, on the
third reading of Bill C-11, an act respecting the imposition of
duties of customs and other charges. This bill will replace the
Customs Tariff currently in effect and simplify its application.
This bill is extremely significant for Canada. First of all,
because it will make life easier for our businesses, but mainly
because this is a preliminary effort on the part of the government
to get rid of numerous rules relating to customs duties that are
both obsolete and useless.
We, along with the people of Canada, have long been calling
for less bureaucracy and more efficiency in our government system.
The resulting savings will be of benefit to Canadian businesses and
Canadian taxpayers.
My colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and myself support Bill C-11,
for it is high time there was some tidying up of Canada's
Customs Tariff. Moreover, the World Trade Organization shared that
opinion. In its July 2, 1990 report on Canada's trade policy, the
WTO described the Canadian tariff system as “complex and lacking
transparency”. Seven years ago, that was the WTO's comment on our
customs system. The time was therefore ripe for a thorough reform
of Canada's Customs Tariff.
When the February 1994 budget was tabled, the Minister of
Finance made a commitment to undertake an in-depth examination of
the Canadian customs duty system, and he set himself a three-year
deadline.
To this end, a task force was set up in his department. Improved
tariffs were proposed in 1996 and subsequently supposedly submitted
to public consultation.
As I said earlier, we support Bill C-11. However, we must once
again express our indignation at the government's approach to
getting the bill passed. The government started this tariff
reform in 1994. It has known since then that the new tariff was
to take effect in January 1998—in less than two months. So why
did the Minister of Finance involve parliamentarians only just
recently? Bill C-11 was relegated to the Standing Committee on
Industry—not even the finance committee, which is too busy with
prebudget consultations—two weeks ago. Despite the fact that
they have known since 1994 and that the bill was ready in 1996,
they dumped it on the industry committee less than two weeks ago.
Bill C-11 is an important bill that requires a long, hard
look. Unfortunately, the industry committee which has to study it
because the finance committee was too busy met only twice to
consider this technical bill. As you know, customs tariffs can be
very complex, particularly when the bill contains 3,000 pages of
schedules alone.
The members of the committee would have welcomed help and
information with open arms to get this express examination done.
The government often uses this pressure and delaying tactic to
force the opposition to pass a technical and complex bill requiring
long hours of examination.
We have a right to question the time allocated to the committee as well
as the need to have the legislation come into effect by January 1, 1998.
We have had it with this approach. It is not the first time that
the government has acted this way. The most recent example was the
multilateral agreement on investment. The subcommittee on international
trade, trade disputes and investment was mandated by the Minister of
International Trade to hear witnesses and produce a report by mid-December,
that is to say before the Christmas break. The hearings
started on November 4. Because of its tight deadline, the committee must
sit three or four times a week to hear witnesses. As a result, not all
those who wish to testify before the committee will have the opportunity
to do so and those who do will have only a few minutes to express their
views.
1035
Does the Liberal government know what the expression “public
consultations” really means or does it just use the words blindly? This
government is showing contempt for what the people of Canada think and
for the opposition. It is extremely difficult to do our job in the
opposition under such circumstances. We often get the feeling that the
government would rather we did not do our job, so it can get anything
through and hide tons of technical papers.
For the Liberals, to consult means posting a document on the
Internet, discussing with two or three people and expecting
parliamentarians to trust them blindly.
This government has never managed to win our trust and this is not about
to change.
We should point out that, as usual with the Liberal government,
public consultations were botched. There are groups that were not
consulted, and those that were have not been heard properly. That was
the case of the Canadian automotive industry. The Canadian vehicle
manufacturers association, which represents Chrysler Canada, Ford
Canada, Freightliner Canada, General Motors Canada, Navistar
International Canada and Volvo Canada, repeatedly tried to voice its
concerns to the finance minister and his officials.
The association testified before the Standing Committee on
Industry, which studied Bill C-11.
Witnesses informed committee members that they disagreed with the
government's unilateral decision to eliminate customs duties on auto
parts on January 1, 1996. At that time, the association was strongly
opposed to such a move. It asked the committee to wait before confirming
definitely the elimination of customs duties for auto parts in the new
Customs Tariff.
The association told the committee that a study was being conducted
on the automobile industry and that this study would deal with such
matters as customs tariffs on parts and complete vehicles. The study is
being conducted by Industry Canada, the Department of Finance and the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. According to the
information we have, a report should be released at the beginning of
1998.
There is another matter I would like to speak to. The Canadian
Automobile Manufacturers Association is also strongly opposed to the
elimination of customs duties on assembled vehicles. The Bloc Quebecois
shares this concern. I asked a question on this matter last March, and
the Minister of Finance answered by saying that he was studying the
issue. In April 1997, following a question from the Liberal member from
Windsor, the Minister of International Trade at that time made a
commitment not to eliminate customs duties on assembled vehicles.
We hope the Liberal government will finally be able to keep a
promise. The consequences of eliminating customs duties could be serious
for the Canadian automobile industry. The Canadian government should be
able to protect an industry when it needs it.
Representatives of the automobile industry were told that the
Canadian government cannot wait for Industry Canada's report because
Bill C-11 must come into effect on January 1, 1998.
We question the urgency of implementing the Customs Tariff, but it
seems that the government will make every effort to pass this bill
quickly. We are concerned about the automobile industry in Canada. That
is why we are following closely Industry Canada's study to ensure that
it is properly conducted and that its conclusions reflect the needs of
Canada's automobile industry.
It should be noted that the January 1998 deadline is also a concern
for the companies themselves, which will have to be ready to apply the
new changes in a few weeks.
When the committee reviewed this issue, Revenue officials announced that
businesses would benefit from a six-month grace period before being
penalized for non-compliance. We hope that the government will indeed be
lenient toward these companies, because it prepared this new tariff to
help them and not to hinder them.
1040
For the benefit of Quebec businesses we will support Bill C-11,
because the proposed standardization and streamlining of the Custom
Tariff are necessary for both Quebec and Canada. For once, the
government is making life simpler for Canadian businesses by helping
them become more competitive at the international level. It must also be
realized that, with the signing of international trade agreements, our
tariff structure has become more complex, thus making Bill C-11 all the
more appropriate.
The proposed changes in the bill include a consolidation of
Canadian tariff obligations under the Canada—U.S. Free Trade Agreement,
the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization,
the Canada—Israel Free Trade Agreement and the Canada—Chile Free Trade
Agreement. It is imperative that Canada fulfil its international
obligations.
The Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of
globalization, unlike the Liberals who just recently realized the
importance of free trade agreements. They are now converts.
Unlike the Liberal government, however, we are not prepared to
engage in trade at any cost. We believe in respect for human
rights, labour standards and environmental standards. It is high
time the Liberals learned to promote trade while also emphasizing
respect for social and human rights.
Recently, the foreign affairs minister had a good opportunity to do
so, but he did not. On September 5, 1997, a group of Canadian private
businesses, including Alcan, announced the creation of an international
code of ethics for Canadian companies. This voluntary code of ethics
outlines the responsibilities incumbent on Canadian companies doing
business abroad. It also recognizes the importance of human rights and
prohibits child labour.
Following a study by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade on small and medium size export businesses, we
proposed that the government set up a code of ethics for Canadian
companies doing business abroad. Far from acting like a leader, the
Liberal government does not even require crown corporations to comply
with the private sector's code of ethics.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International
Trade are not even encouraging agencies that report to them to
adopt the code of conduct. This is a disgrace, to say the least.
The president of the Export Development Corporation, better
known as EDC, told the committee that EDC had not yet taken a
decision at the time we were speaking as to whether or not it was
going to respect the much discussed international code of conduct.
With EDC lending large amounts to Canadian enterprises and not
ensuring that they respect social and human rights in the countries
in which they are investing, this is unacceptable.
The government, with the help of EDC, is strongly encouraging
Canadian enterprises to invest in Colombia. Colombia is currently
in the grip of what for us is an unthinkable crisis.
The people of Colombia are being terrorized by paramilitary
soldiers and guerillas. Colombian teachers have the world's
highest mortality rate. Four out of every ten labour leaders in
the world have been assassinated in Colombia. Torture and repeated
violations of human rights are common occurrences. And yet the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International
Trade are encouraging Canadian businesses to invest in Colombia.
We hope that the Liberal government will finally understand the
importance of respecting the social standards set out in
international agreements. One step in the right direction would be
to have Canadian enterprises respect the international code of
conduct.
In conclusion, I remind members that the Bloc Quebecois will
be voting in favour of Bill C-11, for the new tariff code benefits
Canadian businesses and is consistent with respect for our
international obligations.
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to debate Bill C-11 and to be the
representative of the only party which is taking a pro-Canadian
view on these international trade matters.
As has been mentioned Bill C-11 is an enormously lengthy
document. It sets out to do a number of things, not all of which
are terrible. Nonetheless it is a continuation of the process of
implementing what has been disastrous free trade deals signed by
Canada, particularly disastrous because they signed away things
that never needed to be signed away.
1045
Among other things Bill C-11 attempts to simplify customs tariff
and rationalize various provisions in the customs tariff as well
as delete provisions that are no longer relevant. There are also
rate reductions on a wide range of goods, mostly on manufacturing
inputs, an elimination of a large number of tariff codes and
regulations, a rounding down of decimal rates, and the
elimination of most rates that fall below 2%.
The bill is supported by most members of Canada's business
community because it will reduce their costs. It will in part
implement the free trade agreements, in particular NAFTA.
We in the New Democratic Party remain alone in being opposed to
the terms of free trade agreements. That is not to say that we
are opposed to trade or opposed to fair trade. I come from the
province of Saskatchewan which trades more than any other
province in the country. Canada trades more than any other
country by various different measurements in terms of percentage
of exports, GDP and so on.
Canada lives on trade; Saskatchewan lives on trade. The
constituents of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar live on trade. I am
not opposed to trade, but I am opposed to unfair trade which
encourages the continual control of our economy by the United
States.
From what has taken place since the signing of the free trade
agreement with the United States and then NAFTA with Mexico, we
know that our trade focus has concentrated more and more on trade
with the United States. We have not diversified our trade.
Indeed we have become ever more dependent on one market, the
United States.
No sensible business person, no sensible country, no sensible
person would ever suggest that it is desirable to focus and be
dependent on one market as a result of the many things that
flowed from these trade deals. It is simply foolish. To be so
dependent means that in the event of a downturn in the American
economy we will follow suit. It also means we have lost much
more control of our economy. We did not have much before, but we
gave away much of it in these deals.
Had we been more international, had we been more open, had we
been more external in our focus, we would have been able to
diversify our trade more effectively to other markets around the
world which are growing and in good shape.
That focus is not helping Canadians. We have an unemployment
rate of around 9.9%, significantly higher than that of the United
States. These deals have not brought us what first Conservative
governments and then Liberal governments promised they would
bring.
As I mentioned, the New Democratic Party remains the only party
opposed to these deals. The Liberal Party was strongly opposed
to the free trade agreement when in opposition but when it became
government—and you will remember this, Mr. Speaker, because you
were part of that transition—the Liberal Party became the main
flag bearer for free trade agreements. The Prime Minister takes
some pride in being described as being the main flag bearer for
the free trade arrangements in North America and further afield
in South America also.
It was an amazing transformation as the Liberal Party moved from
opposition benches to government benches and began to listen more
and more to those in the business community and less and less to
ordinary Canadians struggling to make ends meet.
I, my party, my province and I think all Canadians support a
focus on trade in an effort to ensure we create a vibrant and
dynamic economy, one which provides decent jobs for those who
need them.
These deals have not done that. This simplified customs tariff,
which is merely a part of the whole process, will not do that
either.
1050
It is time the government spoke up on behalf of Canadians, on
behalf of a trade policy and on behalf of an economic policy that
works for Canadians and not just for those who are wealthy, those
who are privileged and those who control a large measure of our
economy, most of whom are not Canadians but from elsewhere.
In closing, I reiterate my and my party's opposition to Bill
C-11 and to the whole context within which the bill is presented,
the context of free trade agreements in which Canada gave up so
much of its sovereignty for so little.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of
comments and to ask a question.
I listened to the representative from the Bloc who stated that
his party would have liked to have been better informed about
Bill C-11. I wish to note that background information on the
bill was supplied to all opposition parties before the
examination in committee. Oral briefings were also offered to
explain the bill. Some took advantage; some did not. Those who
did were no doubt better informed about the bill and dealt with
it in a more effective manner.
The member from the Bloc continued to say the process was flawed
and that no one knew about it. The bill and the customs tariff
were published in the Canada Gazette. Letters were sent to
interested parties. It was placed on the Internet and on Revenue
Canada's electronic bulletin board. Advertisements were placed
in some leading national newspapers. I wanted to clarify that
for the record.
With respect to the comments made by my colleague from the NDP,
he focused on the free trade issue, on different aspects of Bill
C-11, and voiced his opposition to the bill. The policy of the
government is to expand trade globally. We are dependent on the
United States as our largest trading partner just south of the
border, but we are continuing to expand trade globally through
the team Canada approach which brought back billions of dollars
to Canadian companies that are continuing to excel in exporting
effectively.
I am sure members of companies from the west, the east and
central Canada participated in team Canada. I wonder if he could
share some of that information. Perhaps he could demonstrate to
the House that exports are good for Canadian companies, that
exports provide Canadian jobs and that the core of our economic
success has been the export market.
I would like to hear the hon. member give some indication that
team Canada has worked and perhaps share the experience with some
western companies.
Mr. Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, those western companies
are not here but I am happy to make a brief comment. Our premier
was part of the team Canada visits. We have yet to see great
fruit bearing from the visits, but I support the Prime Minister
and the premiers in their efforts to expand trade around the
world. There are few who would argue that we should not expand
trade and our exports.
A country like Canada will only survive, will only thrive, if we
have healthy exporting markets and an environment within Canada
which encourages businesses to respond to those markets.
The member picked up on the point I was raising. With the
agreements made first with the United States and then with
Mexico, Canada's trade is focused on one market. Surely nobody
would regard that as good. Nobody would regard our increased
focus on trade with the United States as good. One of the
reasons that focus has taken place is precisely because of the
free trade agreements that have been negotiated.
There were efforts by earlier Liberal prime ministers to open up
trade much more with Europe, a much bigger market than that of
the United States, a market that is becoming bigger and bigger.
1055
Those efforts did not take us very far. We did not diversify
back in the eighties to other markets, but we were beginning to
export more to other countries than the United States slowly but
surely through the eighties and prior to the free trade
agreements being signed.
Since those agreements have been signed the focus has become
evermore dependent on one market. I merely wanted to reiterate
that. In the process I can certainly refer to the many meetings
I have had with exporting companies in my province and in other
provinces that are doing very well at the present time, certainly
those in my province.
Recently the Globe and Mail wrote about the western
economies having reached full employment. They must be doing
something right.
The New Democratic Government of Saskatchewan has an effective
approach to business and job creation. It has consistently had
the lowest unemployment rate in the country over the last two
years. It leads the country in economic indicators. It must be
doing something right. That approach is one of partnership with
business, labour, government, aboriginal peoples and the
communities as a whole to represent and develop an economy which
supports all people of Saskatchewan. It is a diversified economy
and is becoming ever more diversified unlike the Canadian
economy.
I just wanted to make that point. I will pass on to western
exporting corporations the good wishes of the member opposite.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my first
comments are for the parliamentary secretary. He states that the
government informed the population by means of the Canada
Gazette and
the Internet. I doubt that people will get up in the morning and start
surfing the Net to check out the Revenue Canada or Finance Canada site
and look in a Department of Finance subfile to see if it contains a bill
that might eventually be of interest to them.
I would also like to point out that parliamentarians—because we
are here among parliamentarians—only had two weeks to review and assess
Bill C-11, whose schedules alone total 3,000 pages. In fact, we had but
two sessions at the industry committee, which should have been held at
the finance committee.
When we speak of consultations, perhaps we should use the same
definition, and when we speak about bogus consultations, we could
perhaps ask the Liberals to give us a definition, because they are very
good at that.
I now have a comment and a question for the NDP spokesperson who
spoke earlier. I noticed that the New Democratic Party does not support
Bill C-11.
They were against previous free trade agreements, but the purpose of
Bill C-11 is to simplify trade and exports for companies in Quebec and
Canada, including those in his riding. So I have difficulty seeing how
they can explain to their constituents that they are opposed to
streamlining trade. We are not talking about the free trade agreement
that was concluded three, four or five years ago. That was my first
comment.
Here is my question. My hon. colleague may also have attended the
industry committee sittings. I would like to know what he thinks
personally of the role of parliamentarians in the review of this
particular bill, when we had two weeks and two weeks only to study a
bill whose schedules alone total 3,000 pages.
Before closing, I would like to make a brief comment and to ask the hon.
member a short question on Canada's obligation to respect its
international conventions. Whether we like it or not, Canada signed a
free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. Following the
Liberals' conversion, Canada also signed a free trade agreement with
Israel and another with Chile, and Canada is an active member of the
WTO. Does he not believe it is essential that Canada respect the
international conventions it has signed?
1100
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from
the Bloc for his question.
Admittedly, we have international obligations and we must
respond to those international treaties and implement them once
we have signed them. That does not mean that we in the New
Democratic Party have to be happy about it or should support that
requirement. Not being supportive of the arrangements which
formed the basis of Bill C-11 certainly provides adequate reasons
to be opposed to Bill C-11.
Bill C-11 provides some benefits to business and that is
indisputable and business as a whole supports the provisions.
That does not mean that the whole trend that Canada has embarked
upon since 1988 with the signing of bilateral, trilateral and
other deals which give up Canadian sovereignty even more than has
been taken away by the globalization of world economies, is a
good or desirable thing and it will never be something that the
New Democratic Party supports.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure that hon. members just cannot wait for this wonderful
bill.
There seems to be a pretty decent consensus in the House for
this bill, with the exception of the New Democratic Party which
opposes free trade even when it is point blank in front of their
faces that it has done wonderful things for Canada, created
hundreds of thousands of jobs. At least they are consistent in
their opposition to free trade. We cannot say that for the
adaptable Liberal government which very quickly when they see a
good idea, no matter where it comes from, will happily take
advantage of it.
On the last occasion when we had an opportunity to speak in the
House on Bill C-11, we stressed the importance of making
legislation that simplifies our lives and simplifies the business
practices of business owners. Today, I reiterate these words.
We acknowledge that Bill C-11 will help improve the competitive
position of Canadian industry within a freer trading environment
as well as in the long run make the tariff system simpler.
However, there are some concerns that need to be addressed.
In committee we heard dissatisfaction from business owners as
they faced pressures to adopt new methods according to
legislative changes. The time period allotted to them is
unacceptable, given the nature of the changes they face.
Second, some automotive manufacturers may face additional
changes early in 1998 once a clear automotive policy is
implemented.
I will address these two main points today. First, amendments
to this bill must be considerate of the business owner, the
individual or groups of individuals who must implement our
decisions in the real world. They must be given the necessary
time to implement changes and carry out the process.
Second, it is inappropriate that the government take decisive
actions when a clear automotive strategy is not in place as of
yet. While we know that industry generally supports the bill, we
also know that they have qualms about it.
The issue of greatest concern to the committee is the sense of
urgency that is being placed on the bill. Those with the Canadian
Importers Association are very concerned with the speedy passage
of this bill. They point out that importers do not have
sufficient time for what is a very time consuming and costly
exercise. They ask for a period of administrative tolerance.
This timeframe would allow them to adapt to the changes and
alleviate their uneasiness with the timing of the proposed
legislative changes.
The recurring message that we are hearing from the business
community with respect to the uneasiness they face are their
concerns related to the delivery and implementation of the tariff
simplification initiative. While they support the elimination of
regulation and business procedures, they are deeply affected by
the timing of this bill. They feel it is quite rushed and they
have not been granted enough time to prepare for the upcoming
changes and the enormous challenges they will face.
The Alliance of Manufacturers is but one example of this
concern. They stated, and I quote; “It is a scary exercise.
There is very little time to do the programming we need.” These
are the most affected parties. We demand that the government
listen to their concerns and continue with the theme of
simplification. If it is going to simplify the process, then it
needs to continue with the agreement and simplify the law to all
business owners. We will hold the government accountable to this
and urge it to listen to the suggestions it has received.
We also heard concerns from vehicle manufacturers groups.
It is no secret that Canada is in need of a strategic automotive
policy, one based on free and fair trade. We understand that
work is to be completed in this area in early 1998. Why then, we
ask, make changes to automotive tariffs when the strategy is not
in place? Why make changes now when a clear automotive policy is
yet to be decided and risk having to amend the tariff to fit the
policy later on?
1105
This plan is not logical. It is not fair to the automotive
industry. The government ought to stop and think about the
possible repercussions of amending clauses now and then setting
its automotive policy.
By trying to rush through legislation, the government is missing
the point. A comprehensive automobile policy needs to be
introduced in conjunction with clauses in Bill C-11 which pertain
to automotive tariffs. Why take the chance of negatively
impacting jobs and investment in Canada?
The free trade agreement that was so profusely objected to
almost 10 years ago is today the largest bill on our shelves in
the House of Commons. It is a huge factor in contributing to tax
revenues and job creation in this country. The government
continues to carry out our Conservative initiatives and our
tariff agreements. However, as I have highlighted, there are
several important factors to consider.
This is the most complex tariff system in the world. We know it
and our trading partners know it. I strongly urge the government
to consider the huge task that lies in front of importers in
Canada and demand that they be given time to adapt to these
enormous changes. As well, strategic consideration must be given
to a comprehensive automotive policy.
My message today is that this is a beginning, not an end. We
cannot stop now with all the progress we have made for the simple
reason that the bill has been simplified. Work still needs to be
done.
I would ask the government to commit to continuing with the work
in progress, to continue developing trade agreements with our
partners and to look ahead at the global marketplace to achieve a
standard of excellence with our trading partners. This means
that the government must continue to promote trade, thus
encouraging business development and job creation in Canada.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend the
hon. member for his excellent insights into this issue which is
so important to Canadians.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
intervention, but I want to clarify that Bill C-11 does not make
any changes to the current automotive tariff policy; rather it
continues to ensure that all auto manufacturers in Canada, auto
pact and non-auto pact companies, import parts duty free. No
changes are made to vehicle tariffs. Auto pact companies
continue to import vehicles free of duty while non-auto pact
companies pay duty on all vehicles which they import.
I wonder whether the hon. member is now indicating that he wants
to change that policy.
Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, that was not our
intention. When our caucus discussed this we decided to support
it because it is under free trade and in line with the policies
in which we very strongly believe. Our intention is that we
should not be changing things today which will affect another
policy which will come before the House next spring. Those are
the things that drive businesses crazy.
The fact is that there is probably going to be a comprehensive
automotive policy presented before the House in the next
legislative sitting. We thought that in order to make business a
little easier we should not be making any changes today which may
affect their jobs. That is really where we are to with that.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting to hear my esteemed colleague from St.
John's West, from the island of Newfoundland, talking about the
free trade deal and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it has
created. I wonder how many people in Newfoundland are listening
to his comments today. That province probably has one of the
highest unemployment rates in North America if we break it down
to a per capita ratio.
He said that the NDP is against free trade deals. What we are
against are deals that hurt Canadian workers. He, coming from
the province of Newfoundland, should know that better than
anybody else.
The fact of the matter is it has driven labour standards, health
standards and safety standards down to match third world country
standards.
Let me remind him of what happened in Mexico. We were told when
the Tories introduced free trade that Mexican workers' standards
would rise. We were told that their standard of living would
rise. It is 1997 now and if we visit Mexico, as I have recently,
we will notice that the standards for workers are lower than they
have ever been.
Those are the types of deals which we are against.
1110
Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, just a brief reply.
Obviously we in Newfoundland, as part of Canada, are very
strongly supportive of the free trade agreement, but today in
Newfoundland nobody is really talking about the free trade
arrangements. We are talking about the massive Hibernia oil
project which was developed between the Government of Canada, the
Government of Newfoundland and a large group of private sector
partners which yesterday flowed oil for the first time. It is a
huge industry. It is going to create thousands of jobs in
Newfoundland and in eastern Canada.
There are an estimated 6 billion barrels of oil that can be
processed or recovered from the offshore Hibernia field. It is a
great day for Newfoundland. Today we are very happy that the
Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and the
private companies have developed those significant amounts of
jobs in Eastern Canada.
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)
* * *
CUSTOMS ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of National Revenue)
moved that Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the
Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to talk today
about Bill C-18.
As you well know, this bill was presented in the last Parliament
and has been reintroduced in this Parliament. We have waited in
Canada for this bill because it will help with the safety of our
community. It will help our customs officers at the border
points. As Canadians know, at the border points Revenue Canada,
through its customs department which is integral to the
department, the men and women who are peace officers at the
border are there to be the first line of defence not only with
having commercial goods come into the country and consumer goods
come into the country, but millions of people visiting this land,
both our returning residents and our tourists.
Here we do the primary immigration and the customs work and now,
with Bill C-18, we have the opportunity to fill a gap in the
legislation that has been there for some time. This matter has
had intensive study over the last decade or so. There have been
reports. We have very much our own customs unions on side with
us. We very much have the police forces in this country on side
with us. We very much have on side the interest groups that have
come to us, for example, Priscilla de Villiers and her very good
organization, CAVEAT, as well as Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
All of these interest groups have pointed out to us something
that we do that had to be corrected. This gap had to be filled
and it was a gap where our police officers, our customs
officers—I really should not call them police officers. They
are our customs officers at the border points.
Now, with this legislation, they will have the ability to put
charges down where we suspect some criminal activity that was
outside the parameters of the Customs Act and the other
legislation that we cover at the border points.
I could tell you about suspected drunk drivers who in the past
we could detain but we had to call the local police forces,
whoever they were, at the border points, and they are different
across this land. They would then come and we could hold them,
but we did not have the legal right to hold them there forever.
Now this gap has been closed because we can do those charges. We
can also pick up the outstanding arrest warrants that come up
with our intelligence systems at the border points.
This gap will help with the drunk drivers' situation. It will
help with the possession of stolen goods' situation.
It will be very material and will touch the lives of Canadians
who fear children being abducted at the border points. We have
very good lookouts and intelligence. A child find operation is
dealt with by our customs officers at the border point. This
will give them the added legal authority to make the necessary
charges on those involved in suspected criminal activities. They
will also have the legal authority to detain those individuals
with outstanding arrest warrants.
1115
It is a very necessary piece of legislation. My colleagues
across the hall in this Chamber understand the need for this
legislation and welcome it, as we do. It is very important to the
men and women who daily serve us in our department and who serve
Canadians in doing their very important jobs. They have been
doing their jobs without this legislation but this clarifies in
law and better allows them to complete the task.
They will have the adequate necessary training. We will start
at selected points but it will be across this land. We will have
to make some structural changes in some of our facilities to
accommodate this situation but they are minor in the scope of
things. We do not believe our customs officers need to be armed
at our border points and we will not be arming them, although I
know this was part of the discussion. This decision was taken
after much investigation. We will ensure the safety of our
customs officers.
We have been dealing professionally with this situation for a
long time. Now we are giving our customs officers the tool that
was needed to close that legal gap, to give them the power to
charge individuals and detain them. We will be the first
response only. We are not going to handle the regular processing
after the fact. The local police will be called in and they will
take over as quickly as possible but we will legally be in a
position to fulfill the need for community safety at the point of
entry.
I remember a time when individuals such as Jonathon Yeo were
seen at our border points and there was limited ability to hold
them. This will correct our situation. I can think of tales
from across Canada of people not being able to detain those they
suspected of drinking and then later those people getting into
accidents. The safety of not only our peace officers but of
Canadians is the number one area we are concerned with in this
piece of legislation.
From a report of many years ago have come discussions with our
unions, the public and within the department. Now we have this
legislation. We hope that with the assistance of all members in
this House it can be moved rapidly through all legislative stages
with the appropriate amount of discussion in this Chamber. It
will be sent to the justice committee, then at third reading we
will have another level of discussion in the Chamber.
We in Revenue Canada are very proud of the men and women who
serve us at the border. The percentage of complaints we get
about these individuals is very low compared to the number of
people and goods they process. It is a very low annual figure.
As a student customs officer at the border in 1974 I feel there
are jobs that both full time and part time employees did which
they will continue to do. My point about the students is that
they will not get training in this area. We feel it is an area
in which the full time and the full part time people should be
trained in.
1120
Not everybody will have to be trained at every border point.
There will have to be sufficient numbers trained in
this area of the law and procedure. They will be properly
staffed at every border point so that we can continue to do the
excellent job that we are doing now for Canadians. I wanted to
make that point because even though we value every employee,
full, part time, student, whatever, we recognize that these are
skills positions, positions of authority. We want them to be
carried out in the most professional manner. We will provide the
facilities and the training so that our customs officers can do
this across the land.
I want to highlight the fact that we have not gone so far as
arming and we will not be doing this. We have given the legal
tool that was missing.
This is a very important piece of legislation. It is one that
has been long awaited. It is one that is welcomed not only by
the men and women in our department who have to work hard every
day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week at all of our many border
points, but also those people in our communities, especially the
policing community at these border points and in general the
whole Canadian public, the men, women and children who cross our
border points every day. This will make Canada better and more
secure. I am very pleased.
It is not a long piece of legislation. It is not a difficult
piece of legislation. The operative parts are actually in three
clauses of the legislation. The bottom line is that it will make
a big difference for the people who work every day at our border
points.
I am open to questions from my colleagues on my side or across
the floor and I will do my best to answer their questions or
concerns. I am grateful that we are now in a position to put
this piece of legislation before them.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on behalf of the official opposition to do something I
thought I would never do in this House and have not done to this
time, support a government bill. It is not easy to do but for a
good cause we will sometimes support government bills. This is a
well constructed and designed bill and a thoughtful approach to a
problem we have in controlling criminal activity coming across
our borders.
What Bill C-18 does, as the hon. parliamentary secretary
outlined, is extend the ordinary powers of peace officers to
detain and to arrest people who are either under criminal
warrants or suspected of engaging in certain forms of criminal
activity, principally impaired driving. This is something which
is most sensible.
The notion that several thousand impaired drivers cross our
borders each year but cannot be detained by our custom officers
is a troubling one. There are many customs and entry ports in
this country where we do not have full time regular peace
officers, RCMP officers, staffing those ports. The customs
agents are the only official representatives of our government
and are the only eyes that are watching what kind of people cross
those borders.
For these customs agents not to have the capacity to stop,
detain and arrest people suspected of driving on to our highways
impaired and endangering law abiding Canadian drivers I think is
troubling. We are encouraged by Bill C-18's empowerment of those
custom agents so that they can essentially act as a first
response capability at our borders, a first response capability
for criminals and for those suspected of impaired driving.
We understand that over the past year, according to estimates
made by our customs officers, over 8,500 suspected impaired
drivers have entered Canada. None of these people could be
detained or stopped legally by customs agents for impaired
driving. There are other reasons why they could be stopped, but
not necessarily for that offence.
1125
There have been an estimated 200 incidents of suspected child
abduction where customs agents have not been empowered to stop
the alleged abductors of children. There have been over 2,000
individuals subject to arrest warrants and more than 500
individuals in possession of suspected stolen property, mostly
vehicles, again in instances where our customs agents have not
been able to detain these people.
This is a sensible approach and one which we understand is
supported by, among other groups, the customs union, Canadians
Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, CAVEAT,
and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, as well as various
police forces. It seems to have a broad range of support both by
those concerned about the potential for the overzealous use of
peace officer force as well as the police officers themselves.
They all seem to be in support of this bill.
However, we do have several questions which are not addressed in
the information the government has provided with respect to Bill
C-18 and which were not really explained adequately by the
parliamentary secretary. Among other questions, the government
clearly will incur costs to implement this bill, costs which will
derive from the training of customs agents so that they will know
how and under what circumstances they may exercise these new
criminal law powers. What exactly are those costs for training
those public servants in this respect?
There will also be costs associated with establishing new
facilities, detention facilities at many ports of entrance.
Again, we have seen no estimate of what costs are associated with
that. I would therefore ask the hon. members opposite, perhaps
the parliamentary secretary if she has an opportunity, to provide
this House with information on what costs will be associated with
this bill.
Another question we have is the question of how these officers
will be empowered to enforce the law. We understand, as the hon.
parliamentary secretary just admitted, that they will not be
issued firearms. While we are giving them in this bill partial
police officer powers, the power to arrest and detain, among
other people, suspected gun smugglers and drug smugglers, we will
be issuing them pepper spray and, I gather, batons to protect
themselves and Canadians and to enforce the law against
potentially violent law breakers.
It seems to me this raises a question about the safety of our
customs officers and the seriousness that the government has in
terms of empowering these officers to apply and enforce the law.
My second question to the government would be why will it not
issue these quasi-peace officers the tools that peace officers
need to execute the law, to arrest and detain potentially violent
and dangerous criminals.
I do not understand why the former minister of revenue, the
current minister of Indian affairs, introduced substantially the
same bill in the last Parliament. In justifying not issuing
firearms to these officers she simply said that she did not feel
it was appropriate. She did not really explain why. She just
said “Under my watch they will not be armed. As far as guns,
the message there changes the whole perspective of our border and
the risk of increased violence is not acceptable to me”.
If these agents were properly empowered and issued firearms, the
risk of violence would not, I think, come from them. The risk of
violence comes from violent criminals who cross our borders. To
suggest that peace officers who are issued the necessary tools to
do their jobs somehow poses a threat of violence at our borders
is, I think, a rather backward way of looking at it. It is those
peace officers who use those tools who prevent violent criminals
coming into Canada.
I would again ask for a more compelling justification for these
peace officers' not being issued with the appropriate tools to do
the job that most peace officers have.
1130
We also wonder about the common practice at Customs Canada of
employing student customs officers. When the question is asked
“O Canada, who stands on guard for thee”, in too many cases the
answer is poorly trained students at ports of entry in this
country, not fully trained customs agents. These student
officers are in some places such as Pearson airport. Some 80% of
customs agents, the first line of defence Canada has in the
protection and enforcements of its laws, are undertrained student
agents and are not full-fledged customs officers.
We understand that in other jurisdictions such as the United
States and the United Kingdom this simply is not the case. One
hundred per cent of the customs agents representing those
governments are fully trained, fully empowered, fully certified
customs agents, and not quasi-customs agents.
I have another question for the government. Why does it
continue to staff our borders with people who are not fully
trained officers of the law? That is a reasonable question.
These student agents will not have the powers given to full
customs agents under Bill C-18. Quite understandably they will
not have the certification or the training to exercise peace
officers powers. Even though this is a good step forward, many
thousands of our customs agents at many of our customs ports and
ports of entry will not have the power to arrest or detain people
under the Criminal Code.
If student agents are on duty at a particular port of entry and
find somebody who may be suspected of criminal activity, a
suspected child abductor, kidnapper, smuggler of contraband or an
impaired driver, they can do nothing to arrest or detain those
people. They had better hope that there is a full-fledged
customs agent immediately available to them or a full-fledged
peace officer. If there is not then there is no protection for
Canadians and there is no discharging of Canadian law at those
ports of entry. That is an important point to us.
I have another question. The revenue minister has not indicated
whether or not there will be additional training or the extent to
which there will be additional training for newly empowered
customs officers. What kind of training will they receive? Will
it be in a police college atmosphere? Will it be within the
current customs college, or will they receive a kind of briefing?
How do we know they will be properly trained to exercise the
ultimate power of government, that is its police power? That
question is not outlined.
I do not understand in a very sensible bill like this one why
the government would not anticipate some of these questions and
answer them. Perhaps it will in the course of this debate.
This is a worthwhile objective. It is a good and honest effort
by the government to plug a loophole that too many criminals have
taken advantage of to seek entry into the country. I would only
ask why this kind of legislation was not passed years if not
decades ago.
Why does it take so long for us to plug loopholes in terms of
enforcing the criminal law in Canada? Why have we allowed 8,500
suspected impaired drivers to cross our borders in the past
without having the power to stop them? How many innocent
Canadians have died on Canadian roads because customs officers
were not able to stop, detain or arrest suspected impaired
drivers?
Those are good questions. They are not only directed to this
government but to predecessor governments as well.
In conclusion, the position of the Reform Party with respect to
impaired driving and the application of the criminal law is well
known. We stand for a criminal law regime which can be enforced.
We want our peace officers and officers of the government to be
able to enforce laws and protect Canadians.
1135
A couple of weeks ago our party introduced a motion in this
place calling for stiffer penalties for impaired driving. Any
effort which can potentially remove even one impaired driver from
our roads and can make society even incrementally safer is one
that my party will support.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday in the House the
hon. member for Elk Island said in part:
In response to that request from the Reform Party I would like
to seek unanimous consent of the House to enable me to table the
document at this time rather than this afternoon at the usual
point in Routine Proceedings.
Furthermore, if the House agrees, I would be happy to agree not
only to table the document but to have it printed as an annex to
today's Hansard.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House agreeable to having the
document printed as an annex to today's Hansard as
suggested by the Deputy Prime Minister?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For Settlement Agreement Regarding the Case
of Brian Mulroney v The Attorney General of Canada et al, see
Appendix]
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CUSTOMS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18,
an Act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code, be read a
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
some days are busier than others.
Today, I was in a building on Wellington Street to attend a sitting
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but I
insisted on rushing back here to speak on Bill C-18, an Act to
amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code.
These are extremely important amendments. This bill, which
was tabled by the Minister of National Revenue, affects several
facets of law. There is one entire section that deals with the
changes and enhanced powers the government wishes to give customs
officers.
This is not a new bill, however. It is numbered C-18, but it
was tabled in exactly the same form during the 35th Parliament as
C-89. It will be remembered that it was tabled by the government
of the day on the eve of the calling of the federal election, on
March 13, 1997.
During the first mandate, a number of groups came to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as well as to the
government calling specifically for the government to change
certain provisions of the Customs Act in order to enhance some
powers. A number of groups have long pointed out the need for
customs officers to be able to enforce criminal law at Canadian
entry points.
In a country like Canada, especially, which has such a long border
with a lot of entry points, offences have occurred over the years,
and customs officers lacked the tools necessary to deal with them.
What provision does the Customs Act make at the moment? We
are told that customs officers have powers, but they are
enforcement powers as established under part VI of the Customs Act.
These powers apply to surveillance duties and to the control of
merchandise imported into or exported from Canada. They include
the power to search a person in order to find proof of an offence
and to inspect, detain or seize merchandise.
Currently customs officers' powers apply primarily to
merchandise entering or leaving Canada. They do not involve the
application of provisions of the Criminal Code.
The expression “peace officer” in the Criminal Code includes
customs officers, but only in the context of offences set out in
the Customs Act. For example, section 163(1) of the Criminal Code
stipulates that it may apply with respect to offences set out under
sections 153 or 159 of the act, which are false statements and
smuggling.
1140
Under these circumstances, customs officers are invested with
the powers granted peace officers under sections 462.3 and 462.32
to 462.5 of the Criminal Code. In short, at the moment, customs
officers are considered peace officers under the Criminal Code only
in the case of offences set out in the Customs Act.
The bill is proposing to amend the Customs Act to set out new
offences that come under the powers of customs officers. They
really want to use the bill to give the customs officers greater
opportunity to intervene when they witness certain offences.
Let us be clear about the changes. At present, customs officers are
only allowed to act when an offence under the Customs Act has been
committed. Since they do not have jurisdiction over Criminal Code
offences or impaired driving offences—we will come back to that
later, because there are specific provisions on this—they cannot act
in those instances. There has been in the past striking examples of
cases where blatant irregularities took place at Canadian ports of entry
and departure because customs officers did not have the power to act.
Bill C-18 proper contains four clauses. These are small
technicalities, but I think they are worth mentioning anyway. Clause 1,
which makes substantive changes to the Customs Act, is the bill's main
provision, while clauses 2 and 3 amend two sections of the Criminal
Code; these amendments, although minor, are nevertheless far-reaching in
terms of the customs officers' jurisdiction.
Finally, clause 4 is the usual provision dealing with the coming into
force of the bill.
I will take the extra time at my disposal to look at a number of
very important provisions. Clause 1 of the bill would add part VI.1 to
the Customs Act. This new part is entitled “Enforcement of Criminal
Offences Other than Offences under this Act”. As indicated in the title,
legislation other than the Customs Act is involved, hence the importance
of the powers conferred upon customs officers.
Section 163.4 would be added, stipulating that the minister may
issue a certificate of designation to customs officers for the purposes
of new part VI.1. In this respect, according to documents from Revenue
Canada, these new powers would only be granted to customs officers at
ports of entry to Canada who are not students.
This is reassuring, since it is an important power. It will only be
given to customs officers on duty at Canadian ports of entry. The
certificates of designation will be issued by the minister. As will be
seen later, we have some concerns. While we support the bill as a whole,
as we did during the 35th Parliament, we do have concerns regarding the
certificates of designation.
The next important provision is paragraph 163.5(1), which gives a
designated officer the powers and obligations of a peace officer under
sections 495 to 497 of the Criminal Code. These are very important
sections. As you know, section 495 gives a peace officer the right to
arrest without a warrant a person who has committed an indictable
offence or is about to commit such an offence.
Section 495 also provides that this power can only be exercised under
exceptional circumstances, that is when the officer has reasonable
grounds to believe that public interest requires such an intervention.
Under section 497, a peace officer who makes an arrest without a
warrant must release the person arrested as soon as practicable, unless
he has reasonable grounds to believe—this is another well-known legal
concept—that it is necessary in the public interest to detain that
person.
1145
It is to be noted that these new powers can only be exercised in a
customs office. So, while additional powers are given to customs
officers, the bill restricts their use and relies on well-known legal
concepts. These concepts are also recognized in case law and, over the
years, they have been interpreted under a number of acts, including the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec charter. The
expression “reasonable grounds to believe” has indeed been interpreted.
The additional powers given to customs officers come with certain
obligations.
In the final part of my speech, I will comment on the obligations
that will apply to customs officers as a result of these
amendments.
Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal
Code, contains an extremely important provision. I must say that I
am very happy to see that the lawmakers have included a provision
to amend the Criminal Code accordingly through the Customs Act.
This provision can be found in proposed paragraph 163.5(2). It
would give designated customs officers—the same officers just
designated by the minister—the powers and obligations of a peace
officer under sections 254 and 256 of the Criminal Code.
What are sections 254 and 256 of the Criminal Code? As
everyone knows, I am sure, these are the sections having to do with
impaired driving.
Customs officers will have powers similar to those of peace
officers, at border points for entering or leaving Canada—it all
depends on the direction of travel. They will have the same powers
as peace officers to apply sections 254 and 256.
These provisions are for the taking of breath or blood samples
in cases of impaired driving. Thus, where a peace officer believes
on reasonable and probable grounds—again, the same principle of
law recognized by lawyers—that a person is committing or has
committed the offence of driving while impaired as described in
section 253, that officer may, under the provisions of another
section, section 254(3), require that person to provide him with a
sample of the person's breath or, in certain circumstances, blood.
In the past, when a person who was driving into or out of
Canada had alcohol on his breath, the customs officer to whom that
person made his declaration could do absolutely nothing about it.
Mr. Speaker, as an Ontario MP, you are well aware that the
biggest port of entry between the USA and Canada is Windsor. This
was an extremely big problem in that region of Ontario, because
many people who worked across the border, or who crossed to the
States or to Canada for a night out, were at the wheel of a vehicle
and had had one too many. When they went through customs, the
customs officer could do nothing.
With this amendment, in the form of subsection 163.5(2),
customs officers will have additional powers and will be able to
require individuals to provide a breath sample.
Their actions will have legal consequences, eventually.
Proposed subsection 163.5 (3) provides that a designated
officer who arrests a person in the exercise of the powers
conferred under subsection (1) may detain the person until the
person can be placed in the custody of a police officer or peace
officer.
I find this reassuring, that customs officers' powers are
being enhanced within very definite limits. These are very clearly
delineated powers. The customs officers' powers do not replace
those of the police officers of a province, nor those of the RCMP
in provinces served by the RCMP.
1150
Section 163.5(4) would limit the new powers of the designated
officers by stipulating that they could not use any power conferred
on them for the enforcement of the act for the sole purpose of
looking for evidence of a criminal offence under the Criminal Code
or any other act of Parliament. The purpose of this is to prevent
customs officers from searching for evidence of other criminal
activities.
With this clause too, the lawmaker has imposed certain limits
on customs officers, that is, a customs officer witnessing an
offence will be empowered when this bill is passed to investigate
and gather evidence of what he has seen. If he has reasonable
grounds to believe that an individual is, for example, moving
stolen goods from Canada to the United States, he has, under the
legislation and if there are reasonable grounds to believe the
goods are in the trunk of a car, the power to examine the items in
order to gather evidence to hand over to the police with
jurisdiction where the customs officer made the seizure or
conducted his investigation.
So, as we can see, there are limits, which are extremely
important.
Substantial additional powers, essentially the powers of peace
officers, cannot be given to customs officers without limits being
set, without very precise limits to ensure that everything occurs
according to the intent of the bill.
As I have said on a number of topics, we will support the
bill. However, we have some questions. As I said earlier, we have
already examined the bill in the previous Parliament under another
number and another title. This one is exactly the same as the one
that was introduced in March 1997. I will raise certain points,
which, at the time, gave me cause for considerable thought and also
convinced me of the merits of such amendments.
In 1995, a study revealed that, in 17 months, there were over
4,000 instances where criminal law could have been applied in one
way or another at 160 ports of entry either on the highways or at
airports.
According to Revenue Canada officials, the majority of these are
suspected instances of impaired driving. In these 4,000 cases, no action
was taken because customs officers did not have the jurisdiction to act.
The same study shows that an amendment to the Customs Act similar
to the one contained in Bill C-89—at the time, we were considering
Bill C-89, tabled on March 13, 1997—would fill the gap between the
time when customs officers observe a Criminal Code offence and the time
when the police can respond. It was clear from the statistics and from
past experience that there was indeed a loophole allowing law-breakers
to get off scot-free.
This bill bridges the gap to correct this shortcoming and ensure that
offenders are prosecuted.
Given the foregoing, we must recognize that the Criminal Code could
be much more effectively enforced at our borders if our customs officers
were given the appropriate tools.
However, while public safety may demand that we support the bill
before us, some aspects will definitely have to be looked into at the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. There are concerns
regarding this bill.
Some answers were found in departmental documents, others through
informal discussions I have had with government members, but there are
still questions that remain unanswered. These questions will be raised
at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on which I sit as
a representative of the Bloc Quebecois.
1155
I will mention four points. The first one is the need to properly
train the designated officers. As I explained at the beginning of my
speech, in some situations and under specific circumstances, customs
officers will have basically the same powers as peace officers do, and
these powers are very important ones.
It must be realized that in fact the bill proposes a significant
broadening of the customs officers' responsibilities. Sections 495 to
497 of the Criminal Code are not easy to apply. They require a high
level of judgment on the part of the peace officer, since the
consequences are very significant. Take, for example, the expression
“reasonable grounds to believe”, which I pointed out earlier.
This concept is not difficult to understand. It is a legal concept
lawyers are used to work with, judges are used to interpret and officers
are trained on. However, I am not sure that customs officers do get that
kind of training.
The expression “reasonable grounds to believe” used in these
sections is extremely important, as we saw in Storrey v Regina, in 1990,
where the supreme court stated that, in order to arrest a person without
a warrant, a police officer must have reasonable and probable grounds to
believe that the person has committed an indictable offence. This
subjective belief on the part of the police officer must also be
justifiable from an objective point of view. In order to properly
interpret the clues that will influence his subjective belief, a peace
officer must have received adequate training. We also have to determine
whether or not customs officers should be armed to implement these new
provisions.
Here again, if it is felt that the implementation of Bill C-18
would require customs officers to be armed, then public safety will
also require that customs officers have the necessary certificates
authorizing them to handle firearms.
So, yes, there are additional powers, and, yes, we are in
agreement. However, if the job is to be well done, if we want to
prevent myriad interpretations and court challenges, designated
customs officers will need appropriate training. They will perhaps
need a basic knowledge of the legal concept of reasonable and
probable grounds in order to be able to apply the legal principle.
And if these officers—because this question has not yet been
resolved—are armed, as are officers of the peace, then they will
also have to have the necessary certificates authorizing them to
handle these firearms.
My second question concerns the need to cooperate with
provincial authorities. The bill would bridge the gap that existed
between a customs officer's observation of an offence and police
intervention. For this gap to be satisfactorily bridged, it must
be possible to count on the cooperation of provincial public
security services. It must be remembered—and it is good to
remember this from time to time—that the administration of justice
comes under provincial jurisdiction and that enforcement of the
Criminal Code is thus a provincial responsibility. Although the
new provisions would be implemented strictly in the context of
federal customs responsibilities, consultations with the provinces
would be appropriate.
1200
If we want the amendments to Bill C-18 to be useful, if we want to
avoid, once again, at this stage, the problems caused by overlap and
unfairness at the enforcement level or to avoid jurisdictional
squabbles, it is really essential at this time that the federal
government, perhaps through the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights—we will surely be hearing witnesses from the police forces—sit
down at the same table and find an approach to ensure mutual co-operation.
Another issue I am concerned with is costs. There must surely be
costs related to these changes, for example merely in terms of equipping
all customs facilities with cells.
People cannot simply be arrested and placed at a table somewhere in the
corner of some ordinary office. If customs officers have the same powers
as peace officers and police officers, and if they are going to arrest
individuals who could be dangerous, their safety requires that there be
proper facilities, cells like those in any police station. We are told
that there are about 80 border points. What are the costs for these 80
stations? This is another question that remains unanswered at this time.
My fourth point concerns infringements of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. As we know, when additional powers are granted to
customs officers to allow arrests without a warrant, it is possible that
there will be violations to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We must never forget that individuals have rights, including protection
against arbitrary detention.
So we have to ensure that customs officers, when there are reasonable
grounds to believe that an offence or other act has been committed, are
adequately informed about the rights they might violate if they are not
careful.
Here again, we will have to be especially careful in terms of the
education and training provided to the customs officers chosen by the
minister. In the charter alone, we find sections 8, 9, 10 and 11, which
are extremely important, and customs officers will have to enforce this
legislation properly to avoid any legal challenge under the charter.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to say a few words on this bill before the House today and
indicate, first of all, the support of the New Democratic Party
for the bill.
It was a bill first introduced last March by the then government
and died when the prime minister called the election for June 2.
Now the bill is back before the House today. I hope it goes
through the House, giving the customs officers the power to
implement certain parts of the Criminal Code, mainly to detain or
arrest until a police officer is able to come to the scene. This
is something which is needed in this country. In other words, the
customs officer becomes the first line of defence, when the
customs officer obviously sees a drunken driver or someone else
who is suspected of committing a criminal offence.
Today the customs officers do not have that power. In this
country we have many border crossings and about 2,500 customs
officers. There is really a gap in the law which has allowed
over the last number of years a number of people who are
suspected to be committing a criminal act to get into the
country.
I want to give some information which is relevant to the debate
this morning. According to Revenue Canada, in the last two and a
half years or the last thirty months there have been about 8,500
suspected impaired drivers who have crossed Canadian borders.
They have been allowed to cross because customs officers do not
have the power to detain or to arrest the person suspected of
being impaired. What a customs officer can do, under the law
today, is call the local detachment of the RCMP or local police,
which ever may be the nearest, and tell the police that there is
a driver going through who is suspected of being impaired.
1205
In many cases the driver is long gone before the police arrive.
Revenue Canada believes that in the last 30 months about 8,500
impaired drivers have just simply driven away before police
arrived or in some cases the police were not called because there
was not point in doing so.
There have also been about 200 incidents of suspected child
abductions allowed to cross the border because the border
officials have no power whatsoever to arrest or detain these
suspected kidnappers. Again I think that states very clearly why
customs officers need additional powers.
There have also been over 2,000 individuals who were subject to
arrest warrants who have crossed the border, again long gone
before the police arrived. There have been more than 500
individuals suspected to be in possession of stolen property,
mainly vehicles, who have also crossed the border before police
arrived.
I think there is an obvious gap in the law that must be
rectified by Parliament. It is because of those facts that I am
pleased to offer support on behalf of our party to the very quick
passage of Bill C-18. This is something which is long overdue.
It should have been done a number of years ago.
I also want to add that I believe there is general support in
the community for these kinds of powers. I know that police
associations, customs officers, the customs excise union or the
union des douanes et accises are all very supportive of passage
of this legislation.
I also want to give an example of what happens because customs
officers do not have this power. I have in my hand a letter
which was written by a customs officer. I do not want to put any
names on the record but just read into the record an
incident that occurred very recently on the night of October 3,
1997. I believe this sums up the need for the legislation:
The night of October 3, 1997 at the customs port of Windygates,
Manitoba was a prime example of the need for customs inspectors
to have the authority to detain impaired drivers.
At approximately 2156 hours two Canadian males on motorcycles
arrived at the port, returning from a nearby U.S. bar. One in
particular displayed signs of impairment. I know from experience
that this man cannot be dissuaded from driving, as driving while
impaired has been a regular occurrence for him. Due to the
distances involved, I also know that the suspect can be home
before the RCMP are able to get on the road and apprehend him.
Consequently, these motorcyclists were allowed to proceed.
Two minutes later, one kilometre north of the customs office,
[one individual] age 30, is dead in a pool of blood in the middle
of the road. A combination of high speed and alcohol caused him
to lose control.
Minutes later, while administering CPR to a man that is clearly
beyond help, I wonder what I could have done to prevent this
tragedy. Shortly thereafter, family members of the deceased
arrived on the scene and I also had the dubious honour of
informing them of their loss.
Based upon previous encounters with [this gentleman], I am
convinced that there is nothing I could have said, and nothing I
could legally do to stop him from proceeding down the road that
night. However, I am equally convinced that if customs inspectors
had the authority to enforce the impaired driving laws, that this
man would be alive today.
1210
Then he goes on to say that in light of this incident and other
incidents that have happened across this country, he hopes that
Parliament will expedite the passage of this bill.
I think that letter sums up the need for this bill better than
any speech we can make in this House. People have been killed
because customs officers do not have the powers of arrest and
detainment.
There are people who have actually killed others in traffic
accidents because of the fact that they are driving impaired. We
have in this country very strict drunk driving laws. They are
enforced and here is a gap in the law.
Because of that, I hope this Parliament can pass as quickly as
possible Bill C-18. With that, I offer our support and hope the
House will do this expeditiously. I am sure that he will make
sure that occurs this morning.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great pleasure that I speak in this House today to
express my support for Bill C-18, legislation that will enhance
safety and security for all Canadians.
The bill will strengthen our customs officers role in law
enforcement by extending the scope of their powers so that they
can arrest and detain individuals suspected of committing
offences under the Criminal Code.
As the Minister of National Revenue has pointed out, the
legislation will close a longstanding gap in our ability to
better control criminal activities such as impaired driving,
child abduction and possession of stolen goods at the border.
It will also allow us to deal with individuals who are the
subject of outstanding arrest warrants. There is a clear need
for customs officers to be able to stop criminals and suspected
criminals at the border before they have a chance to enter this
country.
British Columbia has many major borders which process travellers
and commercial traffic coming to Canada.
Much of the criminal activity observed by our customs officers
is reported at the borders. On the national level, possession of
stolen goods is up by over 250%. The number of outstanding
warrants is also up by close to 95% and the incidence of missing
children increased by 16%. Impaired driving continues to be a
cause for concern.
Those numbers are startling. Canadians expect us to do what we
can to keep this community safe. Bill C-18 is one way that we
can meet those expectations.
A modern customs organization is what we expect to have. Over
the last few years Revenue Canada has begun a process of
transforming the customs program. That transformation has
produced one of the most modern, efficient customs organizations
in the world.
The department has adopted new technology and new techniques
such as risk management to respond to the reality of facilitating
trade and tourism. The fundamental changes now under way in our
customs program recognize that most clients obey the law.
Revenue Canada takes its responsibility to protect Canadians
seriously and it is my belief that Bill C-18 serves as one more
tool for modern customs organizations to fulfil their enforcement
mandate.
1215
Customs officers already have the power to detain and arrest
individuals suspected of offences under the Customs Act. Our
officers already deal with offences as serious as the smuggling
of drugs and weapons. Bill C-18 will extend those powers to
include Criminal Code violations. It will allow customs officers
to deal with crimes that are repugnant to most Canadians.
My colleagues in the House recently received a letter from the
union representing customs officers which indicates its support
and the support of its members for Bill C-18.
Attached to that letter is a letter from a customs officer who
works at the port of Windygates, Manitoba. In it the officer
recounts a recent experience he had with an obviously impaired
motorcyclist. Unable to detain this individual, the officer had
no choice but to let him proceed on his way. One kilometre
beyond the port the motorcyclist lost control and was killed.
In his letter this concerned customs officer pointed out that
the ending of the story may have been different if he would have
had the power to legally contain this motorcyclist.
Bill C-18 will allow customs officers to use their unique
position at the border to act as a first response against crime.
This means that customs officers will be able to legally hold
suspects until law enforcement agencies can intervene.
Therefore, that will increase their chances of catching those
people at the right time.
What about partners in law enforcement? Let us be clear. The
legislation is not intended to make customs officers a
replacement for police. As we mentioned earlier, it will close a
longstanding gap and will give customs officers a stronger role
in law enforcement as they work in co-operation with police
agencies across the country.
Police officers, police chiefs, attorneys general all know that
this will enhance our ability to catch criminals at the border.
Giving customs officers more power will help the police to do
their job more effectively.
The legislation has a broad base of support among the law
enforcement community of this country. We have consulted broadly
with law enforcement agencies and officials and we have their
support.
Customs officers will not have the power to investigate Criminal
Code offences, nor will customs officers have the power to
prosecute Criminal Code offences. That will remain the
responsibility of provincial law enforcement agencies.
It is also not our intent to provide firearms to our officers as
a result of this legislation. We have studied this issue
carefully and have concluded that it is not necessary.
We are entrusting these powers to a group of men and women who
prove their value to this country every day as skilled, dedicated
professionals.
In 1995-96 our customs officers processed over 106 million
people at the border. The department received only 448
complaints about the conduct of officers. This represents a
one-to-nearly 240,000 ratio. I think those statistics speak very
highly of the professionalism with which customs officers do
their job.
Once Bill C-18 is passed it will take six to nine months to
implement this initiative. We will use that time to renovate
facilities, designate officers and train them on the
identification of Criminal Code offences and related court
jurisprudence.
1220
Customs officers will have the training and tools they need to
carry out their new duties in a professional and responsible
manner. Canadians can be assured that men and women who are paid
to protect our border will continue to do so with the same skill
and dedication that they have come to expect.
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues in the House to support Bill
C-18. I am sharing my time with a colleague, the member for
Sarnia—Lambton.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-18 which, as we
know, will provide customs officers with the power to enforce the
Criminal Code.
I should say that my riding is on the Ontario-Michigan border.
In fact, it records the third highest volume of border traffic on
the Canada-U.S. border on the one side, Port Huron, Michigan and
on the Canadian side at the village of Point Edward. We have two
bridges with six lanes of traffic coming and going through the
country and some 6,000 trucks alone every day crossing both ways.
At the southern end of my riding is the Sombra crossing where
there are tens of thousands of trucks and cars crossing each
year. We are open to the United States. That is patently clear
with the 17% annual increase in truck traffic alone each year
which has been going on for a number of years. We find that more
and more Americans and others enter Canada through our entry
ports, especially at southern Ontario.
This, as we know, represents trade and tourism for Canada.
However, as is always the case, with more traffic and people
comes more problems. Occasionally individuals who are attempting
to enter Canada have committed or are committing a criminal
offence, individuals who are wanted for all kinds of criminal
offences. The other problem is impaired drivers who attempt to
enter. As more and more of these people enter they pose a risk to
all Canadians. We do not want these people entering our country.
We want to stop them.
However, the reality is that when very impaired drivers try to
enter, the only thing customs officers can do is attempt to
detain them until the local police arrive to lay charges and take
them into custody.
For years the taxpayers in the village of Point Edward where I
live have been subsidizing all Canadian taxpayers because it has
been the police force in the village that has been called when
there was a problem. I have to ask why the taxpayers of one
municipality should suffer financially by paying for local police
because a border crossing happens to be located in that
municipality.
This bill certainly goes a great distance in balancing that
inequality.
Statistics from all ports of entry indicate that there were
8,500 suspected impaired drivers who tried to enter Canada in a
two and a half year period which is about 3,400 impaired drivers
rolling into Canada from the U.S. each year. In the past we had
little or no opportunity to stop them or apprehend them.
We are told that each year there have been some 80 suspected
child abductors, sad cases of people using children as pawns in
illegal activities, rolling up to customs where little or nothing
happens to detain or arrest them.
Canadians certainly welcome visitors to this country whether for
pleasure or business, but no one wants impaired drivers to roll
in or any individual who is being sought on a warrant by the
police to just simply sail through our customs and enter the
country.
For too long we have talked about customs officers as being our
first line of defence at our borders and ports of entry, but for
too long we have not given them the tools. In brief, we have
said one thing but never given our first line of defence the
tools to do the job. It is, I can see, the strange dichotomy
which at long last is being corrected by this bill.
This bill responds to three factors. The first and the obvious
is that those who are the first to have contact with individuals
entering the country must have the right to detain and arrest
those who may be committing a criminal offence or a person for
whom there is an outstanding warrant.
1225
Second, we tend to forget that customs officers live in and are
an important part of our communities. They have been frustrated
when they have been incapable of preventing persons alleged to
have committed serious criminal offences entering our country.
This bill gives them the right and the authority to do what we
want them to do and in fact what they want to do and that is
detain suspected criminals.
Third and finally, this bill takes pressure off local police to
respond to border problems because local taxpayers have been
subsidizing directly the policing function that ought to have
been carried out by the federal government. If anything, I
suppose I can suggest that this legislation could go a step
further and that is that the legislation as drafted would require
that the prosecution of the offence be carried out by so-called
provincial authorities.
In some jurisdictions where the RCMP are the provincial
authorities the policing cost is divided 70% by provincial
payment and 30% by federal payment. This is clearly not the case
in Ontario where the RCMP are not provincial authorities. In
British Columbia for example where the RCMP by agreement are
provincial authorities referred to in the bill, the prosecution
of border crossing offences are paid for out of the 30% federal
contribution, yet in Ontario it is a different situation.
One could ask, why should the taxpayers of Windsor who pay for
local police pay for prosecutions of offences at, for example,
the Ambassador Bridge or the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel. I could say
the same thing about the people in my riding.
I hope and trust that the standing committee will examine this
issue in the bill and perhaps look at it more fully.
On the face of it I would suggest that allowing customs officers
to prosecute as peace officers would recognize them totally and
absolutely as such and would free up local police to deal with
local problems and not problems associated with international
trade and travel.
In conclusion, on balance I know that the people in my riding
are pleased that the pressure is going to be taken off the local
police. I think Canadians should be pleased that customs
officers are now going to be able to deal with those people who
for various reasons are coming into our country and we do not
want them to come in because they are impaired or because they
have committed offences for which there are outstanding warrants.
As such I think this is a good piece of legislation. It is an
important piece legislation. I believe it deserves the support
of this House.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House of Commons
to speak on this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-18, an
act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code.
It is in fact a very timely piece of legislation. I would go so
far as to say that it is a good initiative. I am encouraged to
see the government bringing this legislation forward.
It deals specifically, as previous members have mentioned, with
the power to enforce Criminal Code sections as they pertain to
powers of arrest at the border crossings or the first point of
entry for persons coming into the country. As previously stated
this piece of legislation is aimed at increasing the powers of
customs officers themselves in their ability to arrest without a
warrant and to release from custody in cases where an arrest has
been effected without the warrant from a peace officer being
involved.
The peace officers themselves I would suggest would be greatly
aided by the ability of the border crossing guards or the customs
officers being able to effect this duty independent of the
involvement of the police here. Much like police themselves,
customs guards are routinely encountering a great deal of what I
would suggest ongoing difficulty at the border involving persons
coming into the country under the influence of alcohol to
whatever degree and this is certainly something that we want to
deter.
1230
I spoke in the House previously, as have other members, with
respect to the difficulties Canadians face daily on the roads and
the carnage that results from impaired driving. It is a very
legitimate purpose that customs officers would have the ability
to make that intervention and to effect an arrest. This is not
to say that the age old common law powers of arrest and a
person's ability to make a citizen's arrest could not have been
utilized, but this certainly legislates it and empowers customs
officers specifically in this regard.
Designated officers at customs stations and border crossings
also encounter a fair degree of danger as it pertains to the
illegal importation of weapons into the country and often cases
involving the importation of drugs and banned or illegal
substances.
It is trite to say that persons who are prepared to take these
risks are often individuals who could be described as desperate
in some circumstances. Customs officers are basically in the
line of fire when they discover a person may be in possession of
illegal substances, illegal handguns or other items. They are in
a position of confronting the individual at the border, which can
lead to a dangerous situation.
I have one concern about the bill. The increased power of
customs officers to effect arrest and to exercise their
discretion is not backed up with specific protections for those
persons wielding this new power. I am sure this will be
discussed at the committee level. I speak specifically of such
things as the right to carry firearms and the right to wear
protective body armour like a flak jacket or a bulletproof vest.
This has to be given more thought.
To simply empower customs officers to make these arrests and to
intervene more at Canadian borders is a good idea in principle
which I and my Conservative Party colleagues endorse and
encourage, but we have to be very careful when we empower people
to give them adequate protection.
There is some irony in the timing of the bill. Less than two
weeks ago there was a reading of private member's Bill C-211
sponsored by my Reform colleague from Langley—Abbotsford. That
bill also dealt with peace officers being granted authority with
respect to arrest warrants. Apparently the government did not
feel this was a proper initiative and failed to support it.
I have heard other members refer to increased traffic at our
borders. This has been taken into account. It is an important
factor when one considers the amount of traffic that flows daily
back and forth across our various border crossing points. We
enjoy the largest unguarded border in the world between Canada
and the United States, which is by far our biggest trading
partner. That is certainly beneficial to this country.
The implementation of the new powers of arrest for customs
officers is very much a good thing. It will allow customs
officers to carry out their daily tasks more effectively.
One of the most positive elements of Bill C-18 would be to add a
section to the act that would allow customs officers to handle
impaired drivers in the same manner as peace officers. This will
perhaps lessen the workload of some local constabularies whether
the RCMP or the municipal police.
I noted with great interest the possibility of including in the
ability of a provincial prosecution office the additional duty of
handling the types of cases that would be brought forward by
customs officers.
That is something that could be explored.
1235
I would suggest to the House based on my experience that
provincial prosecution offices, much like the offices of the
municipal and RCMP forces, are very much weighted down already.
The downloading of this on to provincial crown offices is not
something that should be entered into lightly as an initiative by
the federal government. It is certainly something that could be
looked at in the sense that it would be done on a per diem basis
or contracted to various provincial offices.
When we are talking about a matter that falls solely into
federal jurisdiction, that is international trade across our
borders, although we are into the area of criminal activity per
se involving impaired driving as an example or possession of
firearms, there is room for some interaction and perhaps
interplay between provincial prosecution services and those put
forward by the federal Department of Justice.
With respect to impaired driving I can only reiterate comments I
have made in the House. My party and I support tougher drunk
driving measures. Bill C-18 is important because it gives
customs officers an effective interventionist role in combating
impaired driving within Canada.
The powers and obligations placed on customs officers under Bill
C-18 are very much in line with those currently found in the
Criminal Code under sections 495 to 497 and specifically under
subsections 495(3) and 497(3) which put customs officers very
much in line with their ability to act as peace officers, as
designated by the Minister of National Revenue, as if they were
in fact peace officers. An official designation would be placed
upon them.
Generally speaking the feedback I have received on this
initiative is positive. Customs officers are embracing the
initiative and are prepared to act in this new found role.
Another section of Bill C-18, however, clearly states that
designated officers may not use their new found responsibilities
to engage in the sole purpose of searching for evidence. This
might be a reasonable limitation. I would like to hear from the
officials in the customs office, union, law enforcement officers
and other civil libertarian organizations and associations
throughout the country at committee stage.
This is an area we have to tread lightly on. When bestowing the
powers of arrest and intervention on customs officers, we have to
be very careful when it involves an infringement for the sole
purpose of gathering evidence. There has been much contention in
the past on this area of the Criminal Code. I suggest there will
be continued contention.
The final portion of the bill deals with proposed amendments to
the Criminal Code to ensure it corresponds with new sections of
the Customs Act. I have a few concerns about the impact of Bill
C-18. Perhaps the minister or parliamentary secretary could
provide further details on how the government plans to address
potential problems.
Will customs officers be able to respond adequately to the
emergency type situations I referred to earlier? There are
sensitive areas when a customs officer encounters a person
engaged in an illegal activity or engaged in an offence under the
Criminal Code for impaired driving.
There will have to be an allocation of funding and a commitment
to increase resources as they relate to the training of customs
officers and how to deal with the new powers bestowed upon them.
As we have seen by example in the House involving previous
legislation, the Liberal government is often quite quick to grant
new powers or to expand powers as they pertain to arrest or
search warrants. We do not necessarily see adequate back-up in
terms of resources to allow individuals to effectively carry out
the particular powers.
I would be very much interested to see what commitment we will
have from the federal government to adequately arm and protect
customs officers in their desire to combat crime at Canadian
borders.
1240
I have a concern with respect to granting customs officers the
ability of peace officers to avoid providing additional resources
to municipal and federal police forces. I do not think that is
the intent of the legislation. I do not think that there is an
attempt to take powers away from police officers.
I would not want to see the reason given that no increased
funding would be put into the area of expanding the availability
of justices of the peace to assist police officers. I would not
want to hear that money could not be allotted for that because
money was being put into the area of increased training, et
cetera, of customs officers at our borders.
When customs officers are put in a position where they have to
act like police officers and carry out the duties, it is
extremely important they have the feeling and the assurance the
federal government will give them the training and back-up they
will need to perform that role.
While I support the legislation which will make the job of
customs officers easier by granting them new authority, I do so
on the premise the government will not give carte blanche to new
obligations without proper support in terms of resources.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, as I have said
throughout my remarks, we support the legislation in principle. I
look forward to the opportunity of discussing further details and
fine tuning the act at committee level. It is a very important
and timely piece of legislation.
Many customs officers throughout the land have felt a need for
the legislation for some time. I commend the minister for
bringing it forward. I look forward to discussing it further at
committee level.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member's speech and to other members who spoke
this morning. In my comments I want to address some of the very
worthwhile questions posed by them.
By expanding the scope of powers for customs officers to include
Criminal Code offences, I stress that we are not creating an
extra police force. It is a means of assisting police forces
across the country. It does not replace them in any way, shape
or form. The new powers designated to customs officers will be
limited and specific, and there will be adequate training.
Right now many custom facilities have secure rooms so a lot of
infrastructure is in place. Earlier today there was a direct
question from a member of the Reform Party on this cost. Quite
frankly Revenue Canada has in place in its customs facilities
sufficient infrastructure. There will have to be some upgrading
and some training at a cost of probably about $5.5 million across
the country.
It is not as large as one would expect because we already have
most of the facilities in place now. We are just upgrading and
putting in facilities where needed. It will probably be
somewhere between six and nine months after the legislation is
brought into law that training will be complete. For the
security and safety of our own officers and the public, obviously
we will not move before everyone is properly trained and the
facilities are in place.
I assure members opposite, the Canadian public and, most
important, the men and women who work in our customs facilities
that this will be the case.
What new powers? Customs officials will have the power to
detain and arrest individuals for Criminal Code offences which
they encounter in the course of their regular duties.
Maybe the hon. member would wish to respond. I have more
details if he wishes them.
1245
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her assurances and her remarks with respect to these new
duties and the funding. I think that is reassuring. I do find
it interesting that, at a time when we are increasing the powers
and essentially expanding on the duties currently carried out by
customs officers, I cannot help but draw an analogy with what is
happening to our ports police.
Much like customs officers, ports police perform a very specific
duty that is very much akin to or in keeping with those duties
carried out by peace officers. I would say that there is a
direct analogy that can be made with those duties carried out by
customs officers.
There does appear to be a bit of a contradiction in the
government's approach in bestowing new powers on a body of
individuals, customs officers, while at the same time we know
there is legislation being brought through. It is actually
through the House now and it is going to wipe out the ports
police.
Again, this is a concern that I have. I do not know that this
is the proper forum to address that but I point that out to the
hon. member. Again, I look forward to discussing it further with
her and other members of the committee.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, having heard those comments
I do wish to assure the member opposite that in this situation it
is our people working at the border points who are also very
anxious to have this legislation. We are enhancing their role
with their consent and also in support of them.
We are doing something that is beneficial to the people most
directly involved as well as society as a whole.
Maybe as an example that people would be able to understand, I
will just show where the limitation would come in. I will take
the example of someone, a customs officer, encountering someone
who looks impaired at a border point.
Our officers under this legislation would be authorized to
administer a roadside screening test but for individuals who
registered high on that test, they would be then turned over to
the police who would then do the administration of the
breathalyzer test and obviously all the other things that would
go after that.
We are being very limited. We are having our customs officers
perform their functions at the border points only. Obviously
between border points the RCMP, as it has always done, will be
responsible for the security of our borders and will continue
with its functions.
I think what we have here is a beneficial piece of legislation.
It is absolutely essential to us that we properly train and
provide all the necessary tools and safety and security not only
to the public but to people who are within our employ and who the
department is responsible for. We take that responsibility
extremely seriously.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged to hear
again the reiteration that the training is going to be there
specifically because again, calling on my own experience,
impaired driving cases essentially thrown out of court or where
problems arise are often at the early detention stage.
Therefore for these customs officers who are encountering
impaired drivers at the border, I am very encouraged to hear that
they are going to be given a great deal of training in this area.
The indicia required to be identified by the customs officer in
this case who is detaining the person for impaired driving is a
very subjective test that has changed over the years.
Case law has been voluminous in this regard. I am sure that all
peace officers who receive this training are going to have to
study this in a very comprehensive way.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before I start I want to thank my
parliamentary secretary who has done a tremendous job in starting
off the debate this morning on this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair would beg
the indulgence of the hon. minister. The hon. minister is deemed
to have spoken on the bill, having introduced the bill.
May we have unanimous consent for the Minister of National
Revenue to speak to this bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1250
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon.
members for giving me this opportunity to speak. I know they
believe that we should give all members an opportunity to speak
in the House, particularly the Minister of National Revenue with
such good news.
Let me thank my parliamentary secretary who did an excellent job
this morning in starting off the debate and speaking on my behalf
as I was not able to be here. She has a lot of experience in
this area, being a former customs officer during the summers.
Certainly she is very able to speak on this issue.
I am pleased to seek the approval in principle of the House for
Bill C-18, which will give Revenue Canada's customs officers the
additional power they need to enforce the Criminal Code at the
border.
Bill C-18 is important for the protection of Canadians and
Canada. It closes an enforcement gap which restricts our
officers from acting to control criminal activities such as
impaired driving, child abduction and the possession of stolen
goods at the border.
The bill also gives officers the authority to detain individuals
who are the subject of outstanding arrest warrants. In this
regard Bill C-18 is vital to our government's efforts to increase
the safety of Canadians.
Customs has always been vital to Canada's safety and prosperity.
Today we have a customs administration which is allowing
Canadians to seize the opportunities created by liberalized trade
and travel while protecting us against threats to our social and
economic well-being.
Even before Confederation our customs officers were our first
line of defence at the border. In 1997 this is still a key part
of their mandate. However, like any modern organization, customs
must change to reflect the realities of a more transient world, a
world where crime has no borders. That is why customs officers
have always worked with the RCMP and other domestic and
international law enforcement agencies to keep our communities
and our streets safe.
We know that our position at the border gives us a unique
advantage to identify and intercept criminals. We want to take
advantage of this unique position. Make no mistake, our customs
officers do come face to face with crime at the border. We have
the numbers to prove it.
In the past 16 months our officers have seized over $850 million
worth of drugs, almost $2 million worth of contraband alcohol and
tobacco products, and more than 2,600 illegal imports of
firearms.
Day in and day out our customs officers do a magnificent job. I
am proud of the fact that Canada has one of the finest customs
administrations in the world. However, we want to give them the
tools to do better.
That is why I am here today, to talk about this important piece
of legislation which will help make our streets and our
communities even safer.
We have a compelling argument why this legislation is needed. We
know that customs officers encounter criminal behaviour at the
border which is outside the parameters of the Customs Act.
The fact that they cannot take appropriate action places all
Canadians at risk. I refer to a case involving Jonathon Yeo. Mr.
Yeo was refused entry to the United States because he was out on
bail for a criminal offence. As a Canadian citizen he was
allowed to return to Canada because the officers did not have the
authority to detain him. Mr. Yeo went on to abduct and murder
two young women before taking his own life.
Bill C-18 will provide our customs officers with the authority
to detain and arrest individuals who are suspected of committing
Criminal Code offences or other offences until local authorities
arrive. Officers hands will no longer be tied when dealing with
criminals.
This problem and the need for this bill is borne out by recent
statistics, during the last two and a half years, at Canadian
ports of entry.
1255
Customs officers have encountered over 8,500 suspected impaired
drivers, almost 200 incidents of suspected child abduction, in
excess of 2,000 individuals subject to arrest warrants, and more
than 500 individuals in possession of suspected stolen property,
mostly vehicles.
The police have a very strong working relationship with customs
officers but they all agree that customs officers must be able to
intervene effectively when they encounter Criminal Code offences.
This will make a tremendous difference to the enforcement of our
Criminal Code at the border and as a result make for safer
communities in this country.
Bill C-18 marks an important change in the role of customs
officers. This bill is a product of consensus. Everyone sees
merit in it. Members across have spoken of the merits of
this bill and are fully supportive.
In lobbying to strengthen the ability of our customs officers to
deal with Criminal Code offences, we have the support of all the
groups we consulted including the customs officers union, police
at both the provincial and federal level, Canadians Against
Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, CAVEAT, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving and the tourism industry association of
Canada. All agree this change is badly needed and we are
prepared to take action but only after moving carefully and with
thorough deliberation.
Before the government settled on this course a number of
alternatives were considered but were found to be either
impractical or too costly. Again and again we kept coming back
to one solution, to extend the scope of customs officers arrest
powers.
The bill will change the scope but not the nature of the duties
of our customs officers. They currently have the powers to
arrest for offences contained in the customs act. This solution
will expand the scope of these powers to include Criminal Code
and other federal offences.
Using this legislation we propose to provide customs officers
with a first response capability at the border, allowing them to
detain and arrest individuals who are suspected of having
committed offences or who are in the process of committing
offences under the Criminal Code. This first response capability
will bridge the gap between the time customs officers detect a
Criminal Code offence and the time when the police can intervene.
A first response capability means Canadians can expect more
effective and efficient enforcement of our criminal laws and
customs officers can fulfill their protection role at the border.
A first response capability will strengthen an already strong
partnership with the law enforcement community.
This bill is good news for all those who care about the safety
of our communities. These powers will enhance our contribution
in the fight against crime. For example, if a driver appears
impaired the customs officer could administer the initial breath
test. If the roadside alert indicates a problem they would
immediately turn the suspect over to the police for the
administration of a formal breathalyser test.
Customs officers can and will make a difference, a view also
shared by the police community. For example, Windsor police
Deputy Chief Michael Dagley said of this bill: “It is a real
plus because it means we are not out looking for the individual
and they are in custody quicker”.
We are not asking for sweeping powers. Customs officers will
not be expected to participate in Criminal Code investigations or
to transport prisoners. Customs officers will only be allowed to
use these new powers while on duty at points of entry. Not all
customs officers will be given this expanded power of arrest.
This broader role will only be carried out by designated customs
officers who will be drawn from those who are in regular contact
with the travelling public. In practice, this will involve about
2,000 to 2,500 members of the current customs officers workforce.
1300
Canadians can be assured that these designated customs officers
will be trained to ensure that they act fairly, responsibly and
within the confines of the law in carrying out their new duties.
This training will be coupled with a clear accountability
structure which will outline situations calling for a first
response action.
I would like to stress again that our officers and their unions
support this course of action. Their president, Ronny Moran,
said last spring: “This is tremendous news for Canadians.
Finally the longstanding gap in entry port enforcement will be
bridged and Canadians should welcome the announcement as an
effort to improve their safety”.
I have met with Mr. Moran and he has informed me that he has
written to all members of Parliament asking them to support this
bill.
I cannot deal with the issue of customs officers powers without
addressing the very difficult issue of arming customs officers. I
am aware that some employees and indeed some members of the
public, as has been expressed today, believe that customs
officers should carry weapons for their personal protection. We
have considered these views very carefully. However, it is the
government's position that the introduction of firearms at the
border is unnecessary and could lead to the escalation of
violence instead of the resolution of differences.
Customs officers carry out their jobs effectively without
firearms and we have every reason to believe that this will
continue. Therefore we will not arm Canadian customs officers.
In closing, I would like to summarize the changes this bill will
bring about. It will give customs officers the tools they need
to enforce the Criminal Code at the borders. It will correct an
enforcement gap that is not acceptable to the public, local
police agencies, victims rights groups or customs officers.
Mrs. Priscilla de Villiers, founder of Canadians Against
Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, CAVEAT, said in
March: “Obviously we are very pleased that this gap has been
closed”.
Individual Canadians will be provided with the type of
protection that results in safe homes and communities. It will
reinforce Revenue Canada's commitment to protect the health and
safety of Canadians.
I know Canada's customs officers can take up this new mandate
and enforce the law wisely. Change is nothing new for the men
and women of Revenue Canada. I am confident that they will take
these changes in stride and continue to embrace the role to
protect our nation. Customs officers are eager and in fact
impatient to get on with the job, to get the training that will
equip them for the task ahead.
I am confident that the solution contained in Bill C-18 will
work and I am pleased to present it for the approval of my hon.
colleagues in this Chamber. I am also confident, regardless of
one's party affiliation, that this is a bill that will be
supported because it is good for Canada and good for Canadians. I
think it will receive support from all members of the House on
both sides.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciated the minister's speech and his exhortation that we
would support the bill because he believes it is good for Canada.
However, before we decide on that I have a couple of questions
regarding the men and women who are protecting our borders.
I understand that there are two categories, the ones who are
trained and the ones who, shall we say, are less well trained. I
understand that the customs officers have to take a 14 week
course, pass with at least a 70% mark and then be subject to a
one year probation before becoming a customs officer. However,
at the same time, we have others who have to take a two and a
half week course without an exam and begin work immediately.
I would like the minister to confirm whether my facts are
correct on that basis. He said that the people who were going to
be issued this certificate would be drawn from the people on the
front lines. I understand that these are younger people with
less experience and less training who are the ones who are quite
often on the front lines. Is it the people with the two and a
half weeks of training and no exam who are going to be issued
with the certificates or are the certificates designating these
people with the enhanced powers going to be given only to those
who have had the full training, passed the exam and the
probation?
Are we going to let young people with two weeks training on
the job run around arresting people? I would like to hear from
the minister.
1305
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his question.
I want to assure the hon. member that all those people who will
be designated will have the full training. As the hon. member
knows, we have a number of people at customs who are students and
work on a part time basis and on a summer basis. I am very proud
of the work we do to create this opportunity for students and
young people.
The people who will get the designation will not be the students
who are there on a part time or summer basis. These will be
people who are permanent and they will be designated. As I said
earlier, there will be 2,000 to 2,500 members across the country
who will receive this training. Once they have fulfilled their
training program and they are approved and passed, then they will
be designated. With that designation they will have the ability
to respond and carry out the additional powers which we will give
them.
I want to assure the member that they will be well trained and
they will be required to fulfil their training and be examined
before they are designated. That is the whole purpose of
designation.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. minister on his
speech, much of which we can agree on but some of which we have
some difficulty with.
Is the Minister of National Revenue aware of the drug
trafficking, the trafficking of people, arms, alcohol and
cigarettes that is occurring in Quebec and Ontario across our
borders with the United States? Is he aware that serious
allegations have been made that our police officers have been
told to turn a blind eye to this situation that has been going on
for far too long?
I would like to also know what the hon. minister would like to
do about that and whether or not he would like to entertain a
discussion with the Minister of Justice on this particular and
very serious issue. We can give our customs officers all the
powers that they can have but if they are not going to be allowed
to enforce those powers and if they are being told by people
higher up that they should not enforce those powers, that is a
serious breach of justice within our country.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member from Esquimalt. I want to congratulate him on the
good work that he did in the last Parliament on a variety of
issues, including the land mine issue which he put a lot of work
into.
I share the view of the member. It is very important to protect
our borders. A number of initiatives were brought forward in the
last Parliament. One was the anti-smuggling initiative that we
put forward to ensure that we protect our borders. We are looking
at smart borders by utilizing technology.
In the last few years we have invested a lot of money to ensure
that we have increased the technology, to share the information
with law enforcement officers domestically as well as
internationally.
Certainly that is a very important concern. It is something
that we as a government dealt with in the last Parliament as
well, as the hon. member knows, in terms of trying to ensure that
we have adjustment to our taxes to make sure that we have less
contraband flowing across the border. I think we are renowned
around the world as having one of the best customs offices and
some of the best people dealing with our borders.
The hon. member knows of course that we have the largest border
of any two countries. It is not easy to manage. However, I think
we are doing an excellent job in terms of the resources we have.
It is a priority for me to ensure that we protect our borders.
This is another example of our agenda to protect our communities
and make our communities safer. I think the hon. member will
support this bill because it is very much of some of the things
that he has talked about, to protect the safety of our
communities and to protect our borders. He can be assured that
we will do everything possible to make sure that we reduce any
contraband across the border.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have two questions for the minister with respect to this bill.
First, I asked during my remarks on the bill if the government
had made an estimate as to the incremental cost to be incurred by
the department in training these newly empowered customs agents
to act as quasi-peace officers and furthermore what the cost of
upgrading any facilities might be. I inferred from the
parliamentary secretary's comments that there was not clear
estimate of the costs and that there were some facilities in
place.
1310
It is reasonable of the opposition and of all Canadians to expect
the government to have some sense of what the incremental cost of
a legislative change is going to be. That question has not yet
been answered either from the information provided by the
minister's department or by him or the government speakers in
debate on this bill. That is my first question.
The second question concerns the basis on which the minister
decided these newly empowered customs agents will not be issued
firearms to properly discharge their new responsibilities. Does
he think that a customs agent can stop, detain and arrest a gun
smuggler or a drug smuggler or a child abductor or a kidnapper
with pepper spray and a baton? Why is he not prepared to give
those customs agents what they need to protect themselves, to
protect Canadians and to enforce our laws?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I believe the
member was not in the debate when some of those answers were
brought forward. My parliamentary secretary just responded to a
Conservative member 15 minutes ago. She said that the cost was
$5.5 million and if the member read Hansard he would find
that out. Clearly there is a cost to upgrade some facilities.
We already have a number of facilities to detain individuals but
there are areas we need to upgrade. Both the upgrade in some
infrastucture and the training will be $5.5 million. I have
stated this figure in a number of previous speeches. If the
member were reading his press clippings he would clearly
understand that.
Perhaps the hon. member does not know this. He referred to our
customs officers stopping gun smugglers. He should know that
under the customs act we are already doing that. We are doing
that under the present legislation and it has not changed. This
is an increase in expanding powers under the Criminal Code. We
are doing what we can of the things he has talked about. It is
under the customs act. If he reads the act it will be very clear
to him that those already exist and we are taking those
responsibilities.
As I mentioned in my speech, I have not seen a need to arm our
officers. Maybe that was the point the hon. member was making. We
do not feel it is necessary. We have examined the issue closely
and we have no intention of arming our officers, but we are
looking at providing protective vests for those officers who feel
they need them. We will provide that option to them. We are
looking for the best product available to provide to our
officers.
This will be good for the officers. It is supported by the
union. The union leaders have written to all members of
Parliament asking them to support this bill. I have read of a
number of groups that are supportive. This is a good bill that
should be supported by all members of the House.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
acknowledge our thanks and our indebtedness to our customs people
who defend our borders. They work very hard and diligently to
ensure they do the best they can to uphold the laws of Canada, to
defend our borders and to ensure our country is safe from as many
drugs and illicit contraband as possible.
The Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue said
this is a very small bill but provides a great deal of benefit.
My first reaction to that comment is that after four years why is
it so late if it is such a small bill that provides such a great
benefit to this country. We will leave that for the parliamentary
secretary and the minister to explain at a later date.
These small changes are a step in the right direction but I have
some serious concerns about the training of many of the people
who we ask to defend our borders. I understand that many people
involved have very little training.
Sometimes it is as little as two and a half weeks, they do not
even have to pass an examine and then they are on the front lines
protecting our borders, trying to apply 70 pieces of legislation.
After two and a half weeks I am surprised that they even know the
names of the pieces of legislation, let alone the contents. But
there we have it. The minister assures us that he is doing his
job well.
1315
I asked the minister quite specifically if it would be customs
officers who are fully trained who would be designated according
to section 1 of the act to be licensed to be peace officers under
Bill C-18. He assured us that it would be only those who are
fully trained. In fact, if I understood him correctly, he said
that those who are fully trained will be given additional
training as well to make them fully conversant with the
additional powers that are going to be conferred upon them and
that we would be able to differentiate between those who have
been given the additional powers versus those who have not by
means of some identification and a certificate that is indicated
in the bill.
I wonder whether the minister really understands these powers
and has a full complement of people who are fully trained to do
this. I quote from the Globe and Mail article of Monday,
October 14, 1996. It states that “College students average 80%
of the front line customs and immigration officers at Pearson
airport on a year round basis.” If they represent 80% that means
we are pretty thin on the ground with full time, well trained
people. I wonder whether there is actually enough staff to be
able to ensure that the job is being done properly.
If he is talking about drawing 2,000 people and licensing them
according to this act, bearing in mind the number of ports that
we have to man, I think it would be incumbent upon the minister
to assure the House that there is no problem about the adequacy
of staffing to ensure that it can be done.
I am also concerned about the adequacy of the premises that we
have at these ports and crossings because if we are going to give
the powers to the customs officers to arrest and hold until such
time as a peace officer appears on the scene, then I would hope
that there are adequate detention facilities on site in order for
them to detain these people.
If we are talking about arresting those who are impaired or
appear to be impaired and those who may be involved in abductions
and so on, I can very, very easily see that they could become
violent. With the small number of fully trained customs
officers, I wonder if we are placing some of these people in some
danger in the event that an issue does become quite violent.
No doubt one day it will happen and we will look back and say
“Why did we not provide the adequate detention facilities and
adequate staff for the proper arrest to be made”. I would like
the minister to think about that.
My colleague from Calgary Southeast asked the minister about the
news item regarding drug smuggling across the St. Lawrence River
with seeming impugnity. I think we need to address that. I have
seen on television where at night in the winter there are skidoos
and other vehicles crossing the St. Lawrence River and not in any
way being apprehended by anybody, police officers, peace officers
or customs officers or anyone else. According to the television
clip that I saw, there was a significant amount of gunfire at the
same time. It sounded like a pretty lawless place. That happens
to be in your neck of the woods, Mr. Speaker.
I would hope that something would be done about it, taking it up
with the minister to ensure that we can fully protect our
borders.
1320
In closing, again to paraphrase the words of the parliamentary
secretary, it is a small bill, it is a big benefit. The Reform
Party is pleased to support it and we certainly hope that it will
go a long way toward improving the safety of Canadians, improving
the integrity of our borders and ensuring that Canada is a safe
place and not a safe haven.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon to speak on this
legislation.
I think it is important at the outset to look at some of the
figures involving the background of this legislation. In the
last two and a half years Revenue Canada customs officers have
encountered the following criminal situations at ports of entry
into Canada: over 8,500 suspected impaired drivers, almost 200
incidents of child abduction, approximately 68 Criminal Code
offences in my riding of Fort Erie at the Peace Bridge in 1996,
over 2,000 individuals subject to arrest warrants and more than
500 individuals in possession of suspected stolen property.
These are usually vehicles.
These statistics are very disturbing. Although customs officers
reported these incidents to local authorities, the police were
only able to apprehend a few suspects. This fact is most
disturbing.
These incidents occur at most land, air and marine ports of
entry, with about 80% located on highways, 10% at airports that
handle international traffic and 10% at seaports.
I am very pleased to rise this afternoon to speak on Bill C-18,
an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code, a bill
that will make these statistics a thing of the past. This is a
piece of legislation that is truly very near and dear to my heart
and to the many customs officials that work the front line at the
Peace Bridge border crossing in Fort Erie in my riding of
Erie—Lincoln.
After my election in 1993, I was approached by the local customs
union representatives about the difficulty in apprehending
impaired drivers at the Fort Erie-Buffalo crossing. In fact, I
attended at the border and observed their observations and even
stood out at the primary inspection line and observed the cars
coming across.
There have been several incidents in my riding and the customs
officers were rightfully frustrated that they did not have the
power to detain suspected drunk drivers until the local police
could intervene. The standard operating procedure at that time
was to let the driver through and notify the local police, hoping
and sometimes praying that they would catch up with any impaired
individuals. This was unsatisfactory.
In fact, it was shocking. Most people in my riding just could
not comprehend this. Some said “Well, an individual has powers
of arrest, citizen's arrest”, but the customs officers were very
reluctant to take these powers because of concerns if they were
injured in doing so, the question of false arrest, liability
implications, et cetera. It was not recommended by either
management or the union. This was unsatisfactory.
The course of action that was followed was far too dangerous for
our border communities and too many times resulted in an accident
before the driver could be apprehended. My customs officers told
me that this had to change and I agreed with them.
In 1995, an in-depth study of officers' powers confirmed this
and concluded that the existing situation was unacceptable. The
study proposed an extension of customs officers' powers to
include Criminal Code offences. Support for this idea came from
groups such as Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating
its Termination, which we have come to know as CAVEAT, police
forces, Revenue Canada, employees, the customs excise union and
the general public in my riding of Erie—Lincoln.
In 1995, I began to prepare a private members' bill on this
issue. I met with some of the stakeholders, including the
customs excise union president at that time, discussed how this
issue should be addressed and what the best course of action
would be. Around this time I was informed by my colleague, the
former minister of revenue, that the department was also looking
to resolve this problem by amending the Customs Act and the
Criminal Code. This government listened.
The result was Bill C-89 that was tabled this past March. This
legislation, as many of you know, unfortunately died in the Order
Paper in April. Over the course of the summer I was pleased to
learn from our new minister of revenue that reintroducing this
legislation was a priority.
On October 30 he fulfilled that commitment. I congratulate him
for the expeditious manner in which this important bill was
reintroduced.
1325
Under the proposed legislation, customs officers will be
provided a first response capability at the border with the power
to detain or arrest individuals suspected of having committed
offences which fall under the Criminal Code, such as impaired
driving or child abduction.
The intent of the legislation is to bridge the gap between the
time customs officers detect a Criminal Code offence and the time
when the police can arrive to intervene. Provincial authorities
will continue to be responsible for prosecuting individuals for
Criminal Code offences at the border.
Customs officers encounter criminal behaviour at the border that
is outside the parameters of the Customs Act and the fact that
they cannot take appropriate action places all Canadians at risk.
This legislation will correct an enforcement gap which is not
acceptable to the public, local police agencies, victims' rights
groups or customs officers.
I believe that these changes will result in safer communities,
but above all they will help to contribute to long term public
protection.
I understand that once the bill receives royal assent it could
take six to nine months to implement this initiative and that
customs officers will be trained to ensure that they act fairly,
responsibly and within the confines of the law in carrying out
their new duties.
Current training programs will require changes and no customs
officer will be permitted to carry out the first response
function until he or she has received and passed the appropriate
training.
This is not an entirely new function because customs officers
are already designated as peace officers for the purposes of the
Customs Act. They already undergo extensive training on search,
seizure and arrest. Customs officer training also includes
instruction on the charter and its implications in exercising the
powers of search and arrest. I understand that plans are under
way to introduce training on the use of force for personal
protection and to compel compliance with the law.
No customs officer should be put in the position of having to
carry out this or any other function without appropriate
training. I urge the government to carefully plan this training
as it is crucial for the customs officers to have adequate
education and training. They want nothing less and our border
communities demand nothing less.
It is said that the additional responsibilities will only be
given to officers who deal directly with individuals seeking
entry into Canada. This will involve about 2,500 members of the
current customs officer workforce of 3,200. I am pleased to note
that it will not include any student customs officers.
Many young people in my riding have part time or summer jobs at
customs and, realistically, do not have the experience or the
time to be properly trained for this function. We certainly do
not want to put them at risk. I was very happy to see that this
concern was taken into consideration.
I wish to discuss the functions that extend beyond the drinking
and driving issue that were brought to my attention two years
ago. Customs officers currently have the power to detain and
arrest individuals for Customs Act offences such as smuggling.
They also have the authority to search for and seize goods, such
as illegal drugs, firearms, contraband tobacco and liquor, and
prohibited materials such as child pornography.
The scope of the customs officers' existing powers of arrest and
detention will be broadened to bridge the gap between the time
customers officers detect a Criminal Code offence and the time it
takes for the police to arrive and intervene. The changes will
also authorize customers officers to arrest individuals who are
subject to arrest warrants issued under the Criminal Code. In
the case of impaired driving, designated customs officers will
administer the preliminary roadside screening test. Individuals
who do not pass the screening test will be turned over to the
police for a breathalyser test.
Provincial authorities will be responsible for any further
investigations and prosecutions of individuals for Criminal Code
offences at the border.
Those of us who received a package from the customs excise union
last month will have undoubtedly read the letter written by Mr.
Stan Johnson, a customs inspector at the Windygates, Manitoba
border crossing. As recently as October 3, 1997, Mr. Johnson was
unable to detain an impaired motorcycle driver returning to
Canada from an evening of drinking in the United States. Minutes
after crossing the border one of the two motorcycle drivers lay
dead from a deadly combination of speed and alcohol.
It is evident from Mr. Johnson's letter that he is struggling
with the frustration that his role as a customs officer did not
allow him to stop this tragedy. It is wrong to subject our
customs officials to this frustration when these tragedies are
clearly preventable.
I urge this House to deal expeditiously with this legislation.
It has been demanded by customs officers, border communities,
elected representatives and the families and friends of those who
became victims of impaired drivers.
1330
The customs and excise union has been calling for this type of
corrective measure for more than a decade. The customs and
excise union and those on the front line at the Peace Bridge in
Fort Erie support this measure. In a recent letter the union
said there was a tremendous need to bridge a very obvious gap in
legislation that had existed far too long.
I will comment on a couple of questions asked in the House
today. Why has it taken so long to get to this position? The
situation is not a simple one. We have to do it right. It was
necessary to assess thoroughly the nature and severity of the
situation across Canada. It was also necessary to properly
evaluate the various options and to discuss them with both
federal and provincial officials. I am confident the proposed
legislation is both reasonable and workable.
The question of arming customs officers has often been raised.
Again it was raised in debate today. The health and safety of
customs officers have been and will continue to be priorities.
Customs officers do not carry firearms. The proposal to extend the
scope of their arrest powers would not change that. Some customs
officers believe they should carry a weapon for their personal
protection. However it is the government's position that
introducing firearms at the border is unnecessary and could be a
serious mistake.
We have to bear in mind that this is not entirely new ground for
customs officers. As I said, they are already designated as
peace officers for purposes of the Customs Act. To date they
have not needed a firearm to fulfil their responsibilities safely
and efficiently. Arming them could invite more violent behaviour
on the part of travellers.
If not handled properly, an officer's firearm could provide an
otherwise unarmed traveller with a weapon that could actually be
used to injure or kill the officer or other people in the
vicinity.
We also have to bear in mind that the role of customs officers
will be very limited. They will provide a first response only.
They will not be expected to participate in Criminal Code
investigations or to transport prisoners, as the police will
intervene at a very early stage. For these reasons the
government has chosen not to arm our officers.
Some concern was expressed about the impact on police and the
judicial case load. It would probably be very minimal.
Furthermore we expect that implementing this initiative will have
a deterrent effect. We expect the number of incidents will drop
significantly when the travelling public realizes and becomes
aware that the customs officers are empowered to deal with
criminal offences.
As I have indicated, this is good legislation. It should
hopefully be passed unanimously by the House. The concerns being
expressed today are very minimal. The country would be well
suited to defend its borders and citizens from criminal
activities, from individuals crossing its borders with criminal
intent and undertaking criminal activities.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my constituency has about three border crossings. It is
basically in the middle of the Rocky Mountains or the range
immediately to the west of the Rocky Mountains. Some of these
border crossings have Canada customs persons present and only one
person overnight.
I visualize a situation where customs officers, because of the
lack of manpower, will have the opportunity under the legislation
to take certain remedial action in situations. The question in my
mind is, that being the case, whether they will actually have the
resources.
There are situations right now from about 11 o'clock in the
evening to 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning. The one border guard
could be tied up in a potential smuggling situation involving a
car coming across the border. Over the ensuing half hour
period—and this is a very common occurrence—five or six or
seven cars could be lined up, waiting.
We could end up giving these border guards extra resources
legally. Will the government be prepared to give extra financial
resources and people to actually get the job done?
1335
Along the same lines I am also concerned about the fact that
many people involved in Canada Customs at the border in all
likelihood would be easily overpowered in the event of a physical
altercation.
Has the government given thought to changing the profile of the
people it will be hiring for Canada Customs? If more physical
action is expected by Canada Customs inspectors, will courses be
available? Will training be available for them so that they come
up to speed and handle themselves?
It is one thing for this legislature to enact law that will
empower the officials, but is the government actually prepared to
devote the fiscal resources to Canada Customs to ensure it will
be able to carry out that law without there being the potential
of danger to itself and its fellow workers?
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. It is a very good one.
If we give these powers there have to be resources available to
allow them to utilize them. The hon. member lives in an area
where border crossings are very light. I live in an area where
there are four border crossings, all of which are very high
volume border crossings. The situation of one person being on
the border would never happen. There are many people on all
shifts.
We have to address those concerns too. Obviously it is a light
border crossing and criminal incidents would probably not be as
significant as what I have elaborated in my speech about my area.
They definitely need the resources to do the job. I have some
concerns with one person being on a border in the evening.
The hon. member asked if they would have the proper training or
the proper education. I have indicated that is a necessity. As
far as anticipation of more physical altercations at the border
is concerned, I do not anticipate it will happen any more than it
happens right now. They should be properly trained for that.
Notwithstanding, certainly more training is required and more
training will be given. Resources will be committed.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his excellent speech. It is my knowledge that he has been
consistent and has persevered in bringing the attention to these
matters that they deserve not only in this Parliament but in the
last parliament.
Many members have worked and lived in constituencies across the
land with border points. The member has written to the
department. He has been involved in continuing dialogue and
supporting the legislation as it came forward. Many members with
border points in their constituencies have been there, which we
as a department appreciate.
It is my firm belief that concern for Canadians is not a
partisan issue. Members on the benches opposite have the same
concerns the hon. member and I have about the safety of
Canadians. We have different size border points and different
needs. I hope we will start on this exercise shortly.
To train staff appropriately, we will probably start with the
very large centres. We will do the appropriate training. We
will manage this change as well as other changes we have made
over the past number of years to make our border a smart border,
a border that customs officers and Canadians can be proud of.
We do not want to hassle people as they cross the border. We
want proper risk management. We want to target goods and people
who present a security or a criminal risk to the country.
1340
We want to stop smuggling. Our goal is to help the tourism
industry. Our goal is to help returning Canadian residents when
they travel abroad to access all the facilities they need in a
professional and competent manner.
We at Revenue Canada are providing customs officers with tools
to help them better do their job. In the last parliament we
brought forth initiatives on some new projects that we are
working toward implementing throughout the land.
We will have a very sophisticated, modern customs
administration. As the minister said earlier, Canada can be very
proud of its customs administration. We can be very proud of the
people in customs. I know union officials in the hon. member's
riding have talked to him.
I congratulate him in his work and all other people in the
House, no matter what party, who helped us move the legislation
forward.
Mr. John Maloney: I thank the hon. member for her
comments.
Customs officials in my riding approached me on the issue since
day one when I was first elected. They have worked very well
with me, with their national executive and with departmental
officials.
We have come up with legislation that is certainly to be
desired. It is a concern we have had to date but we are there
now and we are happy to have it.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as presented by
the revenue minister, Bill C-18 meets an urgent need to exercise greater
control at Canadian customs offices.
Each of the provinces, including Quebec, that share a border with
the United States experience situations where individuals from that
country cross our border while intoxicated, or after committing serious
offences across the border.
The proposed changes will affect nearly two thirds of the total
strength of 3,200 customs officers, a number we believe to be
insufficient to strengthen border crossings.
Recent statistics published by Revenue Canada show that, over the
past two and a half years, Canada customs officers have been faced with
the following situations, provided for by the Criminal Code, at ports of
entry across the country: more than 8,500 cases where drivers were
suspected of driving while impaired; 200 alleged cases of child
abduction; nearly 2,000 cases of persons against whom an arrest warrant
had been issued; and finally, more than 500 cases of individuals who
were in possession of allegedly stolen goods, mainly vehicles.
While customs officers reported these incidents to local
authorities, the police was only able to apprehend a few suspects. Such
incidents happen at most ports of entry by land, air or sea, 80% of
which are located on our highway system.
It goes without saying that, based on these troubling statistics,
there is no need for the revenue minister to justify Bill C-18 any
further.
The minister also indicated that this bill would confer broader powers
on Canada Customs.
Under this proposal, customs officers would help police officers by
taking immediate action at the border. The customs officers' current
powers to arrest and detain would be broadened in an effort to fill the
gap between the time when they observe a Criminal Code offence and the
time when the police arrives on the scene and can take over.
The proposed changes would also give customs officers the power to
arrest any person against whom an arrest warrant has been issued under
the Criminal Code. Designated officers could demand samples of breath
from suspected impaired drivers.
People who show high levels following this screening test would be
turned over to the police for a breathalyser test. So it is the
responsibility of provincial authorities to continue the investigation
and to prosecute those who are alleged to have committed an offence
under the Criminal Code at the border.
1345
Let us now talk a bit about Quebec. These stricter measures at the
Quebec-U.S. border would help Quebec's campaigns against drunk driving.
Impaired driving is still the primary cause of highway deaths in Quebec.
Alcohol is involved in about 45% of deaths and 25% of serious injuries
on the highways.
Over the last decade, in Quebec, the number night-time cases of
drivers with a blood alcohol content above the limit has decreased by
40%. Greater control at border crossings would therefore help support
the efforts of Quebec's provincial police officers.
Let us go back now to the bill. The preamble states that a number
of customs officers will be designated by the Minister of Revenue to
carry out the new duties. I think the Minister of Revenue should specify
in his bill the provinces, cities and towns that will be affected by the
changes proposed in Bill C-18.
We agree that the minister should have discretion to designate the
customs officers mentioned in the bill, but we would like more
information on this subject. Also, I would like to ask another important
question to the Minister of Revenue concerning the mechanism for
selecting customs officers. Will this procedure be carried out in
co-operation with union representatives?
The proposed changes as outlined in this bill will most certainly
be creating a new class of customs officers. Will their pay be higher?
How will these changes be reflected in the existing collective
agreement? Will the seniority clauses be respected? All these questions
need clarification before our party can take a final position on Bill
C-18.
What will be the limits of the powers given to customs officers in
their new duties? I hope we are not creating a new police force that
could end up with the same powers as the RCMP. I need hardly point out
that our party and the Liberal government have locked horns several
times since 1993 on the sharing of jurisdiction between Quebec and
Ottawa.
The Minister of Revenue must therefore make a commitment to respect
the responsibilities and jurisdictions of Quebec.
The mandate of the Sûreté du Québec, our provincial police, and of the
courts imposing the fines and penalties for these criminal acts must be
respected. Too often, under the pretext of national security, of
national health, the federal government has used such political
opportunities to try to convince us that national standards are
required.
Furthermore, in these difficult years, we do not often see a
government invest without providing for additional revenues. The
Minister of Revenue tells us that provincial authorities will retain
their responsibility to prosecute under the Criminal Code, but he gives
no information on a very important detail. Who will be collecting the
fines, Revenue Canada or Revenue Quebec?
1350
The Bloc Quebecois is in Ottawa to protect Quebec's interests,
including the areas that come under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore,
our party will make sure the federal government fully respects Quebec's
jurisdiction in the context of Bill C-18.
The principles underlying Bill C-18 are acceptable, but the way
these changes in the customs officers' duties will be implemented still
raises numerous concerns.
For example, given the budget cuts imposed by the finance minister,
where will the revenue minister find the money to renovate customs
offices? Where will he get the money to train customs officers?
Did the minister estimate the total cost involved in delegating these
new responsibilities to customs officers?
Earlier in my speech, I said that these changes will have to be
made in co-operation with the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
The revenue minister claims he decided to table this bill after
conducting the following consultations. In 1995, an in-depth study of
the powers conferred on customs officers revealed that the existing
situation was unacceptable. There is no need to go back over this, since
the figures I mentioned just a few moments ago confirm it beyond a
shadow of a doubt.
It was therefore proposed that the powers given these officers be
increased to include offences under the Criminal Code. Groups such
as CAVEAT, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating Its
Termination, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, police
forces, Revenue Canada employees, and CEUDA have offered their
support.
But, here again, did the federal government consult the right
people before tabling this bill? Did it take the time to go and
see the people in the provinces who will have to live with the
amendments resulting from this bill? Did the Solicitor General,
who is taking part in the implementation of this bill, consult
provincial authorities in this connection? Or is the federal
government once again getting ready to meddle in provincial areas
of jurisdiction?
In addition, the minister is indicating that implementation of
this bill could take from six to nine months after royal assent is
given. First of all, he intends to train designated customs
officers, and then to renovate certain Customs Canada facilities in
order to create secure areas in which suspects can be held.
Once again, a grey area remains, making it difficult for us to
see where the minister is really headed with this bill. Does he
intend to take a global approach, or has he already identified
regions where there is a more pressing need for these customs
posts?
There are many questions, but we believe in the rationale
behind Bill C-18 and this is why we are supporting it in principle.
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the many
questions posed by the hon. member in his speech, many of the
answers were delivered earlier today in this debate. For the
edification of the hon. member I have no problem restating some
of the answers. I hope it will assist him because this is a very
good bill for tous les Canadiens et toutes les Canadiennes.
This is not a partisan bill, no matter what the questions or how
they are posed. The RCMP will continue to do all of its work
between the border points across this country. That will not
change.
1355
The work of our customs officers throughout this country,
including Quebec, will also not change. They are still dealing
with all these issues under the customs and excise acts and
the numerous other acts that our customs officers administer for
us at our border points.
This is a first response not only after discussion with the
people and the unions involved but is also being supported by
these same employees inside. They are very supportive. This
honourable member may very well find that the head of the union
of customs will have sent a letter to all members asking for
support for this bill, and I draw that to his attention.
This is not replacing or creating some new police force. This
is a situation where we are filling a gap, a narrow gap that
existed, that will help the safety at first response, the point
where we can first intercept at our border point, and security
for Canadians.
There are situations where children are being abducted. This is
the place where we can detain until the appropriate and
responsible police force comes to the assistance and follows out
with the rest of the process. This is the place where a drunk
driver, driving up to our borders, can be intercepted. Before,
we could not detain an individual for a lengthy period of time in
case the appropriate local police force was not, through other
responsibilities, able to assist in a timely manner. This is a
better situation. We will have the legal authority to charge and
to detain.
Also, very clearly this gives us that authority to make an
arrest where there is an outstanding warrant and then turn over
to the appropriate authority.
These are very positive measures. We are giving the human
resources, as we have given many other tools over a time period
in all of our experiences as professionals. We have to work with
upcoming technology, new technology. Unfortunately, I do not
think all of us get pay raises every time a new machine comes in.
I wish that were true, but it does not necessarily happen that
way.
This is, though, a tool, a legislative tool that will assist our
people, the people who protect Canadians, to do their jobs
better. To give the assurance to this honourable member which
he deserves, yes there has been ongoing consultation and there
will continue to be ongoing consultation not only with the
provincial and other policing authorities but with our unions,
the people who work for us. This is very much a welcome piece of
legislation and I respect that this honourable member did, in his
concluding remarks, actually indicate that the Bloc is being
supportive overall.
If I can help with any of his further questions, as a
parliamentary secretary I am at his disposal to give him further
briefings whenever he requests that. As the parliamentary
secretary, I wrote to the representative of their caucus as well
as the other caucuses, offering briefings in this matter.
I would like to give a little time before question period for
the member opposite to acknowledge it.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I think the member will have to wait until
after Oral Question Period to reply to the comments by the hon.
parliamentary secretary.
We will now proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
some weeks ago I had the pleasure of meeting some of the members
of the Royal Canadian Legion, North Calgary Branch No. 264, along
with the Alzheimer Society of Alberta. The occasion was their
annual Coffee Break fund-raiser. I was delighted to have been
asked to attend.
The Alzheimer's Coffee Break is a grassroots initiative to
promote awareness of Alzheimer's disease. To date, there is no
known cause or cure for this terrible disease that can strike
adults of any age. Currently over a quarter of a million people
suffer from the illness and the dementia caused by this
condition.
By the year 2030 it is estimated that over three quarters of a
million Canadians will have Alzheimer's disease.
The devastation of this disease is terribly hard on the family
members of its victims. Inevitably it robs them of their loved
ones.
1400
I urge all members of this House to become involved in a
coffee break program in their ridings. Members should please
contact their Alzheimer's society or their legion to offer
their support.
* * *
GREY CUP
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
November 16 the 85th Grey Cup was held in Edmonton. Canadians
were witness to real football, three down football, football with
the wider field and the deeper end zones. In the cold of a crisp
late fall day a truly unique Canadian sport was played out before
more than 60,000 fans and millions of television viewers.
Football in Canada is truly our game with our unique Canadian
rules including the extra point for missed field goals. The
importance of this game to Canadians should not be
underestimated. Images of Calgarians who brought their
horses into the lobby of the Royal York hotel in Toronto and
Saskatchewan residents dressed in rider green, some representing
the smallest communities in their province like Tantallon,
Saskatchewan; this is what the Grey Cup is all about.
The Grey Cup and Canadian football help to define us as a
nation. It is part of our cultural identity. Congratulations to
the Toronto Argonauts on back to back impressive Grey Cup
victories. Canada needs a Grey Cup and we need to appreciate the
tremendous value it has. It has helped define us as a nation.
* * *
LIVING ARTS CENTRE
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me pleasure to bring to the attention of the House the
official opening of the Living Arts Centre in Mississauga on
November 14. The Living Arts Centre will be the heart of
downtown Mississauga. This modern state of the art facility will
provide citizens of all ages with multiple performance venues,
studios and exhibition space.
We look forward to attending shows by high calibre international
artists like Julio Eglizes, Penn and Teller, Raffi, Broadway
productions and of course the many local artists and performing
companies that will grace the Living Arts Centre stage.
Construction of the state of the art facility was funded under
the federally initiated national infrastructure program. All
three levels of government including the region of Peel provided
$31 million in financing. The Living Arts Centre has itself
launched a major community fund-raising effort which has already
raised almost half of the $30 million goal.
We look forward to being royally entertained for years to come
as the world comes to our new stage.
* * *
[Translation]
RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased today to draw attention to the sale of the section of
rail between Saint-Augustin and Thurso by Canadian Pacific to
Genesee Rail-One and the operation of that corridor by its
subsidiary Les chemins de fer Québec-Gatineau.
Canadian Pacific decided in 1994 to dismantle this section of
track. Bloc Quebecois MPs and stakeholders in the Outaouais and
Laurentian regions were opposed to this.
The hon. member for Blainville—Deux-Montagnes and myself co-authored a
brief which convinced the national transportation
committee to hold public hearings on the matter.
The train between Saint-Augustin and Thurso, which serves
Lachute and Montebello along the way, is back in operation. This
is a great victory for the people of Argenteuil—Papineau and an
excellent example of how useful the Bloc Quebecois is in Ottawa.
* * *
FRANCOPHONIE SUMMIT
Ms. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to draw the attention of the House to the Francophonie Summit
which was held at Hanoi from November 14 to 16. The Prime Minister
headed a Canadian delegation of some 30 francophones.
This proved to be a great success for Canada, confirming its
lead role within the Francophonie. Canada expressed strong
opinions on the political, economic and co-operative aspects of the
summit, proposing concrete actions. The summit marked a
significant step toward making the Francophonie more political,
with the election of its first secretary general, Mr. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali.
In addition, the selection of Moncton, New Brunswick as the
site of the 1999 Summit was confirmed by the heads of state and
heads of government.
I know what a great honour it is for the people of the greater
Moncton area to host the Summit.
The Acadians of New Brunswick have long awaited the
opportunity to welcome such a delegation and to show them their
region.
* * *
[English]
RAILWAYS
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 57,000
knowledgeable, skilled Canadians work for the railway industry.
Today their representatives from coast to coast are here in the
House of Commons to remind parliamentarians of the importance of
this industry for Canada.
Canada's freight railways do not exist just to run trains but to
move customer freight traffic in a timely manner. Exports such
as grain, coal, fertilizers, forest products and motor vehicles
are dependent on rail transportation.
1405
Rail is not only a safe means of transportation, it is also an
environmentally friendly one. With its millions of carloads of
freight and more than one million containers and trailers a year,
the rail industry helps reduce highway congestion.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, I
am proud to welcome rail industry representatives to Ottawa
and to invite all members of Parliament to take the opportunity
to meet with them and learn more about this essential industry.
* * *
ROBERT NORMAN THOMPSON
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on behalf of Canadians to pay tribute to Robert Norman
Thompson.
Bob was a man who spent an impressive part of his life serving
Canadians. He became national leader of the Socred Party in
1961. He was elected in 1962 for Red Deer and then re-elected in
1963, 1965 and 1968. He left politics in 1972 and taught
political science at Trinity Western in Langley, B.C.
I was a student at Trinity during the mid-1970s and one of the
first people I met was Bob Thompson. He had a way about him that
one just could not ignore. Bob was fast, feisty and a fierce
competitor when it came to political debate.
When I was elected in 1989 he became and has been one of my
closest political advisers for all these years. My husband Lew
and I had a wonderful visit this summer with Bob and Evelyn at
their home in Langley. He was in rare form and we had a great
talk. He told me he was being promoted. Promoted he has been.
We love you, Bob, and we thank you, Evelyn. God bless you.
* * *
LATVIAN AND POLISH INDEPENDENCE DAYS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today Canadians of Latvian origin celebrate the 79th
anniversary of their independence, and on November 11 Canadians
of Polish origin celebrated theirs.
As the first member of Parliament of Baltic heritage, it gives
me great pride to recognize these important dates.
It is an occasion to contemplate the rich traditions of these
countries that serve as an inspiration for all who cherish the
values of freedom and democracy.
In the aftermath of World War I, in 1918 the Republic of Latvia
gained its independence and, at the same time, Poland regained
its. However, this freedom was very shortlived. Under Soviet
occupation it was lost. However, even a half century of
totalitarian rule did not stifle the love of freedom and cultural
heritage. In Poland it gave rise to solidarity.
In 1991, after the tragic killings in Vilnius and Riga, the
Canadian government was the first to recognize the independence
of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans.
* * *
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today representatives of the railway industry are visiting
Parliament Hill in droves to talk to many senators and members on
the importance of rail transportation. I am proud to say that rail
transportation is vital to a healthy economy in the major centres
and the regions of Quebec and Canada.
In recent years, we have witnessed the birth of many short
line railways. The entrepreneurship of their management and the
flexibility of their operation enable them to free up the roadways
in the regions and to maintain safe transportation.
Because their infrastructures connect with the main railway
lines, the short line railways link their clientele to the vast
North American market.
I join with industry members in reminding people that, for
many businesses, the way to the future is by rail. Let us keep it
competitive.
* * *
TUNISIA
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on November 7, 1997, President Ben Ali celebrated ten years as the
head of my country of origin, Tunisia.
In an attempt to dispel certain myths circulated by extremists
and too often given media attention, I would like to tell this
House of the measures President Ben Ali has announced in connection
with this anniversary. They include greater separation of the
executive and legislative branches, the prohibition of race and
religion as bases for political parties, public funding of
political parties, enshrinement of the equality of men and women in
the exercise of democracy, guaranteed seats for the opposition in
the chamber of deputies and on municipal councils, a multi-party
system, confirmation of the role of judges in connection with
passports, and so on.
All these measures reflect values that we as Canadians hold
dear.
I congratulate President Ben Ali on leading his people along the
route to an ever stronger democracy and I offer the expression of
my affection to the people of Tunisia.
* * *
[English]
HIBERNIA
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to congratulate all those involved in the Hibernia project
and the people of Newfoundland for yesterday's milestone event
when oil began to flow one month ahead of schedule and under
budget.
This day has been long awaited not only by the people of
Newfoundland but the shareholders and taxpayers.
1410
Investors can now begin to see a return on the billions of
dollars used to finance the megaproject. Shareholders now have
confidence to invest in future offshore oil projects. The people
of Newfoundland will have up to 650 well paying jobs for the next
several decades.
Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin is quoted as saying that he
expects Newfoundland to be a have province by the end of the
decade. We Albertans know well the pride and benefits when oil
flows.
Once again, congratulations to the people of Newfoundland.
* * *
IRISH FAMINE
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the summer of 1997 was named the Irish Summer by Heritage Canada
in honour of the victims of the great Irish famine from 1845 to
1850. During these five terrible years in Ireland, one million
people died of starvation and famine fever. Another one million
fled across the Atlantic, some 300,000 to British North America,
including my own ancestors.
These Irish refugees were escaping repeated failures of the
potato crops, but also brutal and indifferent economic theories
which held sway at the so-called centre of civilization.
The worst year of all was 1847, Black '47, when 20,000 Irish
died on the coffin ships or in the quarantine stations of Grosse
Isle, Quebec and Partridge Island, New Brunswick.
One hundred and fifty years later this government affirmed its
commitment to preserve and protect the sacred burial grounds and
monuments. The best tribute to the victims of the Irish famine is
that Canada always be a nation which welcomes the refugee peoples
of our world.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONIE SUMMIT
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, being the
proud Acadian that I am, I would like to congratulate the City of
Moncton on being selected to host the next Francophonie summit. This is
an honour that highlights the vitality and diversity of all francophone
communities in Canada.
At the Moncton summit, the focus will be on youth, the youth that
represents the future of the French community. It is therefore important
to look at the challenges facing young francophones worldwide on the eve
of a new millennium.
The Francophonie summit will generate significant economic benefits
in the Moncton area and throughout New Brunswick. On the heels of the
successful 1995 Congrès mondial des Acadiens, the Moncton area has
demonstrated its capacity to host an international event.
The hard working spirit and hospitality of Acadians are legendary
and will no doubt ensure the success of the 1999 summit in Moncton.
* * *
QUEBEC CITY MAYOR
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebec City mayor
Jean-Paul L'Allier is still reluctant to fly the Canadian flag in front
of city hall, arguing that doing so would invite vandalism and violence.
Perhaps mayor L'Allier could show the same faith in the good
conduct of his fellow citizens in this instance as he did when a
monument was erected to commemorate the stupid remark General de Gaulle
uttered on Canadian soil.
“Don de Dieu ferai valoir” is your beautiful city's motto, Mr.
Mayor. Instead of coming up with all sorts of tricks to better serve the
king of separatist colonials, Lucien I, you should do the honourable
thing and represent all those Quebec City residents who are proud to be
Canadians and proud to be Quebeckers.
You should not hesitate to pay tribute to the symbol of the
greatest country in the world, a country that still counts Quebec City
as one of its jewels. A decision on this matter will be made at city
hall on December 1.
I therefore urge all Canadians and Quebeckers to pressure mayor
L'Allier by calling city hall in Quebec City.
* * *
[English]
HIBERNIA
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
today the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are celebrating the
birth of a new industry.
Yesterday as oil flowed on board the $5.8 billion Hibernia
platform, workers celebrated their accomplishments. Many of the
5,800 constructions workers, 90% of whom are Newfoundlanders, are
also quite proud of their contribution.
It is also time for Canadians to share in our celebration. Of
the $5.8 billion cost, $2.7 billion was spent in Newfoundland,
but $1.4 billion was also spent in other parts of Canada.
The $1.8 billion loan guarantee of the Government of Canada will
never be called upon. The billion dollar grant will be repaid in
full. In fact, Canada will receive much more now that the amount
of recoverable oil has been significantly increased.
This new industry with a potential of $100 billion of business
from the 5.8 billion barrels of oil and 52 billion cubic feet of
natural gas will be a major contributor to Canada's oil supply,
government revenues and business profits.
On behalf of all Newfoundlanders we are delighted to begin our
contribution.
* * *
NORTH BRAMPTON YOUTH DROP-IN CENTRE
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and commend the efforts of
the North Brampton Youth Drop-in Centre committee to create a
place that the youth of my riding of Brampton Centre can call
their own.
1415
The aims of the committee are to address the issue of teen
violence in Brampton, to provide a safe haven off the street, and
to provide the youth with opportunities to develop a stronger
sense of community and belonging.
I fully support the creation of the youth drop-in centre in the Heart
Lake district of my riding and I urge all stakeholders at the
provincial and municipal levels to endorse the creation of this
very worthwhile project and support the youth of our communities.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
AIRBUS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is about time for some answers on this Airbus affair.
The former prime minister says there was a high level government
plot to smear his name and then an attempt to cover up the plot.
The current prime minister denies the whole thing. He says there
were no Liberal ministers involved. He says the whole idea came
from a lowly RCMP sergeant who was just sitting around in the
police station and decided to go after the former prime minister.
Two prime ministers and two different stories. Which prime
minister is telling the truth?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in January of this year there was an agreement signed
with the lawyers of the former prime minister. It was written in
the settlement that was tabled in the House today
that the parties accept that the RCMP on its own initiated the
Airbus investigation.
The documents were tabled in the House. That was a statement
made by Mr. Mulroney, through his lawyers, in January 1997.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the prime minister says that no Liberal politicians were
involved.
Yesterday outside the House the Deputy Prime Minister admitted
that the Airbus investigation is continuing, it is still going
on. When he was asked if Brian Mulroney is still a suspect, he
did not rule that out.
Is Brian Mulroney still under investigation or not? If he is
not, why does the government not retract the letter to the Swiss
which started this whole mess in the first place?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP said that it is still carrying on the
investigation.
It is up to the RCMP to decide who it investigates; it is not
for the government to decide. The RCMP in doing its job never
mentions the names of the people who are being investigated
because if there is no charge there is no need to know the names.
We have to respect the freedom of individuals who are not called
to appear before the courts.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what has this bungled Airbus investigation accomplished?
It has wasted a lot of taxpayer money. It has tarnished the
reputation of the justice department and it has tarnished a lot
of personal reputations as well.
I am no fan of Brian Mulroney but even he has the right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Who in the government is responsible for this mess? Was it the
solicitor general, is it the justice minister, is it the former
justice minister or is it the prime minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again I will quote from the agreement. It states the
parties have always acknowledged that the RCMP must continue
investigating any allegations of illegality or wrongdoing brought
to its attention. That is what was signed between the parties in
January 1997.
Under our system nobody is guilty until proven guilty. It is
in accordance with the tradition of Canada that when there is an
investigation we do not name the people—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to get this straight. The prime minister says that no
one is guilty until they are proven guilty. That is wonderful
news. Canadians will be thrilled to hear that.
The prime minister I am sure is nervous to go on the CBC town
hall meeting after an answer like that. I cannot blame him for
that.
1420
Millions of dollars have been spent and the Prime Minister
sloughs it off. The former minister of justice is smirking about
it. I want to ask anyone on that front bench who will stand in
their place now and accept responsibility for Airbus.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I always take responsibility for my government. I have
never run away from any responsibilities.
The people of Canada want a system wherein the police do their
job without receiving instructions from their political leaders.
That is the system that has worked well in Canada and that I
respect.
The police are responsible and are doing their job.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
sadly the police are not allowed to do their job and I think
Sergeant Fiegenwald is proof of that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Deborah Grey: They are nervous about it. What we
see here is that the Liberals are going around and can give all
the standing ovations they like. They are in damage control mode
and trying to blame everybody but themselves where the blame
belongs.
The lawsuits are piling up with $2 million to Brian Mulroney.
Now Karlheinz Schreiber has come forward. He has a $35 million
lawsuit, and we have not even heard from Frank Moores' lawyers
yet.
Taxpayers want to know exactly how much they will be fleeced for
this latest Liberal scandal.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in a settlement with Mr. Mulroney they asked for $50
million in damages but accepted no dollar damages, just costs.
That was the settlement agreed by the parties in January.
When there is an agreement with persons who have cases against
the government and they decide to accept no compensation, we have
to say that it did not cost the government anything. However, we
accepted to pay the fees as we do in most cases with citizens in
Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
SEARCH AND RESCUE HELICOPTERS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
several weeks, everyone has been speculating about the purchase of
rescue helicopters by the federal government. There are now many rumours
about the helicopter chosen, the date of the announcement and the total
cost of the contract. There is obviously a great deal of confusion
regarding this important issue.
Will the Prime Minister show some openness and tell the House what
is happening with the purchase of helicopters by the government?
It is not complicated: we want to know where the government is headed
regarding this issue.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
within the next few weeks, the government will select one of the four
proposals made by the four different groups. The government has yet to
make that decision. The studies have not been completed. As soon as they
are, the House will be informed accordingly.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
issue is in the media; the companies are promoting their product, the
lobbyists are busy, and the issue is under review by cabinet. It is
discussed by everyone, except the elected members of this House.
Does the Prime Minister not find it unacceptable that elected
members of this House cannot discuss one of the most important purchases
made by the government since it took office, one that will cost in
excess of $600 million?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
helicopter issue goes back a long way. There have a number of opposition
days during which members could have raised the issue and made
proposals. They did not do so, even though the opposition can do so in
this House. Bloc members did not dare raise the issue and have a debate
on it. It was their prerogative. They chose to talk about something
else. Too bad for them.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Canadian government is about to spend over $600 million to
purchase helicopters without holding any real debate on this issue in
Parliament.
Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be essential that
Parliament hold a special debate on this issue, and does he intend to
call such a debate himself before a contract is awarded and to stop
laying the blame at the opposition's door?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member has provided the answer herself. If this issue is so important,
why did they not raise it on an opposition day?
1425
Moreover, each department's forecasts are studied during the year.
They did not point to any problem. The helicopter issue has been around
for a long time, and the government has said that helicopters were
needed to patrol Canada's shores for rescue operations, and the
opposition never raised this issue, neither in the House nor in
committee.
We will make the decision that it is the responsibility of the
government to make in the coming weeks.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this issue has been raised often in this House and in committee.
Since this is an expenditure involving over half a billion dollars,
would the Prime Minister agree to allow the defence committee to verify
the transparency of the process in terms of the selection criteria that
will be used to choose the helicopter model?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times, there were
four bids, which are presently being reviewed to make the decision to
buy.
Once the decision has been made, we, that is myself as Minister of
Public Works and Government Services and other ministers, can appear
before a committee with officials.
But presently, we are at the review stage. Once the analysis has
been completed, cabinet will meet, a decision will be made and there
will be a public announcement.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
As the minister knows the confidential document prepared for his
defence management committee discloses government plans to cut
$350 million by the year 2001. This means axing up to 9,000
civilian defence employees.
Will the minister confirm that his management committee is in
fact considering job cuts of this magnitude?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are, as are other government
operations and departments, going through the results of program
review. Deficit reduction is required. Decisions on cuts in
government spending were made two or three years ago and we are
in the throes of implementing them.
Yes, there are changes. There are cuts in jobs. I cannot
confirm those figures however. The cuts that are being made are
being done in a fair and reasonable fashion. People are being
treated fairly and humanely in terms of departure incentives from
the defence department.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, you
would never know we are talking about the lives of tens of
thousands of people.
Well placed sources indicate the defence management committee is
considering additional job cuts of 5,000 civilian workers and
18,000 regular force military personnel by December 1999. I
repeat these 23,000 cuts are in addition to those already
announced.
Is it the minister's intention to begin issuing these pink slips
before Christmas, or will he be delaying the massive layoffs
until Easter when his budget kicks in?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we are hearing a lot of scare
mongering here, in particular with these figures that do not have
a basis in fact.
We are going through implementation of cuts. As we go through
them we consult with the unions involved and with the personnel
involved. We are doing this in a fair and reasonable fashion as
in fact we have done with all cuts in terms of the public
service, because that is the proper way our employees should be
treated.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
welcome the Prime Minister back to Canada, but I am sorry to
inform him that in his absence the unemployment rate under his
government went up once again to 9.1%.
Notwithstanding, the government will increase CPP premiums, a
job killer, by 70%. I would like to know today whether he
continues to refuse any tax relief to Canadians.
Furthermore I would like to know, given this increase in
premiums, whether he will make public today studies on the impact
this increase in premiums will have on the jobs of Canadians.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
issue has been discussed and is currently before this House. The
agreement concerning the Canada pension plan was reached with the
provincial governments. The legislation reflects the decision of the
provincial governments and of the federal government to ensure that the
Canada pension plan can continue to operate in the next century.
There is an agreement with the provinces, and there will surely
be an impact because of the increase, but at the same time we
expect that during the coming years, there will be a reduction in
contributions for—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the Right Hon. Prime Minister,
but the hon. member from Sherbrooke has the floor.
1430
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister, once again, is trying to evade the question. I am talking
about his government's taxes, not those of the provincial governments.
[English]
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has already
affirmed now and stated that this increase in CPP premiums will
cost a firm that employs 10 people about $7,000 a year. This
will cost jobs for students, two to three summer jobs.
How could the Prime Minister accept this? How is it that he
will not offer tax relief to Canadians to offset this increase in
CPP premiums?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first responsibility of the federal government was
to clean up the mess created by the Tory government. We took a
deficit of $42 billion and reduced it to zero. In fact during
the last four years more than 970,000 new jobs have been created.
During the last campaign the leader of the Conservative Party
promised one million jobs in five years and we have done it in
four years.
* * *
AIRBUS
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government refuses to withdraw a letter containing a false
accusation that was the basis for the $50 million lawsuit in the
Airbus scandal. It settled that mess out of court and it cost
taxpayers millions of dollars.
Based upon that same false piece of correspondence we now have a
$35 million lawsuit against taxpayers. When will the Prime
Minister withdraw that letter and stop the lawsuits against
taxpayers?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member
knows, I cannot comment on the Schreiber case. It is a matter
before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Let me remind the hon. member that in the terms of settlement
entered into between the government and the former prime minister
of Canada, he specifically acknowledged the fact that it is a
duty and obligation of the RCMP to pursue all investigations and
all allegations made in relation to the matter before us.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question for the Prime Minister was why he would not withdraw the
letter that laid the base for the $50 million lawsuit and that
now lays the base for the $35 million lawsuit.
They know it contains false information and false accusations.
Why will they not withdraw that letter?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has made it
very plain to the Swiss authorities to whom the letter was sent
that anything contained in that letter are in fact allegations.
No conclusions of guilt or innocence are raised. They are in
fact allegations.
The terms of settlement are clear. The former prime minister
acknowledges the right and responsibility of the RCMP to pursue
these investigations.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA POST
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
Last night, the minister responsible for the Canada Post
Corporation stated that before special legislation could be
introduced there had to be a strike. In so doing, he was
suggesting that he would not hesitate to use special legislation if
there were a postal strike.
Over and above the good intentions the minister responsible
for Canada Post claims to have, is he not provoking postal workers
with such thinly veiled threats?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon.
member and the House that negotiations resumed yesterday and are
still under way between Canada Post and the postal workers' union.
I can state that these are progressing well and I would like to
give them a chance.
The hon. member can, therefore, be glad that negotiations are
under way. We trust that they will continue, and that a settlement
will soon be negotiated.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the real
scenario the government wants to see not a general strike it could
settle promptly through special legislation, as the minister let
slip late this past summer?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the wish of the
government, and of all Canadians I believe, is for a settlement to
be negotiated, and we hope to have one as soon as possible.
* * *
1435
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the tax department released its 1994-95 report which
confirmed that in that year alone income taxes paid by the
average taxpayer went up by 10%. That is largely because the
government has kept in place Brian Mulroney's hidden tax grab
called bracket creep, which the OECD says is hammering our
economy.
Since the finance minister will not commit to broad based tax
relief, will the Prime Minister commit to stop raising taxes
through the hidden tax grab called bracket creep?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members on this
side of the House are very familiar with the fact that our income
taxes are very high. When we have the appropriate measures—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Jim Peterson: I am very pleased that we have taken a
step by not bringing in wholesale tax cuts in the way the
opposition wanted. That would have put our fiscal deficit out of
reach. We have done the responsible thing and we will introduce
a tax cut only when it can be sustained—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are glad to finally hear that admission. The problem
is that Canadians are suffering because of a tax burden which is
getting higher every year.
It is not a question of cutting taxes. It is a question of not
raising taxes any more under bracket creep. When will the
Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister stop this destructive
tax on inflation, or will they continue to be known by Canadians
as the bracket creeps?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will work in
a responsible way to bring down taxes because we know that Canada
of all G-7 countries has one of the highest rates of personal
income tax. We will not sacrifice our efforts to reduce the
deficit and to bring down our debt just because this party is
calling for a tax cut.
This is a party that has called for getting rid of the GST. This
is a party that is calling for cutting payroll taxes. This is a
party that is calling for the cutting of CPP premiums. We have
to be responsible—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
While environmental groups have unanimously condemned the
Regina agreement and cited the position taken by Quebec as an
example, the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers, for his part, said that it was the best agreement his
association could have hoped for.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his position is the best
proof that his government has caved in to the petroleum lobby and
to its representative, the Reform Party?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to reply to this question because it is the first time
we have managed to reach an agreement with the provinces. The
provinces said that the Canadian position is a position—
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Without Quebec.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Yes, it is easy for you to say that
now. There will be an agreement. This is a position that we are
going to defend in Kyoto and that we can improve.
Now we know what the provinces are prepared to do. Rather
than impose our views, we tried to reach a consensus with the
governments of all provinces—
An hon. member: Except Quebec.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister had promised a very firm position on the reduction of
greenhouse gases. Today, he is content to follow the American
position.
Is this not another of the Prime Minister's broken promises?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we consulted the provinces. We have not taken a final position
yet, but we are very happy to see that the provinces realize that
there is a problem and that they will have to work with the federal
government.
We are continuing our consultations with other governments and
we hope to have an agreement in Kyoto signed by the Europeans and
the Americans. We also hope that the third world will want to be
part of any agreement, because atmospheric problems concern
developing, as well as developed, countries.
* * *
1440
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today it is the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation blasting
the mess the Liberals are making of CPP reform. Forty-eight
billion extra dollars will be snatched out of the pockets of
Canadians between 1997 and 2003. That amounts to over $3,000 in
new CPP taxes per working Canadian.
Is taking more to deliver less the minister's idea of retirement
security for Canadians?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we acted after
15 years of inaction. We were the government that was able to
work with the provinces to put the Canada pension plan on a
sustainable basis. If we had not acted, the premiums would have
gone to over 14%.
None of us like tax increases, but more than anything else we
have sustained the viability of the Canada pension plan and we
are proud of it.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this new CPP tax will take out of Newfoundland $860
million more. Out of Saskatchewan it will take nearly $2 billion
extra. Even out of the Northwest Territories it will take nearly
$200 million extra dollars.
The taxpayers' federation says that the government's proposed
reforms are not sustainable, not affordable and patently unfair.
When will the minister simply admit how unfair this plan really
is?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, talking in terms
of fairness, this is the party that had no plans to deal with the
$600 billion of unfunded liabilities in this plan. It then
finally comes along and the hon. critic who has just spoken says
“there is a mess and we need to look at perhaps paying some of
the unfunded liability out of general tax revenues”. She was
then muzzled. We have taken the responsible course. It was
something we did in consultation with the provinces.
Our senior citizens can rest assured that they have an indexed
pension—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Jean.
* * *
[Translation]
FORMER SINGER EMPLOYEES
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The federal government is stalling for time in the matter
involving the former employees of the Singer company. We must
remember that the Minister of Human Resources Development has
always maintained his compassion for them and his diligence on
their behalf.
Where are the minister's compassion and diligence as he drags
people whose average age is 82 before the courts instead of
providing a settlement?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are acting totally
responsibly. I have instructed our lawyers to act diligently and
quickly, and we are not in a position to settle out of the court
because we cannot acknowledge a responsibility that was not ours
with respect to the Singer pension fund.
* * *
[English]
PRIVACY
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the secretary of state responsible for
financial institutions.
At the stroke of midnight on Halloween night, the
Toronto-Dominion Bank passed all of its customer information to
its insurance, mortgage and security subsidiaries unless each
customer said no to its negative option marketing demand.
Will the secretary move by legislation to stop this invasion of
privacy?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member
knows, from 1990 to 1996 the Canadian Standards Association,
which consists of management, labour, consumers, provincial and
federal governments, worked to draw up a code of privacy for our
financial institutions.
I am pleased to say that in this instance the guidelines of the
Canadian Standards Association were met. However, privacy is an
issue which is of very great concern to us. We hope the task
force is going to look into it and, of course, the finance
committee would welcome their views.
* * *
1445
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the House
the Liberals are fond of standing up, beating their chests
talking about how great they are with the UN, about how good they
are at attacking Saddam Hussein, but they are letting a billion
dollar trade deal sneak through and hopefully nobody will see it,
leaving it to the UN to decide what to do.
When will this government stand up and let Saddam Hussein know
exactly where it stands on that issue?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we already have. We have made it very clear that
they must live up to all their obligations under the United
Nations.
I want to point out to the hon. member that the proposal to
exchange goods is for humanitarian purposes, to help the children
of Iraq, not Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
we heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that they let the UN
decide whether this was a good deal or not, whether trucks were
all right and whether trucks could be used for humanitarian
purposes or used by the military. That is the question.
We need to send a message to Iraq on where we stand and that we
are with our allies, standing up for the sanctions the UN is
going to impose.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is clearly out in space on this.
The reality is that under the UN sanctions we first consider any
application that comes to us and whether it meets the criteria.
It is then referred to the UN and comes back to us to see if it
fits our export and import laws.
I would suggest that before the hon. member asks those kinds of
questions that he first learn what goes on in Canada and not
making fabrications to try and suggest that something is
happening which is not happening.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Public Works angrily condemned the
Canadian Union of Postal Workers for refusing to allow Canada
Post to eliminate 4,000 jobs. His comments indicated a clear
bias in favour of the corporation and an open hostility toward
the working Canadians who are fighting for their jobs.
Will the minister withdraw his damaging statements of yesterday
and let the parties conclude a new agreement free of interference
and free of the kind of threats that we heard yesterday?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I said before
in French I will say now in English. The two parties have been
in negotiations since yesterday. They negotiated and according
to reports I have, they are doing very well. I hope that very
soon we will have a negotiated settlement.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
biggest single obstacle in this round of bargaining stems from
the Liberal government demanding that Canada Post pay dividends
of over $200 million over the next five years. Canada Post wants
to meet those demands by eliminating jobs.
Since when is Canada Post supposed to generate hundreds of
millions of dollars in profits when its mandate is to put
revenues into better service for Canadians?
Will the minister and his government withdraw this unreasonable
demand for profits, take away the need to eliminate jobs and
thereby move us toward a speedy settlement in this round of
bargaining?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what this government
and this minister want is a very viable postal service for all
Canadians so that Canadians can continue to receive the mail and
Canadian workers can continue to have jobs and create new jobs.
That is what we are doing. That is what is on the table.
I hope that the hon. gentleman with his connection to the union
will speak to his friends so that we can have a negotiated
settlement as soon as possible.
* * *
HIBERNIA
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday was a great day for Newfoundland and, indeed, all of
Canada as Hibernia oil flowed for the first time. A new industry
was born which will produce billions of dollars for the
Government of Canada.
On October 18, 1994 the Prime Minister stated in the House in
response to a question on Hibernia financing “If we had to do it
all over again, perhaps we should have not gone ahead”.
Will the Prime Minister now acknowledge that the Hibernia
project was a great project for all the people of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I was minister of energy I worked very hard to make
sure that we would proceed very quickly. I was trying to get an
agreement which was denied by the then Conservative government of
the Province of Newfoundland.
If that had happened, production would have occurred in Canada
10 years ago.
* * *
1450
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Undoubtedly the minister will be aware—and if he is not aware,
he should be—that his department has delayed the issuance of
employment insurance payments in Newfoundland. These payments
are due tomorrow, but because of a looming postal strike, they
will not be issued until next week. He should know that these
people are living from cheque to cheque and from week to week.
They need their money now.
Will the minister give these people assurances that payments due
this week will be issued this week, postal strike or not?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course we hope very much
that there will not be a postal strike but indeed for people who
are to receive the benefits, my department will do its very best
to deliver all payments as usual as we do as the posts are still
working for the time being.
* * *
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Young Canadians are increasingly aware that the most important
criteria for whether they have a job when they are 30 is the
level of their post-secondary education. They are also
increasingly concerned that they might not be able to afford it.
I ask the minister what he is doing to ensure that all Canadians
will be able to get this kind of education when they want it.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her
very timely question.
Our government does recognize the financial difficulties of
students and it is taking action. Yesterday and today I have
been hosting the first ever national conference of all
stakeholders addressing student loans. We have had the students'
associations and the association of the bankers. I can state
that we have gained very good insights from these people. We
will be taking these very good ideas and will be building these
recommendations into good strategies for students.
* * *
PARKS CANADA
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
since the Heritage Minister shut down Banff and Jasper airstrips,
pilots have been ticketed. Last week a plane loaded with Parks
Canada officials landed in Banff and was not ticketed. Why were
they not ticketed? Why are they flying above the law?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should know that Parks Canada has
regulations that govern those airstrips. Part of those
regulations are that emergency landings can be made. This was an
emergency landing. It was under the regulations and it was an
appropriate use of that airstrip.
Parks Canada follows the law and this was part of following the
law.
* * *
[Translation]
EGYPT
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Yesterday's attack in Egypt sent shock waves around the world.
The safety of tourists and foreign travellers is at risk throughout
the country.
Could the minister tell us what measures he has put in place
to guarantee the physical safety of Canadians currently in Egypt?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I should indicate to the hon. member that for
several months now we have been issuing travel advisories
demonstrating that there could be some problems in Egypt. In
fact, I was in Egypt just last week and met with the officials.
We did talk about those kinds of issues.
What we will be doing now is reviewing very distinctly what kind
of other measures we might take to ensure safety. In this case
the primary responsibility is to issue the advisory and to ensure
that people understand what kind of problems there might be.
* * *
SELF-GOVERNMENT
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
lack of this government's leadership on aboriginal issues was
shown once again as courts were left to make controversial
rulings about logging rights on crown land.
As aboriginal leaders and premiers meet today to discuss
constitutional issues, will this government now show leadership
and state support for both ongoing formal participation of
aboriginal leaders in constitutional talks and for
constitutionally recognizing aboriginal peoples' inherent right
to self-government?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government's position
on self-government is very clear.
1455
We introduced a policy recognizing the inherent right to
self-government and our government is working in partnership with
First Nations to ensure the development of those self-governing
bodies that will allow for better and more timely application of
programs and strategies for our aboriginal people.
* * *
HALIFAX AIRPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday at the
aviation conference, he said that he would like to have the
opportunity to refute some of the negative remarks in the
newspapers about the devolution process regarding the Halifax
airport. I am pleased to give him the opportunity.
I wonder if he could give assurance to the Halifax airport
people that Halifax airport will get the same investment, the
same facilities and the same consideration as the airports in
Winnipeg and Ottawa got under their devolution process because
they all have about the same volume of traffic.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can unequivocally guarantee the hon. member that
Halifax will be treated the same way all other cities in the
country have been treated in the negotiations.
I do not propose to negotiate in public. This is a matter
between my officials and the Halifax Airport Authority but we
have appointed a management consulting firm of accountants to
give a third party opinion. I hope that all sides can be bound
by the results of that study.
* * *
VIA RAIL
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): My question
is for the Minister of Transport. There has been speculation in
the press lately that the government is considering restructuring
VIA Rail in order to accommodate partnership with the private
sector.
Can the minister clarify what the government's intentions are
regarding the privatization of VIA Rail?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians have a commitment to the
continuation of the passenger rail service. I think VIA's
management has done an outstanding job at reducing costs over the
last few years.
With the level of subsidy that VIA has at its disposal, it does
not have the money to refinance for new equipment. We have to
find other ways. What I said in a speech yesterday is that we
should look at bringing in the private sector, perhaps with some
kind of franchising arrangement.
I will be asking the Standing Committee on Transport to look at
all these matters in the new year so that it can give us its
advice and so that there is a wide spectrum of opinion for the
government to make its decisions on.
* * *
AIRBUS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Brian Mulroney and indeed every Canadian is entitled to due
process of law. It is obvious to everyone, to the RCMP and to
every Canadian that the case against Brian Mulroney is frivolous
and vexatious.
Brian Mulroney is an innocent man and the Prime Minister knows
it. For that reason, his government approved a settlement in the
case that Mr. Mulroney brought against the Government of Canada.
To allow the investigation to carry on, the Prime Minister is
suggesting that there is—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week in Regina the provinces reached an agreement to limit
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010.
However, the federal government has not said what its position
will be, whether it will be going with the provinces' position or
take something else to Kyoto.
My question is what is the position of the government in Kyoto?
Secondly, what is the plan to achieve these targets? What is the
position? What is the plan?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we still have not heard any position from
the Reform Party. The reality is that we had a
federal-provincial communique last week in Regina in which the
provincial ministers said that they agreed that the federal
government should have flexibility with regard to our targets.
They said that they wanted emissions reduced by approximately
2010 and agreed that there should be further reductions after
that. We wish that the Reform Party would show some concern for
the environment and its serious national interest.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Suzie Robitaille's five children have yet to be released by their
father in Egypt, and an agreement between Canada and Egypt has yet to be
signed. But the Minister of Foreign Affairs said he would travel to
Egypt to try to resolve the matter.
Could the minister, who is now back from Egypt, tell us whether he
discussed Mrs. Robitaille's situation with his Egyptian counterpart and
signed an agreement recognizing Canadian court rulings?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, indeed, I made representations directly to President Moubarak
of Egypt, who promised to immediately look into the matter and take
appropriate action.
* * *
1500
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the government has just confirmed Greenpeace findings of
lead content in children's toys and vinyl products that is higher
than Health Canada guidelines. It then had the gall to dismiss
its own findings by stating there is no significant risk to
children.
Why does the government not care enough about the health and
safety of children to do something about this serious issue?
Would the Minister of Health himself buy for his children a
product with dangerously high levels of lead and cadmium like
this particular product?
The Speaker: Colleagues, I urge you not to bring any
props into this House. The question then I will rule out of
order. That brings to a close our question period.
I have notices of questions of privilege from the hon. members
for Sarnia—Lambton and York South—Weston. And I have a point
of order from the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
DRAFTING LEGISLATION
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the notice I gave yesterday I rise on this question
of privilege.
Yesterday morning the legislative counsel office advised me that
in response to a request for a status report on a private
member's bill being drafted for me that the work of drafting this
legislation is in the hands of a classroom of students at Ottawa
University. This advice came by phone and subsequently by letter.
I am aware that the recent annual report of the House of Commons
alluded to a partnership between this House and the University of
Ottawa with respect to training students. That being noted and as
a consequence I would submit the following to you as a prima
facie case of privilege.
First, giving this drafting assignment to a classroom of
students is placing in the public domain certain ideas which I
assume would be first tabled in this House at first reading of
the bill.
Second, as a member I have the right to assume and I have the
right to expect that work carried out on my behalf will remain
confidential; that is, out of the public domain until such time
that it is in fact tabled in this House or released by me.
I would hardly think that a classroom of students at a public
university in any way meets the test of confidentiality of bills
being drafted. It is in fact releasing work in progress from a
member's office into the public domain.
1505
Third, sending this matter to a university class for drafting
goes outside the parameters of the authority of the Board of
Internal Economy.
Mr. Speaker, as you pointed out in a ruling on October 23 of
this year, section 52(3) of the Parliament of Canada Act vests in
the board the administrative rights with respect to members and
staff. Clearly by farming out this work to a university class,
the board has no control or authority over these drafters. These
students are clearly not staff of the House of Commons. In fact,
by falling outside the purview of section 52(3) they are clearly
and plainly in the public domain.
Fourth, if work in my office is to be released into the public
domain either by me or my staff or House staff, my consent is
necessary. This work was sent to the legislative counsel's
office on the assumption that it would remain confidential.
Without my consent it has been released to a classroom of
students, which is by any definition not a confidential setting.
Finally, in the letter I received from the House this morning I
was advised that my file was being directed by Professor Keyes at
the University of Ottawa. Interestingly, this person is one and
the same John Mark Keyes who works as a lawyer for the Department
of Justice. This was confirmed by placing a phone call to him
this morning at his office at the Department of Justice.
One of the fundamentals of privilege is that members be able to
do their work free from the interference of the crown. In other
words, a member of this House does not resort to employees of the
crown for advice, yet that is what occurred when my file and
presumably others were sent to him and to his class at the
University of Ottawa.
Is it not interesting that a Department of Justice lawyer has
advance notice of private members' bills being drafted and has
input into their creation? That, I understood, was the reason
for the creation of the legislative counsel.
Clearly this is a serious matter of privilege. As the defender
of the rights and privileges of members, I submit to you, Mr.
Speaker, that this releasing or delegation, or whatever you want
to call it, of confidential work in progress to a classroom of
students is in fact releasing into the public domain, without my
consent, work or matters which are confidential. It is a prima
facie case of privilege.
With your permission I would move that motion.
Second, giving this file to a Department of Justice official,
a crown official, is also a matter of privilege, and with your
permission I would move a second motion on that.
Third, I would suggest to you that there is a residuary
discretion vested in your office to correct decisions of the
Board of Internal Economy when that board inadvertently intrudes
into matters of privilege.
In this regard I acknowledge the general principle, as
enunciated by you, that the board can regulate generally the
office of the legislative counsel. However, at some point the
board made a decision that passed through the threshold of
reasonableness and in fact became a question of privilege, as
evidenced by sending members' drafting requests, requests that
are expected to be confidential, to a class of students at a
public university and to a Department of Justice lawyer.
Mr. Speaker, I request that you exercise this discretion and
acknowledge that the decision made by the Board of Internal
Economy to allow students to do our drafting work is evidence
that there is inadequate legislative counsel support for members.
If you make the comparison, and I acknowledge that this is only
a comparison, that there are two legislative counsel in the other
place and there are still only two for members of this House,
then I have to say that the members of the other place have on a
pro rated basis three times the level of service that we have.
Certainly the cuts by the board, I would suggest, have passed
the point of determining the general operations of the
legislative counsel's office and have triggered the threshold of
privilege.
Once again, with your permission, I would move a third motion on
this.
1510
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton has made
his case. I would like to look into some of the allegations he
has put forth. I will reserve judgement on this until I get more
information. I want to satisfy myself. When it is necessary I
will come back to the House on this particular question of
privilege.
On a second question of privilege, the hon. member for York
South—Weston.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank you for recognizing me today
during question period to ask a question.
While the Speaker has the right to recognize members of
Parliament during question period to ask questions, I would
submit to you, Sir, that every member of Parliament except
cabinet ministers and perhaps parliamentary secretaries has the
right to ask questions in the House of Commons. To deny a member
the opportunity to ask questions during question period, whether
the member of Parliament is a government backbencher or a member
of the opposition, is a breach of that member's rights and
privileges.
A practice has developed, and it started developing before you
became Speaker, where opposition members of Parliament who did
not belong to a political party were treated in a different
fashion from opposition members of Parliament who belong to
political parties and indeed treated differently than government
backbenchers. That practice is to recognize those members of
Parliament who do not belong to political parties in the last
five minutes of questions period.
More important, the practice has developed where those members
of Parliament who do not belong to a political party are denied
the opportunity to ask supplementary questions. There is no
valid basis for that form of double standard, not only with
respect to members of Parliament on the oppositions side who do
not belong to a political party but also to government
backbenchers because they too are treated differently in that
they are not permitted to ask a supplementary question.
I would ask that you review this practice, which has developed
over the years, with the view to treating every member of
Parliament the same, treating every member of Parliament in a
fair fashion.
I was elected, just as all other members were elected, by
constituencies. We were given a mandate to represent our
constituents to the best of our abilities. By allowing this
practice to continue, Mr. Speaker, you are discriminating against
the voters of my riding and the voters of the other members who
find themselves in a situation where they do not belong to a
political party. That is discriminatory. I would ask that you
review the practice.
The Speaker: My colleague, I would of course not want to
be discriminatory either in question period or in the debates.
What I have tried to do over the years but surely during the
last two weeks in this Parliament is ensure that more members of
Parliament can take part in question period. I think that by and
large, because it was the will of the House, the questions seem
on the whole to be much shorter and the answers seem to be much
shorter. We have been able to get in more members of Parliament.
If what the hon. member is suggesting is that every member who
stands has a question and a supplementary, that would be
something I could consider. This would have some other
ramifications in the rotation and in the number of people.
There are some parties that have chosen, instead of having a
question and a supplementary, to have a question by one member
and a second question by another member. I find no problem with
that.
If what the hon. member is suggesting is that there always be a
supplementary, I will consider it. If it is feasible to do such
a thing in question period I will consider it in the hopes that
this will make for a better question period.
1515
It has been my view, and I share it with you openly, that the
more members who can get on for questions the more questions we
can get answered. It would make in my view, but it is only my
view, of course, for a better question period.
I say in compliment to the House that whereas in last term we
were getting in maybe 22 to 24 questions in a question period it
is not uncommon for us now to get in between 38 and 42. In that
way I believe it has improved.
I am always open to suggestions from members of Parliament. I
will take your suggestion under advisement, if that is what it
is. It is not a point of privilege if you want me to rule on
that.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, you did not give me the
opportunity to finish my submissions. I am afraid you have
misinterpreted my submissions.
If it is your wish to get more members of Parliament asking
questions, that is fine. What I am saying is that a practice has
developed and you know that a practice has developed because all
the questions I have asked in the House since Parliament has
reconvened have been between 2.55 and 3 p.m. On no occasion have
I been entitled to a supplementary question. In fact today you
did not even give the government an opportunity to answer the
question that I was about to put.
The Speaker: I do not want to enter into a debate with
the hon. member. I believe he has made his point and, as I said,
I will take it under advisement. I have been trying to get the
questions in, in a reasonable amount of time. I would encourage
all members. As a matter of fact most questions today came in,
in quite a reasonable amount of time, but there were some
discussions on before we came in.
The hon. member is an independent member and of course he would
fall directly under my purview. I am very, very much aware of
that. By way of improving the question period I will take the
suggestions under advisement.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise. I just want
to put on record that we in the Conservative Party support the
contention of the government member who spoke previously on his
point of order. Similarly I just want to speak very briefly with
respect to the hon. member for York South—Weston.
My reading of his question of privilege is that in fact as an
independent member he is more vulnerable perhaps to the process
that we have undertaken. I fully appreciate your position in the
chair, Mr. Speaker, as having to try to equitably distribute the
questions both between government and opposition members. An
extensive negotiation process went into that.
I want to support the hon. member in his contention that he must
be given an equitable portion of that and that having his
question earlier in the question period may involve some
significant rotation point, so I do rise in support of that
issue.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his opinion with
regard to that. Was that his point of order?
Mr. Peter MacKay: No, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TIMING OF PRESENTATION
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you as Speaker are aware that at the
close of question period there seems to be a rush to the exits. I
would just put to the Chair that it is my feeling points of order
and questions of privilege do affect and have a significant
impact on the governing of the House which you have to oversee.
I am just wondering if there is some way to effect a more prompt
interjection on your part, Mr. Speaker, in having these points of
order heard before the entire body of the House.
The Speaker: I can appreciate your request to have as
many members here as possible to hear points of order. However,
in the House of Commons members are free to come and go as they
will.
I would encourage hon. members, if they are interested in the
points of order and the questions of privilege being raised, to
indeed stay to hear them. If it proves to be beneficial for them
then so much the better.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to add slightly to your consideration of the question raised
by the member for York South—Weston.
Perhaps you can consider the impact on the rest of us of
agreeing to the suggestions made by the member.
If he were to receive a supplementary question on the odd
occasions he is here and asks a question, I do not think it would
detract much from the rights and privileges of the rest of us.
1520
I hope you will take that into account, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I appreciate the magnanimity of the member.
Yes, I will take that into account.
DRAFTING LEGISLATION
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some comments to the question of
privilege raised by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. It is
very important for you to understand what this means to
backbenchers and for private members' bills.
It is absolutely impossible for me to understand how this could
happen. It is not only a matter of privilege but it denigrates
Private Members' Business.
The Speaker: Of course I appreciate the hon. member's
remarks. I have not yet decided if it is a question of privilege
or not. I am going to look into the matter and when I have
satisfied myself one way or another I will return to the House if
it is necessary.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to comment on the matter of
confidentiality. It is absolutely disturbing to think, with no
disrespect to the university or to the students, that bills are
being proposed and prepared for Private Members' Business through
a student body at the university.
Again with no disrespect intended toward the students, my
concerns are to ensure privacy and the legal framework under
which our business is being conducted. I always believed that
drafting for private members' hour was carried out by individuals
under the direct control of the House.
I would first like to know if the Board of Internal Economy was
aware of this and, more important, I would like to add my
observation that in my opinion this is a case of privilege.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for her opinion that
it is a case of privilege, but I am sure she will give me the
latitude to decide whether or not it is a case of privilege.
The information has been well documented by the hon. member for
Sarnia—Lambton. I will look into the matter and try to get to
the bottom of it.
I have already ruled on this issue in the sense that it was not
privilege but was an administrative matter. A few more points
have been brought into the debate, which is why I want to take my
time and look at all aspects to see if we can come up with
something else.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to add my support to the hon. member for
Sarnia—Lambton.
I raised the same concern a month ago in the context of the
process. We as members are not being allowed to decide this in
the House of Commons. It is being decided by the Board of
Internal Economy. We are not being given direct input.
I raised a question of privilege on that and I have not had a
reply as yet. Things are getting worse and worse as we continue
down this road. This needs to be addressed and I would like to
see the whole House discuss it at some point.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to put on record for the whole House and all parties
involved that the Speaker who chairs the Board of Internal
Economy and presides over our meetings does not act arbitrarily.
We seek his guidance quite often but ultimately in the end we as
representatives of our parties deal with subject matters such as
the one before the House now.
On one hand I am pleased that hopefully by next week the other
place will have given us royal assent on the Parliament of Canada
Act which will bring other representatives from the New
Democratic Party and the Conservative Party to the Board of
Internal Economy.
The House should be reminded that this issue has had a fair
amount of debate at the Board of Internal Economy. I know the
hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton and other colleagues from my side
speak to me almost daily about the issue.
I encourage members from the other parties to do likewise with
their House leader and representatives.
1525
Hopefully next week when the board resumes its meetings the
issue will be resolved.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
add my voice to those of my colleagues because, earlier, the hon. member
for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve wanted to address this issue, but you did not
recognize him. So, with your permission, I would like, on his behalf, to
tell the House that the Bloc Quebecois very enthusiastically supports
the point raised by the hon. member.
This having been said, and as pointed out by the chief government
whip, the issue has already led to intense discussions within the House
of Commons' Board of Internal Economy, and while I am prevented by my
oath of office as a member of that board to elaborate, I am surprised to
see that the unanimity reached in the House does not exist within the
Board of Internal Economy.
[English]
The Speaker: So much for that. I do not want you to get
into any secrets here.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
since everybody else was weighing in on this weighty matter I
just thought I would put on record that the NDP caucus shares the
concern raised by the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
We hope in the days to come that this can be dealt with
successfully in the places where it should be dealt with. In my
judgment it is not a question of it not being dealt with by
Parliament just because it is being dealt with by the Board of
Internal Economy. The Board of Internal Economy consists of
representatives of the various parties.
If the member has a problem he should take it to his member on
the board and not suggest that somehow Parliament is not dealing
with it, because that is how Parliament does deal with it.
The Speaker: I thank you very much for your
interventions. I will take all that under consideration. I am
going to come back to the House if necessary.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CUSTOMS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, an
act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the hon.
member opposite gave his reply and his comments on the speech I made
before question period, you told me I would have a few minutes to reply
to his questions and comments.
Therefore, I would like to know how much time I have left to
complete my remarks.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Lotbinière is quite correct. He has the floor to respond to a
question previously put. We will resume debate after the hon.
member has responded. He has five minutes left in questions and
comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, obviously, my colleague
opposite was a bit surprised at the many questions I had about Bill
C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code.
You will understand that we in the Bloc Quebecois are here to
genuinely defend Quebec's interests, and when we see the way our
friends opposite have been behaving since the beginning of this
36th Parliament, it goes without saying that we are even more on
our guard, since the government, using all sorts of excuses, all
sorts of national guidelines, is trying to interfere in matters
that concern the Government of Quebec.
1530
When I see, for example, what they did with Dorval airport,
where an agreement had almost been concluded with the Sûreté du
Québec to assume responsibility for airport security and the
federal government stepped in and imposed the RCMP, you will
understand that, because of the powers that will be given to our
customs officers with Bill C-18, members of the Bloc Quebecois want
to make sure that provincial jurisdictions are respected.
When someone is apprehended at the border point, a process
will be set in motion and things must be clear, that is to say that
it will be the Sûreté du Québec and the courts of provincial
jurisdiction, as the provincial authorities, that will have control
regarding possible charges laid by the legal system.
I also asked a few questions that were not answered. For
instance, I asked the hon. member what assurances she had given
union representatives. She replied that she had received a letter.
I did not, however, hear anything specific about whether seniority
clauses will be respected and whether the collective agreement of
people represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada will
also be respected. So, with this in mind, the Bloc Quebecois would
like things to be clear.
The throne speech delivered not all that long ago made the
federal government's intentions clear; it intends to use every
opportunity to get involved in areas under provincial jurisdiction,
so we are going to remain very much on our guard in reading bill C-18.
I would remind you, however, that we are very much in favour
of Bill C-18 as such, since the statistics I have given offer a
very good explanation of why we would like to see customs officers'
powers enhanced. However, we want to see all of this happen with
the utmost transparency and we want to see provincial jurisdictions
respected throughout the process of passing the legislation, of
training the customs officers, of renovating Canada Customs posts.
I think that everyone, if treated fairly, both in Quebec City
and in Ottawa, will be very pleased with the passage of Bill C-18,
for which I reiterate my support.
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
split my time with the hon. member for Niagara Falls.
I am very pleased to take my turn at expressing support for
Bill C-18, which will give Revenue Canada customs officers the
additional powers they require to enforce the Criminal Code at the
border. It will be recalled that Bill C-89 ought to have been
passed last March, but the elections intervened and it was put off.
This bill will have a positive impact for all Canadians,
particularly those in Beauce, where we have the Armstrong border
crossing. It will allow us to fill in a gap in enforcement which
currently prevents our officers from intervening at border
crossings to control criminal behaviour, such as impaired driving,
child abduction, the possession of stolen goods. It also gives
officers the power to arrest and detain any individual for whom
there is an outstanding arrest warrant.
Bill C-18 will reinforce Revenue Canada's commitment to
protect Canadians. Thanks to our position at the border, we have
a unique advantage in identifying and intercepting criminals. We
want to take advantage of our advantageous position. The bill will
transform enforcement of the Criminal Code at the border
considerably. It will in fact allow us to intercept criminals at
the border and consequently to provide the communities in our
country with better protection.
We can assure Canadians that we will provide customs officers
with training that will equip them to perform their new duties in
a fair and responsible manner while remaining within the law.
1535
The government's position is that there is no need to have
personnel at the border carry firearms, as this could, moreover,
escalate violence instead of helping resolve conflicts. Customs
officers perform their jobs effectively without firearms, and
everything leads us to believe that this is the way it will always
be.
What it means is that they will be able to intervene without
waiting for the police when they believe someone has committed, or
is in the act of committing, an offence under the Criminal Code.
They will, for instance, be in a position to take the following
steps: detain impaired drivers; take a breath sample, hand over to
the police those whose alcohol level is high enough to justify
their taking a breathalyser test; detain or arrest suspected child
abductors; arrest or detain persons against whom a warrant for
arrest has been issued under the Criminal Code. Customs officers
will hold suspects in detention until the police can intervene.
This makes a huge difference in the enforcement of the Criminal
Code at the border.
It is essential to bear in mind that customs officers will use
these powers only within the framework of their duties at entry
points. They will not take part in investigations under the
Criminal Code. With the exception of testifying in court, they
will not take part in investigations once the police have
intervened.
At present, customs officers have the power to arrest and detain
persons for offences under the Customs Act and the Excise Act. But when
they observe Criminal Code offences, the only line of action open to
them is to notify local authorities. The purpose of the bill put forward
today is to confer on designated officers the power to arrest and
detain persons who contravene the Criminal Code. This means that customs
officers will have the power to perform arrests for such offences as
impaired driving, child abduction or, as I said, possession of stolen
goods.
It is important that this bill be passed as quickly as possible so
that selection and training can start. We hope to implement this program
within six to nine months after the bill is passed.
We intend to apply the program at all ports of entry, starting with
those with the heaviest traffic and the largest number of Criminal Code
offences.
Every manned border crossing will have designated officers
responsible for enforcing the Criminal Code. We are glad that the
various police forces at the municipal and provincial levels, as well as
the RCMP, welcomed this change. With this legislation, the police will
be able to rely on customs officers to arrest and detain at the border
any person suspected of a Criminal Code offence, which will make a big
difference in the workload of the police.
We plan to continue discussions with the provinces and with our
federal colleagues to finalize the implementation plan.
Designated officers will be vested with the powers required to
arrest or detain persons suspected of violating the Criminal Code. These
officers will work at ports of entry across Canada and will have direct
contact with travellers wishing to enter Canada. Immediate response
powers will only be granted to those full time customs officers who have
received appropriate training. That is why I am pleased to support Bill
C-18 today.
[English]
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-18, legislation
reintroduced in this House to give customs officers new powers
under the Criminal Code.
This legislation continues the good work carried on in Bill
C-89, a bill that died when Parliament was dissolved prior to the
last federal election.
1540
Customs officers are our first line of defence in keeping drugs,
contraband and illegal firearms out of the country. I am proud
to lend my support to Bill C-18. I believe this legislation will
make our communities safer and will be beneficial for border
communities such as the one that I have the privilege of
representing federally.
Under this new legislation, customs officers—many of my
constituents happen to work as customs officers as there are four
point crossings in my constituency—would provide first response
capability at the border.
Bill C-18 will make the enforcement of our criminal laws more
efficient and effective and will help to render every community
in Canada a safer place in which to live.
Under the proposed legislation, customs officers will be given
the capability of detaining or arresting at the border those
individuals suspected of having committed criminal offences, for
example, impaired driving or child abduction.
At present, customs officers have the power of detaining and
arresting individuals who commit customs act offences such as
smuggling. Customs officers also have the authority to search
and seize goods such as illegal drugs, firearms, contraband
tobacco and liquor and prohibited materials such as child
pornography from entering Canada.
A study conducted in 1995 concluded that the existing situation
was unacceptable and it proposed an extension of customs
officers' powers to include Criminal Code offences. The
recommendations made by this study received support by many
important organizations and groups such as police forces, Revenue
Canada employees and the customs excise unit.
History showed us that if customs officers had had in the past
the powers, lives could have been saved.
Six years ago, sexual predator Jonathon Yeo was prevented from
entering the United States at the Niagara Falls border crossing.
He was armed. American officials alerted Canada Customs that an
armed man was heading back into Canada. Sadly, Canadian
officials did not have the legal right to detain him. As we
know, he went on to murder three people before killing himself.
One of the victims was the daughter of Priscilla de Villiers,
founder of CAVEAT, a group that has been pushing for expanded
powers for customs officers.
In the case of Mr. Yeo, the jury believed that customs officers
should have been able to do more to assist the police. I believe
that the proposed legislation is consistent with the jury's
recommendation.
Our customs officers encounter many criminal situations while on
duty. I know, as many of my colleagues here know today, that
Canadian customs officers perform their duties in an exemplary
way. For example, in the last two and a half years, customs
officers were faced with 8,500 different suspected impaired
drivers, almost 200 incidents of suspected child abductions,
cases of individuals who were subject to arrest warrants and more
than 500 individuals who had in their possession suspected stolen
goods, most being motor vehicles.
These kinds of crimes are not acceptable in our community as
they are hurting all of us. At this point we may ask: By
delegating additional powers to customs officers are we putting
them at risk? Bill C-18 will ensure that customs officers will
receive additional training. Customs officers will be trained to
ensure that they act fairly, responsibly and within the confines
of the law in carrying out their duties.
1545
Customs officers in my riding have raised the issue of bullet
proof vests. The Department of Revenue will make bullet proof
vests available to those designated officers who believe that
their personal safety will be enhanced by choosing to wear a
protective vest.
Many of the youths in my riding get jobs during the summer as
customs officers. Some may ask if those student customs officers
will receive first response powers. The answer is no. First
response powers will be restricted to a fully trained, permanent
customs officers, full time and part time, who have direct
contact with people seeking to enter Canada at points of entry.
Designated officers will respond to the Criminal Code situation
identified by the students.
From the time this bill receives royal assent it could take six
to nine months before it would be fully implemented. Customs
officers will receive full training during that time and holding
facilities will be constructed at border points across the
country. This initiative will strengthen the already excellent
working relationship between Revenue Canada customs and the RCMP,
which will represent a more efficient way in which to help my own
community of Niagara Falls and Niagara on the Lake and indeed
every community in Canada a safer place in which to live.
I am aware that some customs officers believe that they should
carry a weapon for their personal protection. However, I believe
and it is my government's position that introducing firearms at
the border is unnecessary. In fact, it could be a serious
mistake. We have to bear in mind that this is not entirely new
ground for customs officers. They are already designated as peace
officers for the purposes of the customs act and to date they
have demonstrated that they have no need for firearms to fulfil
their responsibilities very safely and efficiently. Arming them
in fact could invite more violent behaviour on the part of
criminals. If not handled properly, an officer's firearm could
provide a would-be criminal with a weapon that could actually be
used to injure or kill the officer.
The role the government has in mind for our customs officers
will be to provide a first response service. They will not be
expected to participate in a Criminal Code investigation or
transport prisoners. Police will intervene at the earliest
possible stage.
As I said before, a great many of my constituents work as
customs officers. I am well aware that they are carrying out a
tremendous job with Child Find Canada and Operation Go Home in
trying to alleviate the suffering for all those who experience
the pain of missing or abducted children. Customs officers have
every reason to be proud of their contribution to Canada's
efforts to return abducted children to their homes. They have
always acted professionally and completely within the scope of
their authority.
The legislative changes called for in the legislation we are
debating today will enhance their ability to assist with the
retrieval of missing children because it will enable them to
detain suspected abductors and turn them over to the appropriate
police authority.
I am in favour and I lend by support to Bill C-18. To those who
are saying that the government has the intention of creating
another police force, I say these measures are a means of
assisting police in their work, not replacing them. Under this
legislation customs officers will be authorized to only make a
preliminary action to hold suspects until police arrive.
I am in favour of and I am pleased to support Bill C-18. While I
fully endorse this initiative, I am asking the House for the
speedy passage of these changes that will benefit my community
and other communities across Canada.
1550
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-18. As
previous speakers have mentioned before, you will find a great
deal of consent in the House for this bill. It is a bill that is
long overdue to give our customs officers the powers they should
have had a long time ago, powers in effect of a peace officer.
As we mentioned before, they are repeatedly confronted by
situations that at times are dangerous but historically they have
not had the power to enforce the law at our borders.
As a result, at times we have seen some tragic results of
individuals who have been murdered. The hon. member across the
way mentioned Ms. de Villiers who was murdered by Mr. Yeo who
came into this country when he was turned away by an American
immigration officer, after which the American immigration officer
told our forces on the other side what was occurring. There was
a failure to respond.
I might say at this moment that our officers who work at the
borders do an incredible job under extraordinarily difficult
circumstances and we can all be very proud of the work that they
attempt to do under those difficult circumstances.
However, let us just talk a little more about this bill. As we
said before, it does give the power of peace officers to our
customs officers, but we have some concerns over this.
Number one is the concern of the repeated use of students in
roles that at times could be dangerous. It has been noted in
this House that at times up to 90% of customs officers working in
areas that are high traffic, high density and potentially
dangerous are covered by students who have only two and a half
weeks of training.
This is not to denigrate the students but we must believe that
these students must have the adequate training and the protection
for themselves to carry out the job.
As time passes, as criminals become more desperate, as our
borders become more porous, the need for these officers to be
trained appropriately and have adequate protection is going to
become even more urgent.
I can only impress on the government that these students who
were working in this position for their sake must have the
appropriate training and protection that they require.
It is a failure of this bill that it does not address that.
This bill also does not address the cost factor. We recognize
the need for it but the government must also be prepared to let
us know where the costs are coming from.
Perhaps the way to recoup these costs without dipping into the
public purse would be to use the moneys from drug traffickers and
people who are trying to bring contraband across our borders.
For too long the penalties that have been placed on individuals
trafficking and bringing illegal contraband into this country
have been ineffective.
Criminals know that if they come into this country and they are
caught, the chances are the penalties they receive will be
minuscule compared with the profits from criminal behaviour.
I will give one example right now and I will get to more later.
If one were to smuggle five handguns into this country in a box
one could charge over $50,000 for those handguns. The margin of
profit is enormous.
We know from our correctional services that many times the
penalties for trafficking, the penalties for using weapons, are
often plea bargained away to get an expeditious conviction. That
sends a message of absolutely zero penalty to the criminal.
Let us go through some of the flaws of the system that we have
had for too long. I will go through them piece by piece.
Canada has a large porous border and the problem we have with
respect to weapons is not Bill C-68. It is not criminals going
and getting a firearms acquisition certificate and going in and
getting a course, applying for a permit and then committing a
crime. Those criminals who are using illegal weapons in the
commission of a crime are doing so generally with weapons that
are smuggled across our border. They are smuggled across our
border because there has been a failure to block off this serious
problem.
Canadians are paying the price for this and we have done an
appalling job of trying to prevent this among us. The
government's response to this is to invoke Bill C-68 which, at
least the part that has to do with registration, will do almost
nothing to make our streets safer and I would argue would make
our streets less safe because of the costs incurred in trying to
bring the system forward. The hon. Minister of Justice knows
this right now.
1555
Rather than investing its efforts into Bill C-68, I would ask
that the government invest in supporting our peace officers on
the line and in the line of duty to do their job and to also
support and enforce the existing penalties in our justice system.
Second, we will talk about drugs, another very important
substance that is coming across our borders in contraband. We
have again failed to do this.
It was interesting to hear, in speaking to law enforcement
officers recently, that if someone is charged with a crime,
unless it is murder or an extremely serious offence, they are
released on bail. Because of overcrowding due to a failure in
investing in judges and crown counsel, we have such a backlog in
our system that individuals who are guilty of serious crimes,
crimes that affect innocent civilians across this country, are
being let go or are being given paltry penalties. Criminals are
walking away laughing because they know that our system is so
backlogged. It is such a bureaucratic morass right now that the
criminals are getting away, which does nothing to bring
confidence into the justice system for the people of this
country.
If one looks at the amount of crimes reported in this country,
over 70% of violent crimes are never reported. Over 80% of rapes
are never reported. Over 70% of break and enters and assaults
are never reported. It is not because of the police officers who
are doing their hardest to do their jobs. It is because the
public has little confidence that these individuals are going to
be prosecuted.
Bill C-18 can go a lot further in trying to enable our customs
officers to enforce the law.
The trafficking of illegal immigrants and criminals into this
country is a serious problem, mentioned before by members of the
government and from our side. This cannot be overlooked.
Although we have a large border, it is not impossible to deal
with this issue. It is in fact essential for us to do that.
If an illegal immigrant comes to this country with a criminal
record and is posing a threat to innocent civilians in Canada, be
they immigrants or citizens, is it not our responsibility to do
what we can to protect them? It is a lot more expensive to try
to get somebody out of the country once they are here than to
prevent them from coming across our borders. I think we need to
keep that in mind.
Alcohol is another substance that is brought into our country
across the borders and is a very serious matter. Cigarette
trafficking has also been a serious problem. The government
invoked a bill to decrease the price of cigarettes. That did
nothing to decrease the conduit of smuggling. It decreased the
trafficking of cigarettes north-south but did nothing to decrease
the trafficking east-west. Furthermore, it increased trafficking
east-west.
In my province of British Columbia we have a serious problem
with cigarettes coming from the east and people making a profit
as a result of that. A much more serious issue is the health
consequences of that bill, which has committed over a quarter of a
million young Canadians to pick up cigarettes.
There was an answer that would have decreased smoking among
youth and would have also decreased the trafficking. It was to
bring forth the export tax. The government did that but it also
dropped the price. The export tax alone on cigarettes would have
cut the legs out from the trafficking of cigarettes north-south.
When Mr. Mulroney did this, I think in 1992, within seven weeks
the smuggling of cigarettes decreased by 70%. The Conservative
government of the day backed down because the cigarette companies
said they would get out of this country if the government did not
pull the export tax. What did the Conservative government do at
that time? It stuck its tail between its legs and removed the
export tax. The smuggling continued.
It does nothing to diminish one aspect of cigarette trafficking.
We have to address all the components of trafficking which are
the conduits. Bill C-18 does go some way to do that and I
congratulate the government for pursuing that course.
1600
Finally, I will talk about endangered species. The smuggling
and trafficking of endangered species in Canada is a serious
problem. Canadians may be interested to know that we are one of
the top countries in the world for the smuggling of endangered
species products, everything from powdered rhino horn, tiger
bones, penguin bones, rare orchids, rare butterflies and birds.
All of these are brought into Canada and shipped to other parts
of the world and we are culpable.
The failure to act in this area has resulted in the decimation
of some very important species, species that could have benefits
for all of us, but more important are the heritage of everyone in
the world.
The black rhino population has been decimated by 98% over the
last 20 years and the elephant population by over 80%, but is now
starting to replenish. The Bengal tigers of India were for a
time increasing after some measures were invoked by India.
Because of rampant trafficking and slaughter and the lax system
for trying to apprehend people who are doing this, the tiger
population is plummeting.
There are other species such as the Sumatran tiger and the
spotted cat of China which are being decimated in large part
because of the trafficking in these animals.
It is a shame that we as a country that prides itself in
standing for justice, fairness, one which is sensitive to the
environment, would not enforce the laws dealing with endangered
species. Canadians would be interested to know that there are
only a handful of hard working, overworked, and underfinanced
fish, game and wildlife officers who are trying to prevent the
decimation of these beautiful creatures. They cannot do it.
Another problem in their job has been the failure of the justice
department to invoke penalties that fit the crime. Individuals
who are trafficking in gall bladders laugh at the penalties. The
penalties meted out to them are nothing compared to the profits
of the trafficking in endangered species. But there are some
solutions.
Perhaps the government would entertain the idea that instead of
using students in front line customs positions as Bill C-18
alludes to, which could be potentially dangerous, perhaps they
could be used with fish, game and wildlife officers to search for
contraband. Then we could get a better handle on apprehending
individuals who are trafficking in drugs and contraband
materials.
The government could also invoke the Pelly amendment such as the
legislation that exists in the United States which would give a
lot of teeth to try to prevent the trafficking in endangered
species.
In closing, I would again like to lend our support to Bill C-18
and commend the government in its pursuit of this important
legislation which will finally give our customs officers the
power they require to do their jobs safely and effectively. I
would also ask the government to for heaven's sake make sure that
the students who are working in those positions are trained
properly and protected from harm. Let us also ensure that the
courts will be empowered to enforce the law in our country.
It will be for the justice minister to take a very close and
brutally honest look at the justice system as it is presently and
to finally delve into the serious problems we have in trying to
ensure that justice is met, that the Canadian public will be
protected and that criminals will be arrested and will pay the
penalty for breaking the laws in our country.
1605
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
opposite for his thoughtful presentation.
I want to address one of the areas of misunderstanding which he
has about the bill. He believes quite honestly that students
will have the first response powers. That is definitely not the
case. I have stated that a number of times in this House today.
I want to assure him that the decision has been made to give
these extra powers to full time and permanent part time employees
but they will not be given to the student officers who we utilize
in customs, and utilize quite well I might add, having been one
in 1974 at one of the busiest border points in Canada, the
Niagara border point.
He can be assured that the decision has been made and that his
concerns are unfounded in this regard.
I believe that we have a smart border in Canada. I do not say
that just because it sounds nice. We have designed our customs
administration to protect Canadian society, and not only against
contraband. We have set up a system which facilitates legitimate
travel and legitimate trade. We use our intelligence networks to
target high risk situations.
Canadians have to understand the volume we are dealing with. It
is a very large border. We are processing approximately 109
million travellers a year at our border points. We expedite our
trade. We all know that one out of three jobs in this nation is
dependent on trade. It is a growing area. It has grown from the
time we took power in 1993. At that time it was one in five jobs
and now it is one in three.
We are dealing with 158,000 large importers and exporters.
There is a huge responsibility at our border crossing points to
expedite and professionally deal with trade. However, we must
always be on the lookout for the other element of society which
tries to get through our screens. It is a big responsibility.
It is important to understand that the first line people are
going to be assisted by this legislation. That is really
important to understand.
The numbers are phenomenal and they are growing. In 1996-97
Revenue Canada processed $248 billion in trade, representing more
than 28 million transactions, resulting from 10 million
commercial entries.
This is very important for the hon. member to understand. He
raises many different areas in his speech in which he has an
interest but which are not truly the subject matter of this bill.
However, I am glad to hear that the hon. member is in agreement
with the subject matter of this bill.
I will let him comment on my comments, but I did want to correct
the misunderstanding involving the students.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
parliamentary secretary. I know how hard she has worked on this
and so many other issues and I appreciate her comments.
We want to ensure, as I am sure all members do, that our
students are protected and that they are carrying out their
duties in a manner which is safe, primarily to them as the youth
of this country.
However, I would like to bring to the attention of the hon.
member two things which I hope she takes back to the minister.
The first is the potential visa requirement which Canadians will
have when they cross the border.
As the hon. member mentioned, trade is very important to our
country. Living in Victoria, it is exceedingly important to my
neck of the woods, which has over 600,000 Americans coming in
every year to spend their money in Victoria and the surrounding
areas. It is a serious issue for the people of Victoria. It is
a serious issue, as she knows, for Canadians across this country.
I cannot impress upon her enough that she speak to the minister
and ask that he use all of his power to convince the Americans
that we require an exemption from this visa requirement. It is
ludicrous for us. It will hurt the Americans even more so if the
visa requirement is imposed.
1610
Second, in my speech I gave a number of I hope constructive
suggestions that she may take back to the minister, not the least
of which was the issue of detailing the different contraband
materials that come into this country, the failure of the justice
department to deal with this issue once people are brought to
trial, the need for effective penalties as a dissuasive measure
for criminals and lastly on the endangered species aspect to
ensure that our fish and wildlife officers have the manpower to
carry out their jobs.
I suggested that perhaps students could be used in part in less
dangerous aspects of their job in doing searches, not only for
endangered species but also for other aspects such as drugs and
weapons that students could be utilized for. That might be a
cost effective way to try to damn up our border which is very
porous and needs to be plugged.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair was aware
that the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca was very clever in
bringing some added relevance to the debate. On questions and
comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of
relevancy. Some of those issues which were raised by my hon.
colleague across the floor are not particularly relevant to this
bill as it stands and is going forward today.
The questions of justice are relevant at any time to our whole
Canadian society. We are constantly looking at ways of doing our
work better. I think it is always useful to hear different views
and suggestions presented in a constructive manner.
Although it is not relevant to this bill today, on the issue of
the visa I would like to say that certainly it is very serious.
Not only our minister but more importantly the Minister of
Foreign Affairs is dealing with this issue with the Americans at
this point in time on their piece of legislation that could
affect us. That, as the hon. member knows, is being dealt with
not only on the political level but on the diplomatic level with
our ambassador and on other things that have been out there.
We are aware of the seriousness of this issue. I just did not
want to leave this debate without addressing that problem because
I thought it was too large an issue not to say some words on it.
I thank the hon. member and all hon. members on all sides of the
House who have contributed to the debate today. I think we have
an unusual consensus in the House. I hope now that this bill can
move toward closer examination at the committee stage with a
consensus in the House.
Mr. Keith Martin: I would like to thank the hon. member
again for her statement. I want to again impress upon her the
fact that we need to ensure that Canada has an exemption for
this. As she is well aware, from an economic perspective it
would be economic suicide for the Americans to invoke these
requirements on Canadians.
I am sure that there is a model from which we can work more
co-operatively with them, although we do work very well with our
American friends now on the issue. Perhaps there is more we can
do to ensure that we have a greater co-operation between our
respective law enforcement officers and that we do not see the
tragedy that was mentioned before by a member from her side on
the situation of Mr. Yeo who murdered Ms. de Villiers. We never
ever want to see a tragedy like that repeated in this country.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will find co-operation on our side,
from members on our team who are willing to help the government
ensure that we have the toughest and most constructive bill
possible for the benefit of Canadians.
1615
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
* * *
DRINKING WATER MATERIALS SAFETY ACT
The House resumed from November 5 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-14, an act respecting the safety and effectiveness of
materials that come into contact with or are used to treat water
destined for human consumption, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is informed that when this
bill was last before the House the member for Hamilton Mountain
had the floor. Since the member for Hamilton Mountain is not on
her feet the debate goes to the other side of the House.
The Chair recognizes the member for Macleod on debate.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I believe
the member for Hamilton Mountain had completed her discourse at
any rate. That would be why she is not here.
The bill is designed to make sure that Canadian drinking water
is safe. I am strongly in support of it but there are some
difficulties. I am always concerned when I am on the save
wavelength as members of the Bloc. On this issue members of the
Bloc and I are in concurrence.
Water control has traditionally been a provincial matter. The
bill is purported to look at materials, piping, filtration,
chlorination systems and matters that are not supposed to be
under provincial control. I have tried to look at it from an
unbiased perspective and to say initially what need exists for
Bill C-14.
I have gone to the organizations in Canada currently involved in
this area. For the benefit of all Canadians, let me list those
organizations. They are the Canadian Bottled Water Association,
the Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating, the Safe Drinking
Water Systems Coalition and the Canadian Soft Drink Association.
I contacted these groups for their expertise, advice and
guidance. I was fascinated to find these expert organizations to
a group are all opposed to Bill C-14. Whenever I find opposition
of that nature I ask what need exists for the bill.
I went to each one of the organizations. I have quite a series
of documents from them. I want to highlight some of their
concerns. Let me start with the Canadian Safe Drinking Water
Systems Coalition.
This group says that it tried very hard to have its opinion
heard by Health Canada and has been singularly ineffective in
that approach. It is bizarre to me that a group that has an
interest in the issue would not be well heard. I read that the
minister says consultation was broad and thorough. It says
neither are in fact accurate.
This group has a number of concerns. It says there is no
documented scientific case for the regulations, no problems that
warrant this degree of intervention. It says that nationwide
infrastructure codes and standards are already in place, safe,
excellent drinking water standards.
It goes on to talk about problems with things that are not
correct, warranties that are wrong, and that there are hazardous
products acts and mechanisms to deal with them. It talks about
Revenue Canada customs already having the ability to look after
enforcement at the border. It goes through a host of things the
bill purports to address.
1620
The Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating also expressed
very vigorously that its attempts to contact, meet with and
influence Health Canada were rebuffed. It wanted to co-operate
but there was poor notification of the introduction of the
legislation. Its attempts to meet with Health Canada were
difficult. It is also having difficulty finding the scientific
need for the legislation. There are problems with our water
supply but it says not in the areas the bill approaches.
This group gets quite specific. It supplies roughly 90% of the
domestic distribution of components such as pumps, pipes, valves,
fittings and faucets, and 90% of the home use water filtration. It
simply says the bill is unnecessarily intrusive and expensive.
I could go on but I probably should not do so because time is
relatively short here. Let me say that the groups most affected
are the industry individuals, the bottled water association and
plumbers. They are not small groups. One group I mentioned
comprises 600 Canadian manufacturers and installers. When it
says the bill does not seem to have a great need, is intrusive
and could be very expensive, my ears perk up.
Is this an effective use of our resources when it relates the
needs of Canadians for safety and friendliness? Costs are
uncertain. I have seen significant estimates of costs, but I
cannot dig up any cost estimates from the government. They were
unavailable. Many other areas are far more desperate for funds
than this area. There are waiting lines for health care, poor
technology for health care and massive loss of nurses and lab
technicians, just to name a few.
I listened to the speech by the member opposite as it related to
the bill, hoping that she would enlighten me and give me the
pearls of reason for going down this road. I picked up a pearl
from the member for Hamilton Mountain. She said one problem with
the bill was the issue of cryptosporidium infection. The doctor
that I am, I went to my Cecil textbook of medicine. For those
listening who want to do this, it is the 20th edition, page 1910,
where it mentioned cryptosporidium.
I looked at whether the bill would help patients infected with
cryptosporidium. Let us cut this monster word down to something
understandable. Maybe I could call it crypto. This organism
causes diarrhoea. It is worse in AIDS and immune compromised
patients, those whose immune system is messed up. It is not
treatable so it would be a good idea to prevent it. Most
Canadians would recognize that.
There are eye infections in the young in communities where there
is warm wet weather and in communities where there is
overcrowding. This is not something common to Canada. It is
spread from animals to humans. It can be spread from humans to
humans, usually by contaminated source water. It does not show
up in the pipes. It does not show up in treatment facilities.
Unsanitary conditions are the main problem. When found in
treated or untreated water it is resistant to common
disinfectants. In other words it is a tough bug to kill, a tough
bug to have any impact on. The bill will be singularly
ineffective in combating cryptosporidium.
The pearl of reason for going down this road in my judgment was
not sufficient. I searched more and I found some scientific
information from a group that felt the bill was not sufficient to
suggest where we could go in a constructive way.
Reformers try not to only oppose. We try to say that there are
some problems with fresh drinking water and that maybe we should
go in another direction.
1625
Here are my suggestions for the minister and for those who might
be interested. There are problems with our drinking water. They
are generally problems at source. In other words, our well water
is not so good and our commonest problem with well water is
leaking sewer pipes. That is eminently fixable but it is not
eminently fixable by regulations. It is eminently fixable by
going into the ground to fix the infrastructure, to fix the sewer
pipes.
The scientific study found estimates that leakages from sewer
pipes were from 10% to 35%. Some municipalities do not have a
clue how much is leaking. The recommendation, because these
sewer pipe discharges may penetrate groundwater supplies and
contaminate well water, is to fix the leaking and rusted sewer
pipes. Funds should be spent to start fixing the infrastructure.
There were more scientific studies to look at our drinking water
in a broader context. I found them to be quite satisfying. We
have been paying attention to our drinking water. The Great
Lakes are a fascinating source. It is a mini capsule look at how
we are doing with the environment. It is interesting that the
industrial discharge of phosphorous into the Great Lakes has
dropped from 20,000 tonnes to 7,500 tonnes over the past 20
years.
The study measured PCB levels in herring gull eggs. They have
dropped over some 20-plus years from 160 parts per million down
to below 20 parts per million.
Doom and gloom is always wonderful, but Canadians do enjoy a
pretty good standard of drinking water. Maybe some individuals
who say that environmental legislation is totally ineffective
should reflect upon the success we have had.
Two reasons for my rejecting the bill would be if it were
intrusive into an area where there was no need and if it were
potentially very expensive.
Broad categories seem to come from our legislators today. I
also have concerns about the regulatory and inspection components
of the bill. They are very broad powers of inspection. They are
unspecified fees. The governor in council, which is fairly
typical, may make regulations that are necessary for anything
they want to do.
I have objected to every single bill when I have come across
broad regulations. I have tried to find other constructive
mechanisms to see what could we do with the regulations. My
constructive suggestion is that they should be brought to the
committee that passed the legislation. Quite frankly I hope the
bill does not pass but I presume the majority will get it
through. The regulations should come back to the health
committee.
We had a mini victory on the tobacco bill that passed in the
last parliament. It was an accident but the regulations on the
tobacco bill must come back to the health committee.
I cannot say how strongly I feel it is necessary to have
scrutiny by the individuals elected to look at regulations so
that we do not have a framework of a bill in parliament and then
intrusive regulations doing things that were never intended.
I think I will be making this comment throughout my life as a
parliamentarian. I simply say that broad regulations that are
not specified are not a good idea. Bureaucrats are not the best
individuals in this area. We need to have public scrutiny of
regulations and of other things such as fees and bills.
It is amazing to look at some of these fees, $300,000 for
breaking some of these acts. Three hundred thousand dollars may
not be much to a bureaucrat who is used to dealing in billions
but it is sure a lot to the company representatives I spoke with.
1630
The following statement summarizes how I feel about this bill,
why I am opposed to it and suggest strongly that Parliament
reject it. This bill further allows the federal government to
pickpocket us under the guise of what it deems is best for us.
This bill is unnecessary. This bill is intrusive. This bill is
potentially expensive. For those reasons I will oppose it
vigorously.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 deals
with the safety and effectiveness of materials that come into contact
with or are used to treat water destined for human consumption.
This legislation is patterned on Bill C-76, which was introduced by
the former health minister. Clause 3 states that its purpose is:
In recent years, we learned that we must be very vigilant whenever
this government introduces a bill because, as the Reform Party member
pointed out, certain provisions often go well beyond the stated
intentions.
Upon reading Bill C-14, one quickly realizes that, while claiming
to promote good will and public health, the government is taking direct
aim at areas under provincial jurisdiction, and this is an affront the
Bloc Quebecois cannot let go unchallenged.
Let me elaborate. Quebeckers feel, rightly so, that drinking water
is a collective wealth, just like wheat in the prairies or oil in
Alberta. It is a resource found in abundance in Quebec and, given the
population growth and the increasing number of droughts, water will
undoubtedly become a highly coveted resource in the 21st century.
In the past several months, a large number of experts, company and
government agencies officials and elected officials have expressed their
views regarding the privatization of water management, the development
of groundwater and the export of water. This is not a coincidence, given
the increasing importance of this natural resource because the world
population is expected to reach 10 billion people during the 21st
century.
Therefore, Quebec has a duty to do its best to preserve this
resource for itself and also for other nations that might need it some
day.
It is therefore important to give the matter some thought so as to
be able to make the right choices based on our values of fairness
and solidarity.
It will therefore be easily understood that the people of
Quebec want to see a serious, comprehensive policy for the
management of this resource. Once again, however, with Bill C-14,
the federal government is trying to get a foot in the door and
increase its control, let us be frank, to cover everything to do
with water.
Where is this bill coming from and why is the government
suddenly getting involved in the management of drinking water? For
though the minister firmly denies it, this is indeed what is
happening.
Despite vigorous protests to the contrary, the government actually
wants to regulate everything to do with water—water collection,
distribution, supply, and treatment systems—in order to take in,
as stated in clause 2 of the bill:
As a brief background, until the late 1980s, it was common for
the provinces and territories to take advantage of the program
allowing them to consult the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This program helped in determining what treatment additives or
system components should be used in drinking water supply systems.
1635
When the EPA announced in June 1988 that it was closing down
its consultation program, some provinces sought assistance from
Health Canada. They suggested to Health Canada that it fill the
void by regulating treatment additives and drinking water system
components. It need hardly be pointed out that this call for
federal intervention did not come from Quebec.
Since then, the federal government has been looking for a way
to regulate several aspects of drinking water management. The
strange thing is that it did not ask itself why the Americans had
abandoned national regulations.
Was general neglect the option chosen? Of course not.
In fact, many states now take it upon themselves to oversee the
safety of water materials, according to their own standards. This is an
example of decentralization that this government should consider more
closely.
But on the federal side, they are constantly looking for ways to
fill this regulatory gap which may threaten the quality of drinking
water. But what about this gap? How wide is it?
On the Quebec side, we have our own provincial regulations. There
are five departments with a key role in the management of drinking
water. The Quebec department of the environment and wildlife has
considerable powers in deciding the fate of water related projects.
That department must approve any project dealing with the construction
of water systems, water intakes, feeding systems for water treatment,
sewage systems and facilities for treating waste water, and it has had
these responsibilities since at least 1978.
In addition, under the Environment Quality Act, that department has
the authority to deliver operating licences for water delivery and
sewage systems, to monitor water quality and waste water management, and
to oversee the disposal of riverbeds and sea floors and their
shorelines. That department is also responsible for the construction and
maintenance of storage reservoirs for water from lakes, ponds, rivers
and waterways.
The Department of Natural Resources has responsibilities throughout
Quebec that have a profound and lasting impact on water management. It
is responsible for water resources and for Hydro-Quebec, for the
management and use of public lands and for the mining industry. It also
assumes provincial responsibilities related to mapping, surveying, land
registers, geology and remote sensing.
The Department of Municipal Affairs also has a key role in
municipal decisions on the construction and management of water
facilities. Under the municipal code, municipalities can amend or repeal
regulations to allow any company or individual to build or manage water
facilities. Furthermore, the municipal code provides that all
regulations must be subject to the approval of those entitled to vote
and of the government.
Municipalities have tangible and critical responsibilities in the
area of water management.
They must ensure that individuals and businesses can drink this water.
Cities own and manage most water systems. They are responsible for the
production and distribution of drinking water, and for the collection
and treatment of waste water.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Sorry to interrupt.
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 Longueuil, Pay Equity; the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Tobacco Legislation; and the hon. member for
Yukon, Foreign Affairs.
Resuming the 30-minute debate period. The hon. member for Drummond.
1640
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, another department,
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has always had considerable
influence on soil and water management in rural Quebec, for example
through programs for land drainage, water course excavation, grain
crop development and dairy and swine production. In the early
1990s, this department turned to sustainable development by
focusing more on resource conservation, soil degradation and
erosion, and reducing underground water and ground water pollution
by pesticides, fertilizers, manure and effluent.
It can be clearly seen that, even in the absence of federal
standards, Quebec and several Canadian provinces are not leaving
this field uncontrolled, nor are the various independent bodies
studying the various facets of the issue and advising governments,
departments and municipalities on management techniques and
improvements to be made to the regulations in place.
Finally, the Government of Canada has certain powers available
to it for intervention in the environmental field, in agriculture,
fisheries and the protection of navigable waters.
We are not fools, however. Since the government cannot
intervene directly in water management, it is going through the
Department of Health to get a foot in the door. It does this, of
course, in the name of public health. This is the only way it can
interfere once again in a field that does not belong to it.
It would have been presumptuous to intervene directly given that
the provinces would have reacted and criticized this additional
meddling by the federal government.
Under section 109 of the Constitution Act, 1982, formerly
section 108 of the British North America Act of 1867, ownership of
lands and natural resources belongs to the provincial crown. The
power of Quebec and all other Canadian provinces to establish
legislation on water and other environmental matters derives from
this right of ownership.
This is why the federal government's intervention in the area
of drinking water through Bill C-14 comes to us from the Department
of Health and not from Environment Canada.
Even though health too is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, the
federal government has always felt free to intervene, program after
program and national standard after national standard, in this area
of jurisdiction clearly attributed in the Constitution to the
provinces.
Last Tuesday, the Minister of Health accused us of being
opposed to safe water and common health standards for all
Canadians. That is totally wrong. We all want to be on the side
of the angels. Who would not want our drinking water to be safe?
No one, either in Canada or in Quebec, wants to eliminate basic
public health criteria. The minister, the Prime Minister and
everyone in the federal government are all fully aware of this.
What is sad is this impression, this feeling of superiority or
lack of trust in the provinces, this notion that, if the federal
government does not look after the problem, nobody will, this idea
that there are some things that are too important or too
complicated for mere provinces to deal with without screwing up.
This typical federal government attitude is what lies behind
many of the rules, politely referred to as “national
guidelines”,
imposed on the provinces. The impression is given that, especially
in Quebec, people are just waiting for certain guidelines to be
dropped to dismantle the health system, when it is very well known
that Quebec has always been a leader in the public health sector.
The recent examples of home care and drug plans, which were
introduced by Quebec and which the federal government is now trying
to imitate, are a clear indication that the provinces have nothing
to learn from the federal government when it comes to the
administration of health care, any more than they do in other areas
coming under their jurisdiction.
But if we are to believe the government, everything would be
in a mess if there were no national guidelines. So it is taking no
chances and Bill C-14 contains a reference to national guidelines.
1645
Clause 5, under the National Drinking Water Directives, reads as
follows:
5.(1) In order to encourage the provision of quality drinking water
throughout Canada, the Minister may, after having consulted the
provinces, establish national guidelines respecting
(a) the concentrations of organisms, organic and inorganic
substances and radionuclides, naturally occurring or
otherwise, in drinking water;
(b) the physical and chemical properties of drinking water;
(c) the aesthetic characteristics of drinking water;
(d) the methods for analysing drinking water; and
(e) the collection, treatment, storage and distribution of
water destined to be used by humans for drinking or for
washing the body.
Merely reading this clause is enough to clearly see that the stated
goal of simply regulating “materials that come into contact with or are
used to treat water destined for human consumption” is largely exceeded.
The concentrations of organisms, the physical and chemical
properties of water, its aesthetic characteristics, the methods for
analyzing drinking water: all this is far from the definition of
“drinking water material” found in clause 2 and which reads as follows:
b) reads:
(b) any chemical or biological substance, or any organism,
manufactured, sold or represented as a means—for modifying
the composition, characteristics or properties of water
destined to be used by humans for drinking or for washing the
body—
I could go into more detail but, in short, the provisions deal with
devices, chemical substances manufactured and sold to be added to water,
replacement parts, etc.
Nowhere does it say that Bill C-14 is intended to regulate the colour,
odour or any other physical or chemical property of drinking water as
stipulated in clause 5.
In addition, the Minister of Health was categorical in his response
to questions from the Bloc Quebecois about the purpose and scope of Bill
C-14. He said, and I quote: “What the bill does is regulate a matter
entirely within federal jurisdiction; that is to say, standards for the
manufacture, sale and use of mechanisms and equipment used in connection
with the transporting of drinking water.”
Manufacture, sale and use of products used in connection with the
transporting of water, but nothing about national guidelines respecting
the colour, chemical composition and physical properties of water as
stated in clause 5 of the bill. If that is not doublespeak, I wonder
what is.
About the inspectors, and I agree with my colleague from the Reform
Party on this, Bill C-14 also contains a clause on the enforcement of
the bill's provisions. It provides for the appointment of inspectors,
once again duplicating what already exists in the field.
Not only is this duplication, the powers conferred on inspectors
are very broad. At clause 17.(1), the bill states:
If the conditions for obtaining a warrant under section 487 of
the Criminal Code exist in respect of the commission of an offence
under this act but by reason of exigent circumstances it would not
be feasible to obtain the warrant, an inspector who is accompanied
by a peace officer may exercise the powers of search and seizure
provided in that section without a warrant.
You will understand that, as the inspector would be accompanied by
a peace officer, one can wonder why the inspector, and not the peace
officer, should be the one authorized to exercise these powers without
a warrant.
Who will decide where and when to act? Who will determine that it is
appropriate or necessary to obtain a warrant? Peace officers are trained
to make this type of decision, and they do so under very strict and
clear rules. As for Bill C-14, it is definitely not clear in this area.
When they talk about consultations, they seem to imply that an
agreement has been reached. This is not an agreement, this is a
consultation. In addition to the interference, the double talk and the
lack of clarity surrounding Bill C-14, there is the government's casual
attitude in saying: “We have consulted everyone, we have responded to
the provinces' requests and we have the agreement of all the provinces
to go forward with this bill.” As with jurisdictions and national
standards, the facts are not as simple as the minister would have us
believe.
In fact, there has been no political agreement between the federal
government and the Government of Quebec on the management of drinking
water.
1650
On this point, the Minister of Health, for whom I have tremendous
respect, went quite far in this House by quoting during question period
a letter from Quebec's deputy minister of health dated May 1996 which,
according to him, confirmed Quebec's approval of the bill at that time.
In fact, he read only one sentence, taking it completely out of
context and going against the spirit of the letter.
He quoted Quebec's deputy minister of health as saying: “As far as
protecting public health is concerned, we therefore have no objections
to this bill going forward—”
Yet, in that same letter, it was clearly stated that agreement for
such a project, which involves provincial jurisdiction over natural
resources, had to come not from the Department of Health but from the
Department of the Environment and Wildlife, which is in fact responsible
for the management of drinking water. But the Minister of Health was
very careful not to read that part.
Why? Why make such a statement that support has been granted, by
misquoting a letter he knew we would receive? In short, why trumpet that
everyone, including Quebec, supported the bill when this is not the case
at all?
But one thing that is certain is that Quebec did not give its
agreement on this issue.
There has never been any, nor will there be because, as has already
been said, Quebec has become far more aware of the need to take
control over everything concerning water, its transport, its
processing, its use, in short every facet of that resource.
To summarize, drinking water falls under the jurisdiction of
the Government of Quebec and we are looking after it.
In conclusion, I would like to inform you that Bill C-14 is
inappropriate and must not be passed. There is already too much
duplication, too much encroachment, too much interference in areas
where, most of the time, provinces already have their own
legislation. Is there any need for another piece of legislation?
I would like to tell you that the bottom of the river is
federal, but the water flowing in it is provincial. Fish are
federal until they are out of the water, then they become
provincial.
Launches are federally registered, but constructed according to
provincial standards, of course in keeping with federal safety
regulations. The shores are provincial, but the ports are federal
property.
With this bill, drinking water would be a provincial
jurisdiction, whereas its physical and chemical properties, as well
as the materials to carry it, would become a federal jurisdiction.
There is something absurd in all of this.
Recently, in a Throne Speech, the government made a commitment
to no longer interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction without
provincial agreement. No one really believed this. Fortunately
not, because once again the federal government is showing us what
it means by good management and respect for jurisdictions as far as
the environment is concerned.
They want to harmonize the laws and regulations, but the words were
barely out of their mouths before they intervened with legislation
on environmental protection, the oceans, endangered species, and
now Bill C-14 with all its implications.
It encroaches on three areas of provincial jurisdiction,
namely health, natural resources and the environment. It dictates
national standards on the quality of drinking water. It creates
new duplication in drinking water quality control. It is not
subject to provincial approval and was never approved by Quebec.
For all these reasons, each sufficient in itself, the Bloc
Quebecois cannot support this bill in any way.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to table an amendment. I move:
That the motion be
amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and
substituting the following:
“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-14, An
Act respecting the safety and effectiveness of materials
that come into contact with or are used to treat water
destined for human consumption, because it does not because
it does not take into account provincial jurisdiction over
natural resources and health.”
1655
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair takes the
amendment under advisement for the time being and will return to
the House shortly with a decision.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to begin the debate on behalf of the New
Democratic Party on Bill C-14, known as the drinking water
materials safety act.
On first blush and at face value, one would perhaps immediately
jump to the opportunity of giving this bill our enthusiastic
support. If one looks at and reads through the background
material that the Minister of Health has provided on Bill C-14 we
read the following:
Some drinking water materials may contaminate drinking water,
for example by leaching lead or by failing to destroy or remove
micro-organisms. This could put the health of Canadians at risk.
Currently, only 30% of product models of components and devices
sold in Canada are certified to accepted North American health
based standards on a voluntary basis.
There is not a person in this House I am sure who is not
interested in this government's assuring all Canadians that the
water we drink is safe and free from any toxins, contaminants or
poisonings. There is not a person in this House I am sure who
would not be interested in this government's guaranteeing every
Canadian that the water we drink, the food we eat, the air we
breathe and the drugs we must take for medical reasons are safe
at all times.
It would be so much easier to address this bill and give it
wholehearted support and endorsement if we knew that was the kind
of framework from which this government was operating and if we
knew that there was a philosophical commitment to providing
measures that would guarantee that the products we intake are
safe at all times.
There is no question about the need in this country for a very
tough regulatory, proactive position on the part of the
government on such fundamental issues that pertain to the health
and well-being of every Canadian.
In that context, we have a great deal of difficulty trying to
place this bill in the broader context and trying to understand
its motives, its purpose and what it is attempting to accomplish.
On every other front we are seeing the opposite. We are faced
with a government that is rapidly moving out of regulatory
approaches. It is rapidly seeking ways to privatize areas once
assumed to be areas for government intervention. We are seeing a
government increasingly tied to the demands of transnational
corporations on a global scale.
I only have to go back as far as question period today when we
raised a very important issue pertaining to lead poisoning. Lead
poisoning is found in a great number of children's toys and vinyl
products on the market today.
1700
I remind members in this House of the kind of actions we have
seen, or lack thereof, from this government on such an important
issue.
Let me put it in context. We had findings previously unveiled
by Greenpeace about high lead content and high cadmium content in
a number of children's toys and products.
The government, the Minister of Health and Health Canada all
agreed that this was an issue worth exploring and proceeded to do
their own studies of high lead content in products that end up
causing serious neurological disorders when that poisoning enters
the body.
The government released its findings a short while ago and
verified that there is a very high lead content in a number of
those products. In fact, it demonstrated that the lead content
and the cadmium content in a good number of those products was
even higher than the findings of Greenpeace.
That was acknowledged but the key point to it all and why this
is so relevant to a debate on water and the safety of water
materials present in our society today is that this government
then said “Yes, the levels are high. Yes, they exceed Health
Canada's standards but there is no risk to children in our
society today”.
What was the reason? Something to do with the fact that unlike
the miniblind issue, these products were not necessarily subject
to high heat intensity or to sunlight and therefore were not
going to release that lead poisoning. Never mind the fact that
there was a level of poisoning that far exceeded Health Canada's
standards to begin with.
My question today is where does this legislation come from? What
is it intending to achieve? What regulatory framework does it
fit into? How firm is this government in meeting its current
obligations never mind pursuing any other standards or any other
regulatory approaches?
Do we not have a critical situation now in Health Canada in all
those areas I have mentioned: drugs, food, water and air? We
have a government that is in the middle of very quietly moving
toward a privatized deregulated approach seeking to reduce its
liability. Those are the words right out of the departmental
document outlining the full intentions of this government.
What is the result of that approach? We have lost a valuable
research bureau on drugs. We no longer have an independent body
in this country for assessing the impact of certain drugs allowed
into this country and their interaction with other drugs, their
interaction with foods, their interaction with environmental
toxins.
Come on, a regulatory body of utmost importance has vanished.
Costing what? $2 million to $3 million. That is what this
government is saving by ridding this country of one of the most
important regulatory bodies that we have in the whole drug field.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important
debate. We are talking about the federal intrusion of provincial
jurisdiction and I do not see a quorum here. In fact, I even
have trouble seeing the government sitting in this House to hear
this debate.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not see a quorum. Perhaps I
should ring the bells. Call in the members.
1705
And the bells having rung
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may resume her speech.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the drug bureau is
gone. This is a very important part of health protection in the
country under which the regulation of water standards fall.
We also know how close we came to losing the food research
bureau. Under the government's agenda cuts were made and because
of pressure from activists in the community, pressures from the
House and disclosure in the media the government was forced to
back off that issue for now. However, we know the agenda is
still alive and well.
What about the water and air research lab of the Health
Protection Branch. Where is it and when will it fall? Where is
it on the agenda?
How can we talk about standards and about protecting the health
and well-being of Canadians and ensuring safe water supplies when
the government is busy behind our backs eliminating every
regulatory measure and every research capacity we have to ensure
the health and safety of Canadians.
That raises a very serious point with respect to this bill as
well. So much of what has happened has been done without the
benefit of parliamentary debate. It has been done in the most
secretive manner possible. It was attempted in the dead of
summer, without the benefit of public knowledge and input.
Here we are today with a bill which according to the minister is
the result of consultations held with various groups throughout
the development of the legislation. He goes on to say “These
stakeholders include representatives from industry, public
health, consumer groups and standards organizations”.
Why are we now starting to get correspondence and calls from
stakeholders in all of those areas questioning where the bill
came from, why it is on our agenda and why they were not
consulted?
The health critic for the Reform Party has touched on this
issue. Let me elaborate. The Safe Drinking Water Coalition
attempted to have dialogue with the minister and indicated to him
by letter on July 31, 1997 that the coalition was prepared to
work with the minister to ensure that standards pertaining to
drinking water materials were adequate.
That coalition includes the Canadian Association of Pump
Manufacturers, the Canadian Copper and Brass Development
Association, the Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating, the
Canadian Water Quality Association and the the Nickel Development
Institute. That is a significant number of organizations in the
country that tried to dialogue with the minister, were prepared
to work with him on the so-called standards that the minister
says are necessary. Now they are wondering where this
legislation came from.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order.
Less than five minutes ago we requested that there be some
people on the government side listening to the debate, especially
the ministers who have introduced this. We feel it is very
important. I think that if they cannot even sit here for five
minutes and listen to the debate, we have a problem in this
House.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid I do not hear a point of
order in what the hon. member has said.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I am calling for a quorum count.
The Deputy Speaker: Oh, the hon. member is calling for a
quorum. If he had stated that more succinctly I would have
started the count.
1710
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I was commenting on the minister's claim that Bill C-14
is brought to this Chamber as a result of a very serious and
thoughtful consultation process.
All the evidence points to the contrary. In fact, we do not
have any evidence before us to show that this minister consulted
and that there are groups coming forward to say “This bill is
important and we want to see you support it”. We have had
nothing but individuals and organizations contacting us to say
“This is a complete surprise We've been talking to the minister.
We've been offering to help to ensure that the standards are up
to whatever level the minister wants. We're prepared to do
anything”.
In fact, the Water Quality Association had promised to do a
serious scientific assessment of the risks associated with
drinking water consumption with respect to drinking water
material. That study is in its final stages and is about to be
released, probably as early as next week.
Why is it that the minister was not prepared to consult fully,
to wait for that kind of helpful advice and then make a decision
pertaining to legislation that might be in order? Why are we now
left with the situation with every group coming to us saying
“Bill C-14 is very controversial. Bill C-14 should not be
before this Chamber. Bill C-14 is not necessary”.
We do not have any evidence to the contrary. We do not have a
shred of evidence from the minister or from any other group to
say exactly what this bill is supposed to do, what standards are
not now being met and what the problems are.
Yet we know that this bill, if applied according to the way it is
laid out, will place very hefty fines on those who deviate from
these standards or guidelines, very significant costs to the
consumers of this country, and yet we do not know the reason.
1715
All of us, at least on this side of the House, are prepared to
say that we need strong regulations. Sometimes they cost money,
but we have to pay if they are important in terms of the health
and well-being of Canadians. However, we are faced with this
legislation today and we do not know where all of this money is
going to go. What will it accomplish? How will it protect us?
What does it mean?
The chair of the Standing Committee on Health said to wait until
the standing committee gets the bill, but we are here debating on
principle. We are here to try to make a judgment call about
whether to support this bill in principle or not. We cannot
because all of the evidence suggests that there is not a basis
for this legislation and that in fact these high standards that
the minister talks about could be achieved in other ways.
As an example, I refer to the fact that the Water Quality
Association has pointed out that it is prepared, with the
minister, to look at the NSF International standards and to apply
those standards here in Canada. As I understand it, one of the
intentions of this bill is actually to use those international
standards, probably provided by NSF International, which is a
private, not for profit U.S. standards agency, which has
representation from industry, Health Canada and provincial
representation here in Canada as well as representation from the
United States.
We have a bill which will supposedly look at those standards and
apply them here in Canada. We have a council for water quality.
We have a coalition of people concerned about safe drinking
water. We have a whole lot of other consumer groups which are
prepared to say they will look at those standards, consider those
standards and work with us if that is what we think is the best
model.
It begs the question why this legislation? What is it for?
What is the rush?
On the basis of what we have read to date and on the basis of
the input that various community organizations are providing it
is not supportable at this time.
What are the priorities of this government? Why are we dealing
with this legislation at this point when the government is busy
dismantling all those agencies which ensure the health and safety
of Canadians is protected?
On the topic of water, it begs the question of what this
government is actually doing to ensure safe drinking water in all
our communities. Just this morning at the Standing Committee on
Health we dealt with issues pertaining to health care for our
first nations and Inuit peoples. It was acknowledged that there
are many problems which cause ill health, one of them being poor
quality of water. Where is that on the priority list? Why are
we not dealing with that in this House? Why are we dealing with
legislation when we do not know what the risks are? Why do we
need to change the standards? What is wrong with working with
the groups concerned about safe drinking water?
On the basis of the kind of inadequate consultation process that
we believe to be the case, on the basis of the evidence that
suggests there may be no risks at present, on the basis of the
fact that this government has been so hasty once more in pushing
through this legislation without proper dialogue and
consultation, we will at this point in time oppose this
legislation. We urge the government to go back to the drawing
board and come back with a meaningful plan based on proper
consultation.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member
speak against this proposed legislation. I believe the hon.
member's heart is in the right place. She brought up some very
thoughtful questions. She made some very thoughtful
interventions.
1720
I want to comment on a couple of the questions that the
honourable member asked.
The first question was why the haste in bringing in this bill.
This bill was first tabled in December 1996. This is not haste.
This is just bringing something back that because of various
reasons, breaks, et cetera, has not had due course in the House.
Having first reading of the bill in December 1996 and talking
about it almost a year later is considered to be haste.
Second, the honourable member spoke about lots of other very
important health issues that she felt that the government should
be dealing with at this point in time. Are we suggesting an
either/or set of initiatives so that if we do safe drinking water
we will not be paying attention to other issues? It is obvious
that you cannot do all things at once, but this is important.
The question is why now. Why do we need this bill now? Why do
not we wait until we have a lot of evidence, until there are
innumerable small children who have died from gastroenteritis
because of drinking unsafe water, until we have had lots of
people become ill, and then when we have all that data, let's do
something about it?
The whole concept of good public health policy is to be
proactive. It is to protect people, to prevent. It is called
preventive health care at its very best. This is what I see this
bill about. I think that the question again is why not work with
stakeholders. It is obvious that it is in the second component of
this bill when it goes to committee that we will be hearing from
stakeholders, where we will factor in all of the whys and
wherefores and concerns and new ideas that will come in to
strengthen the bill. That is what the legislation is about.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I want to answer by
asking a question in return to the member, because this goes to
the heart of the matter.
Is it proactive in terms of the health and well-being of
Canadians to eliminate the drug research bureau as part of the
health protection branch? Is it proactive to eliminate a body
which costs roughly $2 million to $3 million and lose any
independent capacity in this country for ensuring that the drugs
people take are safe? Is it proactive to try to dismantle the
food research bureau in the health protection branch? Is it
proactive to study the lead content of children's toys, identify
an acceptable content and then say there is no risk for children?
Is it proactive to pursue an approach of privatization,
deregulation and reducing the department and the government's
liability when it comes to people's health and well-being?
Those are the key issues. How do we put this bill in that
context if we have a government not committed to being proactive,
to a regulatory approach in terms of the food we eat, the drugs
we have to take for medical reasons, the air we breathe, the
water we drink? How can we start understanding the need for this
legislation at this time when we have organizations saying the
standards the minister is talking about they are prepared to
co-operate on, they are prepared to implement, they are prepared to
enforce without the costs that will result from this bill if it
goes forward?
The proactive approach is to demand a strong health protection
branch, a strong role by Health Canada and to ensure that this
government backs off its right wing agenda of privatization,
deregulation and offloading. That is what I would like to hear
from this government.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I heard with great interest my colleague from across the
way talking about privatization, deregulation, and so forth.
I am wondering if the member is sitting in the provincial
legislature in Queen's Park in Ontario or if she is sitting right
here.
Talking about privatization, I do not think this is happening
here. But with great interest I heard that the member said that
we do not have any dialogue with organizations, we have
inadequate consultations, no proper dialogue. We have been at
this almost a year. How much more do we have to wait, according
to the member's sense of evaluation, until we have to see the
light and get a proper bill on the table, which in my estimation
this is, to get Canada moving? How much longer do you want to
wait? Another two years until you have, in essence, dialogue
with everybody or are you ready to move right now?
1725
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member will want to
address the Chair in his remarks.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the member raises
the important issue of privatization that is happening at this
level of government. He may not be aware of the number of steps
that his own Minister of Health and other government officials
have taken in that direction.
I would ask him to review the whole situation with respect to
the elimination of the drug research bureau which costs taxpayers
$2 million to $3 million and which means the loss of any
independent research capacity when it comes to drugs and for
which the minister answered by saying that the private drug
companies can monitor themselves and do their own research. If
that is not privatization what is?
On his second point, there are a number of organizations that
felt they were in the process of dialogue with the Minister of
Health and were prepared to work on the improvement of standards.
They feel Bill C-14 came out of the blue in the middle of that
consultation and dialogue.
If they were prepared to do that and were prepared to come
forward with an important study about the scientific assessment
of risks associated with drinking water and drinking water
materials then why could we have not waited to see the results of
the study? Why could we not have found ways to achieve these
objectives other than a very costly mechanism which by the
minister's own admission could cost consumers and taxpayers in
the order of $2 million?
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, could the
member comment on the circular I received from the health
department which stated that consultations were held with various
groups throughout the development of this legislation. These
stakeholders include representatives from industry, public
health, consumer groups and so on.
Yet I presented to the House information that consumer groups
and industry had tried very hard to be in touch with the
department on this issue and had been denied. I have quite a
correspondence from them. Does the minister agree with the fact
that this consultation has been cursory and quite restrictive?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite
right in pointing to the number of organizations in terms of
the industry, the health activist community and the interest
groups that there was inadequate consultation if any.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I want to clarify with the member across the way what
minister she is talking about. When the question is put to the
New Democratic Party, what minister is the member actually—
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member for Macleod
was referring to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He
meant to say member and he said minister. I believe that was the
mistake that was made. Perhaps the hon. member for Macleod
wishes to clarify the point.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, if I made a mistake and
called the member minister—maybe in another life. I did mean
member. I was speaking of the Minister of Health having received
this information.
The Deputy Speaker: I trust that clears the matter up.
[Translation]
I would like to speak about the amendment moved earlier by the
hon. member, just before the speech by the hon. member for Winnipeg
North Centre. It is the Chair's opinion that the amendment is in
order.
Therefore, the next time the bill is considered by the House,
the debate will be on the amendment.
[English]
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of
several deferred recorded divisions.
Call in the members.
1750
[Translation]
And the bells having rung:
* * *
PARENTING ARRANGEMENTS
The House resumed from November 5 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Wednesday, November 5,
1997, the first recorded division is on Motion No. 7, under
Government Orders.
1800
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Charest
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams – 227
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
– 43
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the motion
and of the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Thursday, November 6,
1997, the next recorded division is on the amendment relating to
the business of supply.
Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Mrs. Lalonde moved that this House condemn
the government for blatant unfairness to Quebec in the matter of
the GST, the government having denied it compensation without
letting it submit its arguments to an independent arbitration
panel made up of three experts, the first to be appointed by the
federal government, the second by the Government of Quebec and
the third jointly by the first two.
Ms. Alarie moved that the motion be amended by deleting the word
“blatant” and substituting the following therefor:
“flagrant”.
The question is on the amendment.
1810
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brien
| Brison
| Canuel
|
Casey
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Jones
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Matthews
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Muise
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
| Price
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
| Wayne – 60
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Manning
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
– 209
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent to apply the preceding vote to the main motion now before
the House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this manner?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1815
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 24]
* * *
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (QUEBEC)
The House resumed from November 17 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: The next recorded division is on Motion No.
4 under Government Business. Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: The question is as follows: Mr. Dion,
seconded by Mr. Chan, moved that:
WHEREAS the Government of Quebec has indicated that it
intends to establish French and English linguistic school
boards in Quebec;
AND WHEREAS the National Assembly of Quebec has passed a
resolution authorizing an amendment to the Constitution of
Canada;
AND WHEREAS the National Assembly of Quebec has reaffirmed
the established rights of the English-speaking community of
Quebec, specifically the right, in accordance with the law
of Quebec, of members of that community to have their
children receive their instruction in English language
educational facilities that are under the management and
control of that community and are financed through public
funds;
AND WHEREAS section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms guarantees to citizens throughout Canada rights to
minority language instruction and minority language
educational facilities under the management and control of
linguistic minorities and provided out of public funds;
AND WHEREAS section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982
provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may
be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under
the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions
of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative
assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an
amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be
made by proclamation issued by His Excellency the Governor
General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with
the schedule hereto.
SCHEDULE
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867.
1. The Constitution Act, 1867, is amended by adding,
immediately after section 93, the following:
“93A. Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply
to Quebec.”
CITATION
2. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution
Amendment, year of proclamation (Quebec).
1825
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert – 204
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Bailey
| Bellemare
|
Benoit
| Bonin
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Chatters
| Comuzzi
|
Cummins
| Doyle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Iftody
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Lincoln
| Lowther
| Manning
| Mark
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Peric
|
Ramsay
| Ritz
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Ur
| Vellacott
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Williams – 59
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6.28 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CULTURAL GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ACT
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-204, an act to require that in the advertising and at the
opening of a cultural project supported by public money a public
acknowledgement of the grant be made, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to
speak on second reading of my private member's Bill C-204 which
was introduced in the House on September 25, 1997.
In summary, this enactment requires recipients of grants of
public funds for cultural projects to acknowledge that a grant
has been made and to specify the amount of the grant at the time
the program is announced or advertised or open to the public.
Non-compliance may result in the recipient having to repay the
grant.
1830
The legislation is significant in that it deals with the very
emotional issue of spending in the area of arts and culture with
public money. The cultural industry in Canada is run by
bureaucrats, financed by subsidies, yet is virtually
unaccountable to the government or the taxpayer from which it
gets the funding.
This is a well drafted bill which would require little amendment
to the present legislation. It simply calls for the
acknowledgement at the opening of an event and then the
literature associated with that event of the contribution by the
federal government.
We are not talking about direct parliamentary appropriations
like the CBC. However, it would apply to grants provided through
agencies such as, for example, Telefilm, the National Film Board,
the Canada Council, the Canada Information Office and the like.
It is intended that specific dollar amounts be advertised. For
example, Telefilm's contribution of dollars for the film Sweet
Hereafter or of the dollars for Telefilm and Canada Council
contribution to the film Kissed.
People reading Hansard or watching this on television
should be aware, for example, that the film Sweet Hereafter
basically had a subtitle or a subtext which really was the entire
plot of the film which was around the incestuous relationship
between a father and his daughter. The film Kissed is a
film specifically about necrophilia. Necrophilia is making love
to a dead body. Canadian taxpayers have paid money into this
film.
There are those of you who say art must be subsidized in order
to survive. The Government of Canada has recently increased the
budget of the Canada Council by $25 million a year. The
government spends millions of dollars more on cultural projects
through various programs operated through the bureaucracy.
Taxpayers are subsidizing these projects and they have the right
to know where their dollars are spent.
Many projects are funded through a number of government
programs. A project may have received Telefilm Canada subsidies,
Canada Council subsidies, National Film Board subsidies and then
be broadcast on the subsidized CBC. Let us tally up the dollars
and report them to the viewing taxpayer.
This legislation is by no means focused on one region of the
country. It is clearly a national concern because these funds
are provided across Canada for all kinds of events, monuments,
films and festivals.
Statistics Canada recently released the amount of dollars spent
on culture over the last three years. The federal government
allocated $2.92 billion to culture in 1995-96. Let me repeat
that. The federal government allocated $2.92 billion to culture
in the year 1995-96.
Federal spending on other cultural industries, which include
film and video production, book and periodical publishing and the
sound recording industry, amounted to $383 million.
I say these figures very slowly because it is hard to imagine
the wanton abandon with which the heritage minister seems to
throw Canadians' dollars around on these issues. Federal
spending on heritage activities including museums, historic sites
and nature parks totalled $624 million. Spending on performing
arts was up more than 3% to $109 million in 1995-96. We are
talking about very substantial money here.
I am confident that few Canadians are aware of the sponsorship
provided by their federal tax dollars for events even within
their own communities. Clearly this bill would not discriminate
in any way against any particular area of the country. As we all
know, these dollars are spent on grants for events from coast to
coast to coast. Again, this is reinforced by the statistics
mentioned previously.
There is currently no government legislative agenda which would
meet the requirements of my private member's bill. There is no
partisanship involved in this legislation, as it comes under the
realm of all political parties concerned with the spending and
the accountability for the spending of taxpayer dollars.
1835
I am confident that today's debate on this legislation should
generate meaningful, lively non-partisan debate because it
covers a number of points.
For example, acknowledgement of the contributions that Canadians
are making through their tax dollars is the same as acknowledging
a commercial sponsor. We have to ask do Canadians take ownership
of these cultural projects that the Canada Council, Telefilm
Canada, the National Film Board, the CBC and other granting
agencies give to these projects? Are they proud of these
programs or events that are put on? Indeed, do Canadians show
any commitment to the fact that their dollars are going out for
these projects?
Many individuals and groups have complained about the amount of
dollars spent on culture. Some say too little, some say too much.
Perhaps some of these complaints are attributable to the fact
that it is not clearly indicated when the federal government has
or for that matter has not funded an event.
The government is very prone to talking about the $42 billion
deficit which it inherited from the Conservatives when it took
over in 1993. We are looking at the fact that there have been
cuts, but the cuts have occurred in areas that directly impact
people's lives, ranging from post-secondary education to health
issues, all the issues that are so important to Canadians in
their lives.
The question is could we during this period of time continue to
sponsor many of these events? Much to my chagrin and that of
many people who have contacted my office, indeed we have
continued to sponsor these at the expense of very vital issues in
Canada. Now that we are reaching the point of having a balanced
budget and are starting to focus on the very high taxes it has
taken in order for us to get to this balanced budget point, can
we continue to afford to spend these dollars on some of these
cultural projects?
I cite by way of example an unrelated issue except in terms of
comparison. There is a $400,000 expenditure happening, and let me
qualify that it does not involve government money, within my own
constituency that would see the expansion of recreational trails.
And on the other side of the coin there are communities within
my constituencies that are just begging for $200,000, $300,000 or
$400,000 to put in natural gas because we are dependent on either
electricity or wood in the Canadian Rockies for heating.
There are always these points of comparison and in this instance
what we are saying is that when the heritage minister says it is
only a cup of coffee a day when it comes to the flag program and
it is only another cup of coffee a day when it comes to the
Canada unity office and only five cups of coffee a day when it
comes to the Canada culture grants, I think our stomachs would
burn out from a bit too much coffee when it is only one cup of
coffee a day for these various programs.
I believe what is important is the potential for this to assist
in the unity issue by raising the level of awareness of residents
of the province of Quebec. For example, the contribution that the
federal government makes to their culture is very much. For
example, the Just for Laughs festival is a highly successful
annual event in Montreal funded by the Canadian taxpayer. Why
not advertise that fact?
As mentioned, many short feature films funded by Telefilm would
not have been made without taxpayer dollars. As a matter of fact,
of the total number of films funded by Telefilm, over half the
total number of films have been sponsored in the French language
specifically with Quebec content. So why not advertise not only
the government funding but the amount that the taxpayer has
provided? Give credit where credit is due, to the taxpayer.
Furthermore, this could well raise the awareness in the province
of Quebec to the dollar contribution provided by all Canadian
taxpayers to Quebec's language and culture.
This bill is also about accountability. Because of the extended
visibility of the grant as a result of this advertising it will
make the adjudicators, whether it be the Canada Council or
Telefilm or any of the others, more conscious of the reaction of
Canadians to the choices they are making.
If the choices are good, they will receive positive applause and
if not, Canadians will come down on them.
1840
I was sent to this Chamber to be accountable to the people in my
constituency, indeed to all the people in Canada, for the
intelligent use and the intelligent spending of taxpayer dollars.
When I took this issue to the artists at the finance standing
committee in its prebudget hearing, I said that if I did not want
to be a critic, how could we possibly have accountability for
this?
The artists' answer was that fundamentally they would be the
judge, that they would judge whether this was money well spent or
not, that they would judge whether this has artistic credibility
or not.
I then took it to the minister because that answer was obviously
unacceptable. I would like to read in part some of the dialogue,
some of the testimony that occurred between the minister and me.
I read from the proceedings of the committee. I said: “We have
on a weekly basis, without any solicitation whatsoever, at least
a dozen letters from people who express a tremendous concern
about some of the projects that are sponsored by the Canada
Council. In a letter by Andrew McDermott, one of your senior
policy advisers to my colleague, when he drew to your attention
the particular publication that was called Neurotic Erotica
the letter said—”. The minister ended up making very light of
this letter. Obviously this is a rather unusual title. In fact,
the content in my humble judgment of this particular book is
clearly obscene.
I went on to say, however: “I am not the censor. I do not want
to become the censor as a politician or to be a censor for
Canada, but I do ask the question how in the world can Canadians
who are writing to me and who are writing to many of our
colleagues to express extreme distaste toward some of this
material, how can they hold you, the minister, accountable for
the expenditure of these dollars on the production of some of
this vile material?”
The minister answered: “I think you have to separate the two
issues. First of all, you say you do not want to be a censor.
Surely you do not want me to read every book that is funded by
the Canada Council”.
She went on to say that if someone goes to the O Canada exhibit,
it does a whole analysis of how the Group of Seven was treated in
1920. They were treated as artistic pariahs. Then she went on to
compare today's pornographers to the Group of Seven. This is the
minister of heritage. I could not believe my ears when I heard
her actually say this.
The point of this is that we have today a minister who correctly
boasts that the government is taking action against abominable
activities such as female genital mutilation. Yet by the same
token and under the Canada Council grants it is sponsoring
programs about tearing off women's nipples.
This is absolutely unspeakable and uncalled for. It gets worse,
but for the benefit of the members of this House and people
reading this transcript or watching on television, I will simply
say the problem is that some of the material is so vile, some of
the material is so bad that there is no way that I would demean
myself to repeat what it is all about. Yet the Canadian taxpayer
is paying for it.
What this bill would do is hold the people who make these
decisions accountable to the will and the position of the
Canadian public at large. That is what this bill is about
because at the end of the day, the Canadian taxpayer must know
that this House is going to be holding the people in this House
accountable for the expenditures of those dollars.
With that in mind and because of the importance of this, Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if you would see if there is unanimous consent
to make this bill votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent.
1845
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise and join my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia in
debating his private member's bill, C-204, an act to require that
in the advertising and at the opening of a cultural project
supported by public money a public acknowledgement of the grant
be made.
As my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia mentioned, this act
requires recipients of grants of public funds for cultural
projects to acknowledge that a grant has been made and to specify
the amount of the grant at the time the program is announced or
advertised and opened to the public. Non-compliance of this
requirement may result in the recipient having to repay the
grant.
I strongly support this bill. In fact, I have introduced a
similar bill, namely Bill C-222, which requires the recipients of
grants to specify what percentage of the project was funded with
taxpayer dollars. In this day and age, taxpayers are far more
observant of how their tax dollars are spent. As
parliamentarians, we must act responsibly to ensure that the tax
dollars are effectively being spent. I believe that this bill is
a step in ensuring that tax dollars on cultural projects are
being spent wisely.
Over the last few months I have had the opportunity to speak
with people from all across this great land of ours and they are
often quite surprised about how our tax dollars are used for
certain projects, most notably in instances where cultural grants
are being pursued.
In some instances, some people are appalled at the fact that
their tax dollars are being spent on what some consider to be
objectionable material. I have been asked who is accountable for
this spending and I cannot provide them with an answer as no one
is willing to take responsibility. Typically, everyone washes
their hands of taking responsibility.
As tax dollars are being spent on these projects someone must be
held accountable. The responsibility falls on the government to
ensure that the money is spent wisely and for all
parliamentarians to ensure that the government is acting
responsibly.
Bill C-204 is a step in the right direction. It targets any
grants that are provided through agencies such as the Canada
Council and the Canada Information Office. As my colleague
mentioned, this does not apply to direct parliamentary
appropriation such as those for the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, the CBC.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has stated that she is not
responsible for agencies such as the Canada Council and leaves
the decision as to who is given what for grants up to the
council. I am presuming that this holds true for other arm's
length agencies within the department as well.
This does give these agencies some autonomy so that they are not
merely puppets of the governments of the day. However, on the
flip side, it does not provide the taxpayer with any
accountability for their contribution.
This leads to the question: Who is responsible? With the
principle of responsible government that is one of the
foundations of our parliamentary system, the answer should be the
minister in charge. However, as I mentioned just a moment ago,
she does not claim responsibility on how agencies related to the
Department of Canadian Heritage spend our money.
This must change. Our government must take responsibility for
how each and every dollar is spent. For far too long we have let
governments spend money without being accountable for how it is
spent. The taxpayer is demanding that an answer to the question
on how we spend their hard earned money is given.
I do not think the purpose of this bill is objectionable. It is
not meant to discriminate against any one agency or group that
receives or gives grants for cultural events and projects.
As my colleague for Kootenay—Columbia mentioned, Bill C-204 is
not focused on any one region of the country and is not meant to
be discriminatory against any of these regions.
1850
Events and projects are being funded by taxpayers dollars in
every community across the country. Although there is some
discussion and disagreement over the amount of funds provided by
the federal government to subsidize such events, some individuals
feel too much money has been spent on events. Some individuals
feel more should go toward promoting cultural events. This is
not the purpose of this bill. I will not be debating those
arguments now.
What I will say that is that under this private members bill,
the taxpayers will have some say, albeit indirectly, over how the
tax dollars are being spent and a right to know when and where it
is spent. Governments not held accountable succumb to pressure
and go on wasteful spending sprees, resulting in higher taxes.
While the government claims credit for balancing the budget,
Canadians on the street know that the budget has been balanced on
their backs. They are fearful that governments not made
accountable can easily run a deficit. There is no law for this
government to operate within its means and I commend the
Government of Alberta for introducing the law requiring future
governments to operate within their means. Perhaps this
government will see the light and introduce a similar bill.
By making the public aware of various cultural projects which
receive grants, either in whole or in part, the arm's length
agencies, such as Canada Council, will be somewhat more
responsible and accountable for their choices as to who receives
what. Otherwise public pressure resulting from some unwise
choices may lead, in extreme cases mind you, to funding for their
agencies being decreased by the federal government in the future.
One of the many facets of private members' business is to fill
the gaps that the government leaves open. Bill C-204 fills one
of those gaps. I would encourage all my colleagues from all
sides of the House to support this initiative. It is a small
step in making us more accountable.
I would like to go on record to show that the governing party in
the House has denied unanimous approval to make this bill
votable. It is denying accountability to the Canadian taxpayer
for expenditures on cultural grants.
In closing, I would like to take a moment to express my personal
gratitude to those individuals and groups who promote and
preserve Canadian heritage through various projects and
performances. This bill is not intended as a barrier to these
groups who are receiving funding, but instead it is intended to
provide some accountability with the expenditure of taxpayers
funds.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
speaking today on Bill C-204, introduced by my hon. colleague, the
Reform member for Kootenay—Columbia, the short title of which is
the cultural grants acknowledgement act.
Its object as stated in the summary is, and I quote:
More precisely, this is a bill which is aimed at making
cultural organizations and artists publicize the funding they
receive from the federal government.
I find this a reasonable idea. People who receive a grant
ought to mention it; that would be a normal thing to do. Where I
disagree is that we should have to pass legislation requiring this.
As representatives of the people, as lawmakers, it is our role to
solve problems affecting society and to see that public affairs are
properly administered. We do not have to pass legislation on
everything, endlessly multiplying the number of acts and
regulations.
1855
Before considering the bill, we must ask ourselves whether
there is a problem in terms of publicizing the fact that a grant
has been given, something which is far from obvious. One has to
wonder whether the Department of Canadian Heritage, targeted by
this bill, has serious difficulty in having its participation in
artistic projects acknowledged.
This sort of problem has never been raised on the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage. We have not seen studies
complaining of the Department of Canadian Heritage's lack of
visibility. Would that cause a problem in the riding of the member
for Kootenay—Columbia or in English Canada? If not, is the focus
of this bill solely Quebec?
I would like to point out to my colleagues that this issue of
acknowledging public funding is not a problem for artists. With
the cuts to the cultural sector in recent years, the problem is
often the lack of public funding.
In Quebec, even artists who are known sovereignists are not
shy or ashamed to reveal the federal government's participation.
For example, the credits of the film Octobre by federally
blacklisted filmmaker Pierre Falardeau acknowledge the financial
participation of Telefilm Canada in the film's production. It
appears in big capital letters. The next line, also in big capital
letters, reveals that the film is a coproduction with the National
Film Board of Canada. That does not cause any problem.
Another example is Micheline Lachance's book entitled Le roman
de Julie Papineau.
This book gives a fictional account of the days of the Patriotes
as seen through the eyes of Louis-Joseph Papineau's wife. It is
mentioned at the beginning of the book that Les éditions
Québec-Amérique are funded by the Canada Council's block grant
program. Once again, this poses no problem.
The Reform members, and certain zealous federalists in the
House, must be made to understand that, although these
organizations contribute to Quebec's artistic production, the
citizens of Quebec pay taxes, and Quebec and its culture are for
now still part of Canada.
It would be natural for grants to be distributed equitably
among artists, whatever their political persuasion, and works that
are funded should reflect reality. The reality is that there is a
people in Quebec and that a growing proportion of Quebec's citizens
want this people to have a country.
In Quebec, there is no legislation like that being proposed
today. Most organizations have guidelines and this is negotiated
freely in collaboration with grant recipients. For example,
Quebec's Conseil des arts et des lettres merely requires that
recipients of grants display the Conseil's logo.
The Reform Party often complains of excessive government
interference and too many regulations. Now it proposes a bill that
seems to have no purpose. The only purpose of this bill is to
increase the federal government's visibility so as to strengthen
its central authority or national unity.
A closer look at the bill reveals that it gives the Minister
of Canadian Heritage extensive powers of political control over the
awarding and announcing of grants. Under the bill, recipients of
grants would be required to submit a certificate of good conduct to
the minister.
The minister would have the power to decide the time and manner in
which acknowledgement of grants must be made. If recipients refuse
to comply with the minister's political will, the minister may
retaliate by requiring the return of all or any of the grants
received.
1900
After years of progress in cleaning up politics in Quebec and
in Canada, a return to an era of political patronage is out of the
question, an era when artists would be subject to the whims of
political power and hostages of interparty feuds. Giving such
direct powers of retaliation and control over grants to the
heritage minister is opening the door far too wide to arbitrary
decisions.
The system for awarding cultural grants by federal bodies is
intended to be a merit system, one which recognizes people's
creative talents and not their political views or the values they
espouse.
In English, this concept goes by the term arm's length, which
would translate as something like out of the reach of the
government.
The reason artists are often judged by their peers or by juries of
experts known more for their artistic sense and for what they know,
rather than whom they know, is to ensure that the risk of political
interference is minimal.
It is up to parliament to set the overall objectives of
cultural policy. The government implements those objectives by
funding cultural organizations. It ought not to go any further
than this. The government must not interfere in the choice of
artists or creators whom these organizations decide to fund.
One may disagree with certain choices of works or artists
which are funded, I admit. Our criticisms, however, ought to focus
on whether or not the cultural organizations are fulfilling their
mission, and not on the personality or opinions of those receiving
funding.
When there is an attempt, as with this bill, to subject
culture to an ideology, experts sometimes talk of sovietizing
culture. This refers to the absolute control exercised by the
government of the former Soviet Union over means of communication
such as radio, television, film, newspapers, books and plays. This
approach is of no interest to either Canada or Quebec.
As members of Parliament, we should work to create laws that
encourage creativity rather than control it or use it for political
propaganda. Last year, the Minister of Foreign Affairs tried to
get artists who were working abroad to promote national unity.
When they refused, he realized his mistake and cancelled his
directive.
This is what the member for Kootenay—Columbia should do as
well. He should withdraw his bill and find positive ways to
encourage artists rather than try to use them as pawns on his
political chessboard.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
remind the House that we are discussing Bill C-204. Its title is
very precise. It is the Cultural Grants Acknowledgement Act.
The bill, as we will have gathered from its supporters, deals
with grants, contributions or loans for cultural projects funded
from within the portfolio of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
It has a very narrow focus. It deals with funding, but in
particular it proposes that the acknowledgement of such support
become a legal mandatory requirement.
Recipients would have to acknowledge support and specify the
amount of the grant at the time the funded project is announced
or advertised or opened to the public. This obligation would
apply to individuals as well as to corporations and
organizations.
The bill provides the Minister of Canadian Heritage with powers
to regulate the time and manner in which an acknowledgement must
be made. Such regulations would define the compliance
certificate, which is the term used in the bill, the recipient
would have to produce. Non-compliance would result in a
recipient having to repay the financing granted by the minister
or the agency.
1905
I believe the bill in one sense is based on a sound principle.
Governments are accountable to the public for financial support
that they provide for projects and organizations of all kinds.
Accountability starts with the faithful reporting of what is done
with taxpayers' money.
I also believe it is very legitimate for governments to expect
an acknowledgement when a grant contributes to the realization of
a project. Government money is taxpayers' money. It is only
fair that corporate or individual citizens acknowledge receipt of
such support.
Private donors and sponsors routinely obtain such
acknowledgement. There is no reason why governments should not.
This principle should be extended to the provision of financial
assistance by all government departments and agencies to any
project. However the bill singles out one type of support
referred to as cultural grants. These grants are singled out
from within a particular ministry, the Canadian Heritage
portfolio.
If such a principle is a matter to be based on law then surely
we must also consider public support granted to cultural projects
by other government departments, but is this a matter requiring
legislation specifically applicable only to cultural projects? If
we agree that such a principle is valid and requires the force of
legislation to be implemented then we must consider that the
government also grant support to small businesses, health groups,
human rights groups, foreign aid projects and so on. We should
also consider them and not just culture.
Why should we restrict legislation to cultural projects alone?
Is there something in culture to be feared to such a degree that
by no other means can we ensure that an individual or an
organization will acknowledge support?
With reference to cultural projects funded within the heritage
portfolio, it is normal practice for recipients to acknowledge
support. It is well understood and documented how this should be
accomplished. Applicants are instructed on minimum requirements
concerning acknowledgements. They are advised of this through
program criteria when they apply and through the application
guidelines and standard clauses regarding acknowledgement in the
case of negotiated signed agreements.
In addition to these formal requirements I would have thought
that most grant recipients would acknowledge support as a common
courtesy.
The policy regarding acknowledgement in the Department of
Canadian Heritage is open and transparent. It is integrated
throughout the process and accommodated with the express will and
consent of the recipient as a condition of receiving the grant.
Support can be acknowledged in advertising and at openings, in
catalogues for exhibitions, and in other print or video resource
material produced as a result of the grants. We heard some
examples of that from the Bloc member this evening.
Recognition of public support is also acknowledged by means of
annual reports including audited financial statements. In the
case of incorporated organizations most proposals, if not all,
include a plan for marketing and/or distribution which recognizes
public support.
Amounts of grants are a matter of public record as soon as they
are awarded often by means of a press release.
As a matter of principle, legislation should be used when other
means are insufficient or inadequate. By and large current
measures can be characterized as self-regulatory. They work
reasonably well. Should there be room for improvement—and there
always is—I believe that in this case anyway improvement can be
accomplished without the intervention of legislation.
At the present time acknowledgement is not obtained through a
coercive process. Acknowledgement policy as practised by
Heritage Canada and agencies such as the Canada Council retains
the integrity of the objective for providing support in the first
place.
I for one am glad that the Government of Canada supports the
Canada Council and I believe that most Canadians are of the same
mind.
1910
The bill would place the government in the awkward position of
saying that the focus of public support for culture is not
culture itself but government visibility. This would
unnecessarily thwart the development of the government's
relations with the cultural community and its many public and
media supporters.
Compliance is presently assured by more informal means. Groups
and individuals know their future funding could be placed in
jeopardy should they refuse to play by the rules and respect what
are very reasonable requirements for acknowledgement.
Split payments in the case of grants and the specific negotiated
schedules of payment for contributions and loans additionally
serve as an informal mechanism to draw attention to the
importance of acknowledgement.
I believe Bill C-204 is unnecessary and will not be supporting
it.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to speak to Bill C-204, an act to require that in the
advertising and at the opening of a cultural product supported by
public money a public acknowledgement of the grant be made.
I am happy to bring the good news to the hon. member for
Kootenay—Columbia that what he is proposing to pass into law is
already occurring. It is something which cultural industries are
already doing voluntarily.
If he has ever had opportunity to attend a Canadian play he will
find that in the program routine acknowledgements of all funding
sources, public and private, are made. If he has been at the
screening of a Canadian film lately he will be amazed at the
length of the section in the credits dedicated exclusively to the
funders. It seems to stretch out forever, longer than the
credits acknowledging the film's crew. In fact I sometimes
squirm about in my seat in the local movie theatre waiting for
the acknowledgements to end so that I can get home, pay the
babysitter and go to bed.
The long suffering taxpayers who attend our cultural events do
know what the funding sources are in Canadian plays, films,
books, magazines and concerts. It is no secret that almost every
arts organization receives some level of funding and makes it
public. They do not always attach the dollar amount publicly at
the event. That is not why people go to an artistic event. They
go to be elevated, delighted, challenged and revitalized. They
go to learn something new about themselves and the world.
However, if after seeing a particular artistic event they feel
the need to find out how much it costs, the dollar amount is
available for anyone who wants to know through an annual Canada
Council for the Arts listing.
Canadian cultural industries are grateful and eager to thank the
funders of their work. Canadians working in the arts are proud
of their work and proud to present it to their neighbours and
fellow citizens and, yes, their fellow taxpayers. They too are
an integral part of the economic landscape of the country, doing
their part to reflect on and contribute to the whole of what we
are as a people.
As for the desire for acknowledgement I am sure the Liberals who
are still remaining across the floor tonight at this late hour
are probably delighted to hear that we want to see their efforts
at public funding for the arts made more public. I believe that
the level of public funding to culture has reached a dangerously
low level and I see no joy in this. I would like to see the
level of support for our artists increased. Public funding to
the arts still exists and I know of no one who is trying to keep
it a secret.
If the member is really intent on educating the public about
where its hard earned tax dollars go, and this is not simply
another bill to harass Canadian artists, I suggest that he go
even further in his public education efforts.
The next time he pulls into an Esso station he might expect to
find a sign saying “This gas has been made possible by $585
million in tax breaks to western oil producers”. Or, when he
buys his next Michelin tire he might see a sign saying “Brought
to you by a $27 million gift from the long suffering taxpayers of
Nova Scotia by the Liberals in an election year”. The next time
the member for Kootenay—Columbia takes a flight back to his
riding he could have a sign on the back of his jacket saying how
much that flight is costing the taxpayers of Canada.
We can put a price tag on everything if we want to. There is a
myth afoot that there is no accountability in the arts.
1915
In fact, there are far more checks and balances in place around
funding to the arts than there are around funding to
corporations. Perhaps the member's next private member's bill
might tackle that particular sector if he is concerned with the
long-suffering taxpayer.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I really
wish there were questions and comments because I would like to
throw some questions at the hon. member who just spoke.
During his introduction of this bill, the member for
Kootenay—Columbia used some examples that are very offensive,
particularly to women. The use of taxpayers' money in the
production of some of these so-called art things are pornographic
and demeaning, particularly to women.
Surely he cannot be in favour of using taxpayers' money for
that. I am not and I do not think any decent Canadian is in
favour of that, yet it is done all the time with impugnity. We
give money to agencies without the need for accountability. We
simply say “here is the money, spend it any way you wish”. They
find some of the most obscene ways to spend it.
I wish I would have known I was going to get up to speak because
I would have brought along with me a little more detail on a
little thing I heard one night on CBC radio. It was a usual
Sunday evening and I was about to hit the pillow for the night.
As always, I reached over to set my clock radio. I thought I
would listen to CBC-FM a bit to hear some nice music because
sometimes is does have nice music.
Well, it was after midnight on a Saturday night and the time of
night when the culture of CBC does a metamorphoses. Maybe there
is a connection to it being after midnight, I do not know, but I
was totally appalled at what I was hearing on a publicly funded
radio station, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It was
incredibly obscene.
I guess maybe it is a good thing I could not research it because
then I would have brought the words along. I was so offended by
it that I ran downstairs to put on the tape recorder because I
wanted to have a record of it. Unfortunately I could not find a
tape soon enough and missed most of it.
I wanted to make a scene about that but I never did. Instead I
ran for Parliament and came here with one real good purpose which
is to stop the funding for this kind of obscenity. It has no
market in Canadian society. We need to stop it. It is no wonder
we have all the violence against women and children when we have
a publicly funded radio promoting it.
I think the member's bill is a very important step to making
Canadians realize that when this type of stuff is being put out
it is being financed with their tax dollars, tax dollars that
will not go to the education of their children or to keeping a
hospital bed open for a mother who is suffering and who needs it.
Instead it is being used for this kind of garbage.
The first step in stopping this flow of taxpayers' money has to
be for the Canadian people to a large extent to know how it is
being spent. Once they know how it is spent, they will get angry
enough to tell their politicians in Ottawa to stop that flow of
their money and use it for purposes that are much better and more
justifiable.
I just could not resist adding that little bit to the debate on
this bill. I commend my hon. colleague for presenting it.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I, like my colleague who spoke before me, had not planned to
speak on this private member's bill. I think my colleague who
has just spoken was a little bit perturbed by the comments of the
hon. member for Dartmouth. Well, maybe not perturbed but perhaps
concerned and it generated in him the desire to address some of
the comments that were made by her and indeed some of the
comments in the bill itself.
Having heard the debate as he did, I too am moved to speak. The
comments of my hon. colleague just prior to my rising made me
more determined to speak. They give the indication more than
anything else about what the intention of this bill really is.
1920
The bill is a little about accountability and a little about
taxpayers' dollars but it is mostly about art that offends
certain individuals. It is an attempt to use dollars—
An hon. member: If you would have heard what I heard on
CBC—
Mr. Peter Mancini: I have heard many things on CBC that
have offended me. I have heard many things in the private
broadcasting sector that offend me more. I note that in this
bill there is no requirement for the private sector to indicate
the influence it may have on cultural events that take place.
There is no accountability there.
I get the sense we want to go back to the way it was in the time
of Caterina de' Medici when certain privileged groups were
patrons of the arts. In that case individuals with gifts and
abilities were supported by private patrons instead of the
public. Then an individual may have used his creativity to write
love songs for his patron's mistress. I don't know.
We have come a long way. We have come to a point where we
recognize that culture and art are a part of the fabric of this
nation. We have come to a point where we recognize the right of
artistic expression whether we agree with that expression or not.
My colleague from Dartmouth explained it like this. We go to a
public event to be educated, sometimes to be offended. We do not
go to be offended but sometimes we are. We go to be stirred. We
go to be enlightened. We go to create the kind of debate we are
having here today.
If there were no public funding for the films mentioned, for
some of the plays that have been written in this country, for
some of the music that some colleagues or I might find offensive,
then we would not have this debate. We would hear endless reams
of Lawrence Welk playing on some radio station that could be the
most general and least offensive type of music that anyone could
listen to.
The reality is artists need to be supported in their creative
efforts. They do not need to worry that because someone does not
like their work, their funding is going to be cut, and that is
what this is really about. It is about saying that we find this
film about incest offensive, we find this music offensive and for
that reason we are going to use the fact that some public money
was used in this to end it. That means we will go back to
private funding.
We listen to the sitcoms that come across the border every day
because nobody asks the sponsors how much money they have spent,
and I think that is the intent of this bill. I speak in favour
of the freedom of the artist to express himself or herself.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time for private
members' business this evening is just about over. It is
customary to allow the mover of the bill to wrap up for a couple
of minutes. If the mover does so, that will suspend debate on
the bill.
If you will forgive the Chair an editorial comment, I think most
Canadians watching would agree that tonight's debate in private
members' business was very good insofar as it was extemporaneous
and heartfelt. From the perspective of the Chair it was a very
good debate.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
indeed the speaker prior to myself put his finger on it. If we
do not like the sitcoms we are looking at that have been prepared
at the expense of the studio and paid for by the sponsors, we
turn them off at no cost to ourselves because the sponsors are
the people who are paying the bill.
1925
In an instance when Canadians are paying the bill, how is this
House held accountable? The speaker spoke of the right of
artistic expression. That is a wonderful term.
The reality is that I receive on a weekly basis at least a dozen
letters from concerned Canadians saying that they are being taxed
to death. They take a look at the material that is being
produced and find it vile and offensive. Who is accountable?
When we have this speaker from the NDP and the Minister of
Canadian Heritage comparing today's vile pornographers to the
Group of Seven, I find that a leap that is a chasm far too wide.
What this bill is about and indeed what we should be talking
about in this House of Commons, the action we should be taking in
this House of Commons is to hold this House of Commons
accountable for the taxpayers' dollars, whether it is going out
to the Canada Council or it is going out to health care.
Whatever it is going out to, I am here because the people sent
me here to be accountable. Indeed I have gone to the artists, as
I mentioned in the finance committee, I have gone to the minister
in the heritage committee and now I come to this House.
Apart from Reform members of Parliament, there is no one in this
House of Commons who is prepared to stand to be accountable for
the Canadian taxpayers' dollars and the way in which they are
being spent. That is a shame.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of private members' business has now
expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
October 3, on pay equity, I asked the President of the Treasury
Board if he intended to return to the bargaining table with the
Public Service Alliance of Canada.
The question arose from a response the minister had made several
days previously, one of the clearest ones he has made on the
subject of the decision by the tribunal of the human rights
commission in the matter before us.
The minister responded, and I quote “We stand ready to apply
the various judgments once they are made final”.
The minister has just now told us that he will abide by the
tribunal's decision. I must confess I had doubts about the
seriousness of the minister's word. In fact, following this
surprising response, I wondered whether, with this statement, the
President of the Treasury Board was announcing his withdrawal from
the bargaining table. And I hastened to ask him if this were the
case. His response, let me tell you, left me somewhat stunned.
While we all know that it was the employer who broke off
negotiations, the minister told me that he was quietly waiting for
the union to come back to the bargaining table, and went on about
his $1.3 billion offer. The employees are not stupid. They know
very well that the minister is trying to get them to settle for
less.
I know that my hon. colleague will soon rise in the House to
tell us proudly that bargaining resumed on October 30. I wonder
whether my colleague will be honest enough, however, to admit that
he is not even in a position to offer a settlement larger than $1.3
billion, when he knows full well that the Public Service Alliance
is demanding close to $2 billion. I look forward to hearing him
boast about his wonderfully charitable offer.
Let it be known that, with Christmas around the corner, what
the government owes its employees is not charity, but simple and
fair justice.
And this justice presumes the payment of the money to which they
are entitled. Instead of asking me to use my influence with the
unions to get them to accept this second-rate offer, I suggest that
the minister should instead use his influence with the Minister of
Finance to obtain the necessary room to manoeuvre and finally
respect public servants.
In the second half of my question of October 3, I also asked
the minister if he intended to use all the legal stalling tactics
at his disposal to delay a settlement in this matter. I imagine he
will tell us that he certainly does not, that he would never wish
to delay a settlement.
If my hon. colleague replies in this vein, I will believe him.
Better yet, I will say that he wants such a rapid settlement that
he is using all the stalling tactics at his disposal.
1930
If I may, I would like to give you some examples of what seem
to some to be bargaining tactics, and to others, simple bad faith.
Given that the tribunal's decision will not be handed down until
the spring of 1998 and that this issue has been dragging on for 10
years, it is clear that everything is in place to rush employees
into accepting a second-rate offer. Let us also remember that
there is still the threat of special legislation.
We honestly believed in the government's good faith when we
learned of the return to the bargaining table, but the tactics
being used to influence employees are shocking.
When I read an information bulletin issued to employees, which
points out how the settlement process will drag on if the
employer's offer is rejected, I cannot help thinking that this is
a tactic intended to influence their decision.
In conclusion, I understand that bargaining must include a
minimum of strategy, but the government must also understand that
its employees are not its enemies. They too are taking part in the
public effort. The government must work with, not against, its
employees. I have only this to add: do the fair thing.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October 3 the
President of the Treasury Board answered a question from the
member for Longueuil. She asked the Treasury Board a question
about pay equity.
The government will continue to fulfill its obligations to pay
equity. As part of its commitment, it enacted legislation for
Canada in 1978. It has paid over $1 billion in pay equity
payments. During the most recent negotiations it has offered
$1.3 billion to PSAC.
On August 11, 1997 the government tabled an offer of $1.3
billion to resolve the pay equity dispute. On October 30, PSAC
tabled a counterproposal to the current Treasury Board offer of
$1.3 billion. In addition to salary adjustments that represent
more than $2 billion, the PSAC counterproposals include interest
back to 1983, compensation for hurt feelings and other related
costs.
The government believes that a negotiated settlement would be in
the best interests of all parties and would end the uncertainty
to employees. The tribunal decision will provide the parameters
for calculating the pay equity gap but will most likely leave
some issues unresolved and this will require further discussions
with PSAC.
This means further delays. Furthermore, any of the parties could
file a judicial review. Negotiations will allow the employer and
PSAC to resolve this matter and show that the trust and
commitment can generate solutions to these difficult issues. A
joint resolution will get the cheques in the hands of the
employees sooner.
The government is firmly committed to the principles of pay
equity and it wants a fair, speedy and equitable solution to the
dispute with PSAC.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, earlier I
asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs if, in the spirit of the
Beijing conference on women, he would assure that funding for the
women's group going to APEC this week in Vancouver would be
there, as I had had calls from my constituents who are members of
women's groups and who were not getting any funding to go.
The minister said that funding had been there and it was up to
the groups to decide what to do with it.
As it turns out, APEC has been funded by the government for $46
million, a total of $57 million, $46 million by Canadian citizens
to APEC, $9 million as business write-offs, and the association
of citizens groups that had put together the people's summit has
received $200,000. Barely three weeks before the summit was to
begin it had only received $100,000 and that has forced the
indigenous peoples to pull out of the people's summit which is
running parallel to the APEC conference.
These citizens groups represent human rights groups, women's
organizations, environment workers, migrant workers and
anti-poverty groups.
APEC represents 18 countries. It is an association of economies
and its goal is to pursue unfettered trade, unfettered meaning it
does not have to deal with human rights or workers rights or the
fact there may be child labour or forced labour.
The people's summit was an attempt to bring a balance to this
process. These countries are home to 2.2 billion people, which
is 40% of our globe's humanity.
1935
In 1993 the world conference on human rights in Vienna restated
that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent
and inter-related. APEC's agenda is to separate trade as having
nothing to do with human rights or workers rights, the very
people who produce the money for transnational corporations and
large economies. They do have rights.
That is not the way APEC sees it. APEC curtails democracy
through informal understandings. Democratic countries align
themselves with the most repressive and corrupt regimes in the
world while at the same time shutting out the voices of the civil
society.
There is also the argument that better trade will increase human
rights. However, when trade agreements changed in China in 1988
and 1989 we saw the Tiananmen massacre. In Indonesia there
continue to be vile human rights abuses, yet in the name of trade
we will meet with these people and everything will be fine as
long as it is in the name of the dollar.
The countries of APEC and the corporations of APEC, some
elected, some unelected, refuse to discuss their impact on human
rights, on working conditions, the freedom to associate, the
freedom to negotiate, child labour, forced labour, environmental
standards, immigration, migrant labour and their affect on
indigenous peoples. Again I will state that the indigenous group
had to pull out because there was no funding for it.
It is easy to shut out the voices of civil society because they
are not funded equally by any standards; $57 million to APEC,
$200,000 to the people's summit. They were not allowed to
participate. There was no money for transportation. Even
transferring the cost of one business reception would likely have
covered every expense needed for the people's summit. It would
have allowed them to fully participate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member, but her time has expired.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
respond to the hon. member for Yukon on behalf of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
The Government of Canada has provided almost $200,000 in funding
for many non-governmental organizations under the umbrella of the
people's summit.
This financial support is given through the departments of
foreign affairs and international trade and CIDA, under whose
aegis APEC is taking place.
In addition, Status of Women Canada has provided support for the
domestic workers forum held on November 15 and 16, 1997, to
allow participants to discuss the impact of economic
restructuring on their lives and to facilitate their
participation in the decision making process.
Status of Women Canada will continue to work with women's
organizations to develop long term domestic follow-up action to
the people's summit, to contribute to Canada's efforts to
recognize gender as a cross-cutting issue in APEC.
We have already seen progress in three key areas of APEC's
economic and technical co-operation agenda: small and medium
enterprises, science and technology, and human resource
development.
The Government of Canada is also working with APEC economies to
incorporate more formally a women's agenda at future APEC
meetings.
Our government's financial support is intended to strengthen the
capacity of Canadian NGOs to contribute to the development of
APEC policies and programs.
[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 two o'clock, pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.39 p.m.)
(Link to Appendix)