EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 133
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 6, 1998
1000
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC Summit
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1005
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1010
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-438. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1015
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1020
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1035
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1040
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1125
(Division 234)
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to on division
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-52. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1130
1135
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1150
1155
1200
1205
1210
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1225
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1240
1245
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1310
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1335
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
1340
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1355
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EARL GOFORTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT SPENDING
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
1400
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARY ANN SHADD
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FLU AWARENESS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EDUCATION SAVINGS PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
1405
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LABRADOR HELICOPTER CRASH
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VICTIMS OF GENOCIDE
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREST INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EDUCATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1410
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAST CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOM-ENET-MAN
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LOBSTER FISHERY
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE PIERRE SAVARD
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1435
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1440
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1445
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1450
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1455
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSING
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1500
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE LEONARD JONES
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
1505
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1510
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE DONALD MUNRO
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1515
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BillC-52. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1520
1525
1530
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1535
1540
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1555
1600
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1625
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1630
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1635
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1700
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1705
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-53. Second reading
|
1710
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
1715
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1720
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1725
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-284. Second reading
|
1750
1800
(Division 235)
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-53. Second reading
|
1810
(Division 236)
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
(Division 237)
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARRIAGE ACT, 1997
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-225. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
1815
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1830
1835
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1840
1845
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1850
1855
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1900
1905
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
1910
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
1915
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Royal Canadian Mint
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1920
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BC Mine in Black Lake
|
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1925
![V](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 133
![](/web/20061116180626im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 6, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
PRIVILEGE
APEC SUMMIT
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Yesterday my hon. colleague, the member of parliament for
Palliser, made some very serious charges in the House. The hon.
member said that in the course of a private conversation he
overheard on a flight from Ottawa to Fredericton that I discussed
events relating to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission inquiry
into events at APEC.
I categorically deny that I engaged in an inappropriate
conversation that would in any way prejudice the outcome of that
inquiry.
I was seated with another passenger in the course of a two hour
flight from Ottawa to Fredericton. We had a wide-ranging
conversation covering various subjects. At no time did I
prejudge the outcome of the PCC inquiry, nor did I suggest that
my role was to prevent the Prime Minister from attending the
inquiry.
First, I have much respect for the independence of the PCC and
its civilian oversight function.
Second, I am determined to allow this inquiry to run its course
and establish what happened at APEC and why.
Third, I fully understand the responsibilities of the Solicitor
General and would never jeopardize my lawful duties.
Finally, I am personally offended that the hon. member has
chosen to impugn my integrity, my ethics and my commitment to
this process, particularly since these attacks were made by a
political opponent who spent two hours eavesdropping on a private
conversation.
There were only two parties to this conversation, myself and Mr.
Fred Toole. I would now like to table a letter from Mr. Toole
which supports what I have just told the House.
1005
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to rise on this
question of privilege and to state for the record what really
transpired. I am not going to say anything further about what we
discussed because this was a private conversation.
I have full confidence in the independence and impartiality of
the PCC and I would ask all hon. members to give the hearing
process a chance to work.
The Speaker: Colleagues, this is clearly not a
question of privilege. It is a dispute as to the facts, as they
may or may not be, depending on one point or the other. I am
going to rule that it is not a question of privilege. The
statement is on the record, but it is not a question of
privilege.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, may I respond very briefly
to say with great—
The Speaker: I have ruled that this is not a question of
privilege, as we understand it in the House, so the matter
is closed.
I would add this addendum. I will not allow the tabling of this
document at this time. There are other means by which the
minister can do this.
With respect to the hon. member for Palliser, although his name
was mentioned in this non-question of privilege, at this point my
ruling is that there is not a question of privilege. Of course
the hon. member has other means at his disposal if he wishes to
pursue any other points which he deems to be valuable to this
House.
We are now going to proceed to the orders of the day.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, if this is not considered a
question of privilege—
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member if this deals with
the question of privilege that I have ruled on because that point
is over.
Hon. David Kilgour: No, Mr. Speaker, it is separate. The
House can do anything it wishes by unanimous consent. I would
ask for unanimous consent to table the letter in the House.
The Speaker: We now have before us in this House a
request for unanimous consent from one of our members to table
a document in this House. Does the House give permission to
put this question?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: Permission denied.
1010
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It seems to me that it is quite possible for the minister to
table this document under Tabling of Documents, which will happen
in Routine Proceedings fairly shortly.
Under Standing Order 32(1), a minister is allowed to table any
document relating to the administration of government.
The Speaker: There is no question about that. The hon.
parliamentary secretary is correct.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Surely if the minister is to make a statement or table a document
in this House it should pertain specifically to that which the
minister is responsible for and not a document that has been
created to cover up any particular tracks in an investigation.
The Speaker: We are going to proceed with the rules of
the House. The hon. parliamentary secretary gave information to
the House which is correct. Any one of us can see that if we
just look at the rules.
I do not have anything in front of me right now except the
statement that I concurred with. Now we will proceed to the
daily routine of business.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
[English]
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), I would like to table
a document before the House.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-438, an act to amend the Criminal Code (taking
samples of bodily substances).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private
member's bill today. The idea for this bill came from Bev and
Lloyd Bergeson of Cremona, Alberta who lost their daughter Denise
to a dangerous driver.
This bill would amend the Criminal Code to add that where a
peace officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a
person operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner has
thereby caused the death of another person, the peace officer
shall, by demand made to that person, require the person to
provide a urine sample to enable proper analysis to be made in
order to determine the presence, if any, of drugs in the person's
urine, breath or blood.
The taking of samples is necessary for proper analysis to be
made in order to determine the concentration, if any, of alcohol
in the person's blood.
This bill will ensure that those who are suspected of driving
drunk will be tested immediately by a police officer. There will
no longer be any reason for delay or not testing a person
immediately as a result of this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1015
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee
on Fisheries and Oceans, presented to the House Monday, March 23,
otherwise known as the east coast report, be concurred in.
The government has now tabled its response to the east coast
report. The east coast report was tabled in the House by the
chair of the standing committee on March 23, 1998.
I was pleased to be a member of the standing committee that
produced this report especially as it was a unanimous report in
almost every respect. The crises in the fishery were seen by the
committee to be of pressing importance, and this report was put
out directly in response to these issues on the east coast.
The government had an opportunity to accept this report as a
breath of fresh air, an opportunity to create a new mandate, a
chance to change the status quo defensive posture of the
department and embark on some vital changes. Instead, the
government has chosen to challenge the report and to shoot the
messenger, in this case the chair of the standing committee, the
member for Gander—Grand Falls.
The east coast report has 23 recommendations. The first 9 deal
with foreign fishing concerns. In particular, recommendation 9
talks about extending our jurisdiction to beyond 200 miles.
Reform was instrumental in having this become a focus of the
report. In fact, the importance of conserving natural resources
is stated Reform policy.
We believe governments have a responsibility to protect our
environment and if extending Canada's economic jurisdiction over
the entire Grand Banks is what it takes to protect this
environment, then we should do it. Reform policy is that Canada
should assert its control over the nose and tail of the Grand
Banks and the Flemish Cap.
The rest of the east coast report addresses such important
issues as rationalizing the fisheries, the management problems at
DFO, overfishing of particular species and sealing and ecological
issues such as ghost nets.
The government response to the east coast report of the standing
committee is pathetic. It is typically bureaucratic and merely
defends the status quo. It appears to say a lot but does not
commit to any effective change. It avoids the real question on
TAGS which is the mismanagement to date and the breaking of a
promise to continue benefits to May 1999. It does nothing
substantive on seal populations beyond consultation and
information gathering. It shoots the messenger rather than deal
with foreign fishing recommendations of the committee.
This kind of government response illustrates the attitude of the
minister and senior department officials toward any investigation
into commercial foreign harvesting off Canada's east coast. A
prime example of this attitude can be found in the issue of my
request for access to foreign fishing observer reports.
I am going to focus much of my comments today on these foreign
fishing observer reports. There is only one reason why the
public is denied full access to reports from Canadian observers
on foreign vessels fishing inside Canada's 200 mile limit. The
reason is that this government cares less about the public
interest and Canada's sovereignty than about maintaining
comfortable relationships with foreign fishing interests.
For anyone who has any doubt about this, I recommend the 1998
book by Michael Harris Lament for an Ocean regarding the
collapse of the east coast cod fishery. However, members should
consider reading this book only if they are able to control their
emotions. They will be sickened by how political timidity leads
to horrendous consequences; in this case biologically for our
fisheries resources and socially and economically for Atlantic
Canadians.
1020
For many months members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries
and Oceans and I have been trying to get DFO to release to the
public these foreign fishing observer reports.
The minister tried to cut a deal with us. The committee members
could look at the reports but they could not talk publicly about
their contents. The minister claimed this was because the
reports contained confidential commercial information and
releasing them would violate section 20 of the Access to
Information Act.
Section 20(6) states that the head of a government institution
may disclose any record if that disclosure would be in the public
interest as it relates to public health, public safety or
protection of the environment.
The public interest in knowing what foreign vessels are up to
far outweighs any potential prejudice to the third party, in this
case foreign vessels. In this case the public has an
environmental interest in knowing if certain species of fish are
being overfished.
The minister said in response to my questioning that he had an
opinion as to why he should not release the reports to the
committee. I asked for a copy of this opinion and I received it.
It is very enlightening.
To set the backdrop for this scenario, there is a strong body of
opinion that parliamentary committees do have the authority to
compel any persons, papers and records as witnesses before the
committees.
In a paper produced by the parliamentary legislative services
branch, it also made the point that when considering whether to
compel evidence, committees have been more likely to excuse
matters for reasons of national security than for considerations
of commercial interests. The minister has declared that these
reports contain confidential information or trade secrets. The
burden of proof should be on the foreign vessels to do this. It
should not be up to the minister to so declare.
These observer reports are produced by public authorities in
order to protect the public. As Justice Jerome stated in
Intercontinental Packers Limited v Canada, the reports must
therefore be presumed to contain public information. This has
been tested in the courts before.
With this backdrop, what was the opinion given to the minister
by the deputy minister as to the request by the chair of the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to receive these
foreign fishing observer reports? On February 5, 1998 the deputy
minister informed the minister by memo that the committee request
was not yet of the status of a formal access to information
request. In other words, the minister should give the committee
request less credence than a request under the Access to
Information Act. Also, the chair should be consulted about
reviewing the documents in camera. The committee turned that
suggestion down flat.
If confidentiality is involved, as in camera states, that would
muzzle the members and would not serve the public interest. Since
that time we have seen the department fulfil an access to
information request and provide these very same foreign fishing
observer reports to a member of the media, heavily blacked out of
course. Then the department made a grand production of presenting
these very same heavily censored observer reports to the
committee. This of course did not satisfy the committee request
in any way.
Instead of respecting committees of the House of Commons, the
minister has treated the fisheries committee with disdain.
Instead of pursuing the public interest, DFO has catered to
foreign interests.
The minister states in his response to the standing committee's
report on the east coast fishery: “The perceptions of foreign
fishing as relayed in the report are of great concern to the
department”.
1025
The government continues to defend foreign quotas on Canada's
continental shelf inside and outside the 200 mile limit. If we
listen only to the government we might think that DFO had
developed a new attitude, that DFO had seen the light. It might
even look to some like the poor practices which led to a collapse
of confidence in the department were being changed by new
attitudes at the top.
I am here to tell the House there is no new attitude. The
stonewall continues. An aide to the minister tried to cut a deal
with me to drop my formal request for the observer reports. The
net result would have been that I would have received the same
censored reports that the media and the committee had already
received. My request for papers is still on the order paper. It
is still on the books.
While I am waiting for a response I would like to pursue the
issue of Canadian economic jurisdiction over the continental
shelf off Canada's east coast. It is not well known that when it
comes to our continental shelf Canada is in a unique position. We
are the only nation with a major portion of our continental shelf
extending beyond the 200 mile limit, more specifically the nose
and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.
The Grand Banks are a part of what were once the richest fishing
grounds in the world. The area outside the 200 mile limit is
still heavily exploited by foreign fishing interests. Yet the
fish we find on the Grand Banks are part of the important food
chain for strictly Canadian fish that often live most of their
lives in wholly Canadian waters. Some are highly migratory and
cross the 200 mile limit unpredictably.
The committee recommends that Canada gain control over all
resources that lie on Canada's continental shelf and the
department responds in bureaucratese saying Canada cannot do this
and that foreign overfishing after all is not as bad as it used
to be. Why does the department say this rather than consider the
merits of the argument?
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans knows there are
legal experts who agree with the committee recommendation to
extend its jurisdiction beyond 200 miles. They agree that all
foreign fishing outside and inside the 200 mile zone should stop.
Certainly this would be controversial. Our soft touch foreign
affairs department might balk at suggesting such a thing, but we
know there are legal experts not only in foreign affairs but in
other organizations and federal departments who agree that
Canadian jurisdiction can be extended from 200 miles to 350 miles
to include all of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. I highly
recommend that members read sections 76 to 84 of the Law of the
Sea for further elaboration.
This is what the chair of the standing committee, the member for
Gander—Grand Falls, wrote to the minister when the minister
threw the east coast report recommendations back at the
committee. The minister wants no part of upsetting foreign
interests or promoting Canadian economic and biological interests
by extending our jurisdiction. We continue to cater to and sell
out to Cuban and European fishing interests rather than express
our sovereignty to the maximum degree possible over the
continental shelf. Until the government does this, everything
Canada does on the east coast is a compromise. We all know that
compromise is not the answer. It is a sure fire way to continue
to sell out Canadian interests at the expense of Atlantic
Canadians.
1030
The area of seabed in question is enormous and the stakes are
huge. Canada has every right to exert its legal authority in
jurisdiction out to 350 miles. Given the horrendous economic and
social consequences that Atlantic Canada has already suffered, we
also have the moral authority.
The department has its shirt in a knot with concerns about the
standing committee's report on the east coast because of
criticism of DFO's handling of foreign fishing. This does not
bode well for government acceptance that Canada's approach to
jurisdiction over our continental shelf must be focused and
aggressive.
Canada's current attitude is “resistance is useless”. I hope
we can save Canadian interests from Canadian government apathy.
If there was ever a need for strong visionary leadership from the
government to establish Canada's interests on the east coast the
time is now. Rather than supporting the status quo the minister
should be setting a new course. It is time for boldness, not
timidity.
The committee has pointed the way and will continue to promote
this vision unless it is totally neutered by the government. DFO
has the reputation of being the most difficult department of
government to deal with to solve longstanding problems.
At the same time the policies of DFO impact directly on the
lives of tens of thousands of Canadians. Rather than a fresh
approach we can add the removal of the chairman of the committee
to the long list of people stifled by the government in its
arrogant belief that disagreeing with the PMO, the government or
a minister is not to be tolerated. This flat, bland, tasteless
do nothing government should be doing more than reaching for the
pepper.
We have just to ask the auditor general, the ex-chief actuary
for CPP, Michelle Brill-Edwards, the APEC demonstrators or the
ex-chair of the fisheries committee.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to get the member's comments on a few
issues. He focused his discussion primarily on the observer
reports and made a lot of comments on foreign overfishing. Those
were key recommendations in the report. He talked about where he
had requested observer reports. The minister has denied access
to them even though he has the authority to release them.
A few weeks ago—and this was raised in the House last week—we
learned again that the minister had negotiations with foreign
nations to have observers put on all foreign fishing vessels. We
learned that the minister moved zone 3L which gave access to our
shrimp to foreign nations. He sold out again and gave our shrimp
away to foreign nations.
I would like the member's comments on that. I would also like
him to comment on whether he believes the recent firing of the
member for Gander—Grand Falls had anything to do with this
report.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, in terms of any dealings we
have with our fisheries portfolio in terms of foreign interests
the member can be assured that Canada's interests will take
second fiddle to either public relations or to some other deal
that is cut for some other industry, whether it is automotive or
whatever.
Canada's natural resources, our commodity industries, are
continuously sold out by our foreign affairs department in
collaboration with the other departments in charge of our natural
resources.
1035
The whole question of foreign fishing observers getting 100%
coverage would only occur, given the government's posture, if
they were prepared to trade something off. The fact that we
traded off and sold out some shrimp areas to the Europeans to
achieve that would come as no surprise to me.
There are many ways to spin a story on where we sit with regard
to the previous chair of the standing committee. There is no
doubt in my mind, according to the news which came out with the
announcement of his chairmanship last year, that it is a
challenge to the department.
A letter was sent to the minister this year saying that the
committee's focus would be on the whole question of expanding
Canada's economic jurisdiction to 350 miles off the east coast.
That is the prime reason for his removal. No one can convince me
that his removal was voluntary. It was initiated by the minister
and the department. There is no question about that.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely
amazed that the member opposite could have his facts so wrong. He
either has not read the response from the minister to the
fisheries report or he has not tried to understand it.
I admit that the standing committee on fisheries has done very
good work. However, the member opposite is doing fishermen in
the country a major disservice when he tries to leave the
impression that if foreign fishing could be done away with there
would be no problem. He knows very well that foreign fishing
today is not the problem that it used to be. Foreign fishing is
under control. Canadian fishermen have never picked up the
quotas offered to them partly because of cost and partly because
the economic returns are not there.
I have a lot of respect for the member opposite. I was very
disappointed when he was fired as chief critic for fisheries of
the Reform Party because he was doing a good job and not trying
to create the rage, myths and perceptions he is trying to create
today.
Let me directly ask a question of the member. Is it a fact that
he was fired because he was co-operating with the government too
much? Is he now trying to get back on the committee by creating
these misconceptions and myths to please the leadership of the
Reform Party?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I understood we were supposed to be on questions and comments and
that the questions and comments should be relevant and relative
to the discussion at hand, not rhetoric like we are hearing.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is correct. After a
member has made a speech the general tenor of the debate is to
allow fairly wide-ranging comments and questions.
The hon. member is directing questions to the hon. member for
Vancouver Island North. He is about to ask a second one. I know
he would not want to take too long in order to give the hon.
member for Vancouver Island North a reasonable opportunity to
reply.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I believe my questions are
relevant.
Just to review them, why is the member opposite playing games?
Is he trying to get in the favour of the leadership of the Reform
Party? Why are Canadian fishermen not picking up the quotas that
have been offered to them and that foreigners are not utilizing?
We are not meeting our full TAC requirement on various species.
1040
Why is that happening? Will he not admit that the observer
reports were offered to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans in camera and that the fisheries committee including
members opposite denied that request? Obviously they just wanted
to play games.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I too have much respect for
the parliamentary secretary for fisheries. We sat on the
committee together last year.
I could never be accused of co-operating with the government. I
can co-operate with some government members but, lo and behold,
if anyone catches me co-operating with this government please let
me know and take me away in handcuffs or something.
The member bounced all over the place, but I mentioned in my
speech that we were offered those observer reports in camera. I
also explained why it was such a bad idea for the committee to
accept that offer.
We are not doing a disfavour to fishermen in terms of trying to
expand Canada's influence to include all its continental shelf.
Quite the contrary.
We have a lot of living examples. The more we comprise
management by trying to cater to other interests, the more
problems there will be. The west coast complexity of creating an
aboriginal fishery on the Fraser River, a destination bound
fishery, compromised all the up coast fishery and the mandate of
the department. It is no different on the east coast with what is
inside and outside the 200 mile but on the continental shelf. We
have the same kind of compromise. No, I am not doing this to
curry favour with my own party. I am driven on this issue.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, there have been
discussions among the parties and I understand, if you seek unanimous
consent, that you will find it for the following: that a vote on
this motion be deemed to have been put, a recorded division
requested and the vote deferred until 5.30 this evening.
Therefore a vote would take place later in the day and the House
could now proceed to orders of the day.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
question be deemed put, the division deemed demanded and the vote
on this motion deferred until 5.30 p.m. this day?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join in this debate. I move:
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1125
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Drouin
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Reed
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 116
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Mark
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 91
|
PAIRED
Members
Bennett
| Bevilacqua
| Canuel
| Desrochers
|
Discepola
| Folco
| Fournier
| Gallaway
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Leung
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Normand
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pillitteri
| Redman
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-52, an act to implement the comprehensive
nuclear test ban treaty, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing second reading on the
comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, I think it is very
important to remind members of the House of a very important
decision that was taken by our predecessors well over 50 years
ago. At that time Canada, who had participated in the Manhattan
project, had the full capacity, knowledge and resources to become
a nuclear power state if it had so desired. Our predecessors, our
government of the day and parliament made a decision against
that. We were the first country to acknowledge and decide to
become a non-nuclear state.
Today we are here to add to that legacy, to make a further
commitment in that very historic decision. We are here to
continue the work committed to by so many Canadians over the last
five decades in dealing with the nuclear threat to the world.
1130
[Translation]
We have done a lot since then to persuade the other countries
that nuclear arms are a problem and not a solution to world
security. For example, we put a lot of energy into creating a
plan to free the world of nuclear arms sooner rather than later,
while permitting peaceful uses of nuclear arms to continue.
It is also true that Canada has paid a political and economic
price for sticking to its convictions, but its positions have
never changed. We have on a number of occasions chosen not to
sell our nuclear technology.
We have always encouraged countries without nuclear arms and
those with them to honour their international obligations.
These difficult achievements are now threatened. The
credibility of the non-proliferation regime is being sorely
tested.
[English]
We all recognize since the spring of this year that once again
the nuclear genie has been unleashed in the world. We are faced
with a new argument for nuclear realpolitik. The tendency argued
now by people in authority in Pakistan and India and with their
supporters is that somehow the possession of nuclear weapons
should endow one with a new status, a new credibility, that
somehow the possession of this nefarious weapon gives one a new
position in the world.
This once again puts into play the fact that nuclear weapons are
simply becoming a currency in the power play of international
politics. This puts at serious risk the progress we have made to
turn back the nuclear clock.
Today as we debate this very important piece of legislation, we
must rededicate ourselves to the ultimate goal of a world without
nuclear weapons. They still constitute one of the great threats
to all humankind.
The nuclear tests by India and Pakistan put in harsh perspective
the ongoing threat of proliferation. They diminished rather than
improved regional security for those nations themselves. In fact
increasing instability developed in the region. This was
recognized and acknowledged at the regional meetings of the ASEAN
and ASEAN Regional Forum which I attended this summer. All the
countries of that region, with the exception of the perpetrators,
took a strong stand in denouncing this because of the threat to
security in the region itself.
It may have set an example perhaps more serious to those other
countries which are tempted to be proliferators. One of the sad
facts of life is that the resource, the technology of developing
nuclear weapons, is becoming cheaper and easier. With the
breakdown of nuclear arsenals in some of the former states, the
transfer of knowledge and scientific expertise becomes even more
dangerous. In the absence of international censure, recognition
of nuclear weapon state status really puts pressure to the
expansion of a nuclear club.
I come to this House today in that through our discussions we
can alert more Canadians to that threat. This subject cannot be
taken lightly. It is not a subject for playing partisan
politics. It comes down to the basic fundamental question of the
survival of humankind faced with this awesome weapon we have had
to live with for over half a century.
I know that members of the House will treat this situation with
the seriousness and commitment it deserves.
1135
That is why Canada took a stand of strongly condemning these
actions. The Prime Minister at the G-8 meetings led the charge.
We have rejected justifications and have taken steps to ensure
that there will be no rewards given for those who want to acquire
the weapons. Proliferation needs to be stopped dead in its
tracks.
I look forward to the report that the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs is working on in its examination of Canadian
interests in a nuclear policy. I understand it could be ready as
early as this fall. The committee canvassed Canadian views on
this matter. It will be an opportunity for us to once again
address this issue and provide a strong Canadian voice in this
most crucial of all matters.
I want to make it very clear to the House that it is not simply
a matter of stopping those who decide to test and proliferate.
It is equally important that we continue the pressure, the
argument and the persuasion for those who possess nuclear weapons
to maintain and enhance their commitments to nuclear disarmament.
That is the other part of the equation. It is not simply enough
to stop the spread, we must continue to work toward the
reduction. That is also part of the commitment we have to make.
I want to say very clearly that not all nuclear weapon states
are living up to their obligations under the non-proliferation
treaty. The START II treaty still is stalled. Other commitments
being made are discounted. I hope this House can speak with a
unified voice on the need not only to arrest proliferation but to
pursue an active commitment for the ongoing reduction of nuclear
weapons and the dismantling, disjunction and delinking of those
weapons so they do not constitute an ongoing threat.
We must as a parliament and as a country stand very firm against
the new realpolitik that is being expressed around the world, and
we are in a position to do so. Oftentimes in the tough
neighbourhood we live in internationally, questions are not
always as clear cut as we would like them to be. If 50 years ago
our predecessors in this House and the government had the courage
to say no to nuclear weapons, we should have that same conviction
today and make it clear in terms of what we do in this
legislature.
It is important to pay tribute and remind ourselves of how much
effort we have put into these initiatives.
In 1995 there was an indefinite extension of the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty with the Canadian motion to have it
reviewed in a consistent fashion to make sure that the
obligations were met. Just a year ago in 1997, we had the entry
into force of the chemical weapons convention, another weapon of
mass destruction we are trying to put a fence around and trying
to control.
Agreement has begun in Geneva to start talks on the production
of nuclear materials, fissile materials for nuclear weapons.
These are being chaired by one of our distinguished Canadian
foreign service representatives. We are also strongly working on
and encouraging nuclear weapon states to agree to the Canadian
proposal for discussions on nuclear disarmament issues at the
Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Further, we are actively
pursuing negotiations on the convention on banned weapons in
space. It is important that we bring all these things together in
a seamless web, in a context that each part builds a whole.
1140
In this case the legislation before the House today on the
comprehensive test ban treaty is an indispensable part of a
non-proliferation regime. It is one of the key elements in which
international consensus has been developed.
It is clear that nuclear testing undermines the basic goal of
non-proliferation. The comprehensive test ban treaty objective
is to end all nuclear test explosions in all environments. That
is the commitment that has been made.
The CTBT is a strong deterrent to the development of nuclear
weapons. It is probably stronger than virtually all other
disarmament treaties because it will help constrain the
development of new nuclear weapons and any attempt to provide
improvements, refinements and more sophistication.
It therefore contains within it the message that nuclear weapons
must be reduced and constrained. They cannot be the weapons of
choice by an expanding number of countries.
Clandestine testing under this treaty will be virtually
impossible to do. States will need to think long and hard about
any secret efforts. One of the reasons we took as strong a stand
as we did a few months ago on the question of the inspections in
Iraq was for that very reason. We cannot allow any state in a
clandestine way to perpetrate the growth and expansion of weapons
of mass destruction of any kind. That is why we have to be
consistent in our approach to this issue.
The CTBT also puts a very important international monitoring
system in place, perhaps one of the most detailed networks around
the world, to detect nuclear explosions wherever and whenever
they may occur. We will participate by having 15 monitoring
stations in Canada alone which the Department of Natural
Resources will be responsible for. This will make sure that we
contribute in a very substantial way with the resources of
Canadians to the overall international network to provide that
kind of monitoring, warning verification system.
It also establishes a very clear global norm against nuclear
testing by all nations. While there are 150 signatories, there
are still countries outside. However, as has been made clearly
evident in the case of the land mines treaty which is now
becoming a treaty into force, once it is there it begins to
establish a broad standard that even non-signatories feel obliged
to obey.
For the information of members of the House, during the visit
last week of the Chinese foreign minister, he announced that
while China was not ready to sign the treaty, it was making a
financial commitment to the United Nations for de-mining
activities. Anyone who says the land mines treaty has not had an
impact should have been with me last week when the Chinese
foreign minister committed to a major conference and made a major
financial commitment for de-mining purposes. This shows that
global norms can work.
The conclusion of the comprehensive test ban treaty fulfils one
of the longstanding goals we have been pursuing. We took an
active role in the negotiations and if we wish to remain leaders,
our actions now must match our words. It is in the power of this
chamber to give life and meaning to the commitment we made during
those negotiations. Therefore, I want to make the case that the
earliest possible ratification of this treaty by this House would
be a very strong and powerful message around the world.
The legislation before the House contains all the necessary
elements to allow us to fulfil our obligations under the test ban
treaty. Once passed, it will criminalize any nuclear test
explosion or any other nuclear explosion undertaken in Canada for
the purpose of developing or improving nuclear weapons. It is a
tough but necessary position in order to make our message clear.
It also mandates the respective functions of the Departments of
Foreign Affairs, International Trade, Natural Resources Canada
and Health Canada into a comprehensive test ban treaty national
authority which will administer Canada's obligations.
1145
It will obligate Canadian industry to report to the national
authority chemical explosions of a magnitude of 300 tonnes or
greater or TNT equivalent, as these explosions could be confused
with nuclear explosions.
It is not an onerous demand on our industry and in our
consultations they are certainly more than willing to comply
because they recognize that it is in their interest and the
interest of the broad international community that we be full
participants in this area.
It is not the central aim but it is also important to recognize
it provides very important benefits for Canadian technology
because much of the verification, monitoring, equipment and
facilities are Canadian made and Canadian developed. Therefore
we will be able to provide that kind of extension and also have
it in place for recognition and use in other forms of
verification systems as we pursue our disarmament goals.
Adopting the legislation will allow us to be among the first to
ratify and will lend legitimacy to the efforts of this country as
we pursue the crucial issue of combating the new conventional
wisdom of nuclear realpolitik. It basically says that Canada has
not changed its position for 50 years. We stand against
proliferation and that by having the treaty in hand and being one
of the early ratifiers we will be able to say that our efforts
are backed up by the people of Canada through their elected
representatives.
I believe Canadians want us to do that. As we touch the
mainstream of feeling in the country no issue comes more to the
surface than the expectation that through parliament and our
government we will use all our energies possible to advance a
level of humanitarian law, disarmament activities to provide a
safer and secure world for the men, women and children throughout
the globe. That is the expectation of Canadians. We have an
opportunity to fulfil that today.
There is no better demonstration of Canada's resolve to
safeguard non-proliferation to advance the issue of human
security and no better reflection of the will of the Canadian
public than to support unanimous rapid passage.
I close with a statement by George Washington, the first U.S.
president. It is one I have often been reminded of in the work I
do. In speaking to his last session of Congress he said: “Let
us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can
repair”. We have that opportunity to raise that standard to
which all the wise and honest around the world can repair.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
certainly my pleasure to speak to Bill C-52, the comprehensive
nuclear test ban treaty.
Certainly I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the
minister, and I think most Canadians would also agree. As the
minister pointed out, we are looking at banning nuclear testing
in this country and most Canadians would agree with that.
Our party agrees there should be serious penalties for anyone
who considers this sort of action, and obviously this is part of
the bill.
We agree that Canadian companies should report tests of 300
tonnes of TNT or its equivalent, as these could be mistakenly
looked on as nuclear testing. Our party agrees and supports the
overall principle of the bill.
1150
I believe that is what Canadians want. That is what our party
stands for. I believe we are going in the right direction.
However, I must address some of the issues I believe should be
talked about when we look at the whole nuclear question. It is
important that this be brought to the House and that we have the
opportunity to debate such an important issue. I look back on
some of the other issues that should have been brought to the
House and that should have been debated. Most obviously, the
international court comes to mind. We met with that group. We
found out that it had a Canadian position. It was going to head
off this summer to Rome to negotiate on behalf of all Canadians
and sign something that Canadians had not looked at, had not
talked about or for the most part had no input into. We met with
those people five days before they left for Rome. They could not
tell any of us what their position was. That is an example of
where that should have been brought to the House. Canadians
should have had a chance to comment on it.
The Kyoto agreement is another one. It is going to affect every
Canadian. Yet it was not brought to the House. It was not
debated. The facts were not put out. Canadians did not have the
necessary input. Most of the provinces, now that they are
getting some of the details, do not agree with it.
We could talk about UN conferences. We could talk about the
conference in Beijing. It talked about the issues of women which
most Canadians and this House did not have input into. We could
talk about Cairo and population. The position put by Canada is
probably contrary to a great many positions that Canadians would
hold. We can go on and on.
At least we have a chance in the House to talk about this
nuclear treaty. That goes a long way in why we might support the
government's position on this because we have a chance to express
our point of view and our concerns.
When we look at this we can find some of the good points which
the minister pointed out. We can talk about the advanced
technology which now allows us to detect nuclear testing around
the globe. It is interesting, however, that the CIA was severely
reprimanded for not advising the U.S. Congress about the
potential test in India. It is interesting that somehow that
fell through the cracks. Heads rolled because of it. It does
make us a little uncertain when this treaty says we can detect
nuclear testing around the world and yet we have an example this
past year where something went wrong.
We were told about the monitoring systems. I had the
opportunity to look at some of those monitoring systems. We have
satellites in place. We have nuclear waste being weighed and
measured. We have detectors that will detect if a slight bit of
waste product has been taken out of the container. A satellite
will immediately alert us to that.
This trust in technology is good. I still wonder if it is
totally foolproof. We have to ask that question. We have to ask
our technical people to be sure that these are failsafe systems
and that nothing can go wrong.
The American way at looking at things for the most part has been
to take the James Bonds and the Maxwell Smarts out of the
equation and go strictly to satellites and technology. I am
concerned that we may be putting too much trust in that
technology.
Canadian industries are the very much the leaders in remote
sensing techniques. We have a great deal of industry that will
benefit from treaties like this as we sell our technology around
the world. We can certainly benefit from a business standpoint.
It is important that this government make it very clear that we
should be part of any international on site inspections. We are
technically able to do that. We have the equipment, we have the
know how. It is important that we be part of that examination. I
can talk about why Canada should do that, being equipped to do
that better than most countries. I will save that for another
time.
1155
We have reservations about this test ban treaty and I think it
is important for the record that we help the government to look
at what these reservations might be and hopefully as it
implements this it will take these recommendations into
consideration.
First there is the cost. The bureaucracy that is going to be
created by this government in order to impose this test ban
treaty is quite extensive. If we look at the added bureaucracy
we will find that not only do we have a disarmament ambassador
but we have the pyramid of infrastructure and of bureaucracy that
goes with that.
Canada has created a national authority for the CTBT
implementation. In other countries, for instance Britain, they
have put it under the minister of defence and have said handle
that under the existing bureaucracy. We have set up a whole new
bureaucracy, a whole new building of bureaucrats examining the
implementation of this treaty.
We have been here long enough now to see what happens as these
pyramid builders, these bureaucracy builders, take over.
Certainly we would advise the government when it says it is going
to spend $8.5 million this year on this initial implementation
committee, do not let that grow any bigger, do not let that thing
balloon out to become this huge bureaucratic nightmare we have in
this place.
I guess a bigger concern we have is that while we agree with the
expressions of the minister and we agree with what he had to say,
we have this terrible feeling that the minister is possibly
leading us into a path of folly, that this minister is in this
idealistic world, one which many of us passed through in the
1960s. We got over it and we now know about the realities of the
1990s and the realities of the 21st century.
We have a minister who is a political dreamer, who believes that
because you talk about it and you say it, it will be so. I want
to expand considerably on what the reality is out there in the
real world when it comes to nuclear energy and nuclear weapons
and what the real world is.
We are now in 1998 entering the 21st century and I believe it is
vital that we warn Canadians as the minister said about some of
the difficulties which we face. I have to look at some of the
quotes the minister has.
In the question and answer section on this which we were
provided with, there is a quote which I think fits the minister
very well is: “Canada's long term goal is to ensure that the
treaty enters into force, continues to be an effective
non-proliferation instrument and contributes to the ultimate
elimination of all nuclear weapons”.
That is motherhood. We would all like to not have any nuclear
weapons. The problem is that is so far from reality that we
wonder where the reality in the minister's mind really is.
I could list other quotes where he says that the United Nations
is where everything happens and as long as we are represented in
the United Nations we can trust that everything will be fine and
we will not have to worry about these nuclear problems.
I am afraid again that is not a world I could be that
comfortable with, trusting the United Nations talk shop to solve
all the problems of the world today. I do not have that level of
confidence and I think many countries would follow in that line
as well. Let us talk about the reality that I believe the
minister has missed when he talks the way he just did in this
House.
There are 36 countries that have the capability to develop
nuclear weapons. That includes Canada. We have the START II
agreement between Russia and the U.S. to get rid of nuclear
weapons which is not being enforced but which was supposed to be
enforced a good two years ago.
1200
START III is totally stalled and is not going anywhere.
If we examine the Russian situation, it is pretty easy to
understand what is happening. The Russians are in economic free
fall. They have lost their conventional means of defence. Russia
is not a world player by any sense of the imagination, except
that they have nuclear weapons. The only thing that makes Russia
a world player and a G-8 member is the fact that they have a huge
nuclear arsenal.
How are we going to convince a nationalist Russian politician,
or any Russian politician, that Russia should not be a world
player, that they should get rid of their nuclear weapons just
because it would be very nice if they did that? It is not
realistic to think that could happen in the foreseeable future.
Would we like it to happen? There is no question. Everybody
would like it to happen, but it is not reality.
We have to worry about the countries that are not going to sign
this treaty. It is great that Canada signed it on September 24,
1996, but we are not a threat to the world. The fact that we
signed it is not what is significant. The significant factor is
the fact that the other guys, who I want to talk about, did not
sign it.
Let us consider the example of India and Pakistan. The minister
referred to India and Pakistan a number of times. India has
close to a billion people. It is a huge country. India has
wanted to be a superpower for a long time. India feels it should
be a world player because of its numbers and its growing economy.
India is jealous that China is taking the focus position of the
west. India feels unhappy that there are only five permanent
members of the UN security council. India wants to be one of
those members. They have clearly said that.
India is saying that Russia is on the inside and it is asking
why Russia is on the inside. Russia is on the inside because it
has nuclear weapons. China is on the inside because it has
nuclear weapons. So India says that it will be on the inside too
if it has nuclear weapons.
That is flawed thinking. The minister said that and I agree
with him, but that is the reality of India's thinking. We were
there in July and August and we got that message from the people
at the top of the Government of India, from the foreign affairs
committee and from the foreign affairs minister. They clearly
stated that.
India backed Russia during the cold war, which was sort of
getting on the wrong horse, but that is history. India has the
fourth largest military in the world, with one and three-quarter
million troops trained, armed and ready to go to war. They have
a huge population and poverty problem. It is a country of
contrasts and diversity. They have a new government with the
BJP, a coalition of 19 parties. They are raising their
popularity through nationalism. Having nuclear weapons is
popular because that makes them more powerful and they will
certainly get attention.
It is interesting that intelligence has said that India would be
able to produce or have between 25 and 65 nuclear weapons.
However, we are being told today that India possesses 455 nuclear
weapons. It is a real problem if we think India has 25 and they
have 455. That is a huge problem and a huge threat to mankind,
as the minister said.
Let us go on to Pakistan, a country of 120 million people.
They have 600,000 troops. Fifty-two per cent of their budget is
spent on military. Twenty-seven per cent is spent on debt
servicing. That leaves 21% for everything else. That is a huge
economic problem. Pakistanis have their backs against the wall.
1205
During the cold war they backed the west. They helped the west
in Afghanistan to defeat the Russians. They helped the west in
counterbalancing in terms of Iran and many other issues. Pakistan
today feels marginalized and ignored, but they have nuclear
weapons.
Let us look at the nuclear issue to see its significance. India
tested five nuclear weapons in the spring of this year. The
Indian politicians made statements “We are about to end the
existence of Pakistan. We will attack them in Kashmir and take
Kashmir back and then we will disrupt and destroy the Pakistani
nation”.
That is a pretty serious charge. Obviously Pakistani
politicians were listening to that pretty carefully. They have
been in three wars since 1949. The most recent was in 1971 when
Bangladesh was taken away from them by an Indian victory. It was
then, of course, set up as a separate state.
Imagine the emotion on the day when Mrs. Bhutto took the bangles
off her arm and threw them at the prime minister, saying “You
are weak. You are as weak as you could be. You must counter
what India has done”.
The Pakistan government sent envoys to all countries. They sent
all of their members of parliament off to visit countries to find
out what the other countries thought the week after the Indian
tests. They went to the G-8 and said “What are you going to do
to guarantee us our security? We think, and here are the
reasons, that India is about to attack us”.
Of course the west offered very little. The G-8 came out with a
weak-kneed, wishy-washy statement. So the Pakistanis said “We
must test our nuclear weapons because that puts us on an equal
footing”. This is how this sort of thing happens. Is it right?
No, it is wrong. But that is how these kinds of situations
arise.
Today we have the issue of Kashmir, an area 100 miles by 150
miles. There are 600,000 Indian troops there. It has been
reported that 50,000 people have been killed. Shellings are
occurring every day. There are some peacekeepers, but they are
not allowed to patrol most of the areas. It is a hot spot. It
is a real hot spot.
We talked to members of the foreign affairs committee in
Islamabad. We looked at the issue, just as we had done in India,
and we asked the same questions. The chairman of the foreign
affairs committee said very clearly “We are like a cornered
animal. But we have the political will. We have the people
behind us. We have religion behind us. And we have nuclear
weapons. We will use them and in 90 seconds 80 million people
will be dead”. In 90 seconds 80 million people will be dead.
That is what we are talking about. That is the reality.
While we are signing a treaty and talking about a piece of
paper, the reality is that there is a crisis. What should we do?
In this case Canada is perfectly positioned to do something.
Remember, we do not have baggage. We have a reputation. We are
members of the G-7. We are friends with Japan, China, India,
Pakistan, France, Britain and Germany. We are friends with all
of the countries involved and we can negotiate.
1210
Instead of counting on this old-time politics of signing things,
we should be there. We should be at that hot spot and we should
be saying “Look guys, here are 10 issues”, 20 issues, however
many issues you want to put on the table, “and we are going to
talk about these issues”. Of course, at some point it would be
hoped that Kashmir could be one of them.
Canada is positioned to do that. Russia was involved with
India, so it is out. The U.S. was involved with Pakistan, so it
is out. China is too busy economically, so it is out. Besides,
China would not be accepted by Japan. Japan is interested, but
it has an economic crisis. The U.S. is busy. Monica is keeping
them busy. No one is as perfectly positioned as Canada to do
something. This government should not just talk about it and
condemn it and impose sanctions. That is not the way to do it.
The foreign affairs minister's office called me the day before
we were leaving for India and Pakistan and said “Don't go. We
are not allowing our ministers to talk about Pakistan and India.
We are not allowing them to meet with Pakistan and India and you
are sending the wrong message by going there”.
We were sending the right message by going there. We are the
diplomats who could do something. We could do something about
this issue. Instead of just standing around talking, we could be
there to solve the problem. That is action. This government
should be setting an example by doing that.
Canada has a role. We have a moral role that we could play in
this situation. We could talk about power. Pakistan has all
kinds of hydro power that could easily be traded with India.
India needs it.
There are natural transportation routes. There are relatives on
both sides of the border who want to meet with each other. There
are 100 million people who could trade with each other. There
are all kinds of things that would cause India and Pakistan to
solve their problems if somebody were just there to do it.
Instead of slapping on sanctions, screaming and shouting and
condemning them, let us help them. Let us help both sides to
solve this issue.
I will not take time to go into as much detail on some of the
others, but I will refer to them. Let us talk about Iraq.
Iraq had UN inspections, but again it is challenging the world.
It is challenging the world that is so involved with all these
other issues that it is determined that nuclear, biological and
chemical weaponry will be developed in that country.
Who suffers? The people of Iraq. If we really care about the
21 million people of Iraq, then we should be doing something to
solve this problem, and not just with a slap on the wrist. That
is not the kind of action that works any more. It might have
worked in the days of the cold war, but it sure does not work
today.
North Korea constantly threatens that it will again start its
nuclear program. It has acute famine. The only thing it has
going for it is the nationalistic concept which the minister
spoke about of this nuclear proliferation and development that
makes it more powerful. That creates serious instability in the
world.
Sudan is a country of 31 million. Well over two million of them
are starving to death. It was 15 years at war, destroying crops
and destabilizing its neighbours. There are all kinds of
problems for the Canadian businesses which are trying to do
business there. I point these things out because this is the
reality of where it is really at.
Today we have 100,000 troops on the Iranian-Afghanistan border.
We have the Shiite muslims who make up 89% of Iran faced off
against the Taliban, the Sunni muslims who make up 84% of
Afghanistan. They are within days or weeks of a major outbreak,
a major conflict, occurring in that region.
1215
There are all kinds of reasons Iran can say that it can develop
whatever arsenal it takes to quell these sorts of problems.
Obviously there is drug money involved. Huge amounts of drugs
are being brought from Afghanistan into Pakistan. All kinds of
instability is being created in that region.
Signing that piece of paper does not deal with Iran, with
Afghanistan, with Iraq or with North Korea. We just do not deal
with them by signing this piece of paper.
We could talk about Israel and Palestine. We could talk about
Taiwan and China. We could talk about Turkey and Syria. Turkey's
troops today are massing on the Syrian border. There are all
kinds of such areas.
Another interesting piece of information is the improvement of
missiles by various countries. The bragging rights are as
follows: Saudi Arabia can now reach a range of 2,800 kilometres;
Israel, 1,500 kilometres; Iran, 1,300 kilometres; Libya, 550
kilometres; and so the list goes on of bragging rights about what
they can do to each other.
The real world that we are not talking about in the House is
threatened by those kinds of states. That is where it is at. It
is not signing a UN document and hoping all the good guys will
not proliferate nuclear weapons. That is not where it is at.
Where it is at is: What will all these guys do who could care
less about this sort of treaty?
To hold out the treaty and say it is the answer, the be all and
end all as we heard the minister say, is leading Canadians down
the wrong path. Canadians should not feel pious and great
because we are signing a nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
It would be wonderful, in the wonderful world of 1960 of the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, if that would end everything. The
white picket fence, the little dog and the wife in her apron are
30 years or so out of date. It is just not the real world. The
real world is not all that friendly and we had better realize
that.
We should also realize what the Canadian role is. Our role is a
leadership role internationally. Over 80% of Canadians say that
is what they want Canada to do. We will not be a superpower. We
will not use weapons but we can use the weapon of diplomacy. That
could be our strongest ace in the hole and could be the thing
that could lead us into the position of diplomatic superpower in
the world.
To sit on our laurels and think UN treaties and UN arrangements
are all we need is totally wrong. The soft diplomacy that we
have been following is not getting us very far and we are falling
behind. Our position in the world is definitely declining, and I
believe we as Canadians should turn that around.
To summarize, we certainly have a problem with all that
bureaucracy. We have a problem with the foreign affairs position
and a minister who is living in the past. I know this is not the
time to ask a question, but we heard we were one of the first to
sign and to move forward in this regard. I cannot help but ask a
question. We signed on September 24, 1996. Why has taken it so
confounded long to come through in legislation to the House? How
is it possible to take two years to do something that will be
supported by everyone in Canada and by all parties in the House?
How can it be so slow? I guess we get used to that question but
it borders on incompetence.
That is something we should ask as well.
1220
My fourth concern is about all the rogue states. I have only
talked about a few of them. I do not want to say that these guys
are bad, that I have included all the bad ones. I have not. Not
all of them are as bad as others. However there are problems
that we are not facing up to.
In conclusion, we support the signing of this treaty. Let us
get on with it. Above all, let us not make Bill C-52 something
by which to say we are wonderful and great for signing this
treaty. My goodness, it should have been ratified a month after
we signed it and we should have moved on. What should we move
on? That is the problem. I have not seen a game plan of the
government to move on in areas that Canada can do its job.
We can do our job in Kashmir, with Palestine and Israel, in
North Korea and in Sudan. We have a position that allows us to
get on both sides to deal with the issues and to become
diplomatic leaders in the world. Then we could hold ourselves up
and say that as Canadians we are proud we have really done
something.
That is the position the government should take instead of
simply glorifying itself as it is so prone to do with the Canada
accord and all kinds of things.
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I just wish to convey to the House the minister's apology for not
being present for this debate. He has been seconded to other
more pressing issues of the moment.
Of course all the debate will be placed before him for his
consideration, and I thank the hon. members.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs is undertaking its
review of a report on nuclear non-proliferation, arms control and
disarmament, this House is being asked to implement one of the
instruments resulting from the international community's efforts
to take “effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear
arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”. I am
quoting part of article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons.
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty was adopted on
September 24, 1996 and has already been ratified by 21 states,
as the Reform Party member must know—Canada is not among the
first ones, since there are already 21 contracting parties. That
treaty is one of the instruments created following the
negotiations. The states that adhered to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons continue to negotiate in
good faith and will hopefully achieve an ambitious objective
that some feel is impossible to reach, namely the interdiction
and even elimination of nuclear weapons.
The ratification of this treaty by Canada, and by other members
of the international community, will be another step in that
direction.
Hopefully, the number of ratifications will multiply, so that we
will reach the magic figure of 44 before having to convene a
special session, under paragraph 14(2) of the treaty, to review
the measures that could be taken under international law to
speed up the ratification process and facilitate the coming into
effect of the treaty at an early date.
1225
The ratification of a treaty which seeks to continue the process
begun with the Limited Test Ban Treaty—adopted on August 5,
1963, and to which Canada became a signatory on January 28,
1964—will be a major step in the quest for a planet that is at
least exempt from nuclear testing if still not free of nuclear
weapons .
A treaty such as the one that is the subject of the bill we are
going to debate seems all the more necessary today—as the
minister and the Reform Party member have reminded us—with
countries such as India and Pakistan conducting nuclear tests
that other nuclear power states have agreed from now on to
abandon. These states include France and the United Kingdom, who
made their commitment very clear by signing the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, as well as China, the United States and
Russia, who also suggested they would no longer be conducting
nuclear tests.
It is therefore appropriate, in the context of the present
debate, to again appeal to India and Pakistan, as well as to
Israel and South Korea, two other nuclear power states whose
plans are still cause for concern, to heed the countless appeals
already made to them and signal their intention to no longer
conduct nuclear tests by adding their names to the list of
nations that have already signed the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test-Ban Treaty.
Like the other signatories, these states would better serve the
cause of international peace and security they have espoused by
becoming members of the United Nations, and in respect of which
they are bound to act under article 2 of the UN charter, by
signing this treaty, which recognizes that the cessation of all
kinds of nuclear explosions will help halt the development of
improvements in nuclear weapons and end the development of new
types of nuclear weapons.
By participating in the treaty's international monitoring
system, which will provide a means of detecting, pinpointing and
categorizing nuclear explosions, and which will also authorize
on-site inspections for the purpose of determining whether
suspicious events are in fact nuclear explosions, countries will
help move humanity one step forward along the road towards
nuclear disarmament. They will be helping to resolve a problem
that originated with the use of energy in a manner contrary to
humanity's interests, the misuse of a resource whose use for
peaceful ends could and still can contribute to humanity's
well-being and do us proud.
I am pleased to announce that the Bloc Quebecois will support
Bill C-52, subject to consideration of certain amendments to
improve the implementing legislation.
This bill to implement the treaty in accordance with section 3,
appears to be essentially consistent with the treaty and its
schedule as well as the related protocol. It is designed to give
effect to the treaty within the Canadian legal system and it
seems to us that it contains the necessary provisions to ensure
obligations will be fulfilled in good faith, as required under
the pacta sunt servanda rule set out in section 26 of the Vienna
Convention of the Law of Treaties dealing with the comprehensive
nuclear test ban.
Amendments might, however, improve this implementation
legislation, and I will have the opportunity a little later at
committee and report stage to justify the Bloc Quebecois'
proposed changes to Bill C-52.
1230
The Bloc Quebecois will propose amendments to improve the
wording of the bill in French, to make the amendment process
more democratic in the future and to ensure that the person
designated to act as national authority is accountable to the
minister and, through him, to this House, for his or her
participation in the implementation of the treaty. This bill is
similar to the law to which his or her Australian counterpart
will be subject under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty
Act, 1998, which we have examined and which requires the
Australian director to report to the minister and the minister
to report to parliament.
As with other matters relating to foreign affairs, the Bloc
Quebecois shares the values and convictions of the government
party and the other parties here in this House. The values of
peace and international security are at stake here, as well as
the objective of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, which
is to take the necessary steps to attain nuclear disarmament,
That treaty, we will recall, was indefinitely extended in 1995.
The people of Quebec, whom our party represents here in the
House of Commons, agree with this objective, and it is our duty
to waste no time whatsoever in stating our agreement with any
legislation relating to it.
I can also state before this House that the sovereign Quebec so
fervently desired by my party will have absolutely no hesitation
in continuing this international treaty and in ensuring its
implementation, as Canada intends to do today, both internally
and internationally.
While the government is today inviting us to be involved in an
important milestone in the history of nuclear disarmament, we in
the Bloc Quebecois are anxious to know if it will dare proceed
further, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs led us to believe in
the House this morning. Will it seek to take any innovative
steps? Will it resist the temptation to stick with the nuclear
status quo, or will it instead opt for taking a risk in
connection with the nuclear challenge facing it, the
international community and all of humankind?
The debate on non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament,
which the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade will begin on Thursday, will give us some
insight into the real policies of Canada, a middle power, a
sometimes ambitious player. The Minister of Foreign Affairs
demonstrated this in the crusade for the elimination of land
mines, which he is pursuing with remarkable vigour, at a time
when the Vancouver incidents are casting their shadow over a
foreign policy which seems to have allowed truly questionable
goals to take precedence over the basic freedoms of Canadians,
of the students in Vancouver.
In addition to shedding some light on the government's attitude,
the standing committee's proceedings will provide an opportunity
for my party, the Bloc Quebecois, to demonstrate its desire to
build an international community that, sooner or later, will be
free of nuclear weapons, free of the balance of terror and of
the terror that balance brings, “a world slightly less
dangerous”, as Jennie Rosenberg, a doctor in Godmanchester, a
lovely little spot in my riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, put it
in a letter she wrote me on September 16.
1235
Ms. Rosenberg, like so many other people in Quebec, in Canada
and elsewhere in the world, wants to live in a world where, as
provided in article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the fiftieth anniversary of which we will be celebrating
in just a few weeks, everyone is entitled to an international
order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in the
declaration can be fully realized, an order in which the quest
for peace, a fragile commodity at any moment, will win out over
the threat of nuclear war, an order in which intelligence, not
arrogance, will carry the day.
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the
New Democratic Party to support this important piece of
legislation.
By implementing the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty Canada
will be furthering in an important way the goal of nuclear
disarmament. It will constrain the development of advanced new
types of nuclear weapons, constituting an effective measure of
nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects.
Two weeks ago this House welcomed a true hero, the president of
South Africa, Nelson Mandela. Mandela had just returned from New
York where he spoke eloquently before the United Nations general
assembly for the last time as president of South Africa. In that
speech he strongly supported nuclear disarmament and he spoke
against the alarming acceleration of poverty worldwide.
President Mandela noted that the nuclear weapons states have not
yet made a clear commitment to eliminate the bomb. He added that
his country, South Africa, and Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico,
New Zealand, Slovenia and Sweden would be submitting a resolution
to the assembly to this effect. At the United Nations he called
on all members of the UN to seriously consider this important
resolution and to give it their support.
While we welcome this legislation, I want to appeal to our
government to heed the eloquent cry of Nelson Mandela and to join
in this new agenda coalition seeking the elimination of these
weapons of mass destruction.
It was on June 8 of this year that the foreign ministers of
those eight countries President Mandela referred to issued a
joint declaration. In that declaration they note that they
considered the continued threat to humanity represented by the
perspective of the indefinite possession of nuclear weapons by
the nuclear weapon states, as well as by those three nuclear
weapons capable states that have not yet acceded to the
non-proliferation treaty, and the attendant possibility of the
use or threat of use of nuclear weapon. They went on to note the
seriousness of the recent nuclear tests conducted by India and
Pakistan.
These countries said as well we can no longer remain complacent
at the reluctance of the nuclear weapons states and the three
nuclear weapons capable states to take that fundamental and
requisite step, namely a clear commitment to the speedy, final
and total elimination of their nuclear weapons and their nuclear
weapons capability. We urge them to take that step now. They as
well noted the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of
Justice in its 1996 advisory opinion that there exists an
obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion
negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects
under strict and effective international control. That was the
call of the foreign ministers of those eight countries, the
so-called new agenda coalition.
It is clear that the Canadian people support Canada's playing a
far more active role in this area as well.
1240
An Angus Reid poll conducted in February this year revealed that
93% of Canadians support Canadian involvement in global
negotiations to abolish nuclear weapons and a full 76% support a
leadership role for Canada in such negotiations.
Canadians have been deeply troubled by a number of recent tests
over the course of the last two or three years such as the
resumption by the French government of nuclear testing in the
South Pacific. Earlier this year my New Democrat and I voiced our
deep concern at the resumption by India and Pakistan of the
detonation of nuclear devices.
After those tests I would note that the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists moved the so-called doomsday clock five minutes closer
to midnight. It now stands at nine minutes to midnight.
While we condemn those tests by India and Pakistan we welcome
some of the recent statements made by their governments
suggesting that they are prepared to consider signing this
important comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty provided that the
nuclear weapon states finally live up to their commitments as
well to work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons.
While of course it is essential that we rid the world of any
further nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons testing there is
still a lot of work to be done. The costs of this have been
incredible. It has been estimated that $8 trillion has been
spent on nuclear weapons since 1945 while a large percentage of
the world's population has gone without the most basic human
needs being met, adequate food, shelter, health care and
education. I note the most recent report of the United Nations
development program which shows the gap between rich and poor
still increasing.
The world's stockpile of nuclear weapons, estimated at 36,000
warheads, represents over 700 times the explosive power used in
all the three major wars of this century which killed 44 million
people.
It has been since the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the
world has had to live with nuclear weapons. We survived the past
50 years fortunately without any further nuclear weapons
exploding on innocent civilians. But the threat of nuclear
annihilation lives on. Indeed there have been a number of
studies indicating that the risk of some sort of accidental
detonation is still far too great.
I mentioned the five nuclear weapons states, Russia, the U.S.,
France, China and the United Kingdom, and the three near nuclear
states, Israel, India and Pakistan. I want to say a word in the
context of Israel. I again appeal to our government to speak out
against the shameful continued imprisonment of Mordechai Vanunu
in Israel. Vanunu has been in jail for many years, most of that
time in solitary confinement solely for courageously exposing the
Israeli nuclear project at Dimona. I plead with our government
to recognize that this is a profound injustice, that Vanunu
should be freed and that our government should be speaking out
and ending its silence on that.
At its peak in 1986, the total number of nuclear weapons in the
world was about 70,000. Today it is about half that. South
Africa has shown other nuclear weapons states that it is possible
to have actually possessed these weapons and then to eliminate
their arsenal.
There are currently five major international nuclear weapons
free zones, including all the countries in the southern
hemisphere. The non-proliferation treaty, first signed in 1968,
has been an important step forward and I acknowledge that Canada
played a leadership role in the 1995 extension of this treaty.
In that treaty the nuclear weapons states in article VI have
made it very clear. They have signed on to this commitment. They
said each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursue
negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the
cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to
nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective international control.
That is the commitment nuclear weapons states have made but that
is not the commitment they have honoured, and it is long overdue
for this hypocrisy to end.
1245
I think many of us understand the point that both India and
Pakistan have made in saying to the five nuclear weapon states
“Don't lecture us about our testing when you yourselves possess
these weapons and you are not prepared to honour the treaty in
establishing timetables and goals for the elimination of your own
weapons”.
I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party today again call
on the nuclear weapon states to honour that commitment in article
VI, to make an unequivocal commitment to the elimination of their
respective nuclear weapons and without delay to pursue in good
faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations that will lead to
the elimination of these weapons.
My colleagues who spoke before me mentioned the work of the
foreign affairs committee in looking at the important issue of
the abolition of nuclear weapons. I am pleased to be a member of
that committee and to work with my colleagues on that. We in
that committee have heard from a broad cross-section of
interested individuals and organizations.
I want to acknowledge some of the many individuals and groups
who have been working with dedication for many years on this
important issue: Ernie Regher and Bill Robinson of Project
Ploughshares; the newly appointed senator from Alberta, Doug
Roche, a veritable one man disarmament machine who has done an
extraordinary job in this area; a broad cross-section of Canadian
churches; Peter Coombes, Gillian Skeet and many others of End the
Arms Race in British Columbia; the many organizations of the
Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons; Debbie Grisdale of
the Physicians for Global Survival; Veterans Against Nuclear
Arms; Trina Booth of the Canadian Peace Alliance; the United
Nations Association in Canada; the World Federalists of Canada;
Pugwash; the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout; and Irene and Norm
Abbey of the Nanoose Conversion Campaign. These are some of the
many people and organizations that have been working with such
dedication and conviction over the years.
There are many individuals. In the early sixties my mother was
a member of the Voice of Women. They were signing petitions and
demonstrating outside shopping centres for an end to Strontium 90
in our milk. These are the people who have laid the groundwork
for where we are today.
I mention in particular the Canadian church leaders' statement.
Its representatives appeared before the foreign affairs committee
earlier this year. They spoke very eloquently and very
powerfully about the extraordinary affront to humanity for
nuclear weapon states and their allies, including Canada, to
persist in claiming that nuclear weapons are required for their
security. The church leaders said “The spiritual, human and
ecological holocaust of a nuclear attack can be prevented only by
the abolition of nuclear weapons. It is our common duty to
pursue that goal as an urgent and top priority”. We in the New
Democratic Party join our voices with those church leaders in
appealing to our government and all governments to honour that
commitment.
Although Canada does not have nuclear weapons and officially
opposes nuclear proliferation and supports disarmament, our hands
are not entirely clean on this issue. We provide airspace and
low level flight ranges for nuclear bomber training. We host
visits by nuclear powered and potentially nuclear armed
submarines. Politically and diplomatically, the Liberal
government supports U.S. and NATO nuclear policies which
shamefully include the option of the first use of nuclear
weapons.
We as New Democrats believe that Canada can and must do much
more to further the nuclear disarmament agenda. I will suggest
some of the things we could be doing.
Canada could join the new agenda coalition of middle power
states as they call on nuclear weapon states to make an
unequivocal commitment to enter into and conclude negotiations
leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Canada must support immediate steps to de-alert the nuclear
arsenals of all nuclear states, including the elimination of hair
trigger nuclear postures and the removal of warheads from their
delivery systems.
Canada must push within NATO for a comprehensive and long
overdue review of NATO's nuclear doctrine, for NATO to adopt a no
first use policy, and to support the elimination of forward
deployed nuclear weapons. We should not be a member of a
military alliance that contemplates the use of these terrible
weapons.
1250
These changes I have spoken of should be reflected in NATO's
strategic concept document which is due in April next year.
Canada should vote at the United Nations in favour of
multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a
nuclear weapons convention. This fall a resolution will once
again be before the general assembly. Last year Canada voted
against that resolution. I want to appeal to our government to
reconsider and support that resolution this year when it comes
before the general assembly and indeed show some leadership and
co-sponsor that important resolution.
We should stop Candu reactor sales to countries with poor human
rights records, like China and Turkey, and phase out the nuclear
power industry in Canada generally. We should become a nuclear
free zone. The Liberal government should certainly give notice
of termination of the agreement between Canada and the United
States allowing a torpedo testing range at Nanoose Bay in the
Strait of Georgia, British Columbia.
We should not be involved in any way in importing MOX fuel for
conversion at Canadian facilities.
Our government has shown leadership on land mines. We could
show the same kind of leadership working with civil society to
mobilize public opinion on this issue.
Before closing I want to make a couple of additional points. I
want to note the outstanding work of my colleagues on this issue.
My colleague the member for Vancouver East has participated in a
couple of citizens weapons inspection teams, the American nuclear
submarine test facilities in Bangor, Washington, as well as the
Electric Boat Corporations, one of areas that manufactures the
Trident in Groton, Connecticut. She has been drawing to the
attention of the global community the complicity of the United
States in continuing to manufacture weapons of mass destruction.
My colleague the member for Winnipeg—Transcona has made many
powerful speeches over the years on the scourge of nuclear
weapons and the need to abolish them.
Nuclear weapons have been with us since the 1940s. However, as
we enter the new millennium it is time to end this nuclear
madness and set a new course toward the complete elimination of
nuclear weapons. We owe it to future generations, to our
children and to our children's children to abolish all nuclear
weapons from this earth.
The children of today are concerned. When I speak in elementary
schools, one of the favourite books I like to read from is
Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes. It is the tragic
story of a young Japanese girl who was a victim of radiation
sickness and who died as a result of that.
The children I speak to ask me why we allow this madness to
occur and what are we doing to make sure it will never happen
again. And they are right. That is the political leadership we
are calling for now.
I would like to refer to a letter the foreign affairs committee
received from retired United States General Lee Butler. He was
one of those who were in the very leadership of the United States
military role in nuclear weapons. This is what he said in his
letter to the foreign affairs committee:
It is truly a sad commentary on the human condition that we are
incapable of letting go the most bizarre and terrifying security
construct ever conceived by the mind of man.
The most difficult truth I had to confront in my own
reassessment of nuclear weapons was that for most of my career I
had failed to grasp the moral context of these hideously
destructive devices. It came crashing home the day I assumed
responsibility for the U.S. nuclear war plan and confronted the
consequences of targeting over 10,000 weapons on the Soviet
Union. That is when I came to fully appreciate the brutal
honesty of Joseph Stalin's comment on the modern age: “The death
of a single individual is a tragedy; the death of millions is a
statistic”.
He closed by saying:
My country is badly in need of a new moral compass on this issue.
We have committed the fatal sin in public policy making of
becoming cynical and arrogant with respect to decisions affecting
the lives of hundreds of millions of people. We have trivialized
the likelihood that deterrence might fail, thus providing easy
moral cover for ignoring the consequences. We have learned to
live with a weapon that numbs our conscience and diminishes our
humanity. We need to hear voices of reason, urging us to a
higher standard of rectitude and global leadership. We await
your call.
Canada, our government, must respond to that call by doing
everything in our power to rid the world of the scourge of
nuclear weapons.
1255
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to stand today in the House and speak to
such an important issue, nuclear weapons testing.
Successive Canadian governments have advocated the need for a
truly comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty for many years. The
Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests in May of this year truly
brought home to all of us that the proliferation of nuclear arms
is still an issue for the international community.
We as Conservatives encourage and support any effort that will
help make the world a safer place to live in. That is why we
support the implementation of Bill C-52 which, once ratified by
parliament, will allow Canada to ratify the comprehensive nuclear
test ban treaty that the government signed on September 24, 1996.
The test ban treaty will make it a crime to test nuclear weapons
in the countries that have signed. It will also require
industries to report large chemical explosions which could be
confused with a nuclear explosion also in the countries that have
signed.
Bill C-52 also helps define the roles of different departments,
such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade, Natural Resources Canada and Health Canada, which will
jointly administer the implementation of the test ban treaty in
Canada. There are a couple of questions to go along with this.
Why is the test ban treaty a good thing? The nuclear powers,
the U.S., France, Britain, Russia and China, will not expand
their arsenals, at least we should not say all because China
seems to be expanding a bit. But it does give the smaller
countries a little less incentive to build nuclear weapons. It
maintains the status quo.
Why is the status quo a good thing? Since World War II the big
five have influenced the world and maintained relative stability
and stability is a good thing. It allows economies to grow
without worrying about these threats. We all know what has
happened to the economies of countries that have gotten into
these serious threats.
On the other hand, why would it be risky to maintain the status
quo? As we know there are some countries which do not like the
status quo. They think there is some benefit to being part of a
nuclear club. India and Pakistan tested in May. They want to be
part of this new status quo. Iraq, Iran and North Korea all want
to test nuclear weapons. We must go further to discourage them
and to rid them of these notions.
This makes security an issue. The foreign affairs committee is
preparing a report which calls for the rid of all nuclear
weapons. Nuclear weapons are not land mines. They are a
deterrent weapon that won the cold war. Let us not kid
ourselves. Asking the defence communities to get rid of nukes is
like asking society to get rid of cars. We have relied on them
for too long.
This bill does not even mention the Department of National
Defence. I am speaking because I am the defence critic. The
Department of National Defence must be involved because the
defence of a nation is not just the job of our hippie foreign
minister.
Although India, Pakistan and North Korea have yet to sign on to
the treaty, it remains a positive measure toward better nuclear
arms control in the world. By ratifying the test ban treaty,
Canada will be part of implementing an international monitoring
system to detect nuclear explosions throughout the world, thus
creating deterrents to clandestine development of nuclear
weapons.
The implementation of the test ban treaty will also provide the
opportunity for the international community to quickly conduct an
inspection where there are doubts about the credibility of a
member state.
There are a few more things I would like to point out. Canada
suspended nuclear co-operation with India following its first
nuclear test in 1974. Canada also ended bilateral nuclear
co-operation with India and Pakistan in 1976 when neither country
would agree to the requirements of Canada's nuclear
non-proliferation policy.
1300
As we negotiate other Candu sales do I have to remind the
Liberal government what happened after Canada sold its Candu
reactors to Indian and Pakistan? The Liberals would like us to
believe that Canada has nothing to do with helping India and
Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons. Of course they were in
power when those sales were made. They gave them the technology
for peaceful purposes. They built clones. We know the rest of
the story.
What we are seeing today is a Liberal government which at the
same time it is revising the Canadian nuclear policy to prop up
its image is negotiating sales of Candu reactors to countries
that might just end up doing what India and Pakistan did with
their Candu reactors. In May 1998 the world saw what we mean
when we talk about incompetence.
I remind our foreign minister, who still likes to call himself a
hippie, that nuclear weapons are a serious threat to Canadian
security. Love and flowers will not stop that threat. Saying
otherwise only demonstrates little understanding and knowledge of
what really goes on in the world. Canadians might have been led
to believe that the world is a safer place. The reality is that
it is not.
Last week I watched the United States Senate arms service
committee talk about the military problems in the States. It was
quite interesting. They parallel a lot to our problems, what we
have been dealing with for the last little while: quality of life
and lack of money. They are the same types of issues.
At the end of the day when they look at the more serious
problems they are worried about as to how they are going to keep
up their equipment and still be stuck in one of their major
points, the main thing they will be looking at is their strategic
defence initiative, the famous star wars project. That is major
money.
We are looking down the road with a lot of time ahead. Yet they
are still considering this project. It is a very strong item in
their defence budget. That means a ring of missiles completely
around the States. They are certainly not putting that in
because they think the nukes are going to go away. Unfortunately,
if they start firing these missiles, they will more than likely
be firing them over the top of Canada. Nukes will be dropping in
on us.
This issue is a lot more complicated and volatile than the
Minister of Foreign Affairs would like us to believe. I am not
implying that as a country we should not work toward nuclear
disarmament. On the contrary I am saying that we have to do it
in a credible way. We have to take into account the context of
current world events and security issues. When 76% of Canadians
support a leadership role for Canada in the world negotiations on
nuclear weapons non-proliferation, they want their government to
look credible, not gullible.
Canada is a longstanding and respected member of NATO and a well
respected member of the world community. We have a longstanding
partnership with countries such as the U.S., France and Britain
with which we have forged a good relationship and developed
mutual understanding on issues such as nuclear arms control and
nuclear disarmament.
To the Minister of Foreign Affairs I only have this to say: be
very careful; nuclear weapons are not land mines. The minister
asked for the full support of the House on the committee report.
I am sorry he raised the committee report today because in my
party's opinion the test ban treaty is a worthwhile endeavour.
However my party should be forthright. Nuclear weapons are not
land mines. Indeed my party supported the minister's efforts in
the land mine treaty and congratulate him on his success.
Certainly we are in favour of stopping proliferation. Certainly
we are in favour of arms control. The world has been, is
currently and will be a dangerous place. Ridding our security
system—and let me be clear—and calling for the U.S. to rid
itself of its weapons in Europe is gutting our security system
and will make the globe more dangerous, not safer.
The minister talks about 50 years ago. Perhaps he should talk
about 50 years from now. Nuclear weapons have been the steadfast
cornerstone of western security policy since the creation of NATO
in 1949. Unless the minister can outline in the House with
detail all the security risks the globe will encounter in the
next 50 years, my party cannot support the idea of total nuclear
disarmament.
While it is certainly an idealistic view, it is not based on
reality. The reality is the Russian parliament will not
implement START II any time soon.
To delude ourselves that the Russians are is very dangerous. The
reality is the Chinese are developing more nuclear weapons, not
less. To delude ourselves that they are not is also very
dangerous.
1305
My party is in favour of making the world safer, not making it
more dangerous.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I must say I was troubled by the statement of the
representative of the Conservative Party. He believes the
presence of nuclear weapons in some way contributes to a safer
planet when in fact all the evidence indicates exactly the
opposite.
Even though he says he is not prepared to agree to working
toward total abolition of nuclear weapons, I want to ask him
whether at the very least he agrees with the suggestion made by
many countries that there should be steps taken to de-alert the
nuclear arsenals of all nuclear states, including the elimination
of the hair trigger nuclear postures and the removal of warheads
from their delivery systems.
Does he at least agree that we should be taking that kind of
step to reduce the risk of nuclear catastrophe on the planet?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the question. Actually I could go a lot further than that and
say the long term goal is total elimination of nuclear armaments
of any kind.
In the meantime—and this is not in the short term—we are still
stuck with the dangers out there, with the rogue countries that
will develop nuclear arms. If they are sitting there with
nuclear arms we need a deterrent. As I mentioned, the Americans
are still looking at their star wars project right now because
they know they have to protect themselves. They need an
alternative.
The long term view is that we would be very happy to see them
completely gone, but in the short term that will not happen so we
still have to keep them as a deterrent. Hopefully over a period
of time we will eliminate them.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very pointed and
interesting speech.
I am very interested in one aspect, though, that perhaps we have
not touched upon. It is one of the greatest threats when it
comes to the potential for a nuclear disaster taking place in the
future. I am referring to the trafficking of small amounts of
fissile material, which in my view is one of the most serious
threats to international security that exists today, particularly
in view of the fact that the former U.S.S.R. nations including
Russia are economically impoverished and have a significant
amount of nuclear material, in the order of up to 30,000 nuclear
weapons, and the fissile material that goes with it.
Would my colleague and his party be interested in working with
members across the House to develop a common strategy to present
to the international community to deal with the accounting,
monitoring and ultimate destruction of fissile nuclear material?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very
much for the question. That is one thing I did not actually
raise in my speech.
The Russians have 30,000 weapons. With the economic situation
in Russia that creates the desire for them, instead of scrapping
weapons, to probably try to sell them off. There will definitely
be a market. We would be happy to do anything we could to get
together with a group to try to find a solution to this problem.
Unfortunately, as I have said, the Russians will not scrap them.
They will try to sell them. The people they will be selling them
to obviously are not the major nuclear forces. They will be as I
said before the rogues. That is where the danger lies. Again, I
would be very happy to work on any project like that.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief
question. Perhaps the member for Compton—Stanstead did not hear
my initial question. I want to repeat it and ask for an answer.
1310
Does the Progressive Conservative Party support the suggestion
that Canada should be taking a lead in urging the immediate
de-alerting of the nuclear arsenals of all nuclear states?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, to the member for
Burnaby—Douglas, the very simple answer is yes. I will leave it
at that.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I followed carefully the speech given by the hon.
member. I have a question for him.
Last year or the year before when we started working on a land
mine ban it was obvious for most of us that the U.S., Russia and
China would not go along with it. Despite that we went ahead and
had the treaty signed by over 40 countries. It is now
international law.
The hon. member should express in the House if he agrees with
the principle of banning rather than just the banning of weapons
now. If he does not accept that principle, how can we work
toward it? How can we put pressure on governments to give up
nuclear weapons?
A few months ago when India and Pakistan exploded weapons the
international community was very concerned. Two weeks ago both
countries expressed that they were prepared to sign on to the
nuclear test ban treaty. That is a step forward and we should
encourage it.
The only country not to comply or to express concern and sign
the treaty is Israel. We have to work together to put pressure
on all countries to comply with the intent of the ban so we can
go forward into the next century with hopefully more peace of
mind for everybody.
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. I am not clear what exactly he was asking. It was
more a statement than a question.
There is no question that if we knew what would happen in the
next 15 years it would be very easy to sign on and agree solidly
with something. We can look very clearly down the road to see
what is coming in the immediate future. We see that a threat is
still there. It will not go away tomorrow.
The problem is not the countries that have signed the treaty; it
is the countries that have not signed the treaty. An arms sale
is still going on in the background. We cannot eliminate ours if
they are going to be out there. The threat is still there.
We lived through all the years of the cold war. There were no
nuclear explosions because one counteracted the other. We are
still in that position. We are not in a cold war situation. We
might say it is a bit hotter war right now.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member
say that if more nations have nuclear weapons the world would be
a safer place? If 100 rather than 10 countries had nuclear
weapons, would the world be a safer place? Is that the assertion
the hon. member is putting forward?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is
reading between the lines.
For sure the world is not a safer place because we have more
nuclear weapons. We have to reduce nuclear weapons and they will
be reduced over a period of time. It will not happen overnight.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-52. It is great for
Canada, Canadians and the world that we are taking a leadership
role in trying to ratify the test ban treaty signed by 150
countries in 1950.
In the cold war era the nuclear weapons threat loomed very large
in all our lives. A threat existed not only between the
countries of the former Soviet bloc states and Canada. Other
nations were beginning to develop nuclear programs. In the post
cold war era this threat has changed. Sometimes we may believe
the threat is less than in the cold war era.
1315
In reality the threat today is even greater than what it was 15
years ago. The reasons are many. We will get to them in the
future but it is for the reason that we have a much greater
threat today with respect to nuclear weapons that we are in a
position to ratify this treaty and bring it into law. This
brings into force the reasons and the rationale and the purpose
of the test ban treaty signed in September 1996.
I am a little disappointed that it took us two years after we
signed this treaty to the time we came to this House to ratify it
and to bring it into force. That is far too long. It should
take much less time.
Also the government should keep in mind that it would be useful
for parliament to take a look at treaties before these treaties
are signed. Constructive ideas exist across party lines to be
able to contribute to the nature and essence of these treaties to
make them stronger and more relevant to the Canadian public. I
think the government would do well to emulate that.
This test ban treaty is only the beginning. As I mentioned, we
have a much more dangerous situation in the world and the reason
why we have a much more dangerous situation is that nuclear
material right now has become far more disbursed, getting into
the hands of people who should never have it. In fact, the
controls that existed in the cold war era are to some extent
gone.
It is absolutely imperative for those controls to be exerted on
the fissile material across the world. We do not know the people
who have it and we do not know where much of this fissile
material is.
The following are some constructive suggestions that the
government would perhaps consider in its international talks with
respect to nuclear disarmament.
I do not believe, as my colleague from the Conservative Party
mentioned, that a comprehensive ban of all nuclear weapons around
the world is actually going to take place.
The government has to approve and go after the START III talks,
the strategic arms reduction talks. It has to work with other
countries to pursue those.
The government should pursue with other countries the banning of
multiple independent re-entry vehicle techniques which are
multiple independent nuclear warheads that can be dispersed. We
also need to pursue a ban on independent and medium range
ballistic missiles which could be a significant threat in the
Middle East and in South Asia.
The government should take a very strong view with working with
other countries to deal with the trafficking of fissile
materials.
After 1991 and the collapse of the former U.S.S.R. there were
30,000 nuclear weapons that existed in those countries. Much of
that material has gone into Russia but in the collapse of Russia
that is taking place right now, no one knows where this material
is or who controls it.
There has to be for the independent and collective security of
the countries of the world an accounting system regarding where
this fissile material is, who has it and to ensure that proper
controls and safety measures are there.
There has to be a downsizing of fissile materials. These fissile
materials have to go into situations where they cannot be used
for the production of nuclear weapons. This is exceedingly
important.
The Canberra commission of 1996 put together some very important
documents with respect to that. There has to also be a vigorous
accounting of these fissile materials which simply does not exist
right now.
If we look around the world and see the primary threat with
respect to nuclear weapons, it is in the dispersement, the sale
and the black market of not only fissile materials but the
triggering mechanisms that would enable somebody to produce a
nuclear bomb.
It is not very complex science to produce a nuclear bomb and in
the wrong hands one could be made. We need not look any further
than what Saddam Hussein was saying in Iraq and the intelligence
that we have recently regarding how close he was to developing a
nuclear weapons potential that could have seriously threatened
any kind of peace in the Middle East and caused an environmental
disaster.
1320
Speaking of environmental disasters, one thing we are not taking
into consideration which is a serious problem is what is taking
place with nuclear waste. I understand that Russia has dumped
nuclear waste over large segments of Siberia. These fissile
materials, these nuclear materials, are highly radioactive,
carcinogenic, teratogenic and toxic. Some of them have half
lives of hundreds of years. They get into the biosystem and
multiply as they go up the food chain.
People eat animals at the top of the food chain and they manage
to acquire large amounts of radioactive materials in their
systems. One need not look any further than what is happening
with aboriginal people in the Arctic to see the high amounts of
the substances that exist within their biomass. They have large
amounts of these carcinogenic and toxic materials in their
tissues. Large amounts of this material have come from Siberia
to the Arctic.
It is for this reason that Canadians and this parliament need to
be very concerned, aware and interested in what happens to this
biological material. It is a serious threat to the health and
welfare of not only people but flora and fauna.
Of the 193 countries in September 1996, only 150 countries
signed this treaty; 43 did not. We can use our diplomatic
initiatives, our embassies, our respect around the world and our
diplomatic ability to convince these 43 non-signatories to come
on board and sign it. It will not be possible for some of these
countries to sign at this moment. But it does not mean we cannot
try to get these countries to come on board.
Potential hot spots that need our acute intervention and acute
interests involve South Asia between India and Pakistan, and the
situation in the Middle East with respect to Iraq and Israel. As
mentioned, the situation between Russia and the United States
needs to be dealt with. One hidden faction in all this which we
do not take into consideration enough is the situation with
China. We like to say the United States is the only super power
that exists. In my view that is utterly false. China is a super
power, has been a super power for some time and has the weapons
capability of a super power, both conventional and
non-conventional.
I compliment members from across party lines for pursuing the
rapid support of this bill and also supporting the ban on nuclear
weapons. I do not think it will be feasible for us to ban them
outright but we must do whatever we can to pursue the downloading
of existing nuclear weapons in the world. We should do our best
to remove them and destroy them and to deal with the fissile
materials that are out there and to put an urgent dampening
control on those nuclear weapon materials. This is not only for
our individual security but for our collective security.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to join in this debate today to talk about the test
ban treaty and the necessity to have such a treaty in the world.
I will detail some of the things the government I hope pursues
with vigour over the next months and years as it tries to make
this test ban treaty more than just a symbolic measure that is
easy to agree with and is easy to endorse; a comprehensive
agreement that will cover not only the ones that have signed to
date but the problem states, the rogue states, that as of now
have refused to do it for a variety of reasons.
1325
I will read into the record again what this bill does. It does
implement the test ban treaty that Canada has been in favour of
and has endorsed for some time since its inception. It is an
attempt to ban the testing of nuclear weapons by limiting nuclear
explosions. It spells out severe penalties for Canadians and
others if they are involved in the detonation of a nuclear device
in Canada. It makes it a crime to aid and abet such an action.
It obliges Canadian companies to report any chemical blasts that
could be mistaken for nuclear explosions, in other words large
scale chemical explosions, in order to monitor the whole process
of who is testing what and where.
As the official opposition we generally support this piece of
legislation. I would like to bring up a few problems or
reservations I have on not so much the legislation but the
process we have followed so far.
First, there is in this legislation and in the test ban treaty a
mechanism to monitor worldwide any explosions that may be taking
place, the magnitude, what was involved, who did it and when and
so on. That is a good thing. Canada is certainly doing its part.
We have a series of seismic and other tests that will ensure
that this monitoring continues and we will do our part.
As in all international agreements, I urge the government to
make sure this does not become an excuse for a large scale
bureaucracy. I hope it will not but there is always the danger
that when there is a multinational organization and an agreement
is in place no one watches the bottom line. Certainly there is
no bottom line on peace but there is a bottom line on how much
this testing should cost and I urge the government just to keep
an eye on that. I hope it will and certainly we will be doing
that from our side.
I think it has been brought up today in the speeches, but I want
to reiterate that we want to make sure there are no illusions on
the part of people watching this debate or by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs that this is the be all and end all that will
somehow bring us the nirvana of perpetual peace on earth.
This is really a small step in securing the idea that nuclear
weapons are not desirable and that we should work toward their
elimination. That of course is easy to agree with. Again, it is
not nirvana, it is not the answer to all this especially given
the states the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has
already listed. Look at states like North Korea, India,
Pakistan, Libya, Syria, some Middle East countries and so on that
are unwilling at this stage to sign the document.
There are reasons they have I suppose or they try to justify for
not signing but whatever the reason they are the very states that
I think need to be brought into this process. To engage these
non-signatories should be the primary goal on the nuclear issue
by the foreign affairs minister at this stage.
Whatever pressure or influence Canada can bring over the next
while, months and years to come, that should be part of all their
discussions with these countries particularly. It is not enough
to sit back, put the flowers in the end of the rifle barrel and
say all we are saying is give peace a chance. That is not good
enough. We need to make sure this test ban treaty is just a
start of a vigorous and ongoing campaign to make all countries of
the world realize that it is in their best interests to pursue
this non-proliferation treaty.
The hard reality is that unruly, unreliable regimes run by
unruly and unreliable leaders, and I will pick Saddam Hussein as
an example here, show the necessity of future pressure to make
these kinds of countries and individuals sign this treaty and to
verify that they are following through.
We have to pursue those two things. I do not think anybody
thinks Canada is going to whip up atomic bombs and start packing
them around in a suitcase.
But there is a serious problem with some of these countries.
1330
We need to use our connections, not only with countries that we
are not so friendly with, but even with countries that we have
longstanding traditional relationships with. In particular, we
need to look at India and Pakistan. We have a lot of close ties
with those countries. Many people from those countries have
immigrated to Canada and are now a part of our Canadian culture.
Pakistan and India are in serious difficulties. They should
know that we are willing to talk to them and recognize them as
perhaps not a big superpower like the Americans or the Chinese,
but certainly a very powerful entity in themselves. We must tell
them that we respect their sovereignty. We must encourage them
to get on board and do what is best, not just for their own
country but for the world, by signing this treaty. Particularly
with Pakistan and India we must emphasize that.
I want to emphasize that it is important to me and to the Reform
Party that mechanisms be found to encourage the government to
bring treaties like this more often to the House of Commons for
debate. It is interesting that the committee on foreign affairs
has been studying the nuclear issue for some months now and just
as it is drafting its report, which will deal with issues like
this, the government brings in legislation which says “This is
the way we are going to do it”. To tell the members of
parliament in the foreign affairs committee “I am interested in
seeing your report, but it does not really matter, we are going
to proceed as follows” is discouraging.
A better process for international treaties would be to bring
the concept either to a committee or to a debate in the House.
That would allow members of parliament to at least be a part of
the process and to be apprised of where we are. It would allow
opposition members to have some input on errors and omissions in
the treaty before the government actually signed on the dotted
line. We should have that debate and discussion among members of
parliament so they feel they have been involved on behalf of the
people of Canada.
The government listens carefully to many non-government
organizations, to pressure groups, to other countries and to a
lot of good debate. I do not deny that it is all worthwhile. But
it seems like the last people in the loop are members of
parliament. If the government is interested in encouraging
knowledge and debate on international relations between Canada
and other countries it has to give the House an important role to
play in the treaty making process. Because it does not do that
it dooms the process to cynicism. That is unfortunate.
This is a good debate today on a good bill. Unfortunately the
cart is far ahead of the horse and that is too bad.
It is the position of the official opposition to support this
nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We accept the spirit of Bill
C-52. As I have said, I hope that the government in the future
will use the opportunity not just to educate MPs, but to actually
let us feel that we have had an impact on the government's
decision making process. If the government would do that it
would probably find lots of support for its position. MPs would
feel that they had been brought in at the start of the process
instead of at the very end.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley for once
again giving an eloquent speech on foreign affairs.
He illustrated the central problem that we have in parliament,
wherein parliament is often undemocratized. He articulated the
problem by illustrating the example of what has gone on in the
foreign affairs committee, an otherwise very good committee made
up of good members. The committee has been diligently working on
the nuclear issue.
It is going to present its findings on this after the bill has
been presented to the House of Commons. This shows once again
that ministers and the cabal of individuals on top have an utter
disregard for members of this House, and in doing so they show an
utter disregard for the people they represent; namely, the
Canadian people.
1335
It would be far better for this House to work to ensure that
members from across party lines are able to work and represent
their constituents effectively by bringing their good ideas to
committee in a timely and reasonable fashion.
My question for the member deals with leadership. He
illustrated the problem of the lack of accountability on fissile
materials around the world. Would my hon. colleague support an
international meeting to deal with the disclosure of information
on fissionable materials? Countries from around the world could
come to one place to discuss and debate, to put forth a process
whereby all countries would disclose what fissionable materials
they have and the condition of those fissionable materials. Then
a system of accounting could be put in place so we would all know
where this weapons grade nuclear material is located.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for both his comment and his question.
His comment is well taken. Because of the importance of the
bill, in my own way I was smacking the government's hand a
little. However, he spelled out pretty clearly and bluntly that
the government faces the danger of making committee work just
busy work. That is, as soon as we start to get into the nitty-gritty
our work is either trumped by the government or discarded.
We have seen some moves in committees over the last week or so
where chairmen who have confronted and challenged the government
have been moved aside. It is very unfortunate and very
de-motivating for people who come here thinking that their
opinion is going to count to find out that instead they should
just take a number and wait to be told what to do.
Time and again this has happened with our peacekeeping efforts.
We often read about a situation in the papers on the weekend.
Then we come here on Monday and hear the minister ask parliament
to endorse the position he has already taken, which is to send
troops overseas, into harm's way. Those of us on this side of
the House, and I think many on the government side too, might
have liked to have a debate before the minister signed on the
dotted line. I might have liked to have expressed my views. I
would have listened to the arguments. We should have true
debates instead of set speeches that basically spell out what is
going to be done anyway and tough toenails.
That would democratize foreign policy especially. Foreign
policy deals not just with Canadians, but with our international
relations. We have a right to enter that debate and we have an
obligation to our constituents to show that we have an interest.
Those members of parliament who say they are only interested in
what happens in their own constituencies could be shown for the
parochial bunch they are. Let us flush them out. Let us make
them treat foreign affairs with the importance it should have.
The second issue concerns whether there should be an
international protocol of some sort to track fissionable
material. The member pointed out a very huge problem. We have
spent hundreds of millions of dollars in Canada alone trying to
figure out what to do with our own nuclear waste and we still do
not know what we are supposed to do with it. We still do not
have a plan. We still keep it in the swimming pool and hope that
nobody dives in the deep end. Even in Canada, which has some of
the highest standards, we do not have a protocol. We can
certainly track it, but we do not know what to do with it.
Take that and expand it to other countries in the world that do
not have the resources to even handle it properly. We need a
method to track it and to help those countries that cannot deal
with it to deal with it in some way that best mitigates the
problem. I certainly support that initiative.
[Translation]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the 20
minutes available to me, there are a few points I will be trying
to make.
[English]
A number of points can be made in connection with this bill. I
will try to touch upon them very briefly in order to finish
before question period.
1340
It is obviously an important policy that we are discussing today
which has a very fine historical record. We are debating today
what was initiated by Mr. Pearson, even before he became the
Prime Minister of Canada, and that policy was continued by
successive prime ministers, particularly Prime Minister Trudeau,
in order to establish the fact that Canada was one of the few
nations in the world which voluntarily renounced the use of
nuclear power for military purposes.
In other words, there is a tradition of which all
parliamentarians can be proud because we have been in the
forefront of this policy making process and we continue to be.
It has been established in so many ways and in so many debates,
in widespread forums and throughout public opinion, that no
nuclear nation has the right nor the justification to use nuclear
weapons. The pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are very clear
in the memories not only of those who lived through that
experience, but also of subsequent generations.
There is definitely a will to ensure—and I suppose this is at
the root of this treaty—that any measure of that kind will never
be adopted again and cause such terrible agony and atrocities on
human beings, no matter who is involved.
In connection with this treaty, it must also be said that
whenever major nations have conducted nuclear tests they have
turned out to be public relations disasters. I can only refresh
everyone's memory to the last test conducted by France in the
Pacific which clearly provoked and generated a very intensive
counter-complaint on the part of public opinion, not only in
Europe but in every continent, aimed at dissuading the Government
of France of the day from conducting such a test. The same can
be said of China, a country that is still conducting tests and
which should be discouraged from doing so.
Public opinion certainly does not look kindly on conducting
tests of a nuclear nature.
Whenever attempts are made by nations to justify the use of
nuclear weapons, their rationale has the weight of zero. There
is no rationale and no justification in the light of the
evolution of the human culture and of mankind to justify the
utilization of nuclear weapons any longer. I am sure it is the
intent of this treaty and the hope of the totality of public
opinion the world over to consider that any form of nuclear
weapon use has come to a conclusion and that there will never
again be any attempt to use them.
In that sense, we are glad to have the opportunity in this
parliament to endorse Canada's signing and ratifying of this
treaty because it gives us an opportunity to express these
sentiments.
The next point that one would inevitably like to make is to call
on the non-signatories—and there are 43 of those nations—and
urge them to do so. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe there are some
minor and middle powers that have not yet seen fit to do so.
1345
I am referring to the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan,
Botswana, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Cuba, Dominica,
Eritrea, Gambia, Guatemala, Guyana, India, Iraq, Kiribati, North
Korea, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Macedonia, Mauritius,
Nauru, Nigeria, Niue, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts
and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra
Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tanzania,
Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Zimbabwe and Yugoslavia.
Most of these nations are represented here in Ottawa by
embassies or high commissions. Their representatives ought to be
called upon by the Government of Canada and urged to do their
duty to sign this nuclear test ban treaty without delay. Make the
pressure of public opinion felt by them in their desire to be
civilized members of the world community.
The next point has to do with the issue of nuclear liability.
Our country is due to revisit this issue and to debate the
nuclear liability limits we have. We have to determine new
thresholds and establish a new approach. This is an overdue
piece of legislation which requires parliamentary attention in
the interests of the Canadian public.
The next point has to do with the question of Canadian industry
notification which is outlined in a briefing note I have here.
The legislation we intend to pass will request Canadian industry
to report large chemical explosions which could be confused with
nuclear explosions. There is a qualifier in this request, namely
if possible, prior notification.
I would suggest that prior notification if possible be deleted
and notification be made mandatory because if there is good will,
there is a way of getting notification without any qualifier to
that particular process. It is a good measure and I am sure
Canadian industry will want to collaborate. I am referring to
those instances when 300 tonnes or more of TNT equivalent
material will be used. This idea of prior notification is highly
desirable.
The issue of nuclear waste has been raised and we are all
painfully aware of the issue. It is one that has been posing a
major problem not only to Canada but also to the United States
and other jurisdictions where the disposition of nuclear waste is
still an unresolved issue. In other words we do not know where to
safely put the waste that is generated through nuclear material
utilization.
This very important environmental issue also has economic
implications. This issue has to be examined whenever we intend
to amplify the future use of nuclear power for non-military
purposes because the question of waste management and waste
disposal has not yet been resolved. It is one that is being
tackled at least in low level radiation waste material in
southern Ontario by an initiative of the current Minister of the
Environment for which we congratulate her. This needs to be
expanded of course to other material as well.
1350
I hope that this quick review of items relating to this treaty
is helpful. I congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
the government for this very fine initiative.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech and for
his longstanding personal commitment in this area.
I would like to ask the member a specific question with respect
to the upcoming vote before the United Nations General Assembly
on a resolution which will be proposing multilateral negotiations
leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.
The member will recall that South African President Nelson
Mandela in his very eloquent speech before the general assembly
last month urged that all nations, including Canada, join with
the new agenda coalition in supporting this resolution. Last
year Canada voted against this resolution.
I want to ask the member whether he does not agree that it is
important that Canada send out a strong signal of its support for
the new agenda coalition by voting for and indeed by
co-sponsoring this important resolution at this session of the
United Nations General Assembly.
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, whether Canada would
co-sponsor this resolution is a moot question and probably it is
too late for that. I imagine that the resolution has travelled
sufficiently ahead to not require Canada's involvement. However,
it is certainly a measure which I am sure the Minister of Foreign
Affairs looks at favourably and that we should be moving on.
Maybe there is a certain hesitance for reasons I do not know, but
in principle it seems to me to be a very desirable initiative and
worthy of support.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I first of all wish to commend the member for Davenport
for his eloquent speech. I also commend him for the hard work he
has done as chair of the environment committee and his long
commitment to the environment.
My question is a historical one. In the last parliament the
Liberal government changed the environmental laws to allow China
to purchase nuclear reactors. Canada gave China $1.5 billion in
loans to do that. Just recently we have made some agreements
with Turkey. It is quite obvious that the Government of Canada
historically and today has a very poor track record when it comes
to nuclear conversations of any kind.
Does the member for Davenport agree with the government's
decision to circumvent or change environment laws in order to
pursue its nuclear policies?
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows
very well my views on this subject and I do not see the necessity
of repeating them in this chamber.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. member for Davenport, but while on
my feet I would like to reply to the question of the member for
Burnaby—Douglas on de-alerting. I probably represented my
party's views rather authoritatively since we are still
considering this component.
My question for the member for Davenport is if we could list in
detail what will face us within the next 50 years, what would his
reaction be to total disarmament rather than just arms control,
which is what we are really doing now?
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the
hon. member is asking a hypothetical question. Therefore it is
one which we have to treat as such.
Of course the ideal of total disarmament is one we all would
want to strive for. But we also know that this is not a reality
in the context of present day relations and conflicts in many
areas around the globe.
1355
I would imagine that 50 years from now we will be talking of
security more in environmental terms than in military terms. I
would imagine that in 50 years the concept of security will be
quite different from the one of today. I would imagine that the
emphasis on arms will decline and perhaps there will be much more
emphasis on access to drinking water for instance.
I would imagine that with the doubling of the global population
from the present five billion possibly to ten billion, the
pressure on worldwide natural resources, and by that I mean
fisheries, forestry, water and the like, will be enormous. We
will have a completely different security agenda from what we
have today.
Until then, I think we have to be realistic and know also that
we have a role to play in peacekeeping as it is shaping up in the
Balkans and in other parts of the world. For some time to come,
arms will be needed sometimes in order to make peace.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to ask the member for Davenport a
question. I would first preface my remarks like a great many
others with a tribute to the work he has done over the years on
the environment, although I must say I have found him to be a bit
ambiguous on the nuclear question from time to time.
With respect to the goal he just mentioned, the complete
abolition of nuclear weapons, or total disarmament as he referred
to it, does he not think the time has come for Canada as a member
of NATO to show leadership in that body? That is where we find a
great many members of the existing nuclear club, but not all of
them.
Does he not think there is a role there for Canada to say to
those in the nuclear club that they can no longer expect to
maintain their monopoly as it were on nuclear weapons and at the
same time ask the rest of the world to desist from the production
and deployment of nuclear weapons? Is there a role here for NATO
and the nuclear club in showing some leadership and is Canada
uniquely positioned to show leadership in that way?
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, regarding the question
of being ambiguous, the advantage of being a Liberal over being
an NDPer is that instead of looking at the world in black and
white, we can also detect a number of shades of grey. Therefore
sometimes our message is more complex and less simplistic than
the message from the NDP.
That is the reason we convince more Canadians to elect us to
conduct the business of government than the NDP has so far.
There is something about ambiguity that can be attributed to the
capacity of seeing more shades of colours than just black and
white.
On the second point, NATO, this is a subject of continuous
discussion and debate. I do not feel qualified enough to give an
adequate reply.
The Speaker: I note that there are still a
couple of minutes left in the questions and comments. As we are
approaching 2 p.m., I wonder if I might let that go until after
question period and we will go to Statements by Members now.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
EARL GOFORTH
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to salute Mr.
Earl Goforth, a volunteer in the Whitchurch-Stouffville Museum in
my riding.
Mr. Goforth received the Ontario Heritage Foundation's Heritage
Community Recognition certificate in recognition of his service.
For over 18 years, he has shared his knowledge of tools and
agricultural implements with visitors to the museum. The museum
itself opened in 1971 in the Bogarttown School which was built in
1857.
Mr. Goforth's involvement and service in the museum has enhanced
its educational and entertainment value not only for visitors,
but also for the staff and volunteers.
I was pleased to honour someone who helps us understand our
local history, Mr. Goforth.
* * *
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in this House today to express my disgust over this government's
continued mismanagement of Canadian tax dollars.
While ministers of this government spend their time on vendetta
politics, Canadians are left to suffer. This government has
wasted $500 million cancelling the EH-101 helicopters that are
obviously desperately needed. There was $260 million wasted on
Pearson airport and $3.4 million wasted on Airbus. And just this
summer $20 million was wasted on compensating Ethyl Corporation
for banning MMT without just cause or sound evidence.
This waste alone totals $765.4 million. If the government had
stopped playing politics it could have used this revenue to
compensate every hepatitis C victim.
1400
I demand the government to show Canadians the same courtesy
given to Ethyl, apologize to Canadians for mishandling these
events and stop wasting taxpayer dollars.
* * *
MARY ANN SHADD
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, October 1998 marks the seventh year that Canada will
celebrate Women's History Month in recognition of women who have
played vital roles in our heritage.
I wish to recognize the life achievements of the late Mary Ann
Shadd who at one time resided in Chatham—Kent in my riding. Mary
Ann Shadd, a noted author, educator, journalist, publisher and
lawyer, was truly a pioneer in her time. After emigrating to
Canada in 1851 she earned the distinction of being the first
black female newspaper editor in North America. In an era where
few women were politically aware, Mrs. Shadd was an advocate for
abolitionists and a voice for equal rights.
Mary Ann Shadd serves as a role model for women young and old
across the country. Her legacy instils a sense of pride in our
history and in our origins. It is with honour that I rise to
celebrate with Canadians the difference women have made, are
making today and will make in the future.
* * *
FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am speaking today about Fire Prevention Week which
this year runs from October 4 to October 10.
This year's theme “fire drills, the great escape” will
emphasize the importance to individuals and institutions of
having a fire escape plan for the home and the workplace.
Too many of us do not have any such plan in place, or if we have
we have not actually practised it to see if it works. It remains
a sad fact of life that each year hundreds of Canadians die
needlessly in fires and thousands are injured. Much of this
could be prevented by taking precautionary measures such as
developing fire escape routes.
I urge all Canadians to take the message of Fire Prevention Week
to heart. A good start would be to participate in the activities
that will be held in communities all across Canada and to know
and to practise fire drills at home and at work. The lives they
save may be their own.
* * *
[Translation]
FLU AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to call the attention of the House and of Canadians
to the fact that October is Flu Awareness Month.
The combination of flu and pneumonia is one of the primary
causes of death among seniors. It can cause illness, weaken
individuals suffering from it, make them vulnerable to infection
and even cause their death.
I encourage all Canadians at risk to protect themselves and
others against the flu.
An annual flu shot will prevent those at risk from getting the
flu and may even save lives.
Please join with me in wishing success to the Canadian Lung
Association and its partners and in encouraging Canadians to
protect themselves against the flu.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, recent blockades of Canadian farm products by certain
U.S. states have interfered with the movement of Canadian grain
and livestock.
The Liberals are wrong when they claim that these border
skirmishes are just grandstanding U.S. politicians. The disputes
go much deeper. In fact the allegations of dumping grain by
Canada into the U.S. market and the concern over subsidies on
Canadian feed grains in the livestock industry have been major
sources of these disputes for years.
U.S. documents suggest the Canadian Wheat Board has undersold
farmers grain into the U.S. market in direct violation of NAFTA.
There is also concern that grain companies are dumping surplus
off board wheat and barley into the U.S. market.
If these border disputes are to be eliminated both Canadian and
U.S. politicians must become receptive to the issues and problems
of farmers. Only then can we hope to provide a fair and level
playing field.
* * *
[Translation]
EDUCATION SAVINGS PLAN
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on August 26, we
learned that the Government of Canada had changed its policy on
access to grants for education savings so that more families
would become eligible for the new Canadian grant under the
program.
1405
From now on, contributions to an education savings plan for
young people aged 16 and 17 will mean entitlement to the 20%
grant announced in February's budget, if these contributions
total at least $2,000 instead of $4,000 before the year of the
individual's birthday.
The 20% grant will also be given when the child reaches a total
of $100 a year instead of $300 over four years, regardless of
which ones, before his 16th birthday.
This announcement made on August 16 by the Minister of Finance
enables more lower income families to benefit from the Canada
education savings grant.
* * *
LABRADOR HELICOPTER CRASH
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, a
Labrador type helicopter returning from a medical evacuation
mission in the Sept-Îles region crashed in Marsoui, on the Gaspé
Peninsula, killing six military personnel.
The cause of the crash remains unknown, but this tragedy might
have been avoided. We are asking the Minister of National
Defence to do everything within his power to ensure the
equipment used by our armed forces is reliable.
The Bloc offers its sincere condolences to the families of the
victims.
* * *
[English]
VICTIMS OF GENOCIDE
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Saturday, October 4, 1998, members of the Canadian
Armenia assembled with their fellow Canadians for the historic
dedication of the monument erected by the city of Montreal
commemorating victims of genocide.
The memorial stands as a symbol of healing for the Armenian
community and will be a lasting tribute to all victims of ethnic
hatred, including the Armenian genocide of 1915 at the hands of
the Turkish government, the first genocide of the century but not
the last as tragically ethnic massacres continue to take place
every day.
May the memorial serve to remind Canadians of the horror of
ethnic hatred and serve as a symbol of our diligence to oppose
genocide as the worse example of man's inhumanity to mankind.
* * *
FOREST INDUSTRY
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week six Reform MPs and I visited the central coast of B.C.
as guests of IWA union executives and the forest industry. It
reinforced what many British Columbians know that the forest
industry, the largest producer of jobs in the country, is in
serious crisis.
We were concerned on this tour about the impact on our European
market of the boycott by Greenpeacers. Never mind that this
industry has suffered in B.C. from the collapse of the Japanese
housing market. Never mind that the NDP government in Victoria
has tripled the taxes it levies on this industry in the last five
years. Now it also suffers from the silence of the Liberal
government that has done nothing to correct the untruths in
Europe that Greenpeace is spreading.
The government does not get it. If it sits idly by and does
nothing for British Columbians, the extreme preservationists in
Greenpeace will next take on the forest industry in Alberta,
Ontario and Quebec. No part of this industry is safe. Jobs are
being lost, mills are shutting down and marriages are being torn
apart.
When will the government speak out loud and clear to correct
this desperate situation?
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahater wants to play in the
big leagues internationally but he is ignoring the rule of law.
Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and opposition MP Lim Guan
Eng are in jail for disagreeing with him. Security forces are
suppressing peaceful protests.
I call on all members of the House to speak out against these
violations of human democratic rights. I call on all members to
demand that the Malaysian government free Anwar Ibrahim and Lim
Guan Eng.
* * *
EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today in solidarity with thousands of Canadian students who
are about to launch a week of protest in cities and towns from
Vancouver to Halifax.
The Canadian Federation of Students is leading this charge to
show slash and burn governments that students will not stand
still for full scale demolition of post-secondary education.
Students also are not standing still for a completely unfounded
and discriminatory law that the Liberals forced through in the
last budget. That law extended the bankruptcy waiting period for
students from two years to a decade.
The government should be ashamed of the hypocrisy of its
actions, hypocrisy ground in the fact that 93% of students pay
back their loans. Compare this to the corporations that received
loans from Industry Canada between 1982 and 1997. Only 15% of
those corporate deadbeats made good on their loans.
I ask the government: Who is the better investment? I am
introducing a bill tomorrow that will repeal this discriminatory
law. What will the government do?
* * *
1410
[Translation]
BREAST CANCER
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, October is
Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Every day, some 50 women learn
they have breast cancer, for a total of about 17,000 women
annually. Over 5,400 of them will not survive the disease.
That means today alone 15 will die.
A number of groups and associations are vigorously looking for a
way to treat this disease, whose causes remain essentially
unknown.
While progress has been made, through prevention and screening,
current treatment is often ineffective. Biopsies are still
extremely painful, and other forms of treatment are still at the
development stage.
The fight is far from over, and I call on all my colleagues, men
and women, to contribute generously to the pink ribbon campaign.
* * *
[English]
HOM-ENET-MAN
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
in parliament members of the House are invited to a reception in
200 West Block to commemorate the 80th international anniversary
of Hom-enet-man, the largest benevolent sports and scouts
organization in the Armenian Diaspora.
[Translation]
This non-profit organization's mission is to invest in young
people and to develop their devotion and will. In addition, it
encourages them to become good Canadians and law-abiding
citizens. It provides them with a good physical and moral
education, encourages them to think and helps them develop a
team spirit.
I congratulate the Armenian community and the Hom-enet-man
organization on its 80th anniversary. Organizations such as
this one have a mandate to inspire young people and to
strengthen such basic principles of life as courage, discipline,
honour and perseverance. Their involvement with young people
clearly shows their devotion to the community—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Nova.
* * *
[English]
LOBSTER FISHERY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, for months
now native and non-native fishers have been illegally poaching
lobster from the lucrative lobster fishing grounds off
southwestern Nova Scotia, threatening the livelihoods of
thousands of registered commercial lobster fishers. Each day
thousands of pounds of illegal lobsters are landed and sold on
the black market.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has done very little to
curb this illegal activity. Law-abiding fishers are now
threatening to take the law into their own hands if something is
not done immediately to protect their industry.
Fishers in my riding are living in fear. They recognize that
the government is doing very little to protect their industry.
Some fishers have risked their own personal safety to notify DFO
of illegal activity, only to have their pleas for help ignored.
The issue will not go away simply by ignoring it. I call on the
Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and the Solicitor General of Canada to join
with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to devise a strategy
that will effectively put an end to this illegal fishery before
the situation turns to violence.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE PIERRE SAVARD
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with regret that I note the passing of Pierre Savard, a great
Canadian historian, who died on October 4. Born in Quebec City
in 1936, Pierre Savard, a professor of history at the University
of Ottawa, dedicated his life to the study and teaching of
history.
Although he began his teaching career at Université Laval, it
was here in Ottawa that he left his mark. He will be remembered
as the director of the University of Ottawa's centre for
research into French Canadian civilization, a position he held
from 1972 to 1985, and as a full professor in the history
department of that university, but especially as a proud French
Canadian who was deeply involved and well respected in his
community.
That community mourns as well, as is clear from the editorial in
today's Le Droit, lamenting the premature death of Pierre
Savard. On behalf of my colleagues, I extend our deepest
condolences to his wife Suzanne, his children Marie, François
and Michel, and to the rest of his family.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
is the best country in the world in which to live. This is the
case for most people living in Canada unless we ask the native
population who is living in squalor on our nation's reserves.
Many of our reserves endure third world conditions which
Canadians generally believe are rich and privileged.
How are they to think any differently when audits from the
Stoney reserve reveal that the chiefs and council receive
salaries, honorariums and travel expenses totalling $1.5 million
per year while most cannot put food on their table.
Scarce financial resources are not being directed to those most
in need. For example, the Stoney nation claims to have a
shortage of housing yet at least a dozen houses are vacant and
some are being used by non-band members and unqualified people
for some political reason remain in key financial management
positions.
The reality is the government can no longer excuse these
inequities. It can no longer deflect responsibility for fiscal
abuse. It can no longer pump billions into the Indian system and
not adequately account for every cent.
The aboriginal people of Canada deserve better and so do the
taxpayers.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday when the solicitor general was questioned
about his conversation on an airplane concerning the APEC affair,
he could not seem to recall anything at all that he said.
However, today, after counselling no doubt from the spin doctors,
he categorically denies that he said anything inappropriate.
How is it that the solicitor general could not recall any of
that conversation yesterday but today has total recall of that
same conversation?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said this morning in the House, I categorically
deny the allegations as I did yesterday.
We have established that the comments of the hon. member, I
believe, were titbits of words that were floating around in a
noisy aircraft and are unworthy of this place.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the solicitor general said he could not even
remember who sat next to him. He did not know whether they were
animal, mineral or vegetable. Today the minister admits that his
seatmate was a friend, a lawyer and a Liberal Party supporter to
boot.
How is it that yesterday the solicitor general could not even
remember the gender of his seatmate and yet today recalls that it
was a Liberal friend? How did that happen?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have flown back and forth from Ottawa to Fredericton
300 times in the last five years. I know most of the people on
that aircraft and I do not recall in each and every case whom it
is that I sat with.
I inquired and I found out. That is the truth. That is the
answer. He will have to live with it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this minister by his indiscretions has called into
question the impartiality of the whole public complaints
commission inquiry into the APEC affair. Now he has made matters
worse by trying to cover up his own indiscretions with this cock
and bull story.
Where is the minister's honesty? Where is his integrity? And
where is—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I ask all of you to be very
cautious in the words you are using. The honesty of members is
not questioned in this Chamber and I would remind hon. members of
that fact. Please choose your words very carefully.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had a conversation with the gentleman who sat on the
plane. He substantiated my story and I will not dignify that
question with an answer.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general in a few short hours has gone from “he was
someone I don't know” to “actually we have been good friends
for some time”.
He has gone from “I don't know who this person is. I don't
know them by name” to “it is Frederick Toole from Saint John”.
Great scott, we have gone from “I can't recall” to total recall
and now to a rebuttal. When will we go to the resignation?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has at least three inaccuracies in that
question and I will not respond.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this story is getting more outrageous by the minute every time he
opens his mouth.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1420
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, as I said, this story is
getting more outrageous every time the minister opens his mouth.
The commission is now saying that it is worried about public
trust in this whole instance. I am sure the Solicitor General is
the only person in the country who happens to believe his own
story.
The commission is in doubt. The damage has been done. The gig
is up. When will he resign?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this process needs to work and it cannot be sabotaged by
the innuendo of members opposite.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the solicitor general could not remember who he
talked with on the flight between Ottawa and Fredericton or what
they spoke about. He could not even remember whether the person
was a man or a woman.
But this morning, miracle of miracles, he remembered everything.
He was speaking to a longtime Liberal friend.
How can the Prime Minister put his trust in a solicitor whose
memory is so weak and whose integrity is based solely on the
vague testimony of a Liberal partisan?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Solicitor General made a statement to the House this
morning. He tabled a letter from the person on the trip with
him. I think that it fully explains the situation.
The facts speak for themselves. I am surprised. Members will
have to be careful, because tomorrow there will be people
eavesdropping behind every door.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every
time a scandal looms, the Prime Minister uses the same scenario.
Here again, he is doing so with the APEC story.
First, the Prime Minister denies the evidence. Second, he finds
a political official, sometimes the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, or the former Minister of National Defence. Third, he
orders an investigation to clear himself.
My question is simply this: When will he produce a letter of
good behaviour from the ethics commissioner? That is all that
is lacking in the habitual scenario.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is nothing the government wants more than for the
commission of inquiry to do its job as quickly as possible.
A complaint was lodged about police behaviour, and we want to
find out the truth. Once the truth is known, we will act
objectively.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor
general is clearly in a very difficult situation, with not just
his credibility, but also his job, at stake.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he admit that not
only is the solicitor general in a very difficult situation, but
that so is he, because his credibility and his job are hanging
by a thread, and that thread is the testimony of a Liberal Party
member and a friend of the minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one year and four months ago, we were elected to office. Our
mandate is very clear.
The thread is a pretty hefty one; we hold more seats than any of
the opposition parties.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Prime
Minister not think he is asking Frederick D. Toole to shoulder
quite a load, when Mr. Toole, good Liberal that he is, realizes
that his testimony alone could make or break the government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Bloc Quebecois does not have much of a point.
We are merely saying that we want the commission to be able to
begin its work. In fact, it did so yesterday, and we hope that
the testimony will be heard.
1425
All those asked to testify went and volunteered to be present.
I personally am not in the least worried, because I know very
well that everything is done to respect international
conventions, which require that the safety—
The Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the Right Hon.
Prime Minister but the leader of the New Democratic Party now
has the floor.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also to the Prime Minister. The solicitor general
clearly failed to maintain the impartiality required of him when
he stated: “Four to five Mounties overreacted for five minutes.
I think it was excessive”.
Canadians recognize the solicitor general's remarks as
prejudicial and inappropriate. When will the Prime Minister do
the same and demand the resignation of the solicitor general?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the NDP first claimed in this House that
Gail Sparrow saw me giving orders, yet she failed to apologize
when Mrs. Sparrow later admitted she could not hear what I was
saying. Then the leader of the NDP charged that one of my staff
said that he had shredded documents, yet she failed to apologize
when the commission counsel refuted that claim. Then she said
that one of my special advisers phoned UBC president Martha Piper
to intervene in a matter related to security, yet the leader of
the NDP—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, even
the solicitor general in this morning's carefully worded
statement did not deny that he had made these prejudicial
comments. In fact his failure to recognize that his
inappropriate remarks are prejudicial, that they are prejudicing
the inquiry, is further evidence that he cannot do his job. The
Prime Minister has no choice but to demand his resignation. Why
will the Prime Minister not do that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not intend to do so because I am watching the
leader of the NDP once again raising baseless allegations, based
on selective eavesdropping by one of her members, for which she
should once again apologize. I thought the leader of the NDP had
greater ambition than to become the Linda Tripp of Canada.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
government has a record of firing people who are competent and
who do their jobs with independence and integrity. It had the
chief actuary of the Canada pension plan fired because he refused
to manipulate information on the CPP. It fired the chair of the
fisheries committee because his committee told the truth. The
chair of the foreign affairs committee was next.
The solicitor general proved his incompetence when he shared his
observations about the outcome of an ongoing investigation into
the APEC affair. Surely the Prime Minister must for once fire
the—
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said this morning, I said nothing that would
interfere with the process of the PCC or with the outcome. That
was substantiated by the person with whom I was having a private
conversation on the plane.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, is it
not odd that the Solicitor General can remember what he said
yesterday when yesterday he could not remember what he said the
day before?
The solicitor general was overheard prejudging the outcome of
the APEC investigation. He denied such prejudgment when asked in
this House. Then outside the House yesterday he claimed that he
could not remember anything. Today the Solicitor General admits
that he had a conversation about APEC with a personal friend
which he should not have had. How can the Prime Minister allow
the Solicitor General to remain in his position and still ensure
the integrity of the APEC investigation?
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we want to have an inquiry we should let the inquiry
be conducted by the people. The inquiry started yesterday. Let
them do their work.
If it is the only thing the member wants to talk about, then we
have no objections because we know the government has done
nothing wrong. The police discharged its responsibilities as it
was its duty to do. If there was something wrong the commission
will find out.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this morning the chairman of the Public Complaints
Commission said that comments attributed to the Solicitor General
have hurt the public trust in the Public Complaints Commission.
My question is to the Prime Minister. His own Solicitor General
said on September 21 “We have to protect the integrity of that
investigation to get to the truth”.
With the feeling in the Public Complaints Commission that their
trust has been affected, will the Prime Minister ask the
Solicitor General to resign until this matter is over?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has denied, and it was confirmed by the
lawyer who was travelling with him, that they discussed anything
that interfered with the work of the commission. I am satisfied
with the word of the minister and the word of the lawyer—
The Speaker: Colleagues, surely we should let the person
answer the question. Like many of you, I am having difficulty
hearing the questions and the answers.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister had the floor. I am sorry I
intervened.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will just say
that we want this commission to do its work as quickly as
possible so that we will know all the facts. That is what this
House should wish and it is what the commission should do. The
country will be happy if we let them do their work.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at 3.30 the Solicitor General was out in
the lobby denying he ever said what he said. By 5.30 last night
there is a letter in Ottawa saying he did—
The Speaker: No props.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, there is a letter that
was discussed this morning by the minister. On September 21 the
minister rose in this House saying that it would be completely
inappropriate to discuss any details around this investigation.
The minister obviously discussed this with a friend on the
airplane, which he did not remember last night but did a couple
of hours later.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The minister did discuss
it. He said in this House he should not. Should he not resign
until this commission is over?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is no.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, clearly the
Solicitor General would not have remained in his position had a
friend of the Liberal Party not qualified his remarks in the
plane.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is a lawyer like Mr.
Toole, whose firm contributed $10,000 to the victory of the
Liberal Party in the last election, capable of qualifying the
remarks he heard to save the skin of the Solicitor General?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the lawyer in question, a prominent citizen of New Brunswick,
sent a letter, which is now a public document. If the hon.
member is saying that the lawyer is lying, let him say so
outside the House of Commons, and the lawyer can take the
appropriate action.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the fact is
that this is where the event is occurring and it is here we want
to know whether the Solicitor General should remain in his
position.
My question is as follows: As the Solicitor General, the
minister for public security in a way, is supposed to be above
all suspicion, can he say that he remains so in order to keep
his position? We do not think so.
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very aware of my role as Solicitor General. I
would not compromise it and I did not compromise it. That is
what I said yesterday. That is what I said today. That is what
has been substantiated by the person who sat with me on the
plane.
1435
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is incredible. First the minister cannot remember who he spoke
to, what their gender was, what the person said, and then, like
in a soap opera, the 24-hour amnesia passes and all of a sudden
he discovers that the mystery passenger was his good friend.
That does not even pass the laugh test. Why does the minister
not quit the charade and just resign?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, because the story as recounted is absolutely accurate.
I never remembered on Monday who was on the plane the Thursday
night before. I have taken this plane 300 times in the last five
years with many of the same people. It is a small community.
I found out last night who it was. I had the conversation
necessary to remind myself of all the details and they were very
consistent with what I said in the House yesterday and what I
said again today.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister mentions Linda Tripp. In the U.S. they have DNA
tests. Here we will have to start administering IQ tests. Mr.
Speaker, in case—
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw
those last remarks about IQ tests.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.
In case the minister does not remember, he is the Solicitor
General. In case he does not remember, he is in the House of
Commons. In case he does not remember, he does have some
responsibilities, like telling Canadians exactly what happened on
that plane. Why does he not quit fooling around, quit with the
fairy tales and just resign?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have told the hon. member what happened in great
detail and I stand by it.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning the four opposition parties
joined with the main central labour bodies in Quebec and Canada
in calling for the government to establish an independent
employment insurance commission so as to block the government's
attempts to divert the employment insurance fund surplus.>
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development plan to heed
this common front for the creation of an independent employment
insurance commission?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find it most
interesting that there are so many people offering to administer
employment insurance now it is in a surplus situation. There
were precious few of them when there was a $6 billion deficit.
Moreover, there already is a commission made up of worker and
employer representatives, and we have worked together extremely
well over the years.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, lined up on the one side we have a certain
number of big businessmen, friends of the government, who share
its opinions. On the other, we have all the labour unions, all
the workers, all the unemployed, all the opposition parties and
a large number of employers as well.
Why would the minister heed the minority, who are in favour of
diverting the employment insurance fund, rather than the
majority, who are calling for an independent commission to
ensure the integrity of EI?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we already have an employment
insurance commission, which works very well. Our responsibility
is to the workers.
We have always respected the law, and I object to the
insinuations in the very wording of the hon. member's question
that we have not respected the law.
This government is committed to working on behalf of Canadians,
those who are working and those who are not, and we will
continue to work to help get people back into the work force,
before anything else.
* * *
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have listened with great regret and concern about what has
happened in this House and what we have heard in here today.
I have heard denials in the face of the facts.
1440
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, we have heard denials in
the face of the facts. We have heard contradictions by the
solicitor general. We have heard excuses and not apologies. The
solicitor general of our country is simply not believable.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask the member to go directly to his
question.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister
very simply, will he stand in the House right now and ask for the
solicitor general's resignation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly not. At 10 o'clock this morning the solicitor
general made a statement from his seat in the House. He
confirmed his statement with a letter from the lawyer who was
travelling with him on the plane.
I am satisfied with the explanation of the solicitor general. I
wish the House of Commons would let the commission do its work.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a little difficult to do the work when we are
faced with what we are faced with today. This is about
compromising a public inquiry. This is about covering up for the
Prime Minister's office.
The only reason the solicitor general should be on his feet
today is to stand up with his resignation.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister once again, if he cannot
get a resignation, will he fire the solicitor general?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member just said he wanted to know what
happened in the office of the Prime Minister. Without being
requested, my chief of staff and the other person who has been
mentioned have offered to testify. They did not wait for a
subpoena, they have offered to testify. I am very anxious to
know what they will say, because I know what I have discussed
with them and I have nothing to fear.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
There are enough exceptions that the Liberal government should
understand that what it should be contemplating right now is
improving the system, not using the EI surplus to lower the
taxes of the rich.
Does the minister think it is right that, within one region, one
person needs 420 hours to qualify for EI, while a woman going on
maternity leave needs 700 hours to be eligible?
I would like an explanation from him.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that, by
cramming three or four questions into one, the hon. member of
the Bloc Quebecois is letting me take my pick.
No decision has been taken with respect to the EI fund. We are
holding discussions as part of the current pre-budgetary
discussions and my priority, as Minister of Human Resources
Development, and I made this very clear to the House, is to
continue to serve the workers of this country effectively and
help them get back into the job market.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Health.
Concerns have been raised about the approval process for the
bovine growth hormone known as rBST which is used to increase
milk production in cows. Will the minister please tell the House
what is happening with the rBST approval process in Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first things first, rBST has not been approved for sale in
Canada. Health Canada will not approve rBST for sale in this
country unless and until Health Canada is satisfied that it is
safe for humans, that it is safe for use in animals and that it
is appropriate as a product for sale in this country.
Some suggest in error that Health Canada has been the subject of
some pressure to approve BST quickly. I can tell them as I tell
the House that BST has been under review at Health Canada for
nine years. If someone is exerting pressure, they are not very
effective in that fashion. We will not approve it unless it is
safe.
* * *
1445
APEC SUMMIT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday the solicitor general had a particular story to tell in
the scrum outside of here. On Tuesday he came up with a
completely different story. First he did not know him and now he
knows him. There have been all kinds of details back and forth.
Between story number one and story number two, I would like to
ask the solicitor general, which story is the truth?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was asked questions in the House yesterday and I
answered them honestly and to the best of my recollection. Last
night I explored further what happened last Thursday and
consequently I remembered more parts of the story. This is human
nature. This is exactly what happened. It is the absolute truth
and I stand by it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the solicitor general is digging himself into a deeper
and deeper hole. The solicitor general is one of the two law
officers of the crown in this House. If anybody ought to be
interested in protecting the integrity of this inquiry, it is he.
In that he has reflected badly on the inquiry, why does he not
do the responsible and honourable thing and stand in this House
and offer his resignation?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I sat here for two weeks defending the inquiry. When
allegations were made that I said something that would prejudice
the exercise or the outcome of the inquiry, I denied it
immediately. I denied it this morning and I deny it now.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, now that
his memory bank has kicked back in and the solicitor general
recalls the name of his seatmate on flight 8876 last Thursday
night and that he said to Fred D. Toole “It will come out in the
inquiry that four to five Mounties overreacted for five minutes.
No one knows this. I think it was excessive”, will the
solicitor general not agree that those were precisely the words
that he used? Will he admit it here in his place this afternoon?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): No,
Mr. Speaker, those are not the words that I used.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
suggest from now on that perhaps the solicitor general could get
the keys for the Challenger from the minister responsible for
heritage because he should be taking that flight.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. The
solicitor general said last week that he—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1450
The Speaker: My colleagues, we will hear the question.
The hon. member for Palliser.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general said
very clearly last Thursday night that he really wanted to go to
the baseball play-offs and the World Series but he could not
because he was covering for the Prime Minister.
I think the Prime Minister should do the honourable thing, allow
this man to go to the World Series—and the play-offs are tonight
at eight o'clock and there is still time for him to get
there—relieve him of his portfolio and let him go.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first we will have to check that the member is not
renting the seat behind him so he can listen to the comments.
This used to be a House where there were some rules that applied
among members that seem not to exist in the mind of this reporter
for the National Enquirer.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the very process which the solicitor general has so
vigorously defended has now been compromised by his own
irresponsibility. His feeble defence of tabling a letter from
Frederick Toole is proof that he discussed APEC publicly. This is
contrary to the previous statements that he could say nothing on
APEC and is the equivalent of President Clinton's famous line “I
did not have sexual relations with that woman”.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to go directly to his
question.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, in light of this
controversy, will the solicitor general now show some integrity,
take responsibility for his actions and resign immediately?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I took responsibility for my actions. I looked into the
allegations. They were false. I said that here this morning. It
is the case. There is no necessity and I want to protect this
process.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, do Canadians have to wait for the solicitor
general's next flight home for straight answers on this issue?
The Prime Minister has spent weeks hiding from Canadians on
APEC. He hid behind his spin doctors who attacked APEC
witnesses. He hid behind the solicitor general who will not talk
about this issue in the House, but loves to talk about it on Air
Canada. Now the Prime Minister's human shield, the solicitor
general, is a human sieve.
Will the Prime Minister himself answer questions on this issue
and demand the solicitor general's resignation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have an inquiry going on. Evidently they are not
interested to know what happened. They just want to have
something to attack the government on. They might be suffering
the problem of scandal envy because there has not been a big
problem in this government for the last five years.
I am telling the House that we want to know exactly what
happened between the students and the police. We are very anxious
for the commission to find out and tell everyone what happened on
that afternoon.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
U.S. congress has delayed new restrictions on border crossings
until October 15. The new rules could strangle movement and
cripple international trade and tourism.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell Canadians what they
might expect crossing the Canada-U.S. border later this month?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to report that we have made significant
progress on delaying the implementation of the bill on the
immigration service so that they will not implement after
October 1. More important, the senate and house leaders in the
United States congress have agreed to a 30 month delay in any
implementation. I am very confident we will get a permanent
delay in the implementation of the bill.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general has tried to explain away his actions, saying
that he has a letter from a friend that makes it all okay. Mr.
Speaker, you will excuse us if we do not think that explains
anything away.
1455
The public complaints commissioner this morning said that the
actions of the solicitor general have broken the trust Canadians
have in this commission. Does the solicitor general not see that
he should resign until such time as the commission has done its
work? Can he not see that?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I can correct the hon. member, the chair was
referring to the allegations which I have denied and I stand here
and deny them once again.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Human Resources Development said the following about
the millions of young people who pay into EI and are not
entitled to draw benefits: “The ones without employment
insurance coverage were perhaps people who ought not to have
been covered from the start”.
Is this what the Minister of Human Resources Development's youth
employment strategy is all about, telling young people they are
not entitled to receive benefits but are required, on the other
hand, to make contributions starting with the very first hour
they work? That is my question.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I have been trying to get
across to the Bloc Quebecois from the word go is that one is
doing young people a disservice if one makes the employment
insurance system readily accessible to them. If it is too easy
to get employment insurance, this is an invitation to drop out
of school.
What our government wants to do is to encourage young people to
stay in school. When they want to make the transition to the
work force, we have a youth employment strategy to help them to
do so. That is what we want, not youth unemployment.
* * *
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general to test his
deep commitment to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.
Yesterday the commission agreed to once again strongly urge the
federal government to provide legal funds for the student
complainants at the APEC hearings. At the same time the federal
government has hired yet another high-priced lawyer, David Scott,
to its team.
In view of the minister's constant urging to let the commission
do its work, will he now listen to the commissioners, to the
federal court, to his own Liberal colleague from the UBC area and
extend full legal funding to the student complainants at the APEC
hearing?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I await the letter and I would advise the member that we
increased the amount of money available to the PCC for this
inquiry by $650,000.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, for months
now I have been sending a steady stream of letters to the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans outlining the seriousness of the
illegal lobster fishery particularly in St. Mary's Bay. Thousands
of pounds of illegal lobster are caught daily, threatening the
livelihood of registered commercial fisherman.
Can the minister explain why his department has not committed
greater resources toward putting an end to this illegal practice?
Are his hands tied by the lack of existing legislation to
address the native food fishery? If so, when can we expect such
legislation to be introduced?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
In fact on September 17 the Halifax Chronicle Herald
reported that an operation with 45 officers and one dog seized
1,000 pounds of lobster, $10,000, arrested seven people and
seized five vehicles. We are continuing with that type of
enforcement throughout.
I should add for his information that we are hiring 48 new
enforcement officers this year, another 48 next year and we are
beefing up enforcement of fisheries infractions in his own area.
* * *
HOUSING
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation.
Constituents in my riding continue to express grave concerns
about the downloading of federal housing programs to the
government of Mike Harris. What assurances can the minister give
that federally administered co-ops will be maintained by CMHC in
Ontario?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I am
pleased to announce that five provinces and two territories have
already signed agreements to transfer the administration of
social housing.
This new agreement contains a specific clause that protects the
existing agreement. Therefore all the existing agreements will
be protected in this agreement.
The hon. member knows that 50% of the co-op housing in Ontario
is administered and financed by the province. Therefore it is a
system that needs to be discussed in order to avoid duplication.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here is what we have heard today. We have heard the solicitor
general tell two different stories.
We have heard about his friend who admits he has known him for 15
years, and the solicitor general says he did not know who he was.
1500
It is clear that no matter what he intended through this letter
the impression given by what has happened is that he has
compromised the integrity of the PCC. In summary, I ask when
this will minister resign.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I feel very strongly about the issue of civilian
oversight. I have said that for the last few weeks. I will
defend that process here and I will defend it against the hearsay
that is coming from across the floor.
* * *
THE LATE LEONARD JONES
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it looks like a very long time to me now,
but in June this summer I began my career with the Boys and Girls
Club. Len Jones at the time was the mayor of Moncton. I have
known Mr. Jones for a long time. He was a member of the board of
directors of the East End Boys' Club when I was working for the
Moncton Boys and Girls Club.
After working in the Boys and Girls Club for six years I started
the head start program. In those days a lot of politicians said
to me that I would not get the support of the community for the
children because they were two to five years of age. They were
too young. They were not breaking windows and the community
would not support me if I started such a program. I went to
different agencies and they said the same.
However, two politicians said to me “Claudette, go for it”.
Len Jones was one of them. When we started we were in a small
house. We did not have any money. Never did I do anything with
the head start program without Len Jones being there.
Another thing that shows who Len Jones was was when his daughter
Helen went out west. As a community we were shocked that Len
Jones would leave the city of Moncton. We said that he would
never leave because he had given his life to the city as mayor
and as a member of parliament.
I remember my discussion with him. He said “You know,
Claudette, I am a family man. I have always believed in what you
have done for children. My daughter is going out west and she
would like us to move with her”.
He and his wife moved out west to be with their daughter.
1505
Len Jones was there for children. He also believed that every
child in the school system should learn to speak French from
grade 1 up to grade 12. He advocated that.
He was always there for me with the head start program. He
always believed in prevention. I would like to say to his family
that being in the House of Commons I often think of Len Jones. He
had hard battles to win sometimes. Running as an independent was
not easy for him, but he stood for what he believed in. If I
were to say one thing about Len Jones, it is that he was a man of
character.
I thank the House for the chance to speak about Mr. Jones. Like
I said, he was always there for children in the Moncton area.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada and Her Majesty's
Official Opposition I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Leonard Jones.
Mr. Jones, a World War II veteran, lawyer and former mayor of
Moncton, served as Canada's first elected independent member of
parliament from 1974 to 1979. He will always be remembered as a
man who stood by his convictions and who never shied away from
confrontation. He was another Canadian who bravely battled
cancer.
I have learned that his great passions were law and politics. He
was a formidable opponent in the courtroom. Mr. Jones was
Moncton's longest serving mayor. He was first elected as a
councillor in 1957 and only lost one election in his political
career that spanned more than two decades. Mr. Jones supported
Moncton's head start program for children. He is survived by his
wife and long time law partner, his daughter and his sister.
On behalf of all Reform Party members of parliament I extend Mr.
Jones' family our very sincere condolences. Mr. Jones will be
missed by all who had the privilege of knowing him.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of my colleagues I too would like to rise in my place
to honour the memory of Mr. Leonard Jones who served in the
Chamber.
Leonard Jones was known to those of us who did not know him
personally as a somewhat controversial figure. The member who
first spoke showed us a little something about politics that
Canadians often miss: often members of parliament or other
public persons who come to be associated with particular
controversies suffer from having their full humanity hidden in
the caricature that sometimes comes from the controversies.
It moved me to hear that Mr. Jones was involved in the Boys and
Girls Club and that he had a reputation for being very concerned
about the young people of Moncton. That just goes to show us
that we ought not to allow our memories and our perceptions of
people to be clouded by particular controversies.
I join with others in honouring the work that Mr. Jones did in
Moncton, his service to his country in time of war, his
commitment to his principles, and his long service in many
respects to Canada.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I note
the words of the member for Moncton. As the House marks the
passing of Leonard Jones, we in the Progressive Conservative
caucus send our condolences to the Jones family.
It is perhaps appropriate to note that political differences are
left behind when one faces the ultimate mysteries of mortality.
In this place, which has seen radical differences and dramatic
reconciliation over the years, we mark the passing of one who
fought for what he believed.
* * *
1510
THE LATE DONALD MUNRO
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to pay tribute
to a former member who died recently at the age of 82.
Mr. Donald Munro was a very distinguished Canadian who served
his country both in the diplomatic service and in the House. I
knew Don well as he was the candidate who was successful in the
election which followed my resignation from my seat in
Esquimalt—Saanich back in 1972 when I took on the leadership of
the provincial Liberal Party.
Born in Regina, Don was always a very proud westerner. He moved
to Vancouver to finish his education and became a teacher before
he was granted a scholarship to the Sorbonne in Paris by the
French government.
As was common for young men of the day, he quickly signed up
with the armed forces at the outbreak of war, joining the Royal
Canadian Air Force in 1940 and serving as a navigator and later
as an instructor.
After the war he finished his education by completing his
masters in political science at the University of Toronto before
joining the external affairs department in 1946.
His postings included Paris, Ankara, Dublin, Brussels and
Beirut. His postings were as numerous as his interests. He
served as head of the Canadian delegation in Vientiane, Laos.
Following a year with the National Defence College in Kingston,
Don was named ambassador to Costa Rica in 1967. He was
responsible for the neighbouring countries of Nicaragua,
Honduras, El Salvador and Panama. He served with
distinguishment, retiring from diplomatic service in 1972.
Never one to sidestep a challenge, Don sought and won the
Progressive Conservative candidacy in the Esquimalt—Saanich
riding and won in the election of 1972 by a wide margin. The
voters of that constituency obviously thought highly of him and
regarded him as an effective representative because he was
elected three more times in 1974, 1979 and 1980 before retiring
from politics in 1984.
Don Munro was an outstanding Canadian who always acted as a
great spokesman for the people he represented. We extend our
condolences to his wife Lynn and his two stepchildren.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to mark the passing of Donald Munro I first want to
express the sympathy of the members of the Progressive
Conservative caucus to Mrs. Munro and her family on their loss.
Donald was elected to represent the Vancouver Island
constituency of Esquimalt—Saanich as a Progressive Conservative
MP in the general election of 1972 and was successfully
re-elected until his retirement in 1984.
His service to the people of Canada in the House of Commons was
but another chapter in the life of public service. During World
War II he served as an officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Following the war he joined the Department of External Affairs
and served Canada in a number of diplomatic posts, including Laos
and a number of countries in Central America.
All that was but a prelude to his membership in the House of
Commons where he applied his lifetime of professional experience
and put forward his views with skill and candour.
In commemorating the passing of Donald Munro, we recognize not
only one who shared with us the elections of the House but a man
who gave his entire adult life to the service of his country and
his fellow Canadians. He was an example to remember, and I thank
the House for the opportunity to commend him.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party I would like to
commemorate the passing of Donald Munro, a former Canadian
ambassador and member of parliament for the then riding of
Esquimalt—Saanich, in his home at the age of 82 this past
summer.
Mr. Munro was elected in 1972 under the Tory banner and
re-elected in 1974, 1979 and 1980. Born in Regina, he went to
school in Vancouver, graduating in 1939. As the war broke out
he, being a man of with a strong sense of duty and conviction,
decided to enrol in the RCAF and finished the war as a flight
lieutenant.
1515
In 1946 he joined the external affairs department and was posted
to Paris, Ankara, Dublin, Brussels, Beirut and Laos. In 1967 he
was made ambassador to Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El
Salvador and Panama. He then became the diplomat in residence at
Dalhousie University. Don Munro, a man with a strong sense of
conviction and duty, served his country.
He then went to parliament to do the right thing and on numerous
occasions took up positions that were perhaps politically
incorrect at the time but were positions which he felt his
constituents supported. A man of courage and principles, Don
Munro fought for the people, he fought to do the right thing and
he fought to make sure the people of the west were represented
well here in Ottawa.
I first met Don in 1991 after making some speeches on foreign
affairs in Victoria. Although he was retired at the time, he
asked some pointed and constructive questions on international
relations. He was still very much involved and very interested
in the larger world around him, as well as his community.
Throughout his career Mr. Munro fought hard for those
constituents and he fought for Canada. Testimony to this is the
fact that he was re-elected three times to the riding of
Esquimalt—Saanich.
Mr. Munro leaves his wife Lynn and their two stepchildren, the
people of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and Saanich. All the people of
Victoria owe a huge debt of gratitude to Donald Munro and his
family for the many years of service he gave not only to the
people of British Columbia but also to Canadians at large. The
likes of him do not come this way very often. On behalf of the
Reform Party I extend our deepest condolences to his family.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois would like to join other parties in paying tribute to
the former member for Esquimalt—Saanich, Donald Munro, who died
in July at the age of 82.
First elected in 1972, Mr. Munro was a member of the House of
Commons for 12 years. He began his career in 1939 as a teacher.
During World War II he served as a navigator and instructor in
the Canadian Air Force.
After studying political science at university, he was hired by
the Department of External Affairs in 1946, where he enjoyed a
busy diplomatic career, as my colleagues in the House pointed
out a few minutes ago.
I did not have the pleasure of knowing Mr. Munro, but what I
have read tells me that he was an MP whose goal was to serve his
constituents to the best of his ability.
On behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, I offer our
respectful condolences to Mr. Munro's friends and family.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on behalf of the NDP caucus to pay tribute to the memory
of Mr. Donald Munro.
I remember Don Munro personally. He was in the House of Commons
in 1979 when I was first elected. We sat together in this
Chamber for five years. I remember him as an older member of
parliament at that time, as I was one of the younger members. I
remember the courtesy he extended to new members, in particular
to younger members.
He was a person of strong views and strong convictions. At the
time he was one of the few Tory backbenchers from western Canada
who was bilingual. Because of his diplomatic career and his
education he was able to communicate in both official languages
in this House.
I remember him as someone who we would all do well to honour at
this time for his service during the war and for his outstanding
public career. On behalf of the NDP I extend our sincere
condolences to his family.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY IMPLEMENTATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-52. an
act to implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, be
read for the second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the escalating
tensions between India and Pakistan this spring reminded us that
the nuclear arms issue was not resolved, although the cold war
was over.
1520
For more than half a century, in fact, humanity has been living
in constant fear of another holocaust, and we are still sitting
on the powder keg of heavy nuclear armament.
Since this is now a threat from all sides, all possible steps
must be taken to curb proliferation. This is why we are today
debating the act to implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban
Treaty.
Over the years, Canada has played a vital role in the
implementation of various practices to ensure the security of
the human race. Most recently, it has been involved in
developing the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Arms Treaty, and
played a pioneer role in having land mines banned.
Canadian and Quebec public opinion is behind all of the Canadian
government's efforts, and Canada's anti-nuclear action is
supported by a sizeable portion of the population.
An Angus Reid poll released last spring gives us some very clear
indications on this. When respondents were asked whether
nuclear weapons made the world more or less dangerous, three
times as many Canadians and Quebeckers opted for “more
dangerous”. No doubt about it, Canadians and Quebeckers approve
of all initiatives toward nuclear disarmament, including the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty we have before us today.
By voting in favour of the implementation of the comprehensive
test-ban treaty, the Bloc Quebecois feels we are taking another
important step along the path to disarmament.
Furthermore, in recent weeks, two new international instruments
have reached the point of ratification needed for their
implementation and have joined the panoply of agreements that
are bringing us closer to a sustainable peace. I refer to the
anti-personnel mines treaty we have already mentioned and the
treaty banning the use of anti-aircraft weapons.
Once this new treaty is ratified, we must continue to work for
disarmament by ensuring progress in three other areas: the ban
on the production of fissionable material for nuclear arms, the
non-military use of atomic energy and the non-proliferation of
light weapons.
A few weeks ago, Canada's permanent ambassador to the UN for
disarmament was appointed chair of the committee negotiating an
international agreement on the production of fissionable
material.
Within the context of the conference on disarmament, 60
countries are prepared to begin discussions. As we know, the
conference on disarmament is where the chemical weapons
convention and the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty, which
we are discussing today, were negotiated. If the conference
manages to ban fissionable materials for nuclear weapons, we
will have taken another step toward nuclear disarmament.
I also want to raise a problem frequently raised in this House,
which an agreement on the banning of fissionable materials for
nuclear weapons would never resolve. It is the use by the
military of technology developed for civilian purposes.
Canada's behaviour is not entirely blameless in this matter, and
while it denies it, our hands are not totally clean.
Although Canada never intended to become involved in nuclear
proliferation, its atomic energy program has unfortunately been
used to create bombs.
According to information from the Canadian Nuclear Association,
India apparently has enough plutonium to build 455 atomic bombs,
if all the plutonium available to it is added up, whether it
comes from Canadian reactors or was acquired specifically to
build bombs.
Given that 8 of the 10 Indian nuclear reactors are Candu
reactors, we should take a look at our role as exporter of
nuclear technology.
1525
The only nuclear reactor in Pakistan is a Candu and, according
to some new data, Pakistan may have the capacity to manufacture
100 nuclear bombs.
If that is the case, should Canada not take action and look
further into this to prevent our nuclear energy program from
being used for military purposes? I shall not get into the whole
issue of transporting and stocking radioactive waste here in
Canada, which is another problem Canada will have to address
very soon.
Finally, the signatories will also have to put an end to the
conventional arms race, which makes for a growing trade in
developing countries, at the expense of economic, social and
cultural development.
Let us bear in mind that, in the 1980s, export of light and
heavy weaponry to the third world represented 70% of the
industrialized nations' total foreign trade. The international
community clearly has a responsibility toward the have not
nations that have grown poorer so that industrialized nations
and arms lobbies could get even richer.
In the 1990s, in spite of a substantial drop in the export of
heavy weaponry to developing countries, light weapons have been
proliferating at an alarming rate. One analysis shows the
following:
From 1980 to 1995, 10 African states with a total population of
150 million were torn by civil war. The death toll was between
3.8 and 6.9 million, almost all victims of light weapons—Western
leaders are apparently more concerned by arms stockpiling in
third-world hot spots, where they are asked to send peacekeeping
forces. On the one hand, rich countries try to put an end to
conflicts while, on the other hand, they continue to supply
weapons to the belligerents.
Time has come for this contradiction to stop.
Again, however, action is required and there are solutions. The
ratification of the land mines treaty is one example that gives
us hope that a multilateral small arms agreement will be signed.
This summer, one of the concerns the Minister of Foreign Affairs
voiced about the security of humankind had to do with the small
arms threat. I urge the minister not just to work with NGOs, but
to put pressure on the countries that import and export small
arms in order to prevent their proliferation.
Humanity wants to be solidly on the road to peace. It is with
conviction and great hope that I support Bill C-52, an act to
implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
If Canada becomes a member of the UN Security Council this week,
the Bloc Quebecois hopes it will keep its guard up.
It would be unfortunate if Canada were to be content to point to
its track record as a defender of peace and human rights.
Furthermore, current events provide us with frequent examples of
the dangers of resting on one's laurels.
In this year marking the 50th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, much attention has been given to
the role of a Canadian, John. P. Humphrey, in writing it. But a
recent article by jurist William Schabas reminds us that Canada
very nearly abstained from voting in favour of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948. Canada's good
reputation must be earned anew every day.
Canada must actively demonstrate its commitment to peace and
human rights.
The Bloc Quebecois sees the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty
as another step on the road to the security of humanity and
lasting world peace. But it is not the last, as we have seen.
1530
I would go even further and say that Canada must use all the
means and tribunals at its disposal in order to banish nuclear
weapons from the face of the earth, before life itself is
extinguished on this planet, accidentally or otherwise.
Here, as in many other areas, Canada must never stop
demonstrating its courage, will and conviction if it is to
continue to live up to its reputation. Canadians and Quebeckers
expect nothing less.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise in the House today to support Bill C-52, an
act to implement the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
The debate on this bill and the fact that Canada is supporting
the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty is a very positive step
we are taking as a nation. I have to say as someone who has been
involved in the peace movement for a long time like many other
citizens in Canada, any small step we take toward disarmament and
nuclear disarmament is a sign of hope and optimism for the future
of our world.
Unfortunately the reality is that we still face a very desperate
situation. We now have eight nations in the world and maybe more
which contain nuclear weapons and nuclear capability. We know
these nations: Russia, the United States, France, China, the
United Kingdom, Israel, India and Pakistan. Even today after the
cold war and unfortunately when many people think that the threat
of nuclear weapons has been abolished, we still have in existence
on our planet 34,000 nuclear weapons. The threat is something
which is still very present and very grave.
These unquestionably are weapons of mass destruction. They are
weapons of mass destruction not only in terms of our environment.
We know the destruction caused by a nuclear accident on a
Trident submarine or any other accident would be catastrophic to
our environment. More than that, we also know that these weapons
pose the greatest danger to civilian populations and to our
planet as a whole. We have to be aware of and realize that this
danger is still very present.
We also know that the cost of maintaining this vast military
industrial complex that has produced these weapons of mass
destruction is something that is literally eating away the
earth's resources.
I just came back from a mission to Southeast Asia with the
Canadian Council for International Co-operation. I witnessed
firsthand the devastation of the impact of the economic crisis in
Indonesia and Thailand. I could not help but think that on this
planet Earth we have the resources, we have the capability, we
have the strength if we have the political will to ensure that
there is not unemployment, that there is not hunger and that
there are not children on the streets.
In Indonesia 100 million people are living below the poverty
line. If we had our priorities straight and if they were aimed
and directed toward funding and meeting human needs instead of
the stockpiling, storage and activation of nuclear weapons, then
children would not be dying, children would not be desperate and
going without education and health care. Families would have
adequate housing and people would have jobs.
1535
The reality is that although this is a very good step and the
nuclear test ban treaty is a very positive sign, unfortunately
progress has been very slow. In 1968 the non-proliferation treaty
was signed but the reality is that we have just gone through the
last year where we have seen India and Pakistan conduct nuclear
tests. There was outrage and condemnation around the world.
Article VI of the 1968 non-proliferation treaty states:
Each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursue
negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to
cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to
nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective international control.
The nuclear weapon states have not lived up to their end of the
bargain. This aspect of the treaty which passed in 1968 has not
come to fruition. The United States and other countries have not
shown the leadership which is necessary to ensure that article VI
is actually implemented.
One of the things we want today in this House is that we want
the Canadian government to show leadership instead of just
adopting its me too status, as we have seen so often. We want the
Canadian government to speak out at the United Nations and other
international forums and call on nuclear weapon states to abide
by and to fulfil article VI of the non-proliferation treaty.
If that happens, the dynamic in the international situation
would change. Nations such as India and Pakistan would have some
faith and respect that the nuclear weapon states are actually
committed to taking real steps toward nuclear disarmament.
One of the issues that needs to be debated today is not just the
passage of this bill and the fact that all members of the House
are supporting this bill but we must also look at what else
Canada could do to ensure that there is a general and complete
nuclear disarmament.
Unfortunately Canada still provides airspace and low level
flight ranges for nuclear bomber training. Unfortunately we still
host nuclear powered and potentially nuclear armed submarines in
Canadian waters.
Of course, as it is the subject of many debates in this House,
we know politically and diplomatically that Canada has
consistently supported U.S. and NATO nuclear policies, including,
if we can believe it in 1998, a policy that is still on the books
which is the option of the first use of nuclear weapons.
That is really something which is quite horrific, and the
Canadian people have stated that over and over again. In fact, a
recent Angus Reid poll showed the commitment and the strength of
the Canadian people. They want to see the abolition of nuclear
weapons.
When it comes to Canada's complicity in the arms trade in not
fulfilling article VI of the non-proliferation treaty, we can see
that although this is a good step today, we still have a long,
long way to go. That is what we are calling on the Canadian
government to do here today.
Canada should stop its Candu reactor sales, for example, to
countries with poor human rights records such as China and
Turkey. Canada could become a nuclear weapons free zone.
During the 1980s at the height of the peace movement in Canada,
many citizens groups across the country worked very hard to
convince municipal authorities and local jurisdictions to adopt
nuclear weapons free zones in Canada. This is something that
could be done on a national basis.
Another leadership position Canada could take is it could give
notice to terminate the agreement between Canada and the U.S. in
establishing the torpedo testing range at Nanoose Bay in the
Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. This is something that is
very close to me and my involvement in the peace movement in B.C.
The citizens of that area have worked long and hard to put
pressure on the Canadian government to terminate that agreement
so that we are not using our waters and our facilities for the
testing of those submarines.
1540
Something else that is important is that at the UN, Canada must
vote in favour of multilateral negotiations that would lead to an
early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. It is simply
not good enough to say that we have a comprehensive test ban
treaty and the non-proliferation treaty. We need to see on the
international stage that Canada is taking the lead at the United
Nations and is not blindly following the position of the United
States.
It would be a wonderful thing if Canada would join the new
agenda coalition of middle power states that are calling on the
nuclear weapon states to make an unequivocal commitment to enter
and to conclude negotiations leading to the elimination of
nuclear weapons. This new agenda coalition is a very significant
development that has taken place in the last few months. It is
something Canada should be part of. We should not be opposing
it. We should be an active participant in the new agenda
coalition.
Canadians have a sense of what it is that we can do when we have
the political will to do it. We only have to look at the
leadership Canada showed on land mines to know that as a middle
power we can generate the momentum, we can generate the
solidarity of the NGO community as well as various nations to
work together to produce a land mines convention. The same can
be done to abolish nuclear weapons. This is what the NDP
believes Canada's role should be. We believe that very firmly.
I want to speak about the role of citizens in the peace movement
and in their work for disarmament. Governments take actions but
often they are as a result of the work at the grassroots level,
the pressure that has come from local communities at a provincial
level and at a national level. A saying often used in the peace
movement is that if the people lead, eventually their leaders
will follow.
One of the things I want to do today is pay tribute to the peace
groups in Canada that have tirelessly committed themselves and
their very limited resources to a campaign and a movement for the
abolition of nuclear weapons. Canada is very involved in the
campaign Abolition 2000 through the Canadian Network to Abolish
Nuclear Weapons. That organization has been instrumental in
galvanizing community support and keeping this issue alive,
keeping it before the Canadian government and elected
representatives.
Recently it had a postcard campaign and distributed 10,000
postcards. It called on the Prime Minister to immediately call
an emergency meeting of all states and negotiate a treaty to
abolish all nuclear weapons. The organization points out in its
postcard campaign that in 1996 the World Court ruled that the use
of nuclear weapons is illegal. It also points out the recent
Angus Reid poll that indicated that more than 90% of Canadians
support nuclear disarmament.
That is the work of the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear
Weapons. It has worked very hard in an international campaign to
bring about the sustained pressure not just on our government but
on other governments to fulfil the obligations of article VI of
the non-proliferation treaty.
The July 1996 ruling from the World Court gave momentum to the
movement. The World Court ruled that the use of nuclear weapons
violates international and humanitarian law. It was a very
significant ruling.
There is another thing I would like to draw attention to in
terms of citizen involvement. In the past year in my province of
British Columbia our local peace coalition, an organization of
more than 200 from labour, churches, peace groups, communities
and women's organizations, called End the Arms Race, organized a
citizens weapons inspection team.
1545
In February of this year I was very proud to be part of a
delegation that went down to Bangor, Washington, just south of
Vancouver and south of Seattle in the state of Washington where a
very large U.S. naval base is located and where the Trident
submarines are located.
While there we conducted a citizens weapons inspection during
the midst of yet another escalating crisis in the Persian Gulf
where our Canadian government was prepared to follow the American
military intervention. I remember the debate in the House in
February when my colleagues in the NDP spoke out strongly. We
called on the Canadian government to take an independent course
and to seek a diplomatic resolution instead of military
intervention and military threat in a region that has suffered so
badly already.
By organizing the citizens weapons inspection team we wanted to
draw attention to the fact that the most significant weapons of
mass destruction on the globe are actually located to the south
in the United States. We visited Bangor, Washington, and
attempted to gain access to the site to do a citizens inspection
and to point out to the commander of the base that stockpiling
and storage of these weapons on the base was in violation of
international law.
I flew over the huge site in a small airplane and did a visual
inspection of the vast bunkers and silos that contain weapons of
mass destruction. It was a very eerie feeling to fly over the
base and to see the immense power and resources contained at
Bangor, Washington. These resources were ready to be unleashed
at a moment's notice because the U.S. still has a policy of first
option in the use of nuclear weapons.
In August 1998 I travelled with a group of citizens to Groton,
Connecticut, which is the home of the Electric Boat Company, a
U.S. corporation that produces the delivery system for weapons of
mass destruction. It produces the Trident submarine. We wanted
to draw attention to the fact that these weapons of mass
destruction were located very close to us and were in convention
of international law.
When we went to Groton, Connecticut, we were also very fortunate
to visit the United Nations and to meet with the under secretary
general of disarmament. We had a very positive meeting with him
and discussed the necessity for ordinary people to be involved in
the process.
It is the united voice of people from across Canada and around
the globe that has pressured the United Nations and their own
domestic governments into adopting the various conventions we now
see as a small sign of the progress being made. I was very proud
to be part of those delegations that included Peter Coombe,
president of End the Arms Race; Murray Dobbin of the Council of
Canadians; Edward Schmitt and Phyllis Creighton of the Anglican
Church of Canada; and David Morgan, a very well know peace
activist who is president of Veterans Against Nuclear Arms.
It is a testament to the work of these organization that we can
stand in the House today and feel a sense of optimism and hope in
the implementation of Bill C-52 respecting the comprehensive
nuclear test ban treaty that Canada will have taken at least
another small step toward the abolition of nuclear weapons. We
need to do much more and Canada's record has not been great in
this area.
As my colleague from Burnaby and other members of the NDP have
done, I call on the Canadian government to show the leadership
that it did on the land mines, to show the commitment to abide by
article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty, and to live up to the
court ruling of the World Court for all to say once and for all
that we can rid the world of nuclear weapons. We can divert the
billions of dollars expended on infrastructure for nuclear
weapons and refocus those funds that are desperately needed to
meet our human needs, not just here in Canada but around the
world.
1550
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
extremely pleased to speak on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-ban
Treaty Implementation Act. Part of my great enthusiasm harks
back to my youth, for when I was 18 or 19 I was very much
involved in the peace movement.
From those years I have always retained my conviction that, if
we must participate in international life—and heaven knows we
must—we need to set ourselves the objective of using our powers
of persuasion within major multilateral forums to convince
others through the strength of our convictions, the strength of
our arguments.
What does a bill like this one tell us? That we will not accept
nuclear power as one of the means to maintain international
order.
Rising above all partisan differences, it must be said that
these ideas have support in Quebec, and in English Canada as
well, we must acknowledge. The hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry has reminded us in caucus on a number of
occasions that Canada was a very early signatory of the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty, as well as the Limited Test Ban Treaty
of the early sixties. All this to indicate to you that these
ideas are part of our political community, for which we should
rejoice.
But where will an act and a treaty such as these lead us? We
will have an opportunity to offer a bit of an explanation on the
mechanisms.
The act and the treaty are valuable as a model, for we are well
aware that some states still have nuclear weapons today, and
others are being tempted, spontaneously—or so one might think,
anyway—and if there were no pressure from the international
community, would conclude that there is some security in having
nuclear arms, in continuing to do research and to increase the
sophistication of prototypes. This is a threat to international
peace, directly and indirectly.
One cannot, of course, avoid thinking of India, a place I have
had the pleasure of visiting. One does not need to be long in
India to realize that many other needs need to be addressed and
other resources developed, rather than investing in nuclear
weapons production or related technologies. Then, of course,
there is Pakistan, and some other countries such as North Korea.
By becoming a party to this international treaty, Canada is
making a commitment to contribute financially to its
implementation, but also to assume three specific
responsibilities which I want to mention, even though I am not
as knowledgeable as the members of the parliamentary committee,
who worked really hard on this issue. We should explain to those
who are listening to us today that the signing of this treaty by
Canada, as one of the 44 countries expected to sign it, means of
course that we pledge to criminalize nuclear testing in Canada.
We also have an obligation to report any chemical explosion
greater than 300 tonnes TNT-equivalent. Any breach of this
obligation will be considered to be an indictable offence. Of
course, anyone who causes a nuclear explosion, as well as that
person's associates, will face a jail sentence.
It is interesting to see that this treaty will also provide us
with more sophisticated means to detect what could be called a
nuclear potential.
1555
Canada will take part in a vast international monitoring system
that will rely on a number of networks and on countries that
will allocate resources to make it possible to not only monitor
but also detect, locate and measure nuclear explosions.
One can see the preventive nature of this international
monitoring system, which will use 321 monitoring stations.
Canada will do its share, since about 15 of these stations will
operate on its territory.
This is interesting, because an idea is turning into reality.
This is cause for celebration for those of us who are involved
in the peace movement.
This bears repeating. Quebec has traditionally been very
strongly in favour of denuclearization, in favour of making sure
no one in the international community can use the nuclear threat
for coercive purposes.
I remember being in Montreal—in my early twenties, which is in
sharp contrast with members whose names I shall withhold—when the
city was declared a nuclear free zone. I am very pleased with
the fact that Montreal was one of the first cities in the world
to make this kind of commitment, and I think we have every
reason to be proud of that.
We are debating nuclear weapons today, but this is an
opportunity to make connections with the whole military
industry.
As I recall, and my colleagues will also recall this, one of the
first actions taken by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, who is
now the Premier of Quebec and will be for a long time—this is our
strong belief, and I can see my colleague nodding in agreement,
he being one of the finest minds of his generation, I might say
without fear of exaggerating, and above all an extremely wise
statesman—was to appoint me, the young member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, a dashing idealist, happy to be here while
not losing sight of the need to defend the interests of Quebec,
as the critic for conversion of the military industry to
civilian uses.
It all hangs together. Today, 44 designated governments are
being asked by the international community to ratify a treaty
that will ban nuclear testing.
In broader terms, we must strive to ensure that the defence
industry, which has great influence in certain governments, will
quietly convert to the use of civilian technologies.
I have worked very hard, and not alone because you know how
ineffectual we are on our own, but the Bloc Quebecois as a whole
quickly understood that in one very modest way, aware of the
more international stakes, we could change things in our own
communities by putting pressure on nuclear arms and defence
technology producers to convert.
It is important for us as members of parliament to make this a
concern, because we know very well that in countries where
governments could effect the sort of conversion I am talking
about, it is not done without government help. For example, the
United States is resolutely following this route, with the help
of the government.
When you produce gunpowder, munitions or other items related to
military technology, you need public support to effect such a
conversion, to scout out new markets, to change production
systems and to come up with a better use for civilian purposes.
1600
It all hangs together. The issue of nuclear bans and control and
the nuclear test ban are an extension of the campaign we in the
Bloc Quebecois have waged in order to reduce the use of defence
technologies.
I was saying three obligations would ensue from Canada's
ratification of the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty. I
think it also has to be said that Canada, like Quebec, has a
responsibility to encourage the designated countries to make a
commitment quickly in their national parliaments to ratify this
treaty, which must soon take effect.
It is not insignificant that some 20 states have already
ratified this treaty.
An hon. member: Twenty-one.
Mr. Réal Ménard: The hon. member tells me it is 21. Is that
right?
It is that very quest for accuracy that means she always has the
latest information available. What a wonderful team we are.
Let me hasten to add that 21 states have ratified the treaty. A
number of these are developing countries. Others are so-called
developed countries. I will list them quickly, so that members
will know what we are talking about.
They are: Jordan, Germany, Grenada—no pun intended, Spain,
Brazil, Australia, France, the United Kingdom, Austria,
Slovakia, Peru, Mongolia, Japan, Ecuador and the Fiji Islands.
We must speak plainly today for the benefit of those listening.
This is truly an international movement. It is quite different
from the situation in 1963 when the first partial test-ban treaty
was signed, although that was important in its own way, make no
mistake. Looking back, however, there is no denying that the
1963 treaty, with its much shorter list of signatories, was much
more limited in scope than the treaty we are discussing might
be. The same is true of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Today, as parliamentarians, we can be part of a movement that
will be echoed in several other parliaments, in press releases
and in communities, and that will send the clear message that we
will not accept the use of nuclear arms as a means to express
one's ideas or to participate in international politics. This is
an extremely important step.
Mr. Speaker, as a person who has a great deal of experience and
a wealth of knowledge—as confirmed by your grey hair—you will
remember that about 30 years ago, when I was a university
student—it was not that long ago, as I am barely into my 30s—as
are our young pages, we talked about the balance of terror.
That was a reality.
There were various schools of thought concerning the
international situation, including the notion of flexible
response and that of the balance of terror. At the time, this
was a preconceived notion in the international community.
The Minister of Public Works will remember that. It was a
preconceived notion about the possibility, for certain states,
to own nuclear weapons and, ultimately, to use them. What
pacifists like the hon. member for Laval East and myself feared
was of course that these states would not spend so much money
merely to stockpile nuclear weapons, without thinking of using
them some day.
1605
That is why we said it did not make sense not to have
international controls, moratoriums and inspection systems.
The international inspection system is not the only major
feature of the treaty that we, as parliamentarians, will help
promote. There will be some 300 sites throughout the world that
can detect, analyze and process all sophisticated systems and
movements that may be linked to nuclear weapons.
Not only is this system going to exist—and I am told it will cost
$6 to $7 million for Canada's 15 or so stations—but as well there
will be the possibility, if one of the signatory countries
commits a violation, for pressure to be brought to bear, so that
other signatories can call for a system of inspection. If there
is a refusal to co-operate, the case can be taken as far as the
security council.
It is more or less in keeping with Montesquieu's principle of
equilibrium that the international community will have the
ability to pressure recalcitrant states and those who refuse to
honour their signature.
Let us remember, and let us take pride in this and promote it:
this is a treaty to prevent the use of nuclear testing as a
provocative symbol of a nation's power. That is nothing to be
sneezed at.
Now, we must be clear, this is not something that happens
automatically. There are a number of mechanisms that must be
adhered to for enforcement of the treaty. What we are
discussing here is a multilateral approach involving a number of
states. The treaty will come into effect 180 days after
ratification by a certain number of states.
First, there is a reference to 44 designated states. It must be
pointed out that Canada is one of these. It has been said
already that 21 have signed, to be exact, with more to come.
Canada and Quebec must play a persuasive and promotional role,
and make their voices heard so as to encourage countries like
Vietnam, the Ukraine, Turkey and Switzerland to follow suit.
Switzerland has long been a model of a peaceful country active
in international relations. It had a hands-off policy while being
present anywhere major events were taking place. Many in this
place have much to learn from this. South Africa and many other
countries also provided learning experiences.
This was the train of events. There are five nuclear powers and
a number of nations that decided on their own, probably with a
little pressure from the international community, not to join
the nuclear club. France is a case in point. The French are our
neighbours across the Atlantic; they are like-minded people.
However, we must not forget that, until recently, France was
involved in nuclear testing. It is refreshing, interesting and
comforting to think that France, along with four other nuclear
powers, has now agreed to sign the treaty.
I am thrilled to see that, as parliamentarians, we can
contribute to a better world. This debate today is about the
future, not the past. We can help build a better world knowing
that, in a democracy, the best way to support or defeat an idea
is to put forward a better one. This can only be done in a
constitutional state, and through persuasion. Persuasion is this
capacity to debate and exchange ideas in parliament and any
other elected forum, where the power of words is what gives rise
to policies.
1610
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Tobique-Mactaquac, Royal Canadian Mint; the hon.
member for Frontenac—Mégantic, BC Mine in Black Lake.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate. It
is not often we get to talk about the question of nuclear testing
or the whole issue of nuclear weapons. I welcome the opportunity
to do so. We certainly do not intend to obstruct the passage of
this particular bill. I think all parties in the House are
agreed that it should pass with dispatch.
Nevertheless, it does provide an opportunity to comment on a
very pressing and urgent matter and that is the future of the
planet. If current conditions are allowed to persist a false
sense of safety which a lot of people acquired as a result of the
end of the cold war may come to a horrible end when we realize
that we actually live in a world that is arguably much more
dangerous than the world that we rightly perceived as dangerous
during the cold war.
As a member of my particular generation I have perhaps been more
sensitive to this issue than some others. I am a baby boomer. I
am part of the post-Hiroshima generation. I was born in the
fifties and was exposed as a child in western Canada to all the
fallout from American testing in the northwestern United States,
the consequences of which we are still learning about through
studies that come forward. Most recently a study came forward
with respect to this particular issue.
I remember very well being a grade 6 student at Westview
Elementary in Transcona in 1962 when the Cuban missile crisis was
upon us. I remember going to school that afternoon, after having
been home for lunch, knowing that sometime in the early afternoon
the Russian ships would meet the American blockade. It was
uncertain whether that would be the end of the world. At least
that was the way it was seen, that it would be the beginning of a
nuclear conflagration which would destroy the human race. It is
something that has always stuck with me.
As children we experienced terror. We practised bombing
exercises where we would hide under our desks. We learned how to
peel bananas because that was the only kind of food we would be
able to eat, as everything else would be radioactive.
I say all this by way of being very grateful in many respects
that my own children have not had to experience the nearness and
the proximity of nuclear weapons and nuclear war in that way. But
having said that, the fact remains that their future and the
future of the human prospect is every bit as much in peril today
as it was then. It is just that we have convinced ourselves that
this is no longer the case.
There are many more nuclear weapons and many more powerful
nuclear weapons in the world today than there were when I was
that grade 6 child worrying about the destruction of the human
race. There is much less control over the nuclear weapons that
exist in the world today than there was in 1962 when I was having
my first experience with nuclear terror.
What we need to do today is say yes. Let us ratify the
comprehensive test ban treaty, but let us realize that the real
task for the human race and for the planet is to abolish nuclear
weapons entirely, once and for all, and seize the moment which is
now before us after the end of the cold war to do so. If we do
not do it soon we will live in a world in which nuclear weapons
will have proliferated all across the world.
1615
It will not only be India and Pakistan. It will be country
after country after country acquiring nuclear weapons capability
as a way of saying they have status in the world, as a way of
saying they want to be powerful players in the world. This kind
of nuclear technology is more and more available as a result of
the end of the cold war and the way it ended, which is to say as
a result of the rather chaotic disintegration of the Soviet Union
and the way in which nuclear technology, technicians and
equipment have become available on the black market and
officially.
We live in a very dangerous world. I believe the Canadian
government should be showing a lot more leadership than it is in
trying to get members of the nuclear club to face up to their
responsibilities in this critical historical moment.
We belong to NATO and in NATO we have Britain, France and the
United States, three of the more powerful members of the nuclear
club. We also have Russia which is affiliated with NATO in the
NATO-Russia Council. We have a context in which real moral
pressure, and ultimately more moral than political pressure,
could be put on these members of the nuclear club to do what is
right now for all time and for all human beings that will come
into existence in the future and whose potential existence is
threatened at this time by inaction.
There was a great deal of self-righteousness in the House and
across the land when India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons.
To some extent that outrage was justified. However in another
way it was not. In another way it was a form of hypocrisy in the
sense that the NATO countries and anyone else who as part of the
nuclear club pointed the finger at India and Pakistan were acting
in a hypocritical way if they were not willing to entertain the
notion of total nuclear disarmament, of the abolition of nuclear
weapons.
In the absence of a commitment by the existing nuclear club to
do so, it seems to me that India, Pakistan and other countries to
follow will have an argument which I feel they should be deprived
of. They can only be deprived of that argument if the members of
the nuclear club act appropriately.
Canada is part of that club. We make a big deal about how we do
not have nuclear weapons. However, we have been part of this
thing from the beginning, from the Manhattan project on. We have
also been part of it through our own nuclear industry, the export
of reactors, and our general commitment to nuclear technology
even though we always say it is for peaceful purposes.
We have some repenting and rethinking to do on this. We have an
opportunity to show some leadership. I would certainly hope we
would do so and do so soon for the sake of the people to follow
us.
Nuclear weapons are just a form of warfare that we deplore when
we see it in microcosm. When we see civilians in Kosovo or
anywhere else being tortured, killed, having their houses burned
and their homes destroyed, we think that is terrible, despicable
and evil. We want something to be done about that and something
should be.
However, what is nuclear war except a massive hostage taking of
the civilian populations of other countries, basically saying
that we would do on a scale which is unimaginable what we find
contemptible and disgusting on a small scale? How have we
managed to do this to ourselves in our imagination that we can
counsel as realpolitik, as good strategic thinking, the wholesale
destruction of the planet and entire civilian populations when we
reject this on a much smaller scale? Somehow it does not strike
us the same way in both cases, and that is unacceptable.
1620
I would close by recalling the words of George F. Kennan, a
distinguished American diplomat, a cold war diplomat, who
said—and I am paraphrasing because I do not have the quote with
me—something to the effect that the intention of the west, or
for that matter anyone else, to destroy creation, to put at risk
the future of planet earth, the human prospect and the lives of
all the non-human creatures that also exist on this planet, is
nothing more than the ultimate blasphemy offered up to God,
saying we reject your creation; we reject our role as creatures;
and we are going to set ourselves up not as gods but in this case
as demons.
Who would even think, for the sake of a particular civilization,
for the sake of a particular economic system or for the sake of a
particular strategic stance, of destroying the human prospect? It
is a blasphemy and something I hope the human race will very soon
erase from its midst.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent to deal with the bill in committee of the whole
now.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by
unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr.
McClelland in the chair)
The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. House in committee
of the whole on Bill C-52, an act to implement the comprehensive
nuclear test ban treaty.
Shall Clause 2 carry?
1625
(On clause 2)
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Chairman, I have a question for the minister. This clause
includes a reference to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty
signed in New York in September 1996.
The minister will know that one of the provisions of that treaty
is a commitment in article 6 by nuclear weapons states to move
toward complete prohibition of nuclear weapons.
The minister will also know that later this fall a resolution is
coming before the United Nations General Assembly from the new
agenda coalition including South Africa, Brazil, Egypt, Ireland,
Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia and Sweden. That resolution will
be urging the nuclear weapons states to proceed to an early
conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.
Last year Canada chose not to support this resolution. Will
Canada show leadership this year and respond to the appeal by
South African President Nelson Mandela to Canada and other
countries, and will indeed support this very important
resolution?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, when the minister of foreign affairs from Ireland
was in Canada in the last two days we had the opportunity to
discuss this matter with him.
We indicated that we had to see the exact wording. They have
not finalized the exact wording of the resolution. Once that is
finalized, we will have further discussions with the group of
eight.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
(Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 7)
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Chairman, the minister spoke eloquently earlier today about the
importance of Canada's leadership in this area, particularly
about accelerating the movement of nuclear weapons states to make
a commitment to get rid of nuclear weapons.
What action is the minister prepared to undertake to the House
to encourage NATO as part of its strategic concept review, which
I believe is due in April 1999, to show more leadership and more
vision in this area and particularly to encourage NATO to revisit
the issue of the first use policy of nuclear weapons?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member will know, about a year ago we
addressed a reference to the standing committee on foreign
affairs to look at the question of nuclear weapons policy. Part
of that reference included the consideration of how it would
apply within our NATO obligations.
We are very much looking forward to the assessment the committee
has made after quite extensive consultation with Canadians. I
think it would be premature for me to make a judgment till I have
had the opportunity to hear from the committee, which I cherish
and treasure in terms of its findings and recommendations.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
(Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to)
[Translation]
(Clause 10)
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-52, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing, in the
French version, line 26 on page 6 with the following:
He said: Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Quebecois proposed this
amendment, which would make a very minor change in the French
version of the bill by replacing the word “observation” with the
word “exécution”, which is more appropriate in French.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Centre-Sud, Lib): We agree with
the amendment.
1630
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to remind the House
that the purpose of the amendment is to improve the French
version of the provision.
The minister seems to be in agreement. This brings the French
more into line with all the other provisions.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, before adopting the clause, I
would like to put a question to the minister about the national
authority.
This morning, while the Reform Party member was addressing this
issue, he claimed that the costs of implementing the treaty and
creating this national authority would be exorbitant.
He mentioned that over $8 million would have to be set aside for
implementation.
I would like the minister to tell us whether that is the case
and if he considers this amount reasonable.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for the question.
We do not envision that any new staff would be drawn into the
authority. Staff would come from existing departments in those
areas. There could be some cost in terms of international
obligations but there would be no additional new staff. The
question of some kind of burgeoning bureaucracy simply does not
apply.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, Britain
decided to do it under national defence rather than have a
separate authority. Could the minister tell us why he has chosen
to set up a separate authority rather than put it under another
department?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, there are really three
departments with an interest and an obligation under the act, the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the
Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Health. We
felt it would be better to provide a consortium of activities
that would provide a certain unified approach as opposed to
simply having one department and then having to borrow. It would
not require additional person years. They would be assigned from
the departments themselves to work in the authority.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 10 as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause 10, as amended, agreed to)
[Translation]
(Clause 11 agreed to)
[English]
(On clause 12)
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Chairman, I have a question for the minister. This article
refers to the Minister of Health. My question is about an issue
that has a profound impact on the environment and the health of
Canadians, particularly those of us in British Columbia. It
concerns the continued testing of nuclear arms and nuclear
powered submarines at the Nanoose testing range in British
Columbia.
Does the minister not recognize the very serious concerns of
British Columbians about the continued use of the testing base at
Nanoose Bay? Will he not give serious consideration to giving
notice, as permitted under the provisions of the agreement
between Canada and the United States, to terminate that agreement
as a concrete manifestation of this government's concern about
the potential impact of nuclear powered submarines and
potentially nuclear armed submarines in Canadian waters?
1635
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge there is no evidence of any nuclear
spillage coming from the test range at Nanoose.
Submarines in that area are self-contained and highly monitored
in terms of whatever radioactivity may emit from the area. There
is no evidence from anything that I have been able to gather that
suggested there is an environmental pollution problem.
Regarding what may happen eventually in terms of Nanoose Bay, we
have a reciprocal agreement with the United States on testing
facilities in these areas. At this point in time the agreement
is under operation and I see no reason for changing that.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief
supplementary to the minister on the same issue.
The minister has referred to the environmental consequences of
the Nanoose testing range. I want to ask the minister whether he
is prepared to table with the foreign affairs committee any
environmental assessments that have been done on the impact of
this testing.
I know one of the concerns that the Nanoose conversion campaign
has and many British Columbians who have looked at this range
have is precisely that it seems difficult to get at any
comprehensive environmental assessment of the impact of the
range.
Will the minister undertake to make available to the foreign
affairs committee and through that committee to British
Columbians the results of any environmental assessments that have
been done of the range?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, that would normally
fall under the purview of my colleague, the Minister of National
Defence. I will enquire with the Minister of National Defence to
see what kind of studies they might have and see if they are
publicly available.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 12 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause 12 agreed to)
(Clauses 13 to 23 inclusive agreed to)
(On Clause 24:)
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-52, in clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 6 to
9 on page 12 with the following:
Amendment to Schedule
24. The minister shall cause any amendment to the Treaty to be
laid before each House of Parliament not later than fifteen days
after it has been adopted by the Amendment Conference. The
instrument of acceptance of the amendment by Canada shall not be
tabled until the amendment has been approved by the House of
Commons. Following the tabling of the instrument of acceptance by
Canada, the minister shall, by order, amend the schedule
accordingly and shall cause the order to be laid before each
House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which
that House is sitting after the order is made.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, we proposed a second amendment to this bill, which
would require the minister to table the amendment in both Houses
so that Parliament could pass it before the treaty was signed.
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to quickly
suggest that this amendment, because it creates a very distinct
departure in the way treaties come about at the present time and
that it is a precedent of course for treaties in the future, is
really and truly beyond the scope of this bill. I would submit
that as such it is out of order.
1640
The Deputy Chairman: The amendment as presented is in
order to be presented. If it is the pleasure of the committee to
vote the amendment down, so be it, but the amendment is in order
to be received.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, in November of last year, when
the House was debating the bill to implement the land mines
treaty, I moved a similar amendment, and we debated it with the
minister and a number of members. I would not agree that it is
out of order and I would like this to be debated today.
The minister will recall that last year, when we were debating
the bill to implement the land mines treaty, we introduced a
similar amendment. Although we recognize that this amendment
would change the way treaties are concluded, we still think it
would be useful to raise this point today, as a second bill is
being introduced in the current session of Parliament.
We in the Bloc Quebecois think it important to democratize the
process Canada follows in concluding its treaties by calling
upon the House of Commons to debate treaties, including amending
treaties, like the one we are being asked to implement through
the legislative process today, before Canada signs them and
agrees to be bound by them.
Treaties today are of such importance they must now be examined
and discussed by the House of Commons and by Parliament.
I would like to point out to the minister and my colleagues here
that the practice in most of the governments of the
Commonwealth, which share the parliamentary tradition of this
House, is gradually evolving, be it in Australia, New Zealand
or, more recently still, in the United Kingdom itself, where
Parliament is much more closely involved than the House of
Commons here in Canada.
We are proposing this amendment to initiate a practice that
should be applied not only to amending treaties, but to all
bilateral or multilateral treaties signed by Canada.
In our opinion, it is not sufficient that ministers—including
the Minister for International Trade, and more so than the
Minister of Foreign Affairs—involve the foreign affairs
committee in the debate on certain treaties, as was done in the
past with the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, or now with
a treaty that Canada intends to sign with the European Free
Trade Association.
1645
It was barely a few days ago that the parliamentary secretary to
the Minister for International Trade asked the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs to take part in the debate that is
beginning on that treaty.
It is not enough to consult Parliament. Parliament should
approve treaties before the government signs and ratifies them.
Such is the purpose of the amendment. It seeks to change a
practice, but that practice must be changed. It must be changed,
so that what we experienced with the Multilateral Agreement on
Investment—and which we may experience again if the government
tries to prevent Parliament from debating such important
treaties—will not happen again.
So, this is why are proposing an amendment which is minor but
which would indeed make the government more accountable to this
House when it signs treaties, including amending treaties.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was accurate when he said that we
had this debate when we brought in the anti-personnel land mines
treaty.
The same basic question remains. This is not a slight
modification or amendment. It is a major constitutional change.
What it recommends is that we begin moving toward a republican
form of government, the cabinet style of government where
parliament holds executives accountable, and the executive has to
negotiate and deal with treaties. That would change in a very
fundamental way.
I am not sure members at this stage, at the clause by clause
discussion of the bill on comprehensive treaties, are prepared to
undertake the significance and weight of making a major
constitutional change. In a very practical way it would
substantially alter the capacity of Canada to negotiate and deal
with treaties.
It would cause the same kind of problems that the United States
is now finding itself in, where it can sign treaties but never
have them ratified. Unfortunately, that country has a long
inventory of treaties which it is unable to ratify because of the
requirement of the Senate to give its approval.
In cases where there is a disagreement between the executive
branch and the legislative branch, it is simply not ratifying
them. It is not even close to ratifying this treaty, as well as
many other treaties that have similar kinds of context.
Fortunately in our system we have that capacity. The
parliamentary system, in my humble view, is superior from that
point of view. When the government makes a commitment
internationally and it has a majority, it has the capacity to
hold the pleasure of the House in making that kind of change.
I say to the hon. member, as experience has proven, we go out of
our way to ensure that parliament is consulted. We have
fundamentally changed the rules by which we work in the House in
terms of any international action that we are going to take. We
have debates in parliament. If parliament is not sitting or if
it is not convenient, we go to the committees. In the case of
these treaties, when they require legislative changes, we bring
them in for full debate, such as we are having today.
At this point in time it would be very unwise to sneak in the
back door, by way of amendment to this particular bill, something
that would change the Constitution. If the hon. member wants to
change the Constitution, there are other ways of doing it rather
than doing it through this kind of format.
I would ask the indulgence of the House to say that the object
of this bill is to have a comprehensive test ban treaty, to which
Canada is a signatory, and not to change the Constitution.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, the
minister has stated a couple of things that make the hair on the
back of my neck stand up.
I heard that the government can go off and sign international
bills because it has a majority. Thirty-eight per cent of the
people in this country voted for this government. That is not a
majority. Sixty-two per cent did not.
The arrogance of saying that we can sign whatever we want because
of that is a little bit hard to take.
1650
I also find it hard to take that we have gone off with the
international court and with Kyoto. We have signed agreements
and have not consulted the premiers or this parliament and we
have not listened to Canadians. We say this is right and that
this is democracy.
Mr. Chairman, that is not democracy. Canadians are starting to
demand that we have a democratic system where we have
transparency and openness, and where responsible decisions are
made by members of the House. To say that we fairly and
democratically debate in the House or in committee is a long
stretch of the imagination.
This amendment is relatively simple and straightforward. It
simply asks for some accountability from the Department of
Foreign Affairs before international treaties are put forward and
signed and that we would go to our colleagues in the House to ask
their opinion. It is rather offensive to think that we would not
listen to the people in a case like this.
[Translation]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief in
saying that, on behalf of my colleagues from the New Democratic
Party, I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry.
I listened carefully to the minister's reply but, frankly, I
think this amendment would give a little more power to members
of Parliament from all parties. Should the amendment be
rejected, I hope the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs will
take an in-depth look at the issue raised by the hon. member.
I hope the House will adopt the motion. I realize this is a
situation where we do not have the numbers required. But if the
amendment is rejected here, I hope the committee can conduct a
thorough review of this issue.
This is an important proposal and we support it.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the
minister, I do not think it can be claimed that an amendment
such as this would change the form of the government. It would
not take on the republican form he claims it would, because
similar states such as Australia, New Zealand and the United
Kingdom have changed their conventional practices for the
signing of treaties. But this does not mean that either
Australia or New Zealand, much less the United Kingdom, have
turned into republics.
Quite simply, all that is involved is changing a practice
relating to the government's constitutional jurisdiction over
the signing of treaties. At present, because of royal
prerogative, the source of the federal government's jurisdiction
in this area, parliament is not involved.
This means that neither the House of Commons nor the Senate are
involved in this process, which is now so very important. It is
important because so many treaties impact on daily life, for
instance the multilateral investment agreement or any other
agreement that impacts greatly on the legislation we enact or on
what people do.
Now, this is not a constitutional debate or a constitutional
amendment, but rather a proposal for changing a practice that is
totally undemocratic. It is not true that, under a presidential
and parliamentary system like the one in the US, the government
would be deprived of its means of negotiating treaties.
In a system like ours, the government has the majority in the
House anyway, or at the very least, in exception cases, it has
to form a coalition with other parties to secure a voting
majority.
1655
So, the proposal to give Parliament a role in the signing of
treaties would not in any way deprive the government of its
power to negotiate international treaties with its partners or
as a member of organisations or a participant at international
conferences.
That is why I think that there must be a debate each time an
implementation act is introduced and that is why I propose such
a debate today. I am very glad to say that my colleagues from
the NDP and those from the Reform agree with the Bloc Quebecois
on that.
I will conclude by asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs to
respond positively to the request made by the hon. member from
the New Democratic Party and to formally ask the foreign affairs
committee to examine the practice concerning the signing of
treaties. This could lead to changes similar to those
implemented in other countries like Australia, New Zealand and
the United Kingdom, which are far ahead of Canada, a fact that
can only be explained by than the refusal of the government to
involve members of parliament and parliament itself in the
signing of treaties, which are so important as this century is
coming to a close and certainly be important in the next.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Chairman, I want to start by putting again to the
minister the question my hon. colleague just asked, which is
would the minister agree to the suggestion made by the NDP
member and refer the issue to the foreign affairs committee to
ensure that in the future we have a more reality-based approach
to managing this kind of initiative, since we know that
parliaments based on the British tradition, such as Australia,
New-Zealand, the United Kingdom, do so.
Would it not be better for all involved if this discussion could
help avoid similar debates in the future and lead to some kind
of compromise?
I also want to raise another point in favour of our amendment.
Even though it were to be an exception, would it not be
appropriate in the case of the act to implement the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, to pass this amendment?
These are major issues that concern the very future of our
society and deal with very important elements.
I just want to remind the House that, under this legislation,
signatories make a commitment not to carry out nuclear weapon
test blasts. This is serious business, very important stuff.
These are major issues that relate to our responsibilities as
parliamentarians.
For this specific bill, would it not be better to pass the
amendment so that the legislation can be considered, even if it
means that it would then be referred to the foreign affairs
committee, as was suggested by the NDP member?
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Chairman: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Chairman: In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to)
1700
[Translation]
(On clause 27)
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, I seek your guidance to move an
amendment. This is a new amendment, a new clause 27.1.
Should I move this amendment now?
The Deputy Chairman: No. It must be done after clause 29.
(Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to)
(On new clause)
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Chairman,
again for the sake of transparency, of involving parliament in
the implementation of a treaty such as this one, that a new
clause 27.1 be added.
Accordingly, I move:
That Bill C-52 be amended by adding after line 37 on page 12 the
following new clause:
Annual Report “27.1 (1) The person designated as the National
Authority shall prepare and transmit to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs an annual report with respect to the implementation of
this Act. (2) The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall cause a copy
of the report to be laid before the House of Commons on any of
the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the
Minister receives the report.”
This clause provides that the minister will table in parliament
an annual report on the implementation of the treaty. This is an
amendment that we also want to see debated in committee of the
whole.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: The additional clause is in order.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we can accept the amendment to the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, I have a very technical point.
The word “étrangères” is missing in the French version of clause
(2), which should read “Le ministre des Affaires étrangères fait
déposer un exemplaire”. There is a small error here.
I am very pleased that the minister gives his agreement. By
doing so, he would only confirm that he accepts, as Australia
has done, because in its Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty
Implementation Act, the Australian parliament agreed to a
totally similar provision, and consequently, that parliament
will examine the report that the person designated as the
national authority will prepare and transmit to the minister.
This is a step in the right direction, but I must tell the
minister that it will not be enough, because we will constantly
revert to this whole issue.
I would like to have the minister's opinion on this. I think it
would be useful for our foreign affairs committee to debate this
practice.
1705
I would like to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs if he would
agree to ask, as he has for other issues, the committee to
examine the practice of the signing of treaties, to bring it in
line it with the practice in other Commonwealth countries, which
is a much more democratic practice.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to
the hon. member for having added the word “étrangère” to the
bill. I think having a minister designated for affairs in
today's climate would not be such a good idea. I certainly think
that is an appropriate inclusion in the bill.
As to the other matter, the committee itself is master or
mistress of its own affairs. If it wants to discuss the
possibility of looking into this matter we will co-operate. I
would certainly welcome any will of the committee that would be
expressed.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Deputy Chairman: Does the new clause, as amended,
carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(New clause, as amended, agreed to)
(Schedule agreed to)
(Clause 1 agreed to)
(Title agreed to)
(Bill reported, concurred in and, by unanimous consent, read
the third time and passed)
* * *
CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
The House resumed from October 2 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-53, an act to increase the availability of financing
for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement
of small businesses, be read the second time and referred to a
committee; and of the motion that the question be now put.
1710
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-53, an act to increase
the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion,
modernization and improvement of small businesses.
The small business financing act is an extension of the Small
Business Loans Act which was passed in 1961. It builds on the
government's commitment to provide small businesses with better
access to financing by guaranteeing loans made by lenders to
small and medium size businesses across Canada. Small businesses
play an important role in Canada's economy. Canada has more than
2.5 million small businesses. In 1996-97 small businesses
created 81% of new jobs in the economy.
In my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore there are over 3,600 small
and medium size enterprises. They are an integral part of the
economic infrastructure of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. The operation
of these businesses cuts across the manufacturing and service
sectors of the economy. They are the main engines of employment
in my riding and elsewhere in Canada. Maintaining a strong and
vibrant economy is vital to the economic success of our country.
As parliamentarians we must support measures that would
facilitate economic growth in Canada. I support the small
business financing act because I know that providing
opportunities to companies through financing or technology will
give the Canadian economy the energy it needs to grow. This
sector of the Canadian economy has proven to benefit many
Canadians. It is necessary to take the steps that would enable
it to become healthier, to expand and to become more profitable.
Bill C-53 will ensure that small businesses will continue to be
of benefit to all communities across Canada. Through successive
prebudget consultations and town hall meetings with small
business owners on job strategy and economic growth I heard from
my constituents about the difficulties faced by small businesses
in obtaining financing for start-up capital from banks and other
lending institutions. The small business financing act, as the
Small Business Loans Act, will continue to address this problem.
Since 1961 the Small Business Loans Act has provided over $22
billion worth of debt financing through lending institutions. As
many as 30,000 lending firms serve clients that are small and
young businesses with an average loan size of $68,000.
It is not an understatement to say that small companies need
financial assistance from the government. Despite the
availability of capital and increases in lending, access to
credit continues to be identified by entrepreneurs as a major
obstacle to the growth of small businesses. I am pleased to see
that the government will continue its commitment to providing
finances to small and medium size business communities through
the small business financing act.
In times of economic downturn we know small businesses are the
most vulnerable. In my riding during the recession of the late
1980s and early 1990s many small businesses folded as a result of
the cyclical downturn in the economy. Many companies did not
have the financial resources to wait or to ride out the
recession.
1715
The Canada small business financing act is about creating
stability for small and medium size businesses. It will put many
small and medium size businesses on a sound, stable footing to
better cope and manage under financial stress and, in particular,
during times of economic downturn.
This bill was put before the House after extensive consultations
with public and private stakeholders. The Minister of Industry
has also taken into account the recommendations of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts and the auditor general.
Under the act the small business financing program will extend
loans to lenders for terms of up to 10 years. Lenders must pay a
one time 2% fee in addition to an annual registration fee of
1.25%.
There are so many things to say about the benefits that this
will ensure to my constituents of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Suffice
it to say that micro and very small businesses will benefit from
Bill C-53.
In examining the issue of cost recovery and the key areas of the
bill I call on my colleagues on all sides of the House to give
support to Bill C-53. It is a very important bill and the issues
it covers would do much for the businesses in our various and
varying communities.
In closing, Canada's small business loans program is one of the
best programs of all the OECD countries. It is a very crucial
segment of our economy and Canadians have come to depend on it
for their economic livelihood. I encourage all of my colleagues,
keeping in mind the micro and small businesses in the various and
varying constituencies, to give support to the bill.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the member who just spoke in support of small business.
It is very important that we all support small business.
Today we see what is happening with the very large corporations
and institutions that are laying off people. In my riding of
Halifax West the Volvo assembly plant is being shut down, putting
about 250 people out of work. Volvo is moving to places like
Mexico where it can profit from cheaper labour.
Many of the people faced with joblessness are going to have to
resort to their own ingenuity to operate small businesses and to
become self-employed to earn a living. Therefore, everything
that can be done to assist small business is important.
When we see the large banks in our society trying to become even
larger, we ask ourselves what the impact will be on small
business people.
We are in support of the measures being taken to assist small
business and on behalf of my constituents I will support the
legislation. I commend the member opposite for her remarks.
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate
support when it is given from the other side of the floor and,
therefore, do not have to shout recall.
The Canada small business financing act will do a number of
things that are very important. It will guarantee lending on
April 1, 1999 and continue to facilitate asset based debt
financing to small and medium companies with annual sales of up
to $5 million. Those are the small businesses in his riding and
in my riding.
The government will continue to share the risks of loans to
businesses by paying 85% of the loss incurred by lenders. These
are measures that will be appreciated.
The government will pay claims on 90% of the first $250,000 of
loans in a lender's account, 50% on the next $250,000 and 10% on
the remaining loans.
1720
These measures will be beneficial to those medium size
enterprises.
The percentage of the cost of eligible capital assets accepted
for financing would be 90%. This again will include so many of
our businesses.
Interest ceilings remain at 3% above prime lending rates for
variable rate loans or 3% above residential mortgage rates for
fixed rate loans. These measures will benefit all of our
constituents. Therefore it is essential that we support this
bill and give our small and medium size businesses a break.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
join the support for small business. We know that it is the
backbone of the nation. I am always pleased to speak up for
small business.
But there is one thing that bothers me about this tax and grab
government. Small businesses all across this country are saying
loud and clear that the guys in Ottawa have to get off their
backs. More than that, they are saying that the government needs
to get out of their pockets because they are being killed by
taxes.
We are talking about lending money and getting into debt to
support small business, but we never hear anything coming from
that side of the House about how we need to make it more feasible
for these people to operate by lowering the taxes which are
killing small businesses and jobs.
One particular business in my riding is run by a man and his
wife. They have said to me “If we could only get the taxes cut
back to some degree we could hire some additional help, rather
than both of us having to be here from nine to seven every day.
We work hard. We have to in order to pay all the taxes that this
government keeps grabbing”.
Could the member suggest to small business that it would be a
good idea to pursue decreasing taxes? That would help
them even more than lending them more money.
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question because I know that he is concerned about the small
businesses in his riding.
Sometimes it is very difficult for members opposite to take good
news and to carry the good news back to where it should be
carried. I want to tell the member to look on the side of the
positive aspects of this bill.
The issue of taxes, of course, is a concern to all small
businesses. But when we look at our position in the G-7, our
small businesses and business people, in comparison to other
places in the world, are definitely not in last place.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member for
Etobicoke—Lakeshore if we can take back the good news that her
government will give back to small businesses the EI overcharge
it is taking from them.
Can we take that good news back to our constituents?
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, we are debating the
topic of small business in Bill C-53 and we are asking if there
is support for the bill. The member has introduced EI. Of
course, any good news is good news that we will take forward.
When that discussion does come up, the good news will certainly
be hers to take forward.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1725
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The deputy
government whip has requested that the vote be deferred until
5.30 p.m.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If you ask, you might find that there is unanimous
consent to call it 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The deputy
government whip has requested the unanimous consent of the House
to see the clock as being 5.30 p.m. Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
The House resumed from September 29 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the
Canadian Human Rights Act (offences against children), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to
order made on Tuesday, September 29, 1998, the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the
motion at second reading of Bill C-284.
Call in the members.
1750
Before the taking of the vote:
The Speaker: This is a private member's bill. As is the
practice, the division will be taken row by row, starting with
the mover who is on my left and then proceeding with those in
favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the
mover. We will go row by row. Each member will stand and his or
her name will be called. Then those in favour of the motion
sitting on the other side will do the same thing. Then we will go
through those opposed.
1800
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Assad
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Bonwick
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Comuzzi
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Finestone
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guimond
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Penson
| Peric
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Serré
| Solberg
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 127
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélanger
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lincoln
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pagtakhan
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Reed
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 103
|
PAIRED
Members
Bennett
| Bevilacqua
| Canuel
| Desrochers
|
Discepola
| Dumas
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Gallaway
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Leung
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Normand
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pillitteri
| Redman
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an
act to increase the availability of financing for the
establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small
businesses, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and of the motion that the question be now put.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on Bill C-53. The question is on the motion
that the question be now put.
1810
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Reed
| Robillard
| Rock
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 130
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Earle
| Elley
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Solberg
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 101
|
PAIRED
Members
Bennett
| Bevilacqua
| Canuel
| Desrochers
|
Discepola
| Dumas
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Gallaway
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Leung
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Normand
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pillitteri
| Redman
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The next
question is on the main motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois are in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic members
present vote yes.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would vote in favour of
this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Reed
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 189
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Elley
| Gilmour
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Solberg
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 42
|
PAIRED
Members
Bennett
| Bevilacqua
| Canuel
| Desrochers
|
Discepola
| Dumas
| Folco
| Fournier
|
Gallaway
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Leung
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Normand
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pillitteri
| Redman
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Speaker: It being 6.13 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]
MARRIAGE ACT, 1997
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act
and the Interpretation Act, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure
that a marriage is void unless it is a marriage between one
unmarried man and one unmarried woman.
1815
There has been considerable interest in the bill by many
Canadians. Thousands of them have signed petitions which have
been presented in the House. Many are watching now and they will
read the debates as they are reported in Hansard. However,
they may not understand the procedure and what is going on. I
propose to talk for a few minutes about the procedure.
This is Private Members' Business and my bill has not been
deemed votable. Therefore it is entitled to up to one hour of
debate tonight, after which it will be dropped from the Order
Paper without a vote. I am permitted a 15-minute speech and a
five minute wrap up. Other members are entitled to speak for no
more than 10 minutes each, up to a maximum of 40 minutes.
I wish to use my initial 15 minutes to briefly outline some of
the intricacies of Private Members' Business as I am sure most
Canadians are not familiar with this aspect of our rules. I wish
to discuss my bill and why I believe it is needed now. In my
wrap up I shall try to deal with some of the points made by other
hon. members.
Like many other members, I have drafted bills and motions. Our
names are put into a drum. Once in a while a draw is held. My
name was picked and I chose to put forward Bill C-225.
The rules try to ensure that there are about 15 public bills and
15 motions on the Order Paper at all times. A subcommittee of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs known as
the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business meets to select
five motions and five bills to deem as votable. This procedure
continues as bills and motions are dealt with in the House.
In my case there was room for only one bill to be chosen votable
as there are still four votable bills on the Order Paper. A
number of bills were vying for this one slot, including mine.
The subcommittee consists of six members of parliament: two
Liberals, one Reform, one Bloc Quebecois, one NDP and one PC. The
committee listened to the submissions of the MPs and chose
another bill as votable. No reasons were given and none are
required to be given under our rules. Only one-third of the
committee is members of the governing Liberal Party.
This bill which I consider so important gets one hour of debate
and then disappears.
That is a thumbnail sketch of how we got here tonight.
Turning to the substance of the bill, section 1 reads:
A marriage is void unless it is a legal union of one man and one
woman as husband and wife and neither the man nor the woman was
married immediately prior to that union.
There is nothing startling there. It is the definition that we
have always known in Canada. I presume most people would think
that it is already in the law of Canada. It is not. The purpose
of my bill is to enshrine in statute that a marriage is valid
only when it is a marriage between one unmarried man and one
unmarried woman. In other words, neither multiple parties nor
parties of the same sex may get married.
I asked both the previous justice minister and the present
justice minister to support the bill. You will hear from the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice or some other
designated member of parliament as to why the justice minister
does not support the bill, but I will tell you now what those
reasons are.
One of the things that has been stated in a letter by both the
previous and present justice ministers is the following:
The definition of marriage in federal law is not in a statute
passed by Parliament, but is found in what is called the federal
common law, dating from an 1866 British case of Hyde and Hyde v
Woodmansee. This case has been applied consistently in Canada
and states that no marriage can exist between two persons of the
same sex, or between multiple wives or husbands. Thus, the
definition of marriage is already clear in law in Canada as the
union of two persons of the opposite sex.
That is what the justice ministers have said in writing.
What is important to note in this statement is that the
definition of marriage is to be found in federal common law.
Common law is, plain and simple, judge made law.
Therefore, it can be changed at any time by judges. There is no
statute to guide or restrain judges.
1820
The Department of Justice has indicated in writing reasons why
it does not support the bill. According to the Department of
Justice one of the reasons is that it is clear in federal law
what a marriage is. That is not an accurate statement of the
law. Why do I say this? Because there are numerous continuing
challenges in our courts to this definition, both by those who
wish same sex unions to be recognized as marriages and those
whose religious beliefs permit multiple wives or husbands.
One case will illustrate this point. The case is Layland and
Beaulne v Ontario Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations,
Attorney General of Canada, et al. In this case decided by three
judges of Ontario in the divisional court, two male homosexuals
sued to force the province of Ontario to issue them a licence to
marry. If as the justice department states the definition
of marriage is already clear in law, we would have expected a
unanimous decision against the applicants. In fact, the decision
was two to one. I will read some brief excerpts from the
dissenting judgment:
I am of the view that restricting marriages to heterosexual
couples infringes and violates the applicants' section 15(1)
charter rights and that such violation cannot be justified under
section 1 of the charter. I also agree with the position of the
church that there is no common law prohibition against same sex
marriages in Canada.
In this case the church was the Metropolitan Community Church of
Ottawa. She goes on: “In the opening paragraph of these reasons,
I have noted that the common law must grow to meet society's
expanding needs.... To say that the state must preserve only
traditional heterosexual families is discriminatory and contrary
to the equal benefits and guarantees they”—that is,
homosexuals—“are entitled to at law.... A rule with a discriminatory
purpose may not be justified under section 1”—of the charter.
“Further, I agree with counsel for the applicants that there is
no rational connection between supporting heterosexual families
and denying homosexuals the right to marry. It is illogical and
has no beneficial impact on the goal. To deny them the right to
marry is a complete denial of their relationship and a denial of
their constitutional rights”.
If the law is clear as the justice minister and the justice
department state that it is, then this judge should never have
made these statements in a dissenting judgment. The fact is that
in the next such application, the dissenting judge could find an
ally and the decision could be two to one in the opposite
direction. This is entirely possible and predictable since the
current law is judge made common law.
If the law is to be clear as the justice ministers would have us
believe, it must be confirmed in statutory form so that a judge
cannot draw the conclusions drawn by the dissenting judge in
Leyland.
The justice department is just plain wrong to say the bill is
unnecessary. They say that the usual legislative principle is to
legislate only to cure a legal problem or advance a legal issue.
Bill C-225 cures a legal problem, namely the incorrect thinking
of the dissenting judge and allies she may have in the judiciary,
and it advances a legal issue, namely that only single people of
the opposite sex are permitted to marry.
The Department of Justice contends that the same concept of
marriage is present throughout the world. This also is not
accurate. A very large part of the world condones multiple
marriage partners, something foreign to our society. Indeed,
Queen Elizabeth recently visited the Sultan of Brunei who
together with his two wives hosted a state dinner for the Queen.
Bill C-225 would confirm that marriage in Canada does not include
multiple spouses.
Is there a move to legitimize bigamy or polygamy? Let me quote
from an October 1, 1998 article by Stephanie Nolen in the
Globe and Mail, a newspaper that has been pushing for the
legitimization of same sex relationships for years. Members
will not believe it. Talk about current. The editor's note
reads:
No need to waste it, so a growing number of couples think. They
have embraced an alternative to the married-couple-for-life
scenario, a style of relationship called “polyamory” where
primary partners branch out to other partners, but in committed
relationships too.
But in an age when the traditional idea of marriage is taking it
on the chin, polyamory makes some sense. Read on.
1825
To quote from the article:
Polyamory (loving more than one) means maintaining intimate
relationships with several people.
“There are greater numbers and greater acceptance for
polyamory” says Brett Hill, co-editor of Loving More. “It's
definitely changed since we started publishing 15 years ago”.
Poly relationships range from the couple in a long-term union
who each see other people casually, to the committed threesome,
to the polyfidelitous groups living a “married” life in
multi-adult households.
Even child raising is better when you are poly, the proponents
say.
Boy, talk about poly. The next step is the legitimization of
polyamory and trying to get a marriage licence for three, four or
five partners.
The justice department's considered legal opinion as the chief
adviser to the chief law officer of the crown is “this bill
risks opening further debate”. Oh my goodness. Debate. The
legal advice of this department is that it risks opening further
debate.
The Government of Canada needs a new law firm because that is
not legal advice. That is political advice. This is the place
for society's policies to be debated and decided, not in the
policy cubicles of the Department of Justice and not by judge
made law.
My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, an avowed homosexual,
in debate on Monday, June 8 made the following comments with
which I wholeheartedly agree: “It is true that we would like the
members of this House to make known their views on recognition of
same sex spouses. To be sure, a debate must take place. Reformers
are right when they say it is unacceptable in a democracy to
leave it to judges to make the decisions. My colleague is right
saying that this debate should be held in the House. We must
vote on an important matter such as this”. He was talking about
same sex benefits.
In conclusion, Bill C-225 is the vehicle to have this debate.
The concept of marriage as it has always been in Canada is under
attack. It continues to take it on the chin, as the Globe
article put it.
It is time that the definition of marriage as the union of a
single male and a single female was taken out of the hands of
judges and judge made law and judge changed common law and put
into a statute of the Parliament of Canada expressing the will of
the people of Canada. Since the definition in Bill C-225 is
argued by the justice department and the justice minister to be
clear and since the justice minister has written “counsel from
my department have successfully defended and will continue to
defend this concept of marriage in court”, there can be no
logical reason not to enshrine the principle in statute law.
The only real reason for not supporting this bill is fear of
debate. That is not only shameful but it is truly lamentable.
I ask the House to support this bill.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today we are debating a bill that would formalize in law that a
marriage is between a man and a woman. It is clear legislative
recognition that it is the union of a man and a woman
intentionally for life.
Sometimes when I am back in my riding of Calgary Centre,
constituents will eagerly with hope in their eyes want to know
some of the details of the affairs of the nation. I can
anticipate some confused looks, perhaps some perplexity and
frustration when I advise them that the state of the nation and
the time of this great House and hon. members and of course your
valuable time, Mr. Speaker, and all at the taxpayers' expense has
been to debate what a marriage is.
My office did some research on the history and current laws
surrounding marriage in Canada. I studied it and began building
my presentation for today.
I could quote from 130-plus years of history, from 1886 to 1995,
of case law in this country that powerfully enshrines marriage as
a voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the
exclusion of all others, or the many legal statements that
profoundly point out that marriage is an institution upon which
the family is built.
1830
I could have detailed the respective roles of the federal
government and the provincial governments concerning marriage and
have shown through a detailed analysis that the federal
government establishes the legal framework and capacity for
marriage. However, it is the provinces that enact the laws which
provide for the solemnization and the formal marriage ceremony.
Or, I could have gone outside Canada and examined marriage down
through the ages. It is easy to demonstrate that a one man-one
woman for life definition of marriage has been the norm in most
stable cultures from the beginning of recorded history.
I began down each of these tracks but something was missing. It
seemed I was just repeating the obvious. Men and women get
married. It is recognized by law. Marriage is a quality
institution that has been around since the beginning of recorded
history. However this was not touching the heart of the issue we
have before us today. It seems to me there is something deeper
that needs to be addressed.
In the storm of ideas in today's life it seems we have forgotten
some of the basics. We have been intimidated by accusations of
discrimination when we point out that there are differences. We
have been barraged with the call for equality. Then it is
implied that when things are equal they become the same. We know
it is not true. Some things are different, just as some
relationships are different from others.
Why marriage? How does it work? Perhaps by considering these
questions we will be more clear on what is best, no matter what
we call it.
Marriage as it is currently understood is an inclusive
arrangement, I would argue. Does it not include both genders?
Neither one is excluded. Is it not inclusive? The equality of
the sexes must not be confused with the sameness of the sexes.
In marriage a man in relationship with a woman gains insights,
sensitivities and strengths that she brings to the relationship,
and vice versa for the woman with the man. This intimate
relationship between a man and a woman involves giving time to
understand the other person's perspectives on the challenges that
life brings.
A lifelong committed union of a man and a woman in marriage
creates a unit that is stronger than the sum of the individuals
because the differences complement one another.
In a prominent Canadian court case the ruling read:
Marriage has many other characteristics of which companionship
and mutual support is an important one.
The court also stated:
Marriage is the institution on which the family is built and with
the capacity for natural heterosexual intercourse as an essential
element.
What about children? The children of a marriage should be
considered. Teachers, and my wife is one, have a saying. They
say that more is caught than taught. Intimate, committed
marriage provides the best possible learning ground for the
socialization and character development of children. Boys who
have a lifelong example of a father who is patient with his wife,
kind, polite to her, calm, forgives, is truthful, is trusted and
is protective toward his wife are more likely to be that way
themselves. More is caught than taught.
The same concept applies for daughters. Both genders learn from
myriad subtle character messages that children pick up from
different gender parents. These models help them to decide and
to relate to their own life mate.
This kind of positive character modelling within and across
genders does not stay confined to the home but continues with the
children outside the home and adds to the stabilizing and
strengthening component of society as a whole.
Recent Statistics Canada studies record that children in home
relationships with both parents have far fewer behavioural
problems and a significantly higher percentage complete high
school.
In addition, we celebrate anniversaries in this land. I am
sure, Mr. Speaker, you have sent out congratulatory comments to
those who celebrate anniversaries. When we talk to these people,
happily married men and women, about marriage they talk about it
in terms of entering into a marriage covenant, not a contract. A
contract states that I will participate as long as the other
party delivers, but a covenant states that I am committed to a
person for life without performance demands.
For these people divorce is not even an option. This makes the
proper selection of a life mate all the more critical and the
need to go beyond physical attraction is apparent.
1835
Marriage is an institution that defies those who want to promote
the gender war. A loving, caring marriage, and many still exist,
is a beautiful reconciliation of a man and woman. It develops
good character in both parties. It allows procreation and is the
best environment for raising children. They learn by example.
Canadians believe in marriage and they make it work. In 1995,
an average year, there were approximately 6.3 million married
couples in Canada. That year 98.8% of them decided it was worth
it and stayed married. A little over 1% got divorced but 98.8%
said it was worth it and stayed married.
It is interesting in a recent Angus Reid poll on the state of
the family in Canada that our young people also aspire to having
stable marriages and families. Some 93% of the youth in this
poll predicted that their families would be the most important in
their life and 80% of them believed that marriage was for life.
The Liberal Party's position as of its most recent convention
allows marriage to exclude one gender or other from the
relationship and allows for two men to marry or two women to
marry. This is a contradiction to current Canadian law which
repeatedly recognizes marriage as the voluntary union of a man
and a woman, which by the way is exactly what the Reform Party
membership has in its policy book.
Tragically, rather than bringing its position forward for public
debate in the Parliament of Canada and to clarify the law, the
justice minister chooses to defer to Liberal appointed judges to
make changes independent of the will of the people of Canada.
Increasingly judicial activism within the justice system is
resulting in court rulings which are taking Canadian law in
directions that are contradictory to the representative
collective voice of the people.
For this reason it is a prudent step to further define marriage
relationships in federal legislation. I support Bill C-225. Let
me conclude by saying that for some this is a troubling topic,
troubling in the fact that we are even seriously debating it.
The reassuring fact for me is that a man and a woman committed
to intimate mutual care and a relationship for life to the
exclusion of all others has been and will always be the most
rewarding human relationship that they both can have, that the
children can have, and for society. This is the truth. No
matter how we want to play with the words, it will not change.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this debate, but I am also a bit
surprised. First of all, we should not forget that the
conditions of a valid marriage are not an issue this Parliament
should be dealing with. We should not suggest that the federal
Parliament has anything to do with this issue. That is why I do
not think the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest is
addressing a pressing issue.
The issue we should take a stand on and debate in this House is
whether we believe that two men or two women can really love
each other and live with a certain set of values I share.
Citizens who are taxpayers and concerned members of their
communities deserve some recognition on the part of the
legislator.
But let us start at the beginning. We should take into
consideration the fact that, in the next few weeks and months,
various courts of law and administrative tribunals will render
their decisions.
A minute ago, I was quite proud to hear the hon. member for
Scarborough Southwest quoting from my remarks. He said: “The
hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve would like a debate in
Parliament.” I agree. This debate should take place in
Parliament. However, when I stated that position, I was speaking
as the sponsor of a bill on the recognition of same sex couples.
1840
Let anyone give me a reason why two men or two women who freely
engage in a consensual union—which is what we are talking about
here—and want to spend the rest of their life together could
not have some kind of institutional recognition of their union.
For some, this institutional recognition will be marriage. For
others, it will be a civil union contract. Throughout the world,
dozens of countries allow two men or two women to have their
commitment and their mutual obligations and responsibilities
legally recognized.
From what I see in the gay community, marriage is certainly not
what the majority wants and certainly not the most pressing
issue. What I see in the gay community, which is my community,
are people, two men or two women, who live together, who support
each other and who match perfectly the definition of spouse.
In law, what are the three attributes that define the concept of
spouse? I know there are distinguished lawyers in this House.
There is one on my left and one on my right. I do not think I am
mistaken when I say that, in law, the concept of spouse
comprises three elements: cohabitation, common repute and, in
certain cases, the presence of children.
If two men or two women not only choose to engage in a union, to
support each other and to share their daily existence but also
define themselves as such within their community, let anyone
give me one good reason why these people should not be
recognized as a couple.
Why should they be recognized as a couple? Because if we do not
do it, we send two extremely negative messages to the public.
First, we lead people to think that this type of commitment
between two men or two women is less genuine, less noble, less
worthy of respect that a commitment between a man and a woman,
and this is not true.
If some people here have doubts about that, why not consider
the Nesbit-Egan couple, in British Columbia, who have shared
their lives for more than 40 years.
They have all the characteristics of a loving couple, active in
their community and deserving of their peers' respect.
There is a second reason for recognizing same sex relationships.
I remind this House that this is the true issue that we will
have to deal with because, in the next few months, courts of law
as well as administrative tribunals will be asking legislators
to amend legislation.
Two men living together are citizens and taxpayers as well as
consumers of services. If, as a member of parliament, I live
with someone for two, three or four years and that I die, I
would like anyone to give one good reason why my partner should
not be entitled to a survivor's pension?
Why should my partner not be entitled, when he goes to
employment insurance, to a moving allowance? Why should he not
be able to benefit from a registered retiring savings plan? Why
should my partner be exposed to discrimination in the area of
immigration?
There are about 70 federal statutes giving a heterosexist
definition of a spouse. I think we have the responsibility, as
lawmakers, to ensure that we also have a homosexist view of the
issue.
It is rather surprising to hear what the hon. member for
Scarborough Southwest had to say. I do not question his good
faith. However, I am surprised to hear that he is taking a
strictly legalistic point of view.
1845
I urge the hon. member, when he replies, to tell us if, yes or
no, he recognizes that two men or two women can live together,
be attracted to one another and enter freely into a
relationship. Because this is what it is all about. When someone
is gay, when someone is a homosexual, no one forces that person
to get involved in a relationship. There are, of course, people
who do not get involved in such a relationship, who do not fully
live up to their true nature, because of social pressure.
Could the hon. member admit that it can be a great thing, a
fulfilling and respectable thing for someone to live in a same
sex relationship?
A law professor once told me that from a legal point of view,
moral standards become outdated faster than anything else. As
lawmakers, we cannot take a moral stance and say that something
is good or something is wrong, that some people deserve our
respect and others do not. As lawmakers, the issue we always
have to keep sight of is discrimination.
There is discrimination when lawmakers refuse to grant a
category of citizens rights another category of citizens enjoy.
And that is what happens when we refuse, as members of
parliament, to recognize same sex spouses.
The real issue we will have to debate in the coming weeks will
not be marriage but the recognition of same sex spouses. I will
personally introduce a private member's bill providing for
recognition of same sex spouses.
I heard people say “If we attack the institution of marriage, if
we refuse to believe that children must be raised by a man and a
woman engaged in a strictly heterosexual relationship, we will
undermine the institution of marriage, and not only will we
undermine the institution of marriage, but we will, at the same
time, undermine society”.
Can we recognize that there are many different kinds of
relationships? The speech by the member for Scarborough
Southwest was certainly a moving appeal—I am not questioning
his good faith—for the traditional family as we know it.
However, the model the member is calling for, that is a man and
a woman with children, is no longer the only and dominant model.
There are many single parents who raise their children alone and
who instil into them extremely respectable values.
They are well adjusted and active in society and they deserve
our respect as citizens.
I believe that the member for Scarborough Southwest is raising
an outdated issue we should not be debating in the House,
because marriage falls under provincial jurisdiction. I believe
we must put an end to discrimination and, for federal members of
Parliament, this means we must recognize same sex spouses.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his hard work on the recognition of
the rights of same sex partners.
[English]
We in Canada live in a country in which the highest court of the
land, the constitution of our country and the charter of rights
have affirmed that gay and lesbian people are to be treated with
equality, with equal respect and dignity.
That court has gone on to state that an essential element of
that equality is recognition of the relationships of gay and
lesbian people, that those relationships too are relationships
and should not be treated with any kind of special rights or
preference but with equality.
It is for that reason I rise in my place today to oppose the
bill which has been put forward by the member for Scarborough
Southwest. He set out accurately the legal realities, the fact
that there is no federal statute that governs the issue of
capacity for marriage. Yes, it is the courts that have ruled to
date that two men or two women may not legally marry.
1850
The member made reference to the eloquent dissent of the
divisional court in Layland and Beaulne, but that remains a
dissenting judgment. He suggested that perhaps people were
afraid of the debate. Certainly I welcome the debate. I do not
think anyone is shirking this debate. It is long overdue that we
look at the nature of our relationships and how as a society we
can sustain and affirm those relationships.
Frankly I had not intended to propose a bill on this subject.
The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is quite right. There is
considerable debate even within the gay and lesbian community
about the priority which should be attached to the work toward
recognition of gay and lesbian marriages. The fundamental issue
is recognition of our right to equality across the board.
It seems to me that in acknowledging the importance of this as a
choice, which is what it should be recognized as, for those gay
and lesbian couples who wish to enter into it I do not believe
federal law should deny that option. For that reason I have
tabled a bill which would also amend the federal legislation and
which would state that a marriage between two persons is not
invalid by reason only that they are of the same sex.
In introducing that bill on March 25 of this year I stated that
I believed our relationships should be celebrated and affirmed as
just as loving, just as committed, just as strong as heterosexual
relationships, and that federal statutes should reflect that
equality.
The member for Scarborough Southwest suggested that the concept
of marriage was under attack. I would question whether the
institution of marriage is so fragile and so threatened that
allowing gay and lesbian people who seek access to this
institution would somehow cause it to come crumbling down. I do
not believe that. I do not believe it would destroy it.
We have heard from the Reform member for Calgary Centre that one
of the essential elements of marriage is procreation. How does
he respond to an article in yesterday's Toronto Sun? It is
a story about Karl Thompson, age 92, who slipped a gold band on
the finger of Yvon Geoffrey, 84 years old, and said “We never
thought it would develop into this”. Loving companionship is
what it is. They met during a bingo game six years previously.
His granddaughter Michelle said “They are so much in love it is
unbelievable. It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy”.
God forbid, a 92 year old him and a 84 year old her and no
children, no procreation, is not a real marriage. Damn it, that
is wrong. What defines a marriage and what should define a
marriage is love, caring, compassion and a commitment for better
or for worse, for richer or poorer, to one's partner. That is
what should define it and that is what federal legislation should
allow.
There have been changes in the law. In Holland the new
government announced that it intends to move forward. It said
that in the interest of strengthening the equal treatment of
homosexual and lesbian couples the cabinet would this year
introduce a bill to open civil marriage to persons of the same
sex.
The Government of South Africa has announced that it intends to
take the same step. We heard from this podium President Nelson
Mandela speaking of the importance of equality. I am very proud
of the fact that Canada is one of the only countries in the
world, along with South Africa, that in its constitution
recognizes and celebrates the equality of all citizens including
those of us who are gay or lesbian.
Sometimes people do not understand the human dimension of our
relationships. My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve spoke
about Jim Egan and Jack Nesbit who this year are celebrating 50
years together in a committed and loving relationship. Why on
earth should they, or others in their situation who are embarking
on that lifelong journey together, be denied the affirmation of
marriage if they seek that affirmation?
1855
I could talk at some length about my own relationship. I spoke
earlier this year about the extent to which my relationship with
my partner, Max, was for me truly life sustaining at a very
difficult and painful time after a life threatening accident. I
spoke as well about the fact that he sustained me as a caregiver
during some very tough and difficult times.
If that relationship is not recognized as just as loving, just
as compassionate and for me and my partner just as meaningful and
strong, why not? Why should we not be allowed to celebrate that
relationship before our families, our friends, our loved ones, in
a marriage if we choose to do so? The member for Scarborough
Southwest would say no, that option is not one that should be
open to us. It threatens the concept of marriage. I do not
believe it does any such thing.
Tragically that too many Canadians have only come to fully
understand the relationships of gay people during the epidemic of
AIDS. Time and time again I have personally witnessed the
tremendous love, compassion and caregiving those who are living
with a person with HIV or AIDS have experienced. I know members
will be able to share these stories. Those are traditional
family values that we should celebrate and affirm.
There has been significant progress in the recognition of our
relationships. In a number of jurisdictions there has been
movement on pensions, on recognition of rights and
responsibilities when a relationship breaks down, and on
adoption. However much work remains to be done in the areas of
immigration and pensions. There is still a lot of work in a
number of other areas of federal jurisdiction before there is
full equality and justice.
It is important that parliament send a signal to all Canadian
citizens that we are not threatened by diversity but that we
celebrate diversity and that part of that magnificent diversity
in our Canadian society is a recognition of the families and the
partnerships of gay and lesbian people. I believe those
partnerships should be recognized in marriage if that is the
choice of the people involved. I believe federal law should
allow that. For that reason I rise in opposition to the bill
before the House today.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, as with all debates in this hallowed place, I am
pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-225, an act to amend
the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act,
put forward by the hon. member opposite.
As mentioned by numerous previous speakers, the purpose of the
legislation is to ensure that marriage is void unless it is
between one unmarried man and one unmarried woman. This is a
strict legal definition. As with all legal semantics there is a
broad range of interpretation. Social mores and marital
convention are perhaps even more complex.
I congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest for
bringing forward the legislation. It fosters a healthy debate
within the Chamber, one that many feel needs to be pursued
actively by Canadians from coast to coast. In my view the
legislation crosses traditional party lines, extends beyond the
elected representatives in this place, and needs to be examined
by society as a whole. By its very nature the bill is personal
and leads to as many opinions as the persons prepared to voice
them.
While members of parliament may stand today in the House of
Commons and loudly and proudly proclaim their parties' positions
on what constitutes marriage in the legal sense, I would venture
a guess that these opinions are not representative of their
entire parties or even of their entire caucuses.
Although the Reform Party has offered the definition of marriage
as referred to in Bill C-225 as being that of between a man and a
woman, that definition was in relation to proposed fiscal reforms
and not in relation to amendments to the Marriage Act.
Perhaps there will come a time in the House in which all
members, regardless of political affiliation, will be able to
express themselves on a legislative measure similar to the one
proposed in Bill C-225. That time however is not here.
With a private member's bill there has not been full debate,
particularly amongst the Canadian public at large. Before such a
debate occurs in public it must occur in society.
1900
We need a larger public venue for as many Canadians and members
of parliament as possible to take part in the debate. We need to
be circumspect, tolerant and measured when approaching issues of
human relations. Perhaps the venue should be through a
legislative committee or a royal commission. Having said that, I
do not profess to offer the position of the Progressive
Conservative Party with respect to this bill.
This bill reflects a moral question. It is one which each and
every Canadian needs to reflect upon and ask themselves what they
consider to be a married couple. It needs to be fully debated in
a forum in which all Canadians may participate and voice their
opinions, regardless of political affiliation.
Canadians are demanding less rigid partisanship and I feel this
legislation is a prime opportunity for members and the Canadian
public as a whole to demonstrate such willingness for change.
Personally I do not see how Bill C-225 would improve the social
and economic condition of Canadians. Although Statistics Canada
points to the growing number of common law relationships and
single parent families, will Bill C-225 change this reality of
Canadian life?
I could not agree more that strong parental role models are
needed and are crucial to the development of the child. Sadly
this is not the case throughout the country. I hasten to add
that more often than not good role models are becoming a rare
commodity in our communities. If parliament passed a law such as
Bill C-225 I would seriously doubt as to whether it would result
in increased marriages between men and women.
Bill C-225 operates under the same assumption as the Liberal
government's firearms act and the recent amendments; namely, that
legislation will automatically result in a change hoped for by
its proponents. It is a false hope.
What evidence does the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest or
any other member have that would support this contention? How
would Canadians benefit from this legislation? It begs the
question: What priority should it be given at this time?
Let us talk less about legislation and more about real people
and real families. Let us talk about a young couple, recently
married, both with huge student loans. The wife is expecting a
child and would like to stay home and away from professional
life. Yet this couple cannot afford to sacrifice the wife's
income so she can remain at home to care for her child.
Another example is of a husband and wife married for 10 or more
years with two children. The husband is unemployed and unable to
find work. The wife has taken a minimum wage job to support the
family, thus taking her away from the family. They are
struggling to make ends meet and the entire family will suffer.
Changing the Marriage Act will not impact on those scenarios one
iota. It would not improve the conditions for those families.
It would not improve the conditions for the couples and it
certainly would not improve the conditions for the children. I
challenge anyone to state otherwise.
I would like to propose another series of measures which would
improve the quality of life for Canadian families, be they in the
traditional role espoused by many in society or be they part of
the growing trend toward new types of families, such as single
parents and common law couples. We need to be talking less about
amending federal statutes and more about choices that the federal
government is making with respect to Canadian families.
Let us focus our time as parliamentarians on reducing the tax
burden for Canadians instead of spending more time on amending
the Marriage Act. Let us urge the government to increase the
basic income tax exemption from $6,456 to $10,000 a year. This
measure would take two million lower income workers off the tax
rolls and save money for every single Canadian taxpayer.
Let us urge the government to cut employment insurance premiums
to remove the largest single barrier to job creation in Canada
today or urge the government to reduce the tax credit of up to
17% interest on student loans. Let us increase annual RRSP
contributions which are limited now and change the rules so that
low and middle income workers can save more money by purchasing
RRSPs, or make the $4,000 registered education savings plan, the
RESP contribution, tax deductible and allow part of the current
RRSPs to be transferred without a penalty to RESPs. Let us spend
our time as parliamentarians identifying cost effective and
fiscally responsible ways to index the child tax benefit as
proposed by my caucus colleague, the hon. member for Shefford.
1905
Let us spend our time and effort urging the government to devote
more resources to early intervention programs to prevent youth
crime before it occurs. The Minister of Justice has already
admitted that the level of support in her government for early
intervention is currently embarrassing.
There is a shocking miscalculation of priorities that emanates
from the government side of the House. Let us spend time
highlighting the fact that the federal government only covers 30%
of the cost of enforcing the Young Offenders Act, yet it will not
listen to the provinces when they tell the Minister of Justice
that her proposals are currently too weak.
Let us do more than just talk abut the threat of organized crime
in this country and talk about how we can improve the peaceful
existence of Canadians. Those are tangible, positive initiatives
to truly strengthen Canadian families.
The Canadian family needs support. It is under tremendous
pressure as to how it reacts as an institution to this pressure
and it will determine the course that this country takes in the
next generation. Canada's parliament needs to take decisive
action to nurture our families.
In no way do I want to detract from the efforts or the motives
of the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, yet I am left to
ask the same question repeatedly. What is the government doing
to improve the situation for Canadian families as they currently
exist? Will more young mothers and fathers be able to choose to
stay at home and care for their children because the Marriage Act
has been amended? I do not think so. Will there be more
economic opportunities or employment opportunities as a result of
these amendments? Again I would say no. Will we have fewer
divorces or fewer child behavioural problems resulting from the
proposed amendments? I do not believe so.
To me the answer comes from my constituents, those families who
work hard, get by with less and live a reduced quality of life.
They are the backbone of Canadian society. It is truly
heartbreaking when an elected official gets visits, telephone
calls and letters from constituents who are having trouble
because of no fault of their own, trying to raise their family
and trying to make ends meet. Not once have I heard someone come
forward and ask me to change the Marriage Act. That is not the
key to the solutions for the problems facing Canadian families.
As but one of 301 members of this House, I would therefore
suggest that we establish a public forum, either a legislative
subcommittee or a royal commission, to allow Canadians to express
their collective opinion on this subject if it is deemed
necessary.
This would be consistent with the approach that was taken by
parliament in reviewing the Divorce Act through a special joint
committee on child custody and access. Canadians need to hold
open, vigorous and energetic debate on the amendments to the
Marriage Act before parliament does so.
In the meantime, parliament has a responsibility and an
obligation to Canadians to focus its time and resources on issues
of priority.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in two minutes I can barely address this subject of great
importance. I want to say right from the very outset that I
think this is just the beginning of a discussion. I do not agree
in any way, shape or form with the proposal put forward by my
colleague, although I respect his right to that point of view. I
can see that there is a place for religious, spiritual and moral
approaches from his perspective, but I see the role and
relationship of the state in an entirely different light.
I think the relationship of mutual obligation based on
partnership is absolutely fundamental. I think to bring in
legislation in terms of lives in modern day society, and never
mind 1866, is a contemporary pursuit that is absolutely
necessary, where the principle of equality of both parties and
the right to the division of assets on an equal basis, the right
to benefits on an equal basis, the right to share that
companionship and that mutual support and respect has nothing to
do with gender politics and gender issues.
From my perspective I can tell members that discrimination based
on sexual orientation is wrong. Discrimination where we cannot
have a distribution of benefits equally among partners, whether
they are two males, two females or a man and a woman, is wrong. I
believe we have to have equal distribution of benefits and equal
rights. It should apply equally to common law couples and to
couples who are looking after each other in a loving
relationship.
1910
I would love to have further used the definition of the family
by the Vanier Institute. I would have liked to quote the Prime
Minister who has a very strong point of view. I would have liked
to tell the House what we are doing at the provincial level which
will result in very uneven decisions across the land or about
what has been said in the supreme courts of the country. I
cannot, but they all agree with what I have just said.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The last five
minutes goes to the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest in
whose name the bill stands.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in this brief time we have had an opportunity to see the
beginnings of the kind of debate we should be having in the
House.
We heard some good speeches. We heard some speeches with
different points of view. This should not be the end. This
should be the beginning. Unfortunately it will be the end
because when I am finished speaking this bill is dead for all
intents and purposes.
Some speakers missed some of the points. For example, the hon.
member for Burnaby—Douglas said that no one is shirking the
debate. No one in here is shirking the debate because we are all
here debating. However one of the stated reasons of the justice
department for opposing the bill is that it risks opening further
debate, particularly if referred to committee. The Department of
Justice is shirking the debate, not members of parliament in the
House of Commons.
Some speakers want to redefine marriage. I remind members that
the position of the federal government, the position of the
Government of Canada, the position of the minister, is that the
law I quoted at the beginning is the law of Canada. The
Department of Justice will continue to defend that law.
I am trying to put that in statutory form so that the judges of
the country can see that the people of the country, as
represented by their members of parliament, have spoken and give
them guidance on the position of the government. Marriage is the
voluntary union between one man and one woman who are not
otherwise married. In fact that is what the majority of people
believe a marriage should be. We are not talking about benefits.
We are not talking about pensions. We are talking about the
concept of marriage.
The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve says that we cannot take a
moral viewpoint in legislation. I could not disagree more.
Everything we do in this place has a moral foundation to it,
depending on how we were raised and how we look at things.
He talks about my taking a legalistic point of view. What do we
do in this place? We pass laws. We control or try to control
the lives of people based on the laws we pass in this place. Each
and every one of us brings a set of moral guidelines which they
consciously or subconsciously apply to every piece of
legislation, whether it is gun control, tobacco restriction,
tobacco advertising restriction, control of gangs and gang
related activity, or the Criminal Code of Canada in which every
sentence has a moral aspect. It is a complete code of what one
must or must not do.
The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve also said that the
celebration of marriage was a provincial matter. That is
completely incorrect in law. We have a federal Divorce Act. The
reason for that is that marriage, the capacity to marry, is dealt
with federally. It is up to the federal government to decide who
can or cannot marry.
My friend asked whether two people could live together freely.
Of course they can. Many people live together: brothers and
sisters, uncles and aunts, lesbian and gay couples, but that does
not make them entitled to marry as we have known it.
If we want to allow other types of relationships we will have to
open it up to all kinds of relationships, and that is not a
debate to take place in a courtroom. That is a debate to take
place here because it is up to society to decide what
relationships will be recognized as a marriage. It is not up to
the courts.
1915
The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough went on and
on about would this bill put a chicken in every pot, would this
bill get a car in every garage. Of course it would not. All
this bill is trying to do is enshrine in statute that which is
currently the government's position, which is that there is no
capacity to marry unless there is a male and a female.
In conclusion, as this is Private Members' Business this matter
dies in about 10 seconds. I ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to deem this bill votable so that we could debate the bill
for another two hours and then have a vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Scarborough Southwest has asked that this bill be made votable.
Is there unanimous consent that this bill be votable?
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order
paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the dictionary defines competition as a rivalry between two or
more businesses striving for the same customer or market.
Accordingly if the Royal Canadian Mint carries through on its
threat to borrow $30 million on the taxpayers' good credit rating
and begins its risky venture into the coin blank market, it will
become a competitor of Westaim Corporation from Alberta.
Westaim is a successful Canadian business with 110 employees in
its coin plating division. For 35 years it has supplied coin
blanks to the Canadian mint as well as to mints in countries
around the world. However, in keeping with the government slogan
that no good deed goes unpunished, the Liberals have decided to
put this company out of business and its employees out of work.
This is not the first time the Liberals have interfered in a
successful Canadian industry. In the 1970s the Liberal
government of the day moved into the oil industry by purchasing
Petrofina and setting up an intrusive national energy program.
That brilliant scheme cost jobs, damaged the oil industry and
wasted millions of precious taxpayers' dollars.
Why can this government not butt out and let the private sector
take care of itself? Small and medium size businesses are the
backbone of our Canadian economy. Throwing away money may be
something this government has perfected, but putting companies
out of business is going a little too far.
Experts from the South African and Birmingham mints have
estimated that there is currently a 30% to 40% oversupply in the
world coin blank market. They have predicted a reduction in
demand in the near future.
Canadians are using cash and coins less and less. Why?
Increasingly we are all using our bank cards, credit cards and in
the very near future we will begin using electronic cash cards.
I would not want the government to be getting into the coin
blank business now any more than I would have wanted it to get
into the horse drawn buggy business in the 1900s. This venture
would put the government into a start-up business in a sunset
industry when there is already a saturated market.
Only two outcomes are possible, neither of which are desirable.
Either the mint will bury Westaim and put its 110 workers on the
unemployment lines, or the mint's new business will go down in
flames and taxpayers will be on the hook for a minimum of $30
million.
Six months ago the mint started construction on its new coin
plating plant, yet the minister does not have the authority of
parliament to spend this money. Furthermore, the mint does not
have the legal right to use the manufacturing process necessary
to make coin blanks. Westaim owns the patent on this softening
process and still has an unresolved lawsuit against the Royal
Canadian Mint.
1920
As a government owned crown corporation, the mint could have
used the patent if it had bought a licence, but it did not. As a
result, the mint cannot legally manufacture coin blanks with this
process and it is tied up in a lawsuit that might scuttle the
entire project.
In conclusion, I have two questions. How can the minister
arrogantly risk taxpayers' dollars on a project that might never
see the light of day? If this matter is before the courts, why
is the minister allowing the construction of the coin plating
plant to continue?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
mint's mandate is to supply Canadians with coins that are of high
quality, cost effective and delivered on time.
As a commercial entity, the mint generates a financial return to
the Government of Canada by successfully marketing its minting
services and coinage products worldwide.
In early April the mint began construction of a new coin plating
facility in Winnipeg which will fulfil three objectives. It will
guarantee a cost effective supply of plated domestic coinage;
produce annual savings of approximately $10 million; and generate
additional profits of $3 million annually from the production of
foreign plated coinage.
The mint obtained the funds to build the plating facility from a
private commercial institution, not from the government. The
mint does not receive any government subsidies.
Under the current Royal Canadian Mint Act, the mint may borrow
up to $50 million from the consolidated revenue fund or any other
source. Members may recall that in May the government introduced
Bill C-41, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the
Currency Act.
One of the amendments proposes increasing the mint's borrowing
limit to $75 million. This is not because the mint needs
additional money to finance the plating facility. It has already
obtained the financing it requires. The proposed increase will
allow the mint to maintain a borrowing cushion or margin of
safety as growth occurs in the years ahead.
The mint's competition is not with Westaim, not with private
industry, but rather with foreign government mints. Some
countries will only contract from government mint to government
mint.
The mint's investments in its plating plant, its workforce and
its new technology will ensure that it is well placed to be a
leader in the global market.
I would hope that this clarifies once and for all the mint's
mandate, its operations and the financing for its new plating
facility.
[Translation]
BC MINE IN BLACK LAKE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
June 26, the Minister of Human Resources Development announced a
regular POWA for the former workers of the BC Mine in Black
Lake.
Yet a month before, he said in this House that these workers did
not want a regular POWA because such a program was in unfair for
workers. The minister got the message very clearly on June 26,
when he announced the granting of a regular POWA, in Thetford
Mines, because the workers made their disappointment clear, in
no uncertain terms.
As the elected member for Frontenac—Megantic and representative
of the workers of the BC Mine, I am asking two things from the
Minister of Human Resources Development. First that he not use
the extra $1.6 million that Jean Dupéré contributed to the fund
for the calculation of his regular POWA. Second that he accept
to sit down with Minister Louise Harel, of the Government of
Quebec, and the president of the CSN, André Laliberté, in order
to resolve the issue and destandardize his POWA with the $1.6
million from Jean Dupéré.
In conclusion, I want to remind the minister that many of the
former workers at the BC mine have used up their employment
insurance benefits, that the mine has been closed for almost a
year, that older workers have difficulty finding a new job, that
many of them are now in dire straits, that he and his government
are standing in the way of any agreement that could lead to a
satisfactory and quick settlement.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is the only one
responsible for delays in the settlement for the workers at the
BC mine. These men are anxious to live with security and
decency.
I do hope that the Minister of Human Resources Development will
soon have good news for the former workers of the BC mine in
Black Lake.
1925
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada did move quickly to assist the British
Canadian mine workers. In total we have granted some $4 million
to help those laid off employees.
First in September 1997 we allocated close to $3 million for
active measures to help the 300 or so affected workers quickly
re-enter the labour market. Our active measures include targeted
wage subsidies, self-employment assistance and skills
development.
For instance in this case between 60 and 70 workers have found
work at one of the other two mines run by Lab Chrysotile, the
Bell mine or Lac d'Amiante du Canada. Approximately 60 others are
interested in taking courses, 30 of whom are presently enrolled,
with the other 30 starting in October. Seventeen have been
placed by the Comité d'aide aux travailleurs de la mine B.C.
through targeted wage subsidies. Three have started their own
businesses, with another three being reviewed for possible
funding. That is the first $3 million.
Last June the HRD minister also announced $1 million in funding
under the program for older workers adjustment intended to help
workers between 55 and 64 years of age. This measure will assist
about 100 workers whose employment insurance benefits will soon
be running out. But the provincial government has still not
agreed to sign the POWA agreement to help these older workers. We
hope that the Government of Quebec will respond positively and
quickly so that we can begin to put these dollars in the hands of
the 100 former miners who qualify.
The Government of Canada has responded responsibly to the
British Canadian mine workers. We have put forward $4 million
and a variety of programs to assist these Canadians through a
difficult time.
[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 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.27 p.m.)