36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 159
CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 25, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ONTARIO HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JESSE “THE BODY” VENTURA
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FARMERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HARNESS HORSE RACING
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT SPENDING
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1405
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
1410
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL ACTION COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FOREST INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL MATHEWS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | E & N RAILWAY
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1415
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1420
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FARM INCOME
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1430
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOLDEN WEST DOCUMENT SHREDDING
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-54
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1435
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE BREAKING POLICY
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1440
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUGUSTO PINOCHET
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1445
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1450
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NORBERT REINHART
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Serré |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1455
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRINKING WATER
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-44
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TERRORISM
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1500
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Request for Tabling of Document
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Official Languages in House of Commons
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Serré |
1505
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Request for Tabling of Documents
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANNUAL REPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1510
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice and Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Natural Resources and Government Operations
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PROTECTION OF PRIVACY (SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS) ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-456. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1515
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gasoline Additives
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Cruelty to Animals
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Religious Broadcasters
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
1520
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker: Standing Order 97 |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transferred for debate
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1525
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transferred for debate.
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transferred for debate.
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transferred for debate.
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-42. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1550
1555
1600
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1615
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1620
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1700
1705
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1720
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
1725
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1730
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1745
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1820
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1825
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1830
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1835
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Solicitor General of Canada
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1840
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health Protection Branch
|
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 159
![](/web/20061116185920im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 25, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Bruce—Grey.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ONTARIO HEALTH CARE
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
feel bound to address the ongoing impact of the Harris
reformatory government's decisions on health care and hospital
closures in Ontario. Certain falsehoods must be dispelled about
this issue. The reduction in transfer payments to the Ontario
government represents, at most, 2.5% of Ontario's revenues.
When will the Harris reformatories come clean on this issue?
When will they admit to Ontarians that the cuts in health and
hospital services were made to finance the Harris government's
income tax cuts? Why do they not acknowledge that the federal
Liberals reinstated $1.5 billion in cash payments in the last
budget, bringing the cash total to $12.5 billion per year? Why
do the Harris reformatories never mention the big increases to
the provinces in tax points under the federal Liberals?
* * *
JESSE “THE BODY” VENTURA
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this month when former
professional wrestler Jesse “The Body” Ventura was elected
Governor of Minnesota there were some comparisons between the
first member of the American Reform Party elected to office and
the election of our first Reformer, the hon. member for Edmonton
North.
While it is true that the two have something in common, namely
that either of them could whup any member on the government
benches with one arm tied behind their back, there are actually a
number of similarities between Jesse Ventura and the Liberals.
Both Ventura and the Prime Minister are adept at applying the
choke hold. Ventura perfected the manoeuvre known as the “pile
driver” and the Minister of Finance has mastered the art of
driving piles of dollars out of the country with his tax
policies. And how could we overlook Ventura's experience as a
trained navy SEAL when the Liberal backbenches are filled with
trained seals?
* * *
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pork
producers are being devastated by low prices. Hogs are selling
for half the cost of producing them. Last Friday I met with over
70 hog farmers in my constituency office in Smithville. These
are efficient, hardworking producers who know their business, but
they have been caught in circumstances beyond their control.
Hog farmers recognize that their industry is cyclical and they
prepare for the normal ups and downs, but the situation they find
themselves in is not normal. Pork producers and other farmers
who export their product are suffering from the fallout of the
Asian economic crisis and its spinoffs. Canadian exporters have
lost their markets and oversupply has depressed prices globally.
The farm income situation is urgent. The Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food has been working with farm leaders and
his provincial counterparts to find a solution to the problem. I
encourage him to create a national disaster program that will
kick in when the safety net system proves insufficient.
* * *
HARNESS HORSE RACING
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the trotters were at the post and the crowd held its
breath in great anticipation. And then they were off, in the
1998 Breeder's Crown championship which featured the best horses
in the world. After the dust had settled the winner was the
magnificent trotting machine, Muscles Yankee, who raced to
victory for Canada.
The horse, of course, is Canadian owned by Irving Liverman of
Montreal and Canadian driven by John Campbell. The much
respected and highly regarded Mr. Liverman cheered as the Hall of
Famer, the world's greatest driver, John Campbell, masterfully
manoeuvred Muscles to victory.
As a fellow owner and driver, I truly appreciate and applaud the
dedication, drive and determination needed to excel in the sport
of harness racing. Congratulations to the Canadian connection of
Messieurs Liverman and Campbell. They are a true credit to
maintaining this country's proud tradition of excellence in the
field of harness horse racing.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
cannot be said enough: a vote for the PQ is a vote for Quebec's
separation from the rest of Canada.
A vote for the PQ is a vote against Quebec's interests.
A vote for the PQ is a vote for continued insecurity and
political instability in Quebec.
A vote for the PQ will mean time wasted for the next four years.
On November 30, I will be voting Liberal, because a Liberal
government will work for economic growth and job creation.
In Brome—Missisquoi, that will be heaven.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
while Canadian farmers face an income crisis, as provinces
deliver health care with as little as 11% funding from the health
minister and as workers continue to overpay employment insurance
premiums it comes as an absolute shock for taxpayers to learn
that the federal government is still blowing tens of thousands of
dollars on perks and feel-good retreats for Canada's civil
servants.
In two retreats put on by PA Douglas & Associates last year the
federal government forked out $112,000 so that bureaucrats from
government departments could be put up in the Banff Springs Hotel
and wined and dined at taxpayers' expense.
The Liberal government refuses to end wasteful spending and
continues to show a preference for extravagant perks. Instead of
choosing to put money back into the pockets of hardworking
Canadians through tax cuts, the Liberals choose to put
bureaucrats into expensive resort hotels.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
SOCIAL RIGHTS
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in connection
with Bill S-11, which invites Parliament to include social
condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination, I would like
to pay tribute to the Association de défense des droits sociaux
du Québec métropolitain, which this year celebrates 25 years of
active service in the community.
This association has, over the years, become the source of
training and public awareness, a place for thought, discussion
and struggle so members may break through their isolation and
express their rights.
One of their many battles remains current and is being followed
by the Bloc Quebecois. I refer to the cuts to employment
insurance, which have resulted in the exclusion of six out of
ten unemployed individuals from the plan, a reduction in
benefits and social assistance for hundreds of thousands of
people.
The Bloc Quebecois also supports their struggles by calling upon
the Liberal government to stop taking billions of dollars from
the pockets of the most disadvantaged, by refusing to index tax
benefits for children, tax tables and GST credits.
* * *
QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party is right to maintain that
a vote for the PQ is a vote for the separation of Quebec. By
voting for the leader of the PQ, Quebeckers would be making the
mistake of giving him everything he needs to initiate the
separation process.
The PQ leader is a secretive person. Quebeckers should be wary
of him, for the sake of national unity. On November 30, let us
not take any chances, let us vote for the Liberals.
* * *
QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on November 30, a
Liberal government led by Jean Charest will work to renew
Canadian federalism. On November 30, a Liberal government would
be a credible spokesperson on social union. On November 30, a
Liberal government would create better conditions to put Quebec
on the path to prosperity and economic growth again by removing
the constant threat of a referendum and building confidence in
this province.
On November 30, I will be voting Liberal because I believe
Quebec should take its proper place within Canada, and the only
party that can achieve this is the Quebec Liberal Party. On
November 30, the people of Quebec should finally choose a real
government capable of speaking on their behalf and acting in
their interest.
Quebeckers must give the Liberal Party the mandate to run the
province for the next few years.
* * *
[English]
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there have been 50 years of stonewalling, 50 years of neglect and
50 years of denial for Canada's merchant navy veterans. That is
our government's performance, counting 50 years and more.
The issues are very clear. Merchant navy veterans are not
seeking great wealth, simply the respect and benefits given their
armed forces brethren: to be recognized as war veterans, to
receive prisoner of war benefits, to be compensated for years of
inequality and to receive recognition on ceremonial days.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs must agree that there are four
issues that cry out for resolve; not one, not two, not three, but
four.
It is unconscionable that these concerns continue to exist after
50 years. History will judge our days in this House.
It would be sad if the minister enters history as a great
continuer of injustice rather than the minister—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister and a Canadian delegation attended the APEC
meeting in Malaysia and visited China recently.
In Malaysia the Prime Minister raised his concern over the
mistreatment of the Deputy Prime Minister there. In China we
were able to develop a closer relationship with Chinese political
leaders in the areas of business, education and culture.
We witnessed the signing of 46 commercial agreements worth over
$720 million. As well, Canada extended practical assistance of
CIDA projects in isolated regions, including a clean water
project in the Gansu Province.
Congratulations to the Prime Minister for his constructive work
in Asian countries.
* * *
1410
NATIONAL ACTION COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, for 27 years the National Action Committee on the Status
of Women has been a voice for Canadian women.
It was their hard work which helped to ensure that women are now
guaranteed equality in the Constitution. When violence against
women was seen as a private matter, NAC brought it out into the
open and forced us to deal with it. Today our voice is
threatened.
Status of Women seems to be delaying NAC's application for
funding until it is forced to shut down. A month and a half ago
the minister's office promised that NAC's application would be
processed within a week. NAC is still waiting. The time for
playing politics is over.
If this minister believes that women should have an independent
voice, free from political interference, she has only one option.
End the delays in processing NAC's application for funding,
restore core funding for women's groups and reverse the cuts the
government has made.
* * *
[Translation]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November 25 is the International Day to End Violence Against
Women.
The day was declared by women in Latin America and the Caribbean
in 1981 to commemorate the death of the Mirabel sisters, who
were murdered in the Dominican Republic in 1960.
Today we mark the first of 16 days leading up to December 10
that have been set aside to fight violence against women.
Over the next 16 days, communities throughout the country will
reflect on the consequences of violence against women.
I urge members to get involved in helping end violence against
women.
* * *
UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to join with my colleagues in noting the visit of the UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson.
The presence of the former President of Ireland is an honour to
this parliament and it is important to recognize the true
devotion of a woman who, having used her talents to serve her
own country, is now using them to benefit the world at large.
The Bloc Quebecois notes the importance of the responsibility
Mrs. Robinson has been given and assures her of its full
backing. She can rely on the support of the Bloc Quebecois,
which has never hesitated to denounce systematic and flagrant
violations of human rights, wherever in the world they have been
committed.
With the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights just days away, the Bloc Quebecois reiterates its support
for the United Nations and for the High Commissioner for Human
Rights in their fight, which is also our fight, for the freedom
and dignity of the children, women and men of our planet.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FOREST INDUSTRY
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to bring to the attention of the House a serious issue
currently affecting the west coast which has implications for all
of Canada. International environmental organizations are waging
an unjust campaign against the Canadian forest industry. The
outcome of their efforts has been devastating to coastal
communities in British Columbia.
Not only has the forest industry had to deal with a drop in
demand caused by the Asian financial crisis, but European, Asian
and North American consumers are being bombarded with one-sided
arguments about Canadian forest practices while thousands of
Canadians lose their jobs.
The Liberal government has done nothing to counteract this
advertising campaign.
I ask the Liberal government to prove us wrong and prove that it
cares about coastal communities and families that rely on our
natural resources. Do something before it is too late to help
the Canadian forest industry counteract this aggressive
advertising campaign being waged by misguided environmentalists
against our very vital Canadian forest industry.
* * *
BILL MATHEWS
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to recognize Mr. Bill Mathews, a constituent of mine.
I was recently informed that Bill volunteered his time and
business expertise to assist in developing the business skills of
a firm in one of the world's most volatile and disadvantaged
economies.
Bill was a CESO volunteer in Russia at a corporation that
processes soybean products. During his tenure at this Russian
business Bill was able to share his knowledge in areas such as
how to expand operations into a franchising system and in
construction methods for growth of the company's existing
infrastructure. He provided a plan to develop the basement of
the company's headquarters which included cost estimates and
design work.
In short, Bill made a substantial difference in the way this
firm conducted its day to day operations. Because of Bill's
efforts the efficiency and future prospects of this company were
improved, which in turn will result in more economic output and
growth. This will result in an improvement in areas such as
employee wages and their standard of living, while at the same
time helping to enhance the labour standards of the country as a
whole. I applaud Bill's efforts because I feel that they
represent a concrete example of how a hand up is often more
beneficial than a handout.
* * *
E & N RAILWAY
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the E & N railway on Vancouver Island is a rundown
commuter railway operated by VIA Rail.
It has been propped up by Canadian taxpayers in the amount of $2
million a year. However, the trains routinely break down leaving
commuters stranded. It is incredibly inefficient.
1415
Now the rail line is going to be purchased by an American group
called RailAmerica Inc. This could be a major tourist attraction
and generate a lot of money.
However, what does this say about the case of Canadian investors
in this country? The fact is that they and the rail line are
compromised by high taxes and complex rules and regulations which
prevent them from investing in these worthy endeavours.
My other concern is what if RailAmerica decides to abandon the
rail line? What will happen to the commuters who depend on the E
& N to travel to work? Will the Minister of Transport guarantee
that the sale of the E & N to the American company will include a
provision safeguarding the public interest?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what a glimpse into the Prime Minister's values. He
refuses to accept any responsibility for his solicitor general's
resignation. Instead he looks for someone to blame. He blames
the media. He blames the official opposition. And now he
launches a manhunt to find someone to blame for filing the
incriminating affidavit with the RCMP complaints commission.
How can the Prime Minister possibly defend this outrageous witch
hunt?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the story in the Globe and Mail this morning is
absolutely not true.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is obviously upset. He is not angry
with the solicitor general babbling on an airplane. He is not
angry about the solicitor general refusing to tell the truth when
he was first confronted. He is angry that it came out at all and
that the affidavit was filed and that it was released.
Exactly what lesson is the Prime Minister trying to teach here,
that covering up is always better than telling the truth?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is too bad the Leader of the Opposition has to read
the prepared question.
I said it is not true. I was aware that there were to be
affidavits. I said they had to do it because we want the truth to
be known by everybody.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when I listen to the Prime Minister, I hear a man who is
desperate to protect the image of ethics and integrity but spends
very little time on the substance.
If the Prime Minister wants to find someone to blame for this
entire sordid affair, why does he not just look in the mirror?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for six months there has been a commission which has
been charged to look into that. We have told the commission it
can inquire about everything. There was a motion made in front
of it by the lawyers for the students asking the commission to
look at all the aspects of that and the commission agreed. The
commission has come to my office and the offices of every
department to get all the files. We told the commission that the
witnesses it needs will be available. I cannot be more open than
that.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, three months ago today the Canada pension plan's chief
actuary was fired. To help quell the controversy the finance
minister told this House the Canadian Institute of Actuaries
would review the upcoming CPP report. But last week the
institute refused to become embroiled in the affair.
How can the minister guarantee now an independent review of the
CPP report?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to replace the chief actuary the government has brought
in that person who was responsible for the outside review who has
extensive experience in this area. He will do a very thorough,
very comprehensive review.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is not what the minister told the House earlier. He
said there would be an independent review of this report, not
just counting on the person who prepared it. The finance
minister fired the Canada pension plan's top watchdog. Now the
Canadian Institute of Actuaries refuses to review the upcoming
report.
How can Canadians ever be sure the CPP numbers are correct?
1420
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister did not fire the chief actuary. He
was fired by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions which
is an independent agency. The superintendent was acting within
his full scope. I was not asked for my opinion. I did not give
it and would not have given it if I had been asked.
I met with the provincial finance ministers. The acting chief
actuary has met with the provincial finance ministers. The
actuary's report will be made available to all of the provinces
and they will authenticate it.
* * *
[Translation]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
work of the RCMP public complaints commission cannot be
restricted solely to the ethical aspect of the police officers'
conduct during the APEC summit in Vancouver.
Will the Prime Minister admit that what the public wants to know
in this entire matter, and what absolutely must be clarified, is
the role the Prime Minister played in the brutal repression of a
peaceful demonstration? That is the real issue.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
answer has already been given, and I will give it again, perhaps
with a quote since the opposition never looks at the facts.
Here is the quote:
[English]
“On October 5 the panel itself ruled that it had the
jurisdiction to investigate, make findings and recommendations on
whether the Prime Minister, members of his office, the Privy
Council Office or the Government of Canada gave improper orders
or directions to the RCMP concerning APEC security”.
Come on. Can I find something clearer than that?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
must be kept in mind that, in the Somalia affair, the government
tried to put the blame on ordinary soldiers, on those carrying
out orders, rather than on the senior officers giving them.
Once again here we have them trying to lay the blame on those
who carry out the orders and to protect the ones really
responsible.
Does the Prime Minister not think the time has come to appoint
an independent commission in order the clarify the role played,
regardless of what he says, because the commission's powers of
inquiry must be looked at, and the true decision-makers
determined? An independent commission must be empowered to
investigate and determine the responsibility of the Prime
Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a totally independent commission, a permanent one
created by an act of Parliament.
The following is what the terms of reference stated in February:
[English]
To “inquire into all matters touching upon these complaints, to
hear all relevant evidence, to ensure a full and fair hearing in
respect of these complaints and to report such findings and
recommendations as are warranted”.
[Translation]
I have just read the terms of reference, what they themselves
told the students' lawyers they were going to do. They are
fully independent. And I trust that, some day, the opposition
will be able—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlesbourg.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, less than
12 hours after being sworn in, the new solicitor general already
got himself into trouble.
Yesterday, he started off by saying that the report to be
submitted by the RCMP complaints commission might not be made
public, but he later backpedaled, under pressure from the Prime
Minister's office.
Is this not more confirmation that the real decision maker in
the whole APEC issue is the Prime Minister, and that the
solicitor general is nothing but a puppet for the Prime Minister
and his office?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general clarified the situation yesterday.
He said the commission's report would be made public. This is
crystal clear. When he answered the question, he had a doubt. He
made inquiries, as any cautious person would do, and in the
minutes that followed, after reviewing the matter, he gave the
clear reply that the report would be made public.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general surely got the answer from the Prime
Minister's office.
Everyone, including the students who filed complaints and the
RCMP that is the target of these complaints, feels that the RCMP
commission cannot get to the bottom of the whole APEC scandal.
Does the Prime Minister agree that, at this rate, not only will
justice not be done, but that it will not even be seen to be
done?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
mentioned earlier that, after the students' lawyers filed a
petition on October 5, the commission stated that it would
investigate all aspects of the situation.
1425
The commission said it could have access to the Prime Minister's
office, the privy council and every federal department to find
out whether orders that should not have been given had in fact
been given.
The commission intends to do so. It has the mandate to do so. It
has been working on this issue since February. Let the
commission do its job. That is all we are asking.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
October 6 I stated in this House that the former solicitor
general's infamous in-flight remarks were inappropriate and
prejudicial to the public complaints commission inquiry.
The Prime Minister accused me at the time of raising baseless
allegations and asked me to apologize. Well, these allegations
have been proven true. It is the Prime Minister who owes the
apology.
On the anniversary of Spray-PEC, will the Prime Minister now
apologize to Canadians for his arrogant dismissal of concerns
raised about the integrity of the public complaints commission?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I remember very well the hon. member had an eye witness
who had seen me giving orders there. I was talking to my staff.
The eye witness did not understand a word. I was giving orders
in French to my staff. She never retracted that. She said to
this House that we had called the president of the university.
It was totally false because it was the president of the
university who called Mr. Goldenberg who in turn made sure
through Mr. Pelletier that the university was satisfied.
She never apologized—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
apparently there is no apology from the Prime Minister who
accused the member for Palliser of being a reporter for the
National Enquirer, a reporter accused by the then solicitor
general of fabricating his story. The story has been proven
true. The former solicitor general did prejudice the inquiry.
If the Prime Minister does not have the humility to apologize to
Canadians, will he undo the damage by launching a full,
independent judicial inquiry to get at the truth about Spray-PEC?
The Speaker: My colleagues, it is getting a little bit
difficult to hear the questions. I am sure we want to hear the
questions as well as the answers. I call on the right hon. Prime
Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not very complicated. The commission is looking
at all the arguments. The commission has not ruled on the
affirmation she made. Again, she should wait to have the facts.
If there is a ruling by the commission that the commission has
been prejudiced, we will recognize that. But there is no
decision, so she should wait a bit and check her facts. She is
not very good on that.
* * *
FARM INCOME
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and
our agriculture critic met with western farmers to discuss the
current farm income crisis.
One farmer from Saskatchewan during that meeting said “We have
used the children's education fund to keep the farm afloat. I
will tell you, every day I am faced with calls from farmers in
tears”. They are in desperate shape.
I ask the minister of agriculture, when will the government
start showing some compassion and help farmers across this
country who are suffering through this financial crisis?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear that we
understand fully the very unfortunate circumstances which too
many of our Canadian farmers are in right now. I am discussing
that issue with my cabinet colleagues as we go forward in this
very unfortunate situation.
1430
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the national safety net advisory committee said on
November 18: “The Canadian farm sector is facing a crisis. This
situation has revealed a major gap in the safety net system, a
gap that needs to be filled now”.
The minister said in the House that a national program would be
in place by the end of November. The standing committee on
agriculture says its report will not be ready until December 7.
Can farmers expect action from this government before the end of
the month or will the minister just waste more time while more
farmers go bankrupt?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should get his facts
straight. I did not make a statement on what would or would not
happen by the end of November.
What I did make a commitment to was that I would make a
presentation and discuss this with my cabinet colleagues before
the end of November. I will be doing that.
* * *
GOLDEN WEST DOCUMENT SHREDDING
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of public works hired the Golden West Document Shredding
company in Burnaby to shred 22,000 boxes of confidential
information. This included very personal information on Canadian
families, including tax files and secret RCMP police files.
Golden West Document Shredding did not shred the documents. In
fact, it sold them to a private company for profit.
Can the minister tell this House how many Canadian families had
their private files sold to the highest bidder?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the beginning of
July my department learned of this incident. We took it very
seriously.
Right away we issued a stop work order, suspended the company's
security clearance and removed all the remaining security
material from the premises. We also have commenced a review of
all security clearances and the removal of material.
We just received a report from the RCMP. We are studying the
report and will take the necessary steps.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
very fortunate that the minister got a report from the RCMP and
believed it this time.
The shredding of documents is a very simple issue. We would
think the Liberals have had a lot of experience with this, with
APEC and the Somalia affair. It is a very simple but important
issue.
This company sold the material for profit. In spite of the
action he has taken, how can the minister be 100% sure that those
files did not end up in the hands of people who could abuse them?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon.
member that this incident happened in July, almost five months
ago.
We took all the necessary measures and we will continue to look
at the matter. I have been told that no files or very important
documents are in the hands of anybody. After five months I am
surprised he is raising the issue.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-54
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
Yesterday, the Minister of Industry again contradicted himself
by confirming that Bill C-54 would indeed apply to Quebec. Since
1994, however, Quebec has had privacy legislation that is a
model for the world.
The minister's bill represents a clear step backwards for
Quebeckers.
What will it take for the minister to recognize the value of
Quebec's experience and to offer Canadians federal legislation
that is as complete and effective as what Quebec already has?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
answer is quite simple. We have a bill that could complement
the very good legislation passed by the Johnson government in
Quebec to protect the interests of Quebeckers in provincially
regulated areas.
This bill will make it possible to protect the interests of all
Quebeckers in federally regulated areas, as well in other
provinces that perhaps prefer to leave this up to the federal
government.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, clearly the
minister does not understand his own bill.
Ministers Boisclair and Beaudoin wrote the minister that the
proposed federal legislation seriously undermined privacy in
Quebec. Yet the minister could have built on Quebec's
legislation.
What is the minister trying to prove by imposing less effective
legislation on Quebeckers?
1435
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
the meeting of ministers responsible for the information highway
held in Fredericton in June, at which Minister Beaudoin was
present, the ministers decided, and I quote “to support the
adoption of the model code for the protection of personal
information developed by the Canadian Standards Association as
the minimum standard”. That was what was done.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Statistics Canada reported yesterday that the number of full time
jobs in Canada has declined by 230,000 during the 1990s.
Meanwhile, the jobs that were created were either part time jobs
or jobs that people had to create themselves after they were laid
off. In the U.S. employment grew at almost twice the Canadian
rate and those were full time secure jobs.
How can the finance minister be proud of his job record when the
job creation record is so much better in the U.S.?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we were in opposition we repeatedly pointed out to
the government the principal defects in its economic policy which
led to the very situation that has been described by Statistics
Canada.
That is why when we came into office in 1993 we immediately
began to remedy the situation. I am delighted to say that since
1996 job growth in Canada has been substantially higher than in
the United States.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
blah, blah, blah. That is not the right answer. That is not the
answer at all.
Statistics Canada has the answer. It says that at least part of
the problem is high payroll taxes in Canada. The minister takes
credit for interest rates that are set in the United States.
When is he going to start to take the blame for high payroll
taxes that he has direct responsibility for?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, blah, blah. Another brilliant policy insight from the
Reform caucus.
The simple fact is we have reduced payroll taxes every year
since we have come into office. Payroll taxes are such a clear
indicator. Why is it that our payroll taxes are the lowest of the
OECD and in fact are lower than those in the United States?
* * *
[Translation]
ICE BREAKING POLICY
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister admitted he would be reviewing his policy of charging
for ice breaking, which is unfair to Quebec.
However, the public is worried because, in less than a month,
new fees will be charged but no one knows what they will be.
This all smacks of improvisation.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Does he
not realize that the implementation of his charging policy
should be deferred, at least until a careful impact study has
been conducted and the necessary consultations properly carried
out?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said repeatedly, the proposed fee schedule was
developed by a 10 member committee, seven of whom were from the
Laurentian and Great Lakes regions.
Last week, the industry made us a counteroffer. I am in the
process of evaluating this counteroffer, giving it proper
consideration, and, as I told the hon. member time and time
again, as soon as I make a decision, I will announce it.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it cannot
be stated often enough: the industry is worried, port
authorities are worried, ferry operators are worried, they are
all worried because the minister's plan smacks of improvisation.
Why not do the only reasonable thing and impose a moratorium?
1440
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the industry and port authorities are concerned,
it is because the Bloc Quebecois keeps spreading false
information on this issue day after day.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of agriculture continues to gouge bankrupt
farmers. The minister uses his agencies such as the Canadian
Grain Commission and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to strip
$138 million from farmers.
The minister could go a long way to saving the family farm by
dropping these user fees today. He does not need to discuss it
with the finance minister. He does not need to negotiate with
Americans. Why does he not just do it?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find this information and these
comments passing strange from a party that said it would take
hundreds of millions of dollars out of the support to
agriculture.
We had a challenge when we took over the government in Canada
and we met that challenge. Part of that was asking the users to
pay, after consultation and agreement with them, some of the cost
of the services provided to them for some of the benefit accrued
to them. Also, the member knows that we have frozen those fees
until after the year 2000.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, farmers are paying all those fees. These agencies are
of value to all Canadians.
The point is that Canadian farmers are going broke and until
this crisis is over we should stop taking the shirts off their
backs.
I am not asking the minister to disband the Canadian Grain
Commission, I am asking him to stop using his ministry to drive
farmers off the land. Again, when will he suspend these taxes?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims to represent
people in western Canada, and I know he comes from there, but I
suggest he talk to farmers about their feelings about the
Canadian Grain Commission and the fees charged.
I can tell the hon member that farmers are in full support of
the activities of the Canadian Grain Commission and the
reputation it gives to the best grain and cereal products in the
world which we market all over the world.
* * *
[Translation]
AUGUSTO PINOCHET
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
the House of Lords decided that General Pinochet could be
prosecuted for crimes against humanity and extradited to a third
country.
Last week, the Minister of Justice indicated that she was
initiating consultations on the matter.
Can the minister tell us today whether her decision has been
reached and whether she intends to demand extradition of the
dictator Pinochet to Canada, following the example of Spain,
France, Switzerland and Belgium?
1445
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have made no decision in
this matter as of yet. As I reported last week to the hon.
member, I have referred this matter to the RCMP and to my war
crimes unit.
Obviously in light of the House of Lords decision this morning
we are now reviewing that decision and in the coming weeks we
will make a decision based on the report of the RCMP as well as
the advice of my war crimes unit.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today in the Hall of Honour a clothesline with T-shirts
bearing messages of women's experience with violence reminds us
that November 25 is the international day to end violence against
women.
Could the secretary of state tell the House what Canada is doing
to eliminate violence against women.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, November 25 is the
international day to eliminate violence against women.
I have a personal commitment to ending violence against women
and so I am very proud to be part of a government that is also
committed to this end.
The government has brought in many changes to the Criminal Code
to decreased violence against women and children. We have also
recognized that every six and a half days a women is killed with
a gun in domestic violence. We have brought about changes in
strong gun control legislation. We have brought about innovative
changes through the research centre on violence across Canada.
The T-shirts the hon. member speaks about—
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Fisheries has just changed the rules so that
foreign vessels and foreign fishermen can now fish turbot in
Canadian waters where Canadians are denied access to this very
resource.
Is it the policy of the government to pay fishermen to sit at
home on TAGS while foreign vessels and cheap foreign labour are
brought in to fish in Canadian waters?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries should realize that he just
changed rules last week and his department officials confirmed
that in committee yesterday.
I quote from a letter from 21 Canadian fish companies to the
minister demanding access to this resource over foreigners: “It
is inexcusable that foreign vessels and foreign crews are
permitted to harvest turbot at the expense of Canadian
fishermen”.
Where is the new Captain Canada over there? Why does the
minister continue today to give away our resources at the expense
of Canadian fishermen? What is he doing? How come he does not
know what is going on in his own ministry?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his excitement did not
hear the reply to the earlier question. The reply was there is no
policy change.
With respect to the issue he has raised, he can discuss it
further at committee this afternoon.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In spite of his and the government's rhetoric about job creation
Statistics Canada, the government's own agency, paints an
entirely different picture.
The jobless rate in Canada is almost 50% higher than the in U.S.
Among older men it is 140% higher and almost twice as high among
older women.
The tragedy behind these numbers is manifested in every
community across the country. The government has this don't
worry, be happy attitude. That is an insult to all Canadians who
cannot find work and feed their families.
Does the Minister of Finance dispute Statistics Canada's
analysis of this crisis situation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in fact what Statistics Canada has pointed out are the
very problems we raised when we were in opposition, the problems
with the then government's administration of the economy. That
is why we brought in the changes we did. That is why today we
have low interest rates, we have eliminated the deficit and it is
why we have one of the best job creation records of any of the
G-7 countries. As I mentioned, it is paying off. Since 1996
over 800,000 new jobs have been created, better than any other
G-7 country.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, this must be why our offices are inundated by people
on EI, trying to get EI, trying to find work. The government's
policies are simply not working.
My supplementary is to the Prime Minister. When the Prime
Minister recognized there was a crisis in health care he
established the national forum on health.
1450
Surely the Prime Minister knows the crisis in employment and
joblessness is just as severe. Will he set up a national forum
on unemployment to hear ideas on how we can solve this question?
If not, is it that he does not care about the unemployed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the record of the government on job creation is pretty
impressive. Since we took office, more than 1.3 million new jobs
have been created. When we took over the unemployment level was
11.4%. It is down to 8.1%. I think we have done very well.
Of course our unemployment level is not as low as that of the
United States. In Canada we have a much better safety net for
protecting people. We have minimum wage and a lot of social
programs not available in many parts of the U.S.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, first I
will be a lovely lady and thank the minister of veterans affairs
for meeting with merchant navy vets this morning.
Now, in the meeting the minister apparently stated that his
hands were tied when it came to compensation. However, the
minister must know that he has the ability to request an order in
council to authorize the crown to make a payment without
prejudice for these veterans. Is the minister willing to explore
this avenue?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her kind comments. I also
want to tell her what merchant navy veterans receive now in the
way of benefits.
They receive disability, survivor's pension, income support,
prisoner of war compensation, survivor's allowance, benefits for
surgical and dental needs, veterans independence program and long
term care. When this government's omnibus bill is introduced
early next week they will have these benefits and more.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I know
what the minister of veterans affairs is referring to. It is the
bill that was brought in by our government in 1992 that made them
partially equal with other World War II veterans.
The Department of Veterans Affairs had $49 million in lapsed
funds in 1997, more than enough to compensate these merchant navy
vets.
The Conservative government in the past had the courage to
correct the wrongs of the past with Japanese Canadians in World
War II and looked after thalidomide victims.
Will this minister and this government—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for reminding
this House that her government could not put forward retroactive
legislation either.
* * *
NORBERT REINHART
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Norbert Reinhart, a Canadian citizen and diamond
driller from northern Ontario, is presently being held in
captivity by the FARC guerrilla group in Columbia.
What is the Canadian government doing to ensure Mr. Reinhart's
family and colleagues that every possible effort is being made to
have him released safely and at the earliest possible time?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian ambassador to Columbia is actually
today in the state of Bucaramanga to meet with the governor, the
bishop of the region and the Red Cross to discuss with these
officials the best way of negotiating the release of Mr.
Reinhart.
We also had the occasion, I and the Minister for International
Cooperation, to raise this matter with the high commissioner for
human rights, Mary Robinson, who has indicated that their office
in Columbia will do everything possible to help in supporting
them.
We have given them a major grant of half a million dollars for
their work—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeland.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Immigration.
Canada's intelligence agency, CSIS, has reported that money
raised by a Tamil group in Canada has been used to fund a
terrorist group, the Tamil Tigers.
Mr. Suresh, a refugee in Canada since 1991, has been identified
as a leader of the Tamil Tigers and in spite of the fact that he
was ordered deported he still walks the streets of Toronto today.
Why?
1455
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague had given me notice
of the question I would have had an answer for him.
* * *
[Translation]
DRINKING WATER
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have
learned that the federal government plans to expand the mandate
of the Joint International Commission to all waterways and
groundwater on both sides of the Canada-US border.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Since
Quebec wishes to develop a water policy, does the minister
realize that her project could constitute a new instance of
federal government interference in an area that has always
belonged to the provinces?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what this country does with bulk water
exports is of concern to all Canadians. The federal government
is committed to dealing with this subject. We will be bringing
forward our decision very soon.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Canadians from
coast to coast to coast are saying with one voice that our health
care system is in crisis. From patients to doctors to nurses to
all provincial and territorial governments, everyone is demanding
federal government action and a commitment to reverse this
government's cuts to health care.
The Premier of Saskatchewan has made an important suggestion in
calling on the Prime Minister to convene a first ministers
meeting as soon as possible. Is the Prime Minister willing to
take up this call, to take this first step of convening a first
ministers meeting as soon as possible and to discuss the critical
situation in health care?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I made a speech in September in which I said that the
next investment of this government would be in health care. I
said this long before premiers began asking for a first ministers
meeting.
* * *
BILL C-44
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the creation
of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation was an integral part of
the previous government's redress agreement with the over 21,000
Japanese Canadians who were wrongly interned during the second
world war. Despite the fact that their properties were
confiscated and sold, the 1984 Liberal government steadfastly
refused to apologize or even compensate these individuals for
that shameful injustice.
Why is the Liberal government using Bill C-44 to once again turn
its back on our Japanese Canadians by breaching the terms of the
agreement that led to the creation of the Canadian Race Relations
Foundation?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-44 contains a number of measures that deal with
accountability. Bill C-44 looks at the Canadian Race Relations
Foundation just as it looks at all the other agencies. It is
being treated quite fairly.
* * *
TERRORISM
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
hope the new solicitor general will not stonewall this question.
Recently the director of CSIS stated that Canada is the number
two country in the world when it comes to terrorist activity:
“Terrorists have been provided a safe haven here”. He
also revealed that it is becoming increasingly difficult to
effectively combat terrorism.
While this government has the money to spend on millennium
celebrations and tunnels for Senators, CSIS has had its budget
cut by over $65 million. Is the government going to sit idle or
will it act now to ensure Canada does not become the number one
home for terrorists?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that Canada is
aware of the problem and that we are addressing the problem.
* * *
1500
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of the Honourable Antonio Bargone,
Secretary of State for Public Works of Italy.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services referred to an
RCMP report about the shredding of documents by Golden West
Document Shredding Inc. Could we ask the minister to table the
report so that we could have a look at it, please?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you will know, this is not a
legitimate point of order. A minister is compelled to table a
report from which he or she quotes, with the exception of
ministerial briefing notes.
The minister did not quote from the report. He indicated that a
report was being prepared. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will
recognize the difference, as we all do.
The Speaker: The explanation is correct. There is no
point of order.
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES IN HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what
I wish to raise this afternoon is more a question of privilege.
I was elected by constituents who are bilingual, francophone or
anglophone, to represent them in a bilingual parliament and in a
bilingual country.
Every time I rise to speak in English in this House, the Bloc
Quebecois members yell “Speak French!” at me.
[English]
It is not only my right and my privilege to speak both official
languages in this House. It is my duty.
The Speaker: The member's point is well taken. We may
address this House in either official language and I would
encourage him and all other members to choose whatever language
they wish to address this House.
1505
In the course of the question period we sometimes throw words
across the floor which are not always the best for us here in
this House.
[Translation]
When members speak in the House of Commons, the question of
speaking English or French should never be raised. You have that
right and it is not necessary to repeat this. When an hon.
member speaks in English, he should not be asked to speak in
French.
[English]
The point is well taken. I reinforce the point and encourage
all hon. members to please refrain from doing anything like that.
REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government House leader to table the
affidavits which were referred to in numerous exchanges in this
House. He advised that he would look into that and they have yet
to be tabled.
I am also asking that the letters of resignation that have also
been referred to be tabled.
The Prime Minister referred numerous times to a document, again
in reference to questions about APEC. I would ask for that
document to be tabled.
The Speaker: You might have a question that you are
putting to the House leader. If he wants to answer the question
I will permit it. However, I want to make it clear that this is
not a point of order.
If the hon. government House leader wishes the floor I will give
it to him.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps on one point I will
acknowledge that the member may have a legitimate point of order
and that is in reference to one document which was quoted by a
minister late last week. The Deputy Prime Minister did quote
from a document.
His point with respect to the other documents does not
constitute a legitimate point of order.
However, I have endeavoured to verify and hopefully I can have
that document made available to the House later today, in
reference to the one document from which there was a quote, not
the others which were not quoted.
The Speaker: From my recollection the documents were not
quoted, but we have an undertaking that the House leader will
provide the information from one of the documents. We will leave
it at that.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ANNUAL REPORTS
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of
Standing Order 32(1), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, two reports: the 1997-98 annual report of
the Nunavut Implementation Commission and the British Columbia
Treaty Commission's annual report for 1998.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
1510
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 20, 1998,
the committee has consider Bill C-40, an act respecting
extradition, to amend the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code,
the Immigration Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal
Matters Act and to amend and repeal other acts in consequence.
Your committee has agreed to report the bill with amendments.
NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the
Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations
concerning Bill C-41, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act
and Currency Act. The bill is being reported with amendments.
HEALTH
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
fourth report of the Standing Committee on Health.
Pursuant to its order of reference of Tuesday, May 12, 1998,
your committee has considered Bill C-247, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (genetic manipulation), and agreed to report it
with one amendment.
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Pursuant to its order of reference of Tuesday, October 27, 1998,
your committee has considered Bill C-43, an act to establish the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal other
acts as a consequence. Your committee tables its report with
amendments.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 46th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of the liaison committee.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in
the 46th report later this day.
* * *
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY (SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS) ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-456, an act to protect personal privacy by
restricting the use of social insurance numbers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, nowadays every time a person applies to
rent an apartment, to open a bank account or just about anything,
the first question they are asked is “What is your social
insurance number?”
There are millions and millions of unused social insurance
numbers that are floating around the country. In fact, the
auditor general reported recently about the alarming number of
social insurance numbers that are floating around.
Not only is it immoral, but it is unfair for anyone to request
the social insurance number of another person, unless they are
required by law to do so.
I want to make sure it becomes illegal. To that extent, this
bill would make it illegal for anyone to ask for a social
insurance number unless it is required by law to ask for that
number. As a result, we will be able to solve the problem. One
person should not be able to require another person to give their
social insurance number unless the request is specifically
required by law or unless the person making the request advises
the other person in writing that it is not necessary to comply
with the request and that there will not be a penalty for failing
to do so.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 46th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
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.
(Motion agreed to)
1515
FINANCE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations among all parties in the House. I
believe you will find consent for the following motion.
I move that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on
Finance presented to the House on Monday, November 23, 1998, be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: I presume this motion is without
notice. It is not on the Notice Paper. Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House
to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
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.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present
this petition signed by residents of Grand Bend, Forest and
Stoney Creek. They note that all studies show how the manganese
based MMT in gasoline has been proven to foul emission control
devices resulting in higher smog levels which will devastate our
Kyoto climate change commitments. They call upon parliament to
ban the use of the additive MMT.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, several hundred people signed this petition from various
places in Nova Scotia. They pray that parliament enact Bill
C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and
the Interpretation Act.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians
including from my own riding of Mississauga South.
In this year celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the petitioners would like to bring
to the attention of the House that human rights violations
continue in many countries around the world, including Indonesia.
They also point out that Canada is internationally respected for
its defence of universal human rights.
The petitioners therefore call upon the government to continue
its efforts to speak out against countries that tolerate
violations of human rights and to do whatever is possible to
bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions today. There
are thousands of people from Kamloops, British Columbia, who are
fed up with the tax system and are just generally angry. They
have all sorts of reasons why they feel that way and I suspect
those reasons are known. They are simply asking the government
to undertake a fair tax reform so that people can pay their fair
share as opposed to most Canadians being exploited by an unfair
tax system.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, again there are thousands of people from
Kamloops who are concerned about cruelty to animals. They are
really upset that people who are cruel to animals seem to never
get what they consider a decent sentence. They figure judges are
too soft on people who are mean to animals. They point out a
whole number of specific examples of this that are just quite
pathetic. They are asking the government to take this issue more
seriously.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, the last petition is a small one from
people from the Shuswap Lake area of British Columbia. It is
about the MAI. The MAI is over but they are basically concerned
that it never come back in any form.
RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present a petition on behalf of
residents of Owen Sound in my riding of Bruce—Grey.
The petition is signed primarily by constituents from Owen Sound
and relates to the licensing of religious broadcasters. The
petitioners request that parliament review the mandate of the
CRTC and encourage it to license Christian broadcasters.
1520
MARRIAGE
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have two petitions which are signed by 375
residents of my riding of Oxford. Both petitions ask that
parliament enact legislation such as Bill C-225 to define in
statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single
male and a single female.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will
be answering Question No. 119 today.
.[Text]
Question No. 119—Mr. John Cummins:
With regard to fishery protests conducted
by commercial fishermen in British Columbia to protest the
native-only commercial fishery on the Fraser River and at Port
Alberni, for each of the years 1995, 1996, and 1997: (a) what
were the costs of enforcement to the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans in terms of manpower, equipment and other resources: (b)
what were the costs of enforcement to other departments and
agencies: and (c) what were the costs of prosecutions resulting
from the protests?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by
the departments of fisheries and oceans, justice and solicitor
general as follows:
(a) The following is a summary of the enforcement resources
expended in the Fraser River and Port Alberni in response to
protest fisheries aimed at the aboriginal pilot sales for 1995,
1996 and 1997:
Manpower
1995: $11,000
1996: $36,700
1997: $101,700
Equipment
1995: $700
1996: $16,600
1997: $37,000
Other resources
1995: $0
1996: $0
1997: $0
(b) Fraser River:
1995: $274,624
1996: $108,420
1997: $103,888
Port Alberni:
No data was recovered for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 for the
Port Alberni area. This type of data is not readily available as
E division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did not track
this data as a matter of course until 1998.
(c) There were no costs incurred in 1995. The total estimated
costs for 1996 and 1997 together is $34,299.66. Unfortunately it
is not possible to break this total down into the individual
years.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like Motion P-36 to be called.
That an
Order of the House do issue for a copy of all documents, reports,
minutes of meetings, notes, memos, correspondence, polls and
briefings related to the creation of Nunavut.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that Motion P-36,
under Standing Order 97(1) be transferred for debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Standing Order 97(1) requires that
either the member proposing the motion or any minister propose
that the motion be transferred for debate. The parliamentary
secretary is not able to make that request.
The question is what is the disposition in respect of this
notice of motion for the production of papers. Either we put the
question, or we have another submission. Is the Minister of
Natural Resources rising on this point?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the matter just referred to be transferred
for debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like Motion P-37 be called.
That an
Order of the House do issue for a copy of all documents, reports,
minutes of meetings, notes, memos, correspondence, polls and
briefings related to aboriginal logging on Crown land.
1525
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again I would move that Motion P-37 be transferred
for debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Are there more? Shall all remaining
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order.
I would like to move production of papers No. P-33.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we revert to
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers for the purpose
of this request?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: We just had them all stand. That is
the trouble. No one else rose. I did ask. I said can we now
have them stand and everybody said yes. I do not like to be
difficult, but we had disposed of the matter.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I know you do not want to
be difficult and none of us do. The way that transpired, because
there had been two requests in a row from the same member, what
all of us assumed here was that you had caught the member's eye,
which you did. You kind of looked over and asked if there were
any more and you said that was all. When you said c'est tout,
I thought that was to do with that member. I did not think we
were finished with that particular part of Routine Proceedings.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to
reverting to this item on the order paper.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could revert. The
Speaker did sweep his benevolent eye down the opposition bench to
see if there were any other members rising on this point. I
really did think it was done. I was not trying to raise the
mettle through the House.
It was Motion No. P-33, was it not? P-33 is called.
That
an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents,
reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, correspondence and
briefings relating to the recent recommendation made to the
government by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade regarding the claim of Canadian veterans
against Japan for forced labour while in captivity in Hong Kong
during World War II and Article 26 of the 1952 Peace Treaty with
Japan in association with the May 1998 report tabled in the House
of Commons by the same Committee.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move that this item be transferred for debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like Motion No. P-46 to be called.
That
an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents,
reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos and correspondence
regarding all aspects of what is known as the Gulf War Syndrome.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again I would move that this item be transferred
for debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I understood that there had been consultations among all
parties regarding a clemency motion.
An hon. member: Tomorrow.
Mr. Nelson Riis: That is for tomorrow. I am a day ahead.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed then that all the
remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
TOBACCO ACT
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Health) moved
that Bill C-42, an act to amend the Tobacco Act, be read the
third time and passed.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to participate in the debate on this crucial piece of
legislation.
It is a privilege to support Bill C-42 because it represents yet
another step in the government's efforts to put Canada squarely
at the international forefront of tobacco control.
As hon. members will recall, in the spring of 1997 the House
passed Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act, which instituted a number of
stringent restrictions on the marketing of tobacco products. It
was a strong law then and it went a long way toward protecting
the Canadian public from the ravages of smoking. It was a
necessary law, because smoking is a public health crisis and it
is of extraordinary proportions.
The amendments contained in the legislation before us today
would make that strong law even stronger. By phasing out over
five years all tobacco company sponsorship promotions of
entertainment and sporting events, Bill C-42 reinforces this
government's commitment to protecting Canadians and in
particular, impressionable young people from the noxious
influence of cigarette marketing.
1530
As parliamentarians we will be sending a powerful and historic
message to Canadians and in particular to cigarette
manufacturers. We will be saying in no uncertain terms that
tobacco smoke is public health enemy number one. We will be
saying that we will not tolerate the multinational tobacco
industry targeting our young people in any attempt to convince
them to pick up the habit.
Permit me to briefly outline the contents of Bill C-42. As hon.
members will recall, one section of the Tobacco Act includes
restrictions on the way tobacco companies could advertise and
promote their financial sponsorship of events such as automobile
racing, show jumping, musical events and so forth.
In essence they could only display their brand names and logos
on the bottom 10% on the face of ads, signs, billboards and so
on. This restriction raised concerns. The motor sport industry,
for instance, feared that the sudden loss of corporate
sponsorship would jeopardize Canada's capacity to host
international racing events.
Bill C-42 addresses these concerns. It proposes a phased
approach which would delay the enforcement of the Tobacco Act
promotional restrictions for two years. For the subsequent three
years cigarette companies would be allowed to continue sponsoring
events. However, their promotional activities outside the actual
site, off site, will be restricted to the 10% size restrictions
specified in the Tobacco Act.
At the end of five years, by 2003, promotional sponsorship by
cigarette makers will be banned altogether. That is why I say
that Bill C-42 strengthens the Tobacco Act. Instead of merely
restricting promotional activity, the bill will prohibit them
entirely.
These legislative changes will put Canada ahead of other nations
that hold the health of their citizens in high regard. Indeed we
are moving faster than Australia and the European Union, which
are both implementing a similar sponsorship ban in the year 2006,
three years after ours.
There is no doubt that some of the cultural and sporting groups
may feel the financial pinch when the cigarette manufacturing
giants are forced to withdraw their millions of dollars in
sponsorship promotion. However, the fact is arts organizations
and sports promoters told us over and over again that what they
really needed was time to find alternative sources of funding
support. That, in a nutshell, is the purpose of Bill C-42.
These groups told us that they also needed fairness. Thus under
the proposed amendments every group from the Newfoundland
Symphony Orchestra to the Victoria International Jazz Festival
will be treated the same. One group will not be entitled to
cigarette money that is denied to another.
It is also important to point out that with Bill C-71, as with
Bill C-42 before us today, the government has sought to protect
public health while at the same time respecting legitimate
concerns of cultural and sports organizations. As such Bill C-42
represents a careful compromise, a delicate balance between those
who would desire a complete ban, preferably yesterday, and those
who feel it is equally necessary to accommodate sponsored sports,
cultural and entertainment events.
Striking that balance has necessitated extensive consultations
both with health groups and with representatives of the arts and
entertainment industry. In that context I wish to acknowledge
the important contribution of the House of Commons Standing
Committee of Health in carrying forward the consultation process
and refining the bill before us today. As a result of the
committee hearings, the government listened and further
strengthened Bill C-42 as follows.
First, the start of the phase-in period of the bill is clearly
identified as October 1, 1998. This means that if the
legislation passes, the five year clock will have already begun
ticking.
Second, the grandfathering clause in Bill C-42 would only apply
to events that had been held in Canada. In other words,
promoters would not be able to move an event here from the United
States or elsewhere merely to benefit from the phase-in
provisions of the ban on cigarette sponsorship advertising.
1535
Third, the new amendments would permit the grandfathering only
of events that have been held in Canada in the 15 months prior to
April 25, 1997. That would prevent promoters from resurrecting
long dead festivals solely for their value as tobacco marketing
vehicles. These changes to Bill C-42 were proposed by the health
community, were adopted by the government and are consistent with
our public health approach.
In conclusion, we have all heard the alarming facts. Smoking is
far and away the major preventable cause of death and disease in
Canada. It is estimated that nearly one in five deaths in Canada
can be attributed to smoking and that is more than suicides,
vehicle crashes, AIDS and murder combined. Every year 45,000
Canadians die of cancer, heart disease and lung disease as a
result of tobacco use. Many more Canadians have their quality of
life compromised by emphysema and other respiratory ailments.
We know that many people get hooked on smoking during their teen
years and that young people are particularly vulnerable to peer
pressure and messages, sometimes subliminal, encouraging them to
smoke. Obviously as a caring society we have a moral obligation
to act. We have a responsibility toward future generations and a
duty to help our impressionable young people resist the lure of
this deadly habit.
Health groups across the country urged us to lead the fight
against smoking. We have not failed them. The Tobacco Act, as
we propose to amend it, would give the government some meaningful
ammunition in the battle against cigarette use. The legislation
gives us as a society the power to look a gift horse in the
mouth. We will have the wherewithal to say to tobacco
manufacturers “Thanks, but no thanks. We value the health of
our children too much to accept your money for event
sponsorship”.
I would therefore urge all parties to support the bill so that
step by step we can win the battle against tobacco use and
achieve our goal of a smoke free society and a healthier Canada.
I would like to share my remaining time with the member for Oak
Ridges.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give unanimous consent
to allow the hon. member to share her time with the hon. member
for Oak Ridges?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: There are 30 minutes remaining in the
hon. member's time.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak in support of the amendment to the Tobacco Act
placed before the House by the Minister of Health.
The amendment's proposal for a complete ban on the promotion of
tobacco sponsorship is a step to be applauded and supported by
all members of the House. It is a significant protective measure
that will help reduce youth smoking and ultimately save young
lives. It says no once and for all to tobacco companies using
sponsorship to link their deadly products to popular youth
oriented events and lifestyles. It says no to the consistent
barrage of images that encourage young people to take up smoking
and stay addicted to cigarettes.
The bill is the result of extensive consultation with many
concerned parties across the country. As a result of this
consultation we have proposed legislation that takes us further
than ever before in protecting children and youth from harmful
effects of tobacco. The latest consultations carried out this
month by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health
confirmed the need for firm legislation to reduce tobacco use
among youth.
The committee listened carefully to the views of a number of
groups before approving three new recommendations from the
Canadian Cancer Society and other health NGOs. The
recommendations presented today as amendments to the legislation
make the bill a stronger, more precise instrument for reducing
tobacco use among Canadian youth.
As past president of the Canadian Parks and Recreation
Association I worked a few years ago with the then minister of
health on a program called a break free all stars program aimed
at making sure that young people between seven and and twelve
years of age did not smoke or take up smoking.
I know these kinds of programs can be and are effective. I
applaud the government for the type of legislation that it is
bringing to the House.
1540
There is no question the bill specifically identifies October 1,
1998 as the start date for the transition. In effect this means
that the five year clock has already begun to tick down on
sponsorship promotion if the amendment and bill pass.
The bill mandates that the only events which can be
grandfathered would be those that have been held in Canada,
although it was never the government's intent to allow otherwise.
The change will make it clear that an event cannot be moved from
elsewhere into Canada and treated as if it has always been here.
The bill mandates that only events which have been held in
Canada between January 25, 1996 and April 25, 1997 can be
grandfathered. Once again it was never the government's intent
to allow events to be resurrected solely for their value as
marketing tobacco products.
All three of these changes are important clarifications that are
completely consistent with strengthening the government's health
objectives. I thank members of the Standing Committee on Health
for supporting the inclusion of three amendments in the bill. No
doubt critics of the legislation will claim that the government
is going too far. Given the alarming statistics on youth and
smoking in Canada today, the amendment is appropriate and
necessary.
As a former educator having worked with young people for 20
years, I can tell the House of the devastating effects on young
people who take up smoking and who get addicted. I will point
out some statistics which will illustrate what the government is
trying to prevent.
Smoking among Canadian teens between 15 and 19 years of age has
increased 25% since 1991. Currently one in three young Canadians
smoke and half of them will die prematurely of tobacco related
disease. It is for that important reason the Minister of Health
has called tobacco use by Canada's youth an urgent public issue.
The amendment before the House today is a firm response to the
issue on the part of the federal government.
The government's response is clearly in line with the attitude
of Canadians toward smoking. Canadians recognize that smoking is
our number one health problem. They are also all too aware of
the devastation tobacco has wreaked upon the health of our
current generation. They implore the government to make every
effort to ensure that such devastation will not be inflicted on
future generations.
When it comes to youth and smoking the statistics show that we
have our work cut out for us: 29% of 15 to 19 year olds and 7% of
10 to 14 year old are current smokers. According to the 1994
youth smoking survey, 260,000 kids in Canada between the ages of
10 and 19 were beginner smokers that year. Figures like these
are very disturbing. They are being replicated in other
countries and have prompted other governments and the World
Health Organization to classify smoking as a global pediatric
epidemic.
Assumption patterns reveal that the number of young female
smokers has been rising significantly. Again I can speak from
personal experience having taught for many years. Girls in
particular smoke early, continue to smoke and are less likely to
break the habit. As all youth smokers get older, they smoke
more. Smokers 10 to 14 years of age on average smoke seven
cigarettes a day. Of those 15 to 19 years of age smoke on
average 11 cigarettes a day.
What is striking as evidence of youth smoking is the knowledge
among youth about the effects of tobacco use.
1545
More than 90% of people between the ages of 10 and 19 believe
that tobacco is addictive. A similar percentage believes that
environmental tobacco smoke can be harmful to the health of
people who do not smoke themselves. About 85% of all smokers
surveyed say they began smoking before they were 16 years of age.
My own father, who passed away six years ago, started smoking
when he was 13. He died of lung cancer.
The critical time for smoking decisions appears to be between
the ages of 12 and 14. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that
tobacco sponsorship targets events like music festivals, tennis
tournaments and motor racing, which are popular with this age
group.
For young people, taking up smoking is a gradual process. It
begins with forming a predisposition to smoke; that is, a
perception that smoking is normal behaviour and acceptable in
society among one's peer group. The perception of normalcy and
acceptability that cigarettes are an integral part of a happy and
fulfilling life is exactly the perception that tobacco
sponsorship promotion encourages among children and youth.
Trying smoking can lead to the experimental stage when smoking
happens repeatedly but irregularly. Regular use and addiction
follow. The transition from trying to daily use takes an average
of two to three years.
About two-thirds of teens will try smoking and about one-half of
this group will become regular daily smokers. About 90% of
smokers start well before the age of 20.
In surveys, youth have told us that they never expected to
become addicted, believing instead that they would be able to
quit whenever they wanted to do so. Just as addiction to
cigarettes is a gradual process, so is quitting.
Many young people contemplate quitting, prepare to quit and then
try to quit. But quitting is not an easy proposition. That is
because nicotine is highly addictive. It is as addictive as
heroin or cocaine. It is not surprising then that about
three-quarters of smokers over the age of 15 have tried to quit
but failed.
It is ironic that my own father quit smoking three years before
he died. It was an arduous task for him to quit smoking after
having smoked for more than 50 years.
Based on the evidence of the health threats of tobacco, based on
the thousands of deaths from tobacco related diseases and the
terrible toll that tobacco addiction takes on individuals in
society, it is very difficult to imagine any reason for not
supporting the bill and its important amendments to the Tobacco
Act.
It has often been said that young people are the future of this
country. It only makes sense, therefore, that we invest in them
by protecting them and by ensuring the safest and healthiest
environment for their growth and development. That is what this
amendment is all about.
I call on all members of the House to support the amendment. A
vote in favour of a ban on the promotion of tobacco sponsorship
in this country is a vote for a safer, healthier and more
productive future for Canada's youth.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-42, a
bill that we have been working on for a long time to try to
address what members from across the way have said is the single
greatest threat to public health in this country. They are quite
correct.
However, I am absolutely dismayed by the comments which have
come from the other side. The government claims to be the great
upholder of smoking prevention in this country. It was this
government that had the single greatest negative impact on the
health of Canadians when it rolled back tobacco taxes in 1994.
This undid 15 years of good work in the prevention and decrease
of tobacco consumption in this country, particularly for our
youth.
1550
There was a solution to the smuggling problem of the time that
did not involve rolling back taxes, but the single act of rolling
back taxes has led a quarter of a million children in Canada to
take up smoking. Two hundred and fifty thousand children are now
smoking when they would not have done so before.
This message was given to the Minister of Health by the ministry
itself. The Ministry of Health told the Minister of Health that
if he rolled back the taxes a quarter of a million young people
would pick up smoking, that it would have a devastating effect on
the country with respect to health care costs, not to mention the
humanitarian effects on those people, and that it would affect
those most affected by tobacco consumption and cost, the youth of
Canada. Yet the government went ahead and did it.
I understand the circumstances. A great deal of smuggling was
taking place, particularly in certain areas of Quebec and
Ontario. But there was another solution, a solution which we
presented many times to the minister. It was a solution that had
worked before: an export tax.
We had the same situation in 1991-92. The government of the day
introduced an $8 export tax on each carton of cigarettes. Each
carton that went to the United States would be stamped and an $8
fee would be paid by the tobacco company. That completely cut
the legs out from bringing that tobacco back into Canada with the
benefit of the price differential between the United States and
Canada. Six weeks after it was introduced that measure caused a
70% decline in tobacco smuggling.
However, the prime minister of the day, Mr. Mulroney, caved in
under pressure from the tobacco companies. The tobacco companies
told Prime Minister Mulroney that they would leave the country if
he brought in a tobacco export tax. He removed the export tax
and smuggling resumed. If we look back in history we will see
that the solution was there.
What we presented in 1994 was a solution. Do not roll back the
taxes; implement an export tax. The smuggling that took place at
that time not only involved cigarettes, it also involved guns,
people, alcohol and other contraband. Tobacco was a conduit for
the smuggling that was unfortunately taking place on such
reserves as Kanasatake and Kahnawake, to name two. It was run by
thugs attached to organized crime, particularly from the United
States.
No one talks about the aboriginal people on those reserves and
how some of those people were held hostage to criminals within
their midst, many who came from the United States. Police
officers were apparently told that they could not touch the
smugglers going back and forth across the border because the
government was afraid of an Oka crisis. This had nothing to do
with Oka. It everything to do with thugs taking advantage of a
political problem within our country, thugs who were by and large
American. We buckled under and to this day that smuggling is
still taking place.
This is my message for the government. If it truly wants to
deal with the tobacco epidemic, and it is an epidemic within our
midst, then there are solutions. The solutions are: raising the
taxes to the level they were at before February 1994, applying an
export tax to cut the legs out from underneath smuggling,
enforcing the law where smuggling is taking place, and dealing
with appropriate education, which the government, to its credit,
has begun to introduce. However, although it promised a large
sum of money for that purpose, a large chunk of money has
unfortunately not yet been seen by the appropriate organizations.
1555
In looking at the scope of this problem we can look at what
happened before 1994 and since 1994. As I said before, there are
250,000 more children smoking. In 1961 there were about 13,000
smokers who died. Twelve thousand were men and 1,000 were women.
In 1996-97 that figure climbed to a whopping 48,000. There are
48,000 people every year who die of tobacco related illnesses.
The numbers have changed. Tobacco consumption deaths among
women have climbed dramatically. Tobacco deaths among women have
now surpassed all other causes of cancer related deaths,
including breast cancer. That is a profound tragedy.
To put it in perspective, 48,000 people die every year from
smoking related deaths. Forty-two thousand people died in World
War II. That means that every year more people die from tobacco
related illnesses in Canada than those who died in World War II.
The solutions are there. What we can do, as I said before, is
raise the taxes to what they were, increase the export tax,
enforce the law and address the education issue.
We should not start talking to individuals when they are 17, 18,
20 or 22 years old about quitting smoking. As the member across
the way quite correctly mentioned, people start smoking when they
are 10, 11 or 12 years old. They do not start when they are 20.
As a result, our efforts must be addressed to younger
individuals. I would submit that we have to start at ages 6 and
7. If we start at that age then perhaps we can have an effect.
We should not hit them with the fact that their mortality will
change. Teenagers and young children do not understand that. If
we tell them they are going to die young, they know that. In
fact, statistical evidence shows very clearly that young people
know they are going to die young. They know the effects of
tobacco. Interestingly enough, many teenagers feel they are not
going to be smoking two years after they leave high school.
However, 80% of them will still be smoking eight years later.
We have to address their sense of narcissism. We have to
address the fact that their skin is going to look older sooner,
that their breath is going to smell foul, and that their hair and
skin is going to smell foul. We have to address young girls in
particular. I hate to address that group, but it is the group
that has increasing consumption. We have to tell them that
although it keeps them slimmer, which is one of the primary
reasons for them to smoke, it also makes them grow older faster
and it is not sexy, despite what they may claim.
Although that is a brutal thing to say, if we address it at
their level, in a way that they understand, then we will get into
their psyche and have a profound effect. We must address their
narcissism, not their mortality. We must tell them about what it
will do to them physically, how it will age them and how they
will smell.
Although there is some movement in that direction I think the
government can certainly play a very constructive role in
convincing health care groups to deal with it in that way.
With respect to this bill, I would suggest that there are a
number of amendments that could have and should have been made.
The fact that the government is going to extend tobacco
sponsorships for two more years is ridiculous. That will put it
at five years.
Members on the other side claim that this is somehow going to
address the issue of sponsorship and it is going to protect
companies. All they need to do is look at the experience in
Europe. Europe did the same thing. They introduced laws very
quickly. Sporting events and such got other sponsors, including
car racing.
It is continually brought forth that car racing, tennis matches
and such would somehow not occur in this country if we did not
have tobacco groups to sponsor them.
That is completely untrue. Again, the government only needs to
look at the experience in the United States.
1600
Another thing that could have happened was to put a ceiling on
tobacco company sponsorship promotion expenditures during the
delay period. The government could have put a ceiling on that
but did not. It could have taken a leaf from Quebec's book.
Quebec has implemented a similar measure with good effect.
Sponsorship promotions should not be permitted on the inside and
outside of stores where tobacco is sold. That could be done now
but it is not being done.
The government believes that tobacco companies can be trusted.
This is complete nonsense. Tobacco companies have been asked to
do things voluntarily. They have weakened their own so-called
voluntary restraint by introducing tobacco advertisements within
school zones. This happened in 1996, after the government had
implored them to adhere to fair-minded rules and regulations so
that children would not be subjected to tobacco advertising
within and around schools. Tobacco companies surreptitiously did
it anyway. They thumbed their noses at the government and the
Canadian people.
The government could have introduced other things. It could have
ensured that cabinet would determine the exact starting date of
the ban. Right now it is an open book. It could start December
1 this year, December 1 next year, or the year after. That
needed to be in this bill and it is not.
The government could have had a delay period for tobacco
sponsorship promotions. It could have specified that sponsorship
promotions for foreign events could not occur in Canada during
the transition period. It could have banned the use of famous
individuals in advertising and prevent misleading advertising.
From looking at the good analysis by the Ministry of Health on
advertising, we know that those advertisements are geared to
children no matter what the companies say. I sat on the health
committee four years ago. I was shocked when people who had been
bought and paid for by the tobacco companies appeared as
witnesses in front of the health committee, big guns from the
United States who were obviously paid a lot of money. They had
been in high positions in the U.S. government. When asked
pointedly if they thought tobacco had a negative effect on the
health of people, their response was “we are not doctors; we do
not know”. Those kinds of blatant and obviously misleading
comments by witnesses should never be tolerated. They give
insight into the actions and beliefs of the tobacco companies.
We need not look any further. Tobacco companies have been
caught putting added nicotine into tobacco. They up the nicotine
content which ups the potential for addiction.
We can also look at their actions in other countries. What they
do in China is appalling. China has an enormous health care
problem with cancer, emphysema, bronchitis and other related
illnesses related to tobacco because tobacco consumption is going
up. In some countries the tobacco companies sponsor parties and
dances which are geared to children. They give out free
cigarettes for no other purpose than to ensure that the children
become addicted.
It has been mentioned in the House many times that tobacco, as
with cocaine, is the leading most potent addictive substance we
know of today. We know very clearly that despite what they say,
tobacco companies gear their advertising, their work, their
efforts not to adults but to youth.
A good chunk of their efforts are designed to hit that vulnerable
group.
1605
Tragically the government fell into the trap by lowering taxes
and rolling them back. This is despite repeated warnings by the
Ministry of Health that this is going to affect children
deleteriously. This is despite the fact that this is going to
cost the Canadian taxpayer billions of dollars, not only in
health care costs, but also in the loss of revenue from taxes and
losses in the gross domestic product. It is not just a matter of
death. Smokers have greater chances of becoming sick than
non-smokers do. Smokers stay away from work longer. The cost to
the gross domestic product is enormous.
There are obvious effective solutions, particularly with respect
to the cost. Studies show that the price elasticity on demand
for tobacco is very high, especially with respect to children.
The higher the cost, the less they smoke; the lower the cost, the
more they smoke. It is not rocket science. This is perhaps the
most important message the government needs to listen to.
The government can twiddle all it wants around the edges of this
issue. It can talk about plain packaging. It can talk about
sponsorship. It can talk about education. But when it comes
down to the cold hard facts, the single most important
determinant in consumption is price, particularly for the youth.
I implore the members across the way to look at the information
that has been put out by the health ministry. It is unfortunate
that the Minister of Health has chosen not to speak to this bill
yet. It does not look like he is going to speak to it and I
wonder why.
I wonder if the minister truly is ashamed of this bill. Perhaps
he is ashamed that the government has not taken a more proactive
approach, a more effective approach particularly in view of the
fact that he has been caught holding the bag for what his
predecessors have done. The minister has been left holding the
bag for an implementation strategy which, rather than lowering
tobacco consumption, has increased it and not in any small
amount. It is a huge amount, a quarter of a million children,
and every month that we fail to change the situation, 10,000 more
children will take up the tobacco habit. I cannot believe that
despite the clear evidence this government continues to pursue
the course and tack it is taking.
The government submits that it is the great upholder of the
health of Canadians. A former Minister of Health said during her
tenure “I would do anything, anything, to prevent one child from
picking up smoking”. That minister and this government has
failed, failed, failed in that promise.
The government would find a great deal of co-operation across
party lines in pursuing an effective tobacco strategy. Please do
not buckle under the threats of the tobacco industry that it
would pull out of Canada. Do not buckle under the submissions
the companies make that this is not addressed to children. Do
not believe that this is going to prevent race car driving,
tennis tournaments and other such events from taking place in
this country. The facts do not support those allegations. In
fact the tobacco industry has very little credibility anywhere in
the world.
We can see what is happening in the United States today. The
companies are paying hundreds of billions of dollars to state
governments because of the cost they have incurred to those
governments. They are willing to pay large sums of money, which
they have, to get out.
1610
We cannot let them off the hook. While prohibition does not
work, and no one is advocating that, there are effective measures
that have been implemented around the world. Before 1994 Canada
was a world leader in dealing with the tobacco issue through its
education strategies and by increasing the taxes on tobacco.
If we take a lesson from what we have done historically, if we
do not buckle under the tobacco companies and if we work together
on this issue, as the hon. NDP member mentioned in the health
committee, we would be addressing the most important health care
issue affecting Canadians today. Tobacco is the greatest public
health care issue affecting Canadians today. This has been
echoed by the member from the NDP and the member from the Liberal
Party. It has been echoed many times by my colleague from
Alberta and our health care critic, and members from other
parties.
I implore the government to work with our party and other
parties to come up with an effective strategy to deal with
tobacco consumption. This bill simply does not cut the mustard.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That Bill C-42, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 26 and
27 on page 3 with the following:
Promotional material
“(3) Subsections 24(2) and (3) apply beginning on October 1,
2000 and ending on September 30, 2003 to”
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not prepared to give
unanimous consent to that motion, simply because the government
rammed this through clause by clause at committee stage.
Basically it boils down to the government making a major mistake.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Obviously there is
not unanimous consent for the motion.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Speaker, the point I want to
make is that I will agree to unanimous consent if the government
agrees that it made a tactical error in ramming this through
clause by clause at the committee stage.
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I would ask that you seek
the unanimous consent I requested.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Reform Party will give
consent to this particular motion. I want to make it clear that
in so doing we are not agreeing with the bill. We are only
agreeing with the change in dates. We violently, and I mean
violently, oppose this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will ask the House
again for unanimous consent just to make sure that I heard it
correctly the first time.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Speaker, because of the nature
of the debate today, I think it might be wiser for the government
to introduce that when some of the key speakers on the opposition
side are not here because obviously we do not agree with it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is not
unanimous consent.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis:
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that if the
government House leader is listening to this concern, he might be
able to find a way to ensure that there is unanimous consent for
dealing with this correction in the printing of the bill.
Certainly we are prepared to give unanimous consent. However, we
also want to acknowledge the Conservative member's concern about
the haste with which this bill was pushed through committee,
which would obviously lead to errors as we have now before us.
1615
I am wondering if the spokesperson for the government could
acknowledge those concerns that we probably could find a way to
have unanimous consent.
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, as my colleague from the
NDP has just said, this is a technical matter.
It has to do with some mistakes in dates in this section and
some differences between the English and the French. Perhaps this
problem did arise because of some haste.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Madam Speaker, I would point out that we
will also support this change. However, I agree with our
Progressive Conservative colleague that suddenly raising a point
of order to say there is a change requiring the unanimous
consent of the House is not the way to do things.
That rather reduces the role of parliamentarians. The
government pushed us a bit during consideration of this bill.
It is a bit distressing when they arrive at the last minute with
proposals as we consider Bill C-42 at third reading.
I simply wanted to say that. We will give our consent, but,
next time, they must let us do our work conscientiously.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent for the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to participate in the debate at third reading of Bill C-42 and to
raise certain arguments.
Many things have been said. My colleagues from the other
parties have pointed out the great harm that smoking has done in
Canada and in every province. As legislators, the members of
this House must be able to promote and adopt laws against the
use of tobacco, particularly among the young.
The data given us by anti-smoking organizations are frightening.
These statistics have made us aware of this scourge. We are
often tempted to think there are fewer smokers.
Perhaps there is a reduction in the number of smokers in certain
categories of people, for example among adults, but young people
are starting to smoke earlier and earlier.
1620
As has already been pointed out, Bill C-42 delays the
implementation of certain sections of the Tobacco Act. Members
will recall Bill C-71 passed by this House. Bill C-42 has mainly
to do with tobacco sponsorships.
The amendments provide for a two-year moratorium on the
restrictions governing sponsorships by tobacco companies until
October 2000. From the third to the fifth year, the
restrictions will apply as initially provided in Bill C-71, that
is to say, the name of the company may appear on only 10% of
advertising space.
It is very important that the public be told that the ban on
sponsorships will be total as of October 1, 2003.
The primary purpose of Bill C-42 is to amend the existing Tobacco
Act so as to extend the transition deadline before the
enforcement of the restrictions already imposed.
The first phase of the bill, which runs for two years after the
amendment comes into effect, extends the status quo for promotion
both on and off the sites of events and activities that were
sponsored by tobacco companies before April 25, 1997.
The second phase, lasting three years after the two years of
transition, will again extend the status quo for promotions
throughout the site of sponsored events and activities, by
permitting the display of product-related brand elements in
promotional material.
It will also permit sponsorship promotions on the site of an
event as it unfolds or according to other regulatory provisions;
and apply the existing 90/10 restriction in the Tobacco Act to
sponsorship promotions off site. These promotions will also be
permitted in mailings sent directly to adults, in publications
whose readership is essentially adult and in bars and taverns
where minors are denied access by law.
The third aspect of the amendment is the considerable toughening
up of the Tobacco Act in relation to the bill passed in April.
Where some might have interpreted the 10% rule as a breach,
there is no longer any doubt. We are talking zero tolerance.
This total prohibition will take effect immediately following
the five year transition period. At that point, the Tobacco Act
will prohibit all promotional sponsorship by tobacco companies.
It will also prohibit the appearance of brand elements on
permanent facilities or in them.
With such measures, Canada is following the worldwide trend to
set more and more restrictions on the sponsorship and
promotional activities of tobacco companies. The European Union
intends to prohibit all industry sponsorship by 2006. A number
of signatory countries have already prohibited all tobacco
advertising and sponsorship within their borders.
New Zealand, Australia and the United States have—or are heading
toward—a total ban. The total ban after October 1, 2003 is
therefore ahead of a number of countries, but the extended
deadline makes it possible to take a sensible approach which
will avoid numerous problems at the international level, for
Formula I racing in particular, as well as on the economic
level.
That said, the Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of the
key principles relating to health, and the campaign against
smoking, particularly among young people, is close to our hearts.
1625
The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of any measure to reduce
smoking. We are in favour of measures to raise awareness and to
educate people, as well as any measure to help eliminate this
scourge that is costing so many lives and creating so many
health problems.
It must not be forgotten, however, that health still comes under
provincial jurisdiction. It is primarily at this level that
health protection measures should be developed and administered.
This brings me to Quebec's existing anti-smoking legislation,
which was sponsored by the present health minister. It was
passed on June 17, 1998.
The proposed legislation was received favourably by the media,
health organizations, organizers of sports and cultural events,
and the general public.
Quebec's Minister of Health avoided the errors made by the
federal government by introducing much more realistic standards
to combat smoking. His legislation is tougher but more
flexible.
With respect to the ban on sponsorships, the provincial
legislation offers event organizers a choice. The first option
is to drop all tobacco-related sponsorships by October 1, 2000
and benefit from a financial assistance program for the period
up to October 1, 2003, which is the government's solution. The
second option is to accept a five-year transition period with
restrictions after October 1, 2000 and no financial assistance,
as provided for in the federal bill now before us.
Under the bill, sponsorship contracts already concluded with
tobacco companies may stand or be renewed until October 1, 2000.
Quebec's legislation provides, however, that the value of such
contracts may not exceed their maximum value as at June 11, 1998.
Organizers will have until October 1, 2000 to decide which form
of transition they prefer.
For those who choose the second transition option, the
amendment states that sponsorship promotion may continue on the
site where an activity is held and during this activity for
three more years after October 1, 2000.
Being able to choose between two options, each having its
advantages and drawbacks, is another example of a balance
between flexibility and rigidity. Naturally, most of the Quebec
organizations and even the Canadian anti-smoking associations
told us in committee and on other occasions that they would
prefer that Bill C-42 or the existing federal anti-smoking
legislation be harmonized with the legislation passed by Quebec.
As I mentioned earlier, the application is much stricter, but
the adjustment for these sports and cultural events
organizations which enjoyed tobacco sponsorships is more
flexible because after two years they are prevented from
advertising. However, until they can find other sponsors, they
can draw on the compensatory fund for support.
The federal government should also have established a
compensatory fund. In Quebec, the money in this fund comes from
taxes on cigarettes.
1630
Tobacco causes health care problems, it causes loss of life and
it is a drain on the economy and on tax revenues, forcing
taxpayers to pay for health care.
The Quebec legislation
provides for a tax on tobacco. It levies a charge on tobacco
companies and users, which goes into the compensatory fund,
which, at the moment, helps the organizers of sports and
cultural events. These people are very appreciative.
At home, we have the du Maurier international tennis
championships, which are known worldwide. Sponsorship is by a
tobacco company, and that is not necessarily a good image for
the championships. In two years' time, they will have to find
another sponsor.
Certain companies agreed to sponsor these sports and cultural
events, which generated considerable revenue—$30 million for
Quebec—as well as very substantial indirect revenues for the
communities hosting them. This measure will make it possible to
keep these events in the communities and to generate important
revenues for the public.
The Bloc Quebecois asked the federal government to pass this
measure and it would not have been necessary to give people
another five years to make the transition. Although 10% is not
very much, it is still advertising and it is still excessive.
I would like to remind members that the Bloc Quebecois is in
favour of Bill C-42 because, in our opinion, it is more balanced
than the previous legislation, Bill C-71.
As I mentioned, we find it deplorable that the government has
taken over a year to understand what we have been saying since
the beginning of the debate on Bill C-71.
I need not recall how this bill was rushed through committee
stage. We were expected to approve the bill without even
hearing from important witnesses who wished to voice their
objections to Bill C-71. There were many complications. In any
event, that bill was replaced by Bill C-42. One year later, we
are therefore no further ahead. All these measures have been
delayed by one year, when this could have been wrapped up last
year.
As I mentioned earlier, the fight against smoking is one that
all of society must wage. It is not easy to change a habit that
goes back several generations.
But, through these bills, authorities will now have better tools
with which to tackle the serious public health problem that
smoking represents.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate this last opportunity to speak on a
major health bill before the Chamber and to explain why the NDP
caucus remains firmly opposed to Bill C-42, an act to amend the
Tobacco Act.
In order for us to effectively debate this issue and to get at
the essence of the bill, I believe it is important for us to
understand how the origins and the purpose of the bill have been
camouflaged by the Liberal government and have been covered with
rhetoric and with pretence that does not allow the public to
understand what is really at the heart of this matter.
1635
What we are dealing with is smoke and mirrors, to borrow the
title of a very important book for this debate by Rob Cunningham
of the Cancer Society of Canada. There is no question abut it.
Only Liberals in the House would think they can get away with
calling a negative a positive. Only Liberals in the House would
think about trying to portray reality in fanciful terms.
Look at the most recent issue of health care transfer payment
cuts. What did the Liberals do? They would have us and the
public believe they reinvested a new amount of $1.5 billion in
transfer payments to the provinces for health care. What they do
not say is what they are really doing, cutting back what had not
yet been taken out of the system and calling it new money,
totally disregarding that the base, the minimal amount in terms
of health spending, has been reduced down to $12.5 billion, a $6
billion or $7 billion drop since the time when the Liberals took
office.
That is the kind of deception we are dealing with with respect
to this government, not only when it comes to health transfer
cash payments and the whole question of the future of medicare,
but specifically when it comes to Bill C-42.
Like the child who said the emperor has no clothes, we say to
the Liberal government, it can spin tales, it can disguise the
facts but it cannot, to use another fitting analogy, deny the
fact that smoke rises. When smoke rises the air is cleared, the
truth is revealed and we are able to ensure we can go forward
building a case for good, sound public policy when it comes to
tobacco consumption.
What I am saying is we first have to do that in the House for
this debate. We cannot for one minute longer go any further in
allowing the Liberal government to suggest the bill has its
origins in a most positive agenda about curbing tobacco
sponsorship advertising, controlling tobacco consumption and
dealing effectively with addiction problems in terms of
cigarettes among young people. The bill does not have its
origins in those good intentions.
There is no question we are dealing with a bill that is a step
backwards. We are dealing with a bill that waters down and
weakens the provisions of the tobacco sponsorship advertising
restrictions enshrined in Bill C-71, provisions that were watered
down even before those provisions in Bill C-71 were allowed to
come into effect.
I raised a point of privilege about the government's bypassing
the authority of the House on the implementation of Bill C-71
versus the overriding effect of the provisions in Bill C-42. To
clarify, even though Bill C-42 has not yet been passed, and it
will go through all the stages and receive final royal assent,
the government is operating as if Bill C-42 were passed as of
October 1.
1640
As I said in my question of privilege, this is an abuse of the
House. This is an abuse of the legislative process and it was
entirely avoidable.
The origins of this bill go back to the 1997 federal election
when the Liberals signalled to the public that they were prepared
to water down the restrictions inherent in Bill C-71.
The origins of Bill C-42 are really the pressure tactics, the
heavy handed lobbying tactics of both the tobacco industry and
the car racing industry.
To quote from an article that appeared in one of our major
newspapers, it is clear that the health minister blames the
situation on a letter written by former health minister David
Dingwall just before the federal election last April in which Mr.
Dingwall finally surrendered to the tobacco companies' threat to
cancel their sponsorship of Montreal's Grand Prix.
That is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a bill
that waters down a previous act of parliament because of the
pressure of the tobacco industry and the car racing industry. We
are dealing with organized attempts to reduce, to minimize
restrictions on sponsorship advertising.
What we are dealing with is a cave-in. Let us be clear about
it. This is an absolute cave-in, a buckling to those huge lobby
forces today.
Why would the present Minister of Health be any different from
his predecessors? Why should we have higher expectations from
this government and the present Minister of Health than we have
had in the past, especially given the history on this issue? The
then minister of health who is now the minister of international
development was forced, because of pressure again, to lower
cigarette taxes.
Her successor, also a former minister of health, David Dingwall,
was forced to move away from a total ban on cigarette
advertising. Today we have the Minister of Health who was forced
to further weaken the sponsorship provisions in Bill C-71, the
Tobacco Act.
Who is standing up for health care? Who is setting health
policy for Canadians? Is it the Minister of Health or is it the
masters behind the tobacco industry? Is it the Minister of
Health or is it the Montreal Grand Prix? Is it the Minister of
Health or is it the Marlboro man?
We have a critical situation pertaining to smoking addiction,
particularly among young people. Yet we have a government
prepared to sacrifice the interests of those young Canadians in
order for the tobacco industry and the entertainment business to
line their pockets with more and more profits.
There is no question that the bill before us today has been
treated in a hasty way, has been pushed through the stages of the
legislative process on a rapid basis and has not allowed for full
debate to occur in this place, nor has it allowed for Canadians
to become fully aware of just how regressive this bill is and how
many steps backward the government has taken on this important
issue.
The government would have us believe this is not a step backward
at all, that this is a step forward toward a complete ban on
tobacco sponsorship advertising. We applaud this attempt to move
public policy toward a complete ban on tobacco sponsorship
advertising.
1645
We wonder why it had to happen this way. Why, in order to move
forward tomorrow, do we have to take a step backward today? This
is probably the first time in this parliament and in previous
parliaments, perhaps all parliaments, that a bill actually
weakens the provisions established by law to protect children.
That is exactly what is happening. We are weakening an act that
protects children. We are allowing for bad public policy to
proceed. We are failing young people because of the stranglehold
the tobacco industry has over the government.
It is a bit of a stretch for the government to suggest that in
the long run the bill actually strengthens public policy in
relation to tobacco advertising. As many said in committee and
elsewhere, in the long run we are going to be dead and in the
long run, by virtue statistics, some of us will be dead because
of tobacco addiction.
While we commend the government on moving forward toward a
complete ban on tobacco sponsorship advertising, we must ask over
and over again why it had to weaken the restrictions along the
way. Why does the bill allow for free and open sponsorship
advertising without restriction at these events?
Some members of the public have been led to believe that the
restrictions will happen in two year's time. It is true that
some restrictions on tobacco sponsorship advertising will come
about in two years, but I remind Liberal members that Bill C-42
lifts all restrictions for on site advertising for the next five
years.
Furthermore, the government has been totally adverse to any
attempt by opposition members to propose meaningful amendments to
ensure we at least honour the principles inherent in Bill C-71
and take some steps forward. We in the House tried to get
restrictions on off site advertising, for example in retail
stores where kids hang out, in places near schools and
playgrounds, in places where children congregate, where young
people gather, where they are exposed to and influenced by
tobacco advertising, but the government refused to listen to
those concerns.
We tried very hard in committee to convince the government, if
it has to go down this path, at least to place limits on
sponsorship advertising expenditures by tobacco companies. We
made this suggestion so organizations counting on tobacco money
would not become more dependent as a result of the provisions in
Bill C-42. The government would not listen. It would not
acknowledge the importance of those amendments and voted en masse
to stop all efforts by the opposition.
Not only did the government refuse to consider any substantive
amendments presented by the opposition before the committee. It
also snuck in an amendment that represents a significant change
and opens the doors even wider in terms of tobacco sponsorship
advertising. The government snuck in a change that allows
tobacco companies to newly sponsor permanent facilities
previously restricted at first reading.
1650
The original intention of the bill was to ensure that as many
restrictions as possible were in place to deal with any new
sponsorships. The government will try to suggest that has
happened with the bill, that it has tightened the provisions and
put deadlines and limitations in place.
By sneaking in the change with respect to the permanent
facilities it has allowed for tobacco companies to sponsor
permanent buildings, for example to put up the money to renovate
buildings and then be able to have big signs without any
restrictions or limitations on the front of the buildings
advertising the tobacco companies. Why was it necessary to do
that? Why was it necessary to include another loophole in the
bill as opposed to trying to tighten it up and trying to move in
the right direction?
The health critic of the Conservative Party has raised in the
House today the speed and haste with which the government moved
to pass Bill C-42. It is absolutely the case that the government
has not allowed for adequate debate. It gave witnesses and
organizations a 24 hour period to find the time, energy and
resources to appear before the health committee. They were given
very short notice. They were given very little time to prepare.
We were forced as a committee to deal with all the witnesses, the
presentations and the clause by clause analysis of the bill in a
very tight timeframe.
We dealt with the witnesses and the clause by clause analysis in
two short sittings of the committee. That is not adequate debate
based on the seriousness of the issue. That is not at all in
line with the speeches made by the parliamentary secretary and
others in the House today, suggesting that the government has
been generous in terms of time allotted before the health
committee and that we had thorough discussion in the committee.
We did not. It was rammed through committee. We were forced to
deal with the bill in a very short period of time and
organizations that would have liked to appear before the
committee were not given that opportunity.
I hope Liberal members across the way would hear these concerns
and in future would agree to allow for adequate time for proper
public input on such a major bill.
We have heard from many today about the importance of acting in
a proactive way around smoking addictions among young people. I
do not need to repeat the statistics about 250,000 young people
every year getting hooked on cigarettes. I do not need to repeat
the 40,000 deaths a year because of smoking. Suffice it to say,
those statistics clearly indicate the seriousness of the issue as
a major health problem. It requires and demands proactive and
creative initiatives on the part of the government.
Despite the shortness of time that we were able to deal with the
bill, I acknowledge that many groups were able to participate in
a very meaningful way and were able to do what they could to
ensure that all facts were presented to us. I acknowledge the
Canadian Cancer Society, the Non-Smokers Rights Association, the
CMA, the Federation of Nurses' Unions, Info-Tabac, Physicians for
a Smoke Free Canada and many other organizations that appeared
before the committee. They worked with us and lobbied very hard
for progressive changes in this area. I acknowledge their
contributions to this whole area.
I urge the government to acknowledge the seriousness of the
issue, to consider a much more comprehensive approach dealing
with prevention and the expenditure of moneys it promised in the
last election but refused to do, and the value of Bill S-13 and a
levy in terms of tobacco industry responsibility. I urge the
government to deal with a whole range of tools before it to
ensure that we as a parliament and as elected representatives do
whatever we can to ensure the good health of young people,
children and all Canadians in society today.
1655
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: 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
Saskatoon—Humboldt, Taxation; the hon. member for Churchill,
Solicitor General of Canada; the hon. member for Winnipeg North
Centre, Health Protection Branch.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-42 is not just about tobacco advertising or the
government's vain attempt to limit advertising. It is basically
about the health of Canadians.
I remind the House that every year in Canada 40,000 Canadians
die from smoking. That fact is supported by every major medical
group in the country. It is a statistic that even Health Canada
supports. It is a big problem.
To give an idea of how big of a problem it is I will use some
figures that I have used before. Sometimes we have to implant a
visual picture so that people remember the numbers. The number
of Canadians who die every year from smoking equals the number of
Canadians who died in World War II in total. In other words from
1939 to 1945 approximately 42,000 to 45,000 Canadians died. That
is a very disturbing statistic. When we compare that to how many
Canadians die on a yearly basis, year in an year out, it is time
for second thought.
There is another way to put it in terms of those 40,000 deaths.
If we had a major airline crash every day in Canada causing the
death of 100 Canadians, day in and day out for one solid year,
the total would not equal the number of Canadians who die in one
year because of smoking. The member from Newfoundland used the
word scandalous. It is scandalous. If it happened in any other
jurisdiction the government would do something about it.
We could question how long the Minister of Transport would last
or how long the government would sustain the pressure that would
be put on it by Canadians from coast to coast if 100 Canadians a
day were dying in airline crashes? They would not last long.
Somehow the government is able to get away with passing weak
legislation like the legislation before us.
Another interesting statistic is that tobacco usage in Canada
costs us every year $3 billion in direct costs and $7 billion in
indirect costs for a total of $10 billion. The government could
argue that it is making money on tobacco and it is. In one year,
365 days from now, the government will have made approximately $2
billion in revenue from taxes on cigarettes.
An hon. member: Is that all?
Mr. Greg Thompson: That is all but that is enough. Why
will it not do something about it? That is the part that is so
bizarre. We are spending $10 billion in health costs as a direct
result of smoking and bringing in $2 billion in revenue.
1700
Some people have power over the government that goes beyond our
wildest dreams. I would identify those people as being the
cigarette manufacturers of Canada. They are giants.
I want to give the House an example of who some of those giants
are. There is the Imperial Tobacco company, which I am sure most
of us have heard about. It is a Montreal based company. It is
the dominant player in Canada, with a 67% share of the market.
It is owned by a British company called B.A.T Industries, which
again is a big multinational conglomerate.
I think hon. members will be surprised when they hear what
Imperial Tobacco owns.
Imperial Tobacco Limited is Canada's largest tobacco company.
Its operations include leaf tobacco buying and processing, and
the manufacture and distribution of a wide range of tobacco
products. Its major brands include Players, DuMaurier and
Matinée. The company is also the largest seller of cigars in
Canada, with brands such as House of Lords, White Owl and Old
Port. I guess we have heard those names.
It is really interesting to find out that this same conglomerate
owns a drugstore chain called Shoppers Drug Mart. That is pretty
powerful, but it does not end there. It also owns some trust
companies. Some of its holdings include the Canada Trust
Company, Canada Trust Realty Inc. and Coldwell Banker Affiliates
of Canada Inc. It is pretty big.
I think we would have to believe that these people have some
influence on the government when it comes to legislation and what
they want to see the government do. Basically they do not want
to see the government do anything. If the government really did
want to do something concrete about smoking it would adopt
Senator Kenny's bill, Bill S-13.
This is interesting, because last week Senator Kenny's bill was
introduced in the House of Commons and immediately the government
House leader jumped to his feet and used every measure he could
to keep this bill out of the House. In other words, government
members were using procedural arguments to keep Senator Kenny's
bill out of the House of Commons because they are afraid of it.
They are afraid of it because this bill would do something about
smoking in Canada, particularly among young people. In Canada
there are a quarter of a million new smokers coming on line each
and every year. Something has to be done about that.
Senator Kenny's bill would do something about that. But the
government, if it has anything to say about it, is not going to
allow this bill to survive the test on the floor of the House of
Commons. The government brought in all of its legal minds to
launch challenges against this bill, even though it was
introduced by the member for St. Paul's, one of its own members.
Government members are going to use every means they can to keep
it off the floor of the House of Commons.
This is a strategy on the part of the government. The battle is
not coming from the health minister, because the health minister
is on record as saying that Bill S-13 has merit and that it is a
good bill. Unfortunately, he is out-voted in cabinet. There is
one person in cabinet who has more clout than the health
minister, which I think is recognized by just about everyone in
the House, and that would be the finance minister. The finance
minister rules the day in the government and he does not want
this bill to come in.
1705
What this bill would do is put a 50 cent levy on every carton of
cigarettes manufactured in Canada. This levy would be applied at
the manufacturer's level. This is not a tax, but a levy.
There are all kinds of precedents which indicate that this levy
is no different than any other levy imposed from time to time on
certain industries. We would use the argument of intellectual
rights and the 5 cent levy imposed on blank cassettes which was
passed in this House a number of years ago. That is just one
argument that we would use to say that a levy is indeed
appropriate and that there is a difference between a levy and a
tax.
The fight is coming from the finance minister. Taxation is
sacred to the finance department. In other words, it wants full
control of every dollar that it is capable of extracting from our
back pockets. It does not want to give up any revenue or any tax
points. It does not want to give up its future ability to tax.
This 50 cents a carton is being opposed by the finance minister.
I want to compare this to the EI account. We have heard the
argument in the House that the finance minister is sitting on a
$20 billion EI surplus which goes into the consolidated revenue
fund. That is why the finance minister likes it and does not
want to give up control of it. It allows him to manipulate the
books, balance the budget, declare a deficit free accounting
procedure, etcetera. The government loves it. I guess we
cannot blame the finance minister for loving it because it allows
him to do a little bit of manipulation.
The government does not want to see the same thing happening
with this levy at the manufacturing level. This 50 cents per
carton would be used to educate young Canadians, but it would not
go into the consolidated revenue fund. Therefore, the finance
minister would lose control. One might ask “What would be wrong
with that?” The government gives and the government can take
away.
Does anyone in this House remember David Dodge? Is it not
correct that David Dodge was the deputy minister in the finance
department in the days of Don Mazankowski and Michael Wilson? He
was certainly a senior official in finance during those years.
David Dodge is now the health minister's deputy minister. Talk
about the system perpetuating itself. We have someone who in the
past gave Michael Wilson and Don Mazankowski, former finance
ministers, advice, who is now giving advice to the health
minister.
In my conversation with Mr. Dodge he said “I would be worried
about this because it means that parliament is giving up its
ability to tax”. I said “Listen, I hate to disagree with you,
sir, but if parliament places that 50 cent levy on the
manufacturers it is also saying that we can take it away if it
does not work”, which we could do. There is no argument about
that. In fact, Mr. Dodge really did not comment on my suggestion
that if we impose it we could take it away if it did not work.
It goes back to that fundamental argument that the finance
department does not want to give up control, as it does not want
to give up control of the EI fund. It is a surplus that it loves
to play around with.
The health minister promised to put $100 million into education
over the next five years.
An hon. member: Peanuts.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Absolutely. It is peanuts.
Incidentally this would break down to about $20 million a year.
1710
Ten million dollars would be going toward education and the other $10
million would be going toward enforcement. In other words, I
guess we would have cigarette police out there.
Senator Kenny's bill would raise $120 million a year at the
manufacturing level which would be about 5 cents a pack. This is
so illogical I cannot believe it. But the finance department
argues that it could not do that because that would break its
agreement with the provinces not to raise taxes or prices on
cigarettes from coast to coast. In other words, there has to be
federal-provincial agreement to do that.
That in itself is a fallacious argument because what the
government is basically arguing is that if we indiscriminately
raise the price of cigarettes across the country we are going to
get into another smuggling problem like we had in the early
nineties.
The smuggling problem was addressed by the government in 1994
when it capitulated again to the cigarette giants, the cigarette
manufacturers, the tobacco people. It was the single largest
reduction in taxes in the history of Canada. It cut the price of
cigarettes almost in half by taking away a big chunk of the tax
component.
The government caved in to the smugglers at the expense of young
Canadians. Because of that capitulation we have seen the single
largest increase in the number of new smokers in the history of
Canada ever since, year after year. It is just like a rocket
taking off.
What we are saying is that the time is right to enforce that 50
cent levy per carton at the manufacturing level. Why is the time
right? Because if we look to the border states of the United
States we will find that we are pretty well on par with where
they are in terms of price.
The smuggling issue is not going to be as big an issue as it was
in the past. Although, I think what we should have done then was
to enforce our own laws and get tough on the smugglers. I do not
think we should have capitulated to the Mafia kings or the
smugglers, but this government did.
Let us take a look at my home province of New Brunswick. In New
Brunswick people are paying $3.74 a pack. That was as of
September 30, 1998. If we bought a pack of cigarettes in the
state of Maine today we would pay $4.10 Canadian, given the fact
that our dollar is much weaker than theirs. That is another
story.
In other words, in Canada we would pay $3.74 and in Maine we
would pay $4.10. There would be a 36 cent difference in our
favour. We have room to increase the cost to help educate young
Canadians about smoking. I think the government should do it.
This is something that I have to put on the record. The tobacco
manufacturers have absolutely no credibility when it comes to
arguing their case. The manufactures at one time argued that
there is a death benefit to smoking. They actually commissioned
a study to prove this. The manufacturers said that there is a
net gain in Canada if we all smoke.
Their reasoning went like this. If we smoke we are going to die
younger. Therefore, we are not going to be collecting as much
old age pension because obviously we will be dying younger. We
are not going to be collecting as much Canada pension because we
will die younger. We are not going to be receiving any health
care benefits because we will be dead.
Cigarette manufacturers actually commissioned that study and
expected Canadians to believe it.
1715
I go back to my basic argument. The attack on cigarette smoking
can only be done in three ways. It has to hit the price, that is
the tax on cigarettes, because the government can control prices
through taxes. There is a direct correlation between price and
consumption. Economists call that fundamental pricing theory. In
other words, if the price is high enough fewer people will smoke
the product because they will put their money some place else.
The second way is advertising and the third is education. In
other words before we could support any tobacco legislation in
the House, all three of those components have to be in the bill.
Unfortunately they are not in the bill. It has been weakened and
weakened badly.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr Speaker, I want to make a comment. I
listened very carefully to what the member had to say. I am not
questioning his motives, but I am questioning the theory and the
thesis he has put forward.
I want to tell him, members of the House and anyone else who is
watching, that he is wrong. He should be as proud as we are that
Canada has a Tobacco Act and now a tobacco amendment act in Bill
C-42 that will make us among world leaders in legislation. We
also have in place a commitment to education policies which
hopefully will respond to our desire to educate young people, to
give them the information they need and to encourage them not to
start smoking.
Canada has been a world leader in smoking cessation policies.
Canada is a world leader in our legislative initiatives. I know
that is really hard for the member opposite to take. I
understand that. I actually think he is quite a nice guy. When
I heard him speaking I just had to say to him, notwithstanding
all that, that he is absolutely and completely wrong.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, now that I know I am a
nice guy I feel a lot better. We have to talk about reality in
this place. We have Bill S-13 before the House that will be
ruled on by the Speaker as to its legitimacy. It will do
something about smoking in Canada, particularly for young people.
I ask the member to put her money or her vote where her mouth
is. She should support Bill S-13 which incidentally was
introduced by one of her own backbenchers who happens to be a
medical doctor.
Senator Kenny went around the country from coast to coast. I
have here documentation from the Canadian Cancer Society telling
us in study after study of the harmful effects of smoking on
young people. I have a box of letters. I will not touch it and
then it is not a prop. I had to use two soldiers and a pack
horse to get the letters here from my office to show the Canadian
people how important the issue is.
I was first elected in 1988. I have never had as many letters
on a topic as I have had on the smoking issue. I have received
thousands of letters. They are going to other members in the
opposition parties and to members of the government. That type of
evidence suggests Canadians want something done about smoking. I
will entertain other questions from the floor.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have also received a lot of letters.
However there was one topic I received many more letters on, and
it was the GST brought in by that member's party. Did he not
receive more letters on the GST?
1720
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that is the problem with
the institutional memory around here. The member who just asked
that question used to sit in this very seat. I hope I am not
contaminated by that type of thing. All I can say is that I
received a lot of letters on the GST. In 1993 I paid a huge
political price on that issue.
Canadian people will pay a huge price in terms of deaths and in
terms of addiction if we do not do something about this very
serious issue.
In reference to the same point made by the veteran member from
Regina, Saskatchewan, it is funny we were so wrong in the GST
that the government just wrapped its arms around it. We do not
even hear you saying anything about it, Mr. Speaker, nor any
other member over there. Probably it goes back to that same
person I talked about in the finance department, David Dodge,
giving Michael Wilson and Don Mazankowski advice. Now he is
advising the government. I wish he would go back to finance and
stay away from the health minister.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask a question of the member for New Brunswick
Southwest who is doing an excellent job critiquing the very good
piece of legislation we are talking about, Senator Colin Kenny's
Bill S-13.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: How about Bill C-42?
Mr. Charlie Power: We were talking about it and the member was
talking about it. I want to ask the member relating—
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I believe Bill C-42 is before the House and I would ask
you to remind the member that is the bill we are addressing.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member for St.
John's West is a very diligent member. He would certainly turn
his question to something that was relevant to the speech given
by his colleague, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest,
which after all was strictly relevant, as I recall, to Bill C-42.
Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, I will happily rephrase
the question.
In this case we take in $2 billion worth of revenue for taxes on
tobacco in Canada. It costs Canadians $10 billion. I am
wondering why there is so much opposition to another bill that
was discussed as well. We are trying to raise a miserly $100
million to assist young people to stay off tobacco, to be able to
lead normal healthy lives.
How is it that in the U.S. tobacco companies are willing to pay
$202 billion to show that the products they sell are so
unbelievably harmful to citizens of the United States of America?
I also want to say how profitable tobacco companies must be to be
able to offer $202 billion to settle some lawsuits.
Why is it so difficult to raise a small levy in Canada to help
our young people stay off tobacco?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that is the question I
cannot answer. That is what makes this whole exercise so
bizarre. The numbers are obviously against doing what the
government is doing, to try to phrase it properly.
I have some letters sitting on the desk of the member who
happens to be the finance critic for my party. He sent me a
little note. I think he is over in his office and one of the
pages just brought it. He wants me to tell Canadians that the
tobacco tax reduction is the only tax cut the present government
has given the Canadian people since taking office in 1993.
In reference to the question, I am perplexed as to why the
government would go down a road which is such a sorry road. It
has an opportunity to do something and it is not doing it. All I
can say is it has to be caving in to big business, to the big
tobacco manufacturers. I do not think there is an answer other
than that.
1725
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member for New Brunswick Southwest
could redirect a question to the member for St. John's East who a
few moments ago spoke in high praise about the policies of
Canada. Of course we will recall that the member's party voted
against Canada. I wonder if he could now inform the House
whether he really thinks it is a good deal to be in Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: I am not quite sure how the member
for New Brunswick Southwest will redirect any question to one of
his colleagues. Maybe he could answer this question.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I think the heritage
minister has had too much caffeine today. I cannot fathom that
question. With due respect to the minister of heritage, I think
she has this confused with her flip-flop position on the GST.
The Deputy Speaker: It seems to me maybe there has been a
lot of caffeine on every side.
We could perhaps resume debate at this point, but given the time
do members want to see it as 5.30 p.m.? Or, do they want to have
five minutes of debate and have the speech interrupted? I am in
the hands of the House. Does the hon. member wish to start his
remarks?
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Bill C-42
I thought I might go over the Liberal record on tobacco. This is
a summary of all the things that have happened since I have been
in the House, since 1993.
First, the government reduced prices to combat smuggling.
Second, it caved in on plain packaging. Third, it passed Bill
C-71. It weakened Bill C-71 by giving in to Grand Prix racing,
and with the ongoing weakening from other sponsorship groups the
result is Bill C-42.
It is very instructive to look at what has been the result of
these measures. It is not that tough to do. One can actually go
and look at statistics on tobacco consumption in Canada as I have
done.
The statistics I will be presenting today will be very specific
for Canada since 1991. The reduction of tobacco smoking in 1991
was 6.16%. This trend had been going on for many years. In 1993
it dropped to 3.49%. In 1994 for the first time in 30 years it
went up to 9.20%. I want this to be plain. This is total market
for tobacco. That includes tobacco smuggled and tobacco used in
Canada. Some would look at statistics and say we do anything we
want with them. If the U.S. statistics are compared with the
Canadian statistics they have been in lock step for those 30
years.
In 1994 the Canadian statistics took a dramatic jump. The jump
was directed, and Statistics Canada shows this plainly, at our
youth. The bill is weakening a pretty good bill, Bill C-71,
which Reformers supported. I am proud to say Reformers were able
to actually prevent procedural wrangling on that bill.
Bill C-71 was directed at youth. It allowed advertising to
still go toward adults who had already made the decision to
smoke. In adult only publications and in bars it was quite
legitimate for tobacco companies to advertise. That took away
from the tobacco companies a tremendous lever, the lever of court
challenge that would make Bill C-71 no longer legal. We now have
a bill which groups involved in health are saying is a weakening.
I will end my speech now so that we can carry on and vote on
Bill C-42.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the intention of the House to
proceed with putting the question? Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: No.
1730
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will
now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, members of the House of
Commons and senators should be treated equally before the law and
therefore the parliamentary privilege that allows members of the
House of Commons and senators to refuse to give evidence in a
Canadian courts of law should be abolished.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle, for seconding this motion.
I am pleased to speak on this motion today, particularly since I
drafted it two years ago as a result of some unfortunate
circumstances in my home province of Saskatchewan but which could
continue to have some importance as efforts to discover the
extent of government's involvement in the APEC issue unfold.
MPs and senators do not have to obey a subpoena to testify in
court, ever. I think that is wrong, as do many other Canadians.
So I moved Motion No. 53 to remove that absolute privilege. I
would like to explain why.
Motion No. 53 seeks to eliminate the privilege of members of the
House of Commons and senators to evade an obligation to testify
before a court or civil proceeding. It is a privilege I am not
sure many new MPs realize they have. The principle behind the
privilege not to attend a court of law and give evidence is that
attendance at the House of Commons or the Senate is the first
call on a member's or senator's time. There are practical
reasons for this principle and historic reasons for the rule
being written in such an absolute fashion.
But there is a competing principle that parliamentarians should
not be above the law. We need to reconsider how we reconcile
these two principles and allow for some time in MPs' schedules to
show up in court if they are needed.
In October 1996 when I drafted this motion we were in the middle
of a series of trials in Saskatchewan regarding allegations of
fraud, theft of public funds and breach of public trust. The
charges dated back to the period from 1986 to 1991 and involved
members of a previous provincial government, both cabinet members
and members of the legislative assembly.
In January 1995, 11 current and former MLAs, including former
deputy premier and now Saskatchewan Senator Eric Berntson, were
trying to evade testifying in a preliminary inquiry into charges
against former PC caucus communications director John Scraba. The
Court of Queen's Bench ruled that they had to testify.
By October 1996 one staffer and twelve former Conservative MLAs
had been charged. By then five had been convicted, three were
acquitted and one committed suicide. At that time former
Lloydminister MLA Michael Hopfner was on trial. He called
Senator Berntson as a witness. A subpoena was issued but police
could not serve it on the senator on the Parliament Hill
precincts because of his parliamentary privilege. The senator in
any event was not required as a matter of parliamentary privilege
to answer or to even acknowledge the subpoena.
Senator Berntson would not discuss his reasons for this action
with the media, but the Senate's legal counsel, in a letter to
the senator's personal lawyer Clyne Harradance, apparently
confirmed that Senator Berntson was entitled to refuse the
subpoena all together as part of his parliamentary privileges and
immunities.
I will go into the specifics of the privilege issue shortly. To
continue the story, the issue was raised at that time by several
members of parliament, myself included. It was the subject of
media stories and several columns and editorials.
There was a public outcry against the way the senator seemed to
be hiding behind his parliamentary privilege. There was even a
suggestion in some quarters that by appointing him to the senate,
the former prime minister was deliberately availing Senator
Berntson of this potential cover.
1735
Three weeks later the senator wrote an open letter claiming he
was not trying to evade testifying by invoking his Senate
privileges and he eventually took the stand. Mr. Hopfner was
convicted and sentenced to 18 months in jail. Three months later,
on January 24, 1997, Senator Berntson was charged with breach of
trust and two counts of fraud. Five other individuals were also
charged that day, bringing the total number of individuals
charged to some 20 people. Senator Berntson resigned the next day
as deputy leader of the opposition in the Senate and also from
the Tory caucus pending both the preliminary hearing held this
time last year and his trial before a judge which it was recently
announced will commence January 11, 1999.
Senators and members of parliament do not have the privilege to
avoid arrest or even to escape criminal charges but they may not
be compelled to appear in court as witnesses or to serve on a
jury, according to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citations 89 and
90. Citation 89 refers to the privilege I would like to abolish,
namely that no member may be compelled to appear in court as a
witness.
Beauchesne's sixth edition was published in 1989. Citation 91
states: “Neither the House nor its members have ever made any
specific claims to freedom from service of process within the
precincts”. No sooner was it published than the situation
changed. In March 1989 Edmonton MP David Kilgour, now a Liberal
cabinet minister, was served with a subpoena in his constituency
office to testify—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member knows he
cannot refer to the hon. member by name but by secretary of
state.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. I
apologize and withdraw that. The secretary of state was served
with a subpoena in his constituency office to testify in court
about a meeting he had with constituents a few years before.
Speaker Fraser ruled: “The service of a subpoena within
the precincts of the House of Commons is improper without the
permission of the Speaker”.
The member at the time and now secretary of state was asking
Speaker Fraser to extend the definition of privilege to encompass
something akin to a solicitor-client privilege between an MP and
his or her constituents. Speaker Fraser declined to do so. The
current secretary of state may have a point in wanting to extend
our privileges on that score but I am seeking to limit the
blanket waiver against MPs or senators having to testify in
court.
I do not believe MPs or senators should have an unfettered
privilege to refuse to testify in court as witnesses. The
primary claim of parliament to members' attendance no longer
demands this blanket waiver. I make reference to the practice
created in Britain in the 1600s to safeguard MPs from King
Charles I who often imprisoned outspoken politicians. It also
prevented poorly paid MPs from being thrown into debtors prison
for non-payment of debts. Enshrined in the Canadian Constitution
Act of 1867, the privilege grants members the right to speak in
parliament without fear of harassment for what he or she says. I
still support that privilege without which we would be handcuffed
as spokespersons for our constituents and others outside our
ridings.
MPs and senators are exempted from jury duty because of their
obligation to serve the nation's highest court, parliament.
Parliamentary privilege exists to ensure the people's
representatives are free to work in the public interest. I
maintain and support that point of view.
Beauchesne's and Maingot assert that the two houses of
parliament have the first call on the attendance of their
members. Fair enough, but that principle was elaborated in the
specific rules of privilege before the invention of the airplane.
At that time parliament was called for a session that lasted
some months and then prorogued at the end. MPs and senators had
to travel for up to a week and maybe more sometimes to attend the
session. They travelled by train or horse and buggy.
Today a parliamentary session is never prorogued until just
before a new session is announced, usually the day before or the
day of the new session. However, the House and the Senate
adjourn regularly and even predictably because of our calendar.
MPs and senators can fly anywhere in Canada in under a day if
they really need to. Therefore I believe it is not necessary to
assert the primary claim of parliament to members' attendance by
giving members an unfettered right to avoid testifying as
witnesses in court.
MPs or Senators who have information relevant to non-frivolous
criminal or civil proceedings should be required to testify like
any other Canadian so long as the Chamber is adjourned or
prorogued.
1740
Of course as whip of the NDP, I would not want to see a
situation where one political party could subpoena MPs from
another political party to defeat a government with respect to a
vote or ensure that a close vote was passed, for example. But
the current blanket privilege makes Canadians believe
parliamentarians are above the law.
Many people in Saskatchewan two years ago told me they thought
Senator Berntson was exercising his privileges not out of a sense
of the importance of his work in the Senate but to avoid giving
testimony at one trial that might later lead to his own criminal
charges. Although I do not want to comment on a matter that is
currently before the courts, I can say that it was not so
impossible to see how they might come to that conclusion.
What will happen if the RCMP public complaints commission should
subpoena the former solicitor general or the Prime Minister? A
subpoena cannot be served on Parliament Hill without the
permission of the Speaker. The public complaints commission has
the powers of a board of inquiry, but the Prime Minister is
saying there is no precedent for him to testify if called.
I do not believe we should give prime ministers or cabinet
ministers or MPs any shields to hide behind anymore, in
particular as they appear as witnesses. My motion is intended to
modernize the rules of parliament and the rules for
parliamentarians to maintain public confidence in their elected
representatives as well as to ensure an equitable justice system
and to make sure that politicians are not above the law.
I hope hon. members will find the motion worthy of support. I
look forward to addressing their comments at the end of the hour.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to debate the motion of the hon.
member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.
Motion No. 53 proposes to abolish a parliamentary privilege that
permits members of the House and the other place to be exempted
from appearing in a court of law as witnesses, and the member
rightly stressed that. It is appearance as witnesses that we are
discussing.
I believe this motion should not be supported. The concept of
privilege has a long history in our system of parliamentary
government. It was developed during the 14th and 15th centuries,
as the member mentioned, to ensure that the authority and
liberties of the British House of Commons should not be
challenged by the monarch.
I point out that Canada is one of several countries that have
developed parliamentary privileges. They are also available in
parliaments in jurisdictions abroad. Both the United Kingdom and
Australia recognize the priority of the attendance of members in
their houses of parliament over their appearance before a court.
Exempting members from appearing in court as witnesses is
closely related to the privileges that exempt members from jury
duty and the freedom from arrest and molestation. I suggest to
my hon. colleagues that it continues to be needed today.
First, this basic principle for the good functioning of the
government in Canada is recognized in the Constitution Act of
1867, but also in section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act. The
Constitution Act provides that: “The privileges, immunities and
powers to be held, enjoyed and exercised by the Senate and by the
House of Commons and by the members thereof respectively shall be
such as are from time to time defined by the Act of Parliament of
Canada”.
The Parliament of Canada Act recognizes these privileges as:
“Part of the general and public law of Canada and they shall, in
all courts in Canada and by and before all judges, be taken
notice of judicially”.
Privilege is based on the pre-eminent claim of the House to the
attendance and service of its members. That means members
themselves do not have privilege. Only the House of Commons has
privilege. Members are covered by this privilege insofar as they
are serving as members of this House.
While privilege is intended to ensure that members are not
obstructed in the performance of their duties, it does have
limitations on its use.
It is not intended to be used to impede the course of justice. It
does not protect members from criminal prosecution. For example,
it does not stop members of parliament from being sued.
1745
In other words, privilege ensures that this House will function
effectively. Members must be able to carry out their
responsibilities and duties as legislators of public policy and
in the service of all Canadians. As noted by Maingot,
“parliament has the paramount right to the attendance and
service of its members”.
The work of this House depends on the input of all members from
all regions of this country. I would suggest that their
participation is even more important given the fact that we now
have five official parties comprising the legislature in the
House of Commons.
Second, parliamentary privilege supports the House by protecting
individual members from frivolous or vexatious attacks which
would keep them from their duties.
As the hon. member may know, a former leader of his party used
this protection while serving as a member of this House. The
motion before us, in other words, is inconsistent with the action
of a former leader of the member's party.
We need to be vigilant in preserving parliamentary privilege
against frivolous attack.
Third, the member's motion responds to a problem that does not
exist. I am not aware of any public criticism in this area, nor
am I aware of any significant abuses that need to be addressed.
In other words, I do not understand what the point of this motion
really is.
Indeed, I believe Canadians would agree that this privilege is
required so that members may carry on their legislative and House
duties. It is a necessary privilege that members not be impeded
in their work in the service of their electors.
While members may claim this privilege, they must also be guided
by their consciences. Given these considerations in the modern
context, members rarely invoke their privilege to be exempt from
appearing as a witness. However, as noted in Bourinot's
Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, the Commons generally
gives leave of absence to members to attend elsewhere as
witnesses when it is shown that the public interest would not
suffer by their absence.
In conclusion, it is for these reasons that Motion No. 53 as
proposed by the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
should not be supported. If there are specific matters of
privilege that the member wishes to examine, I would suggest that
this is a matter that might more properly be considered by the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of which my
hon. colleague is a member and of which I am the chair.
I hope that he and I can continue to work together on that
committee to further strengthen this parliament.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is an interesting debate and I am glad to be involved in it. I
have a deep interest in the issue having been served with several
documents to go to court. It kind of comes home when one does
these things.
I want to read the motion because I am actually that close to
where the hon. member is from with just a minor deviation from
it:
That, in the opinion of this House, Members of the House of
Commons and Senators should be treated equally before the law and
therefore the parliamentary privilege that allows Members of the
House of Commons and Senators to refuse to give evidence in a
Canadian court of law should be abolished.
In the recent Sun column of November 6, 1998 titled
“Lawmakers above the law”, Robert Fife comments on this motion
and points to two cases that prompted the sponsor to introduce
this motion. He cited the case when in 1989 NDP MP Dave Barrett
claimed parliamentary immunity to avoid a summons in a case
involving non-payment of his leadership debts and when
Conservative Senator Eric Bernston used the privilege to excuse
himself from answering a subpoena in a trial involving a fraud
ring that operated in the Tory caucus of former Saskatchewan
Premier Grant Devine.
1750
While Motion No. 53 only addresses one privilege, there are
actually three privileges dealing with the attendance of members
and the potentiality for a conflict between duty to parliament
and duty to obey a court order. These three privileges are
freedom from arrest, freedom from giving evidence and freedom
from serving on a jury.
It should be noted that these privileges do not involve cases of
criminal matters or breaches of provincial statutes that involve
the summary jurisdiction of the Criminal Code. They only apply
to civil cases as was earlier said.
Historically, and according to Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary
Privilege in Canada “the first privilege accorded to
parliamentarians in England was an assurance that the barons and
other lords were not impeded on their way to the council with the
monarch because of civil process”. We have run out of barons
and lords in this House of Commons to a large extent, except for
an odd few in the cabinet over there. “The concern was to secure
the attendance of members, and it remains to this day the
principal reason for the privilege of freedom from arrest, from
attending as a witness in a court or elsewhere than parliament,
and from serving on a jury. This is because the most important
body in the country, the Parliament of Canada, has first call on
the services of its members and parliament will not tolerate
impediments to members who are on their way to attend the
sittings”.
It seems reasonable that a member could ignore an order to
appear before court if called to attend a vote in the House if
that vote was considered important. If a member was to be
charged with contempt of court in such a case, it seems
reasonable that the House should protect that member. In such a
conflict, the duty to parliament clearly outweighs the duty to
the courts.
The potential for the abuse of these privileges seems to arise
out of the automatic nature of the immunity and when a member
uses the privilege for personal advantage. This automatic
immunity should be abolished. At the same time, the House should
maintain first call on the services of its members and should be
able to exercise authority in extraordinary cases.
I want to talk a bit about freedom from arrest. Joseph
Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada sums up the
privilege of freedom from arrest as a protection from arrest for
any civil process, such as failing to obey an order or judgment
of the court in a civil matter, including civil contempt. A
member of parliament does not have immunity from arrest in
criminal matters and may be imprisoned for a criminal or
quasi-criminal offence, including criminal contempt of court.
On the other hand, page 158 suggests that the House has the
authority to intervene if it felt the circumstances were
extraordinary. It says:
While neither House of Parliament has waived or would likely
waive its right to intervene if and when Members are convicted
and committed for contempt (of court), and thus could in theory
consider each case on its merits, it is unlikely that either
House of Parliament would take any matter into consideration
relating to the civil process unless the circumstances were
extraordinary. It is also unlikely that Parliament would
actually interfere in a criminal arrest of a Member, including
criminal contempt of court. While cases may arise, the position
of the House of Commons is that the House will at least
investigate every such matter brought to its attention in order
to be assured that the privileges of Parliament are not affected.
Therefore if the House has the authority to intervene in
extraordinary cases to protect its privileges, then members do
not need an automatic privilege of freedom from arrest. This
would be consistent with most other cases involving members'
privileges.
When members feel that their privileges have been breached, they
first raise it with the Speaker who determines whether or not
there is a prima facie case of privilege. If a member's question
of privilege is prima facie, then the House considers the case
and makes a decision.
What about the privilege of not being required to attend as a
witness? Here we get into the specific privilege referred to in
Motion No. 53. Once again the problem is not with the idea that
the House has first call on the services of its members, but the
automatic immunity granted to a member.
As it stands now, the House would likely uphold a member's
privilege of freedom from giving evidence without question. The
House should instead consider the circumstances and decide based
on the merits of the case.
1755
If we abolish a member's individual privilege of freedom from
giving evidence, to be consistent we should probably ensure that
the House maintains the authority to intervene in extraordinary
cases. That should prevent individual members from abusing the
privilege but at the same time preserve the right of the House to
first call on the services of its members.
What about privilege of exemption from jury service? Freedom of
jury duty is in keeping with the principle of the House having
first call on the services of its members. While this exemption
from the law is less offensive than the others, it still puts
members above the law compared to other citizens.
To be consistent, we could apply the same standards to this
freedom as the other freedoms mentioned beforehand. The right of
immunity should be taken away from individual members and placed
in the hands of the House itself.
These are things the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs should probably look at.
The privilege of freedom of speech is another issue. The
privilege of freedom of speech is in a totally different category
and is probably one of the most essential freedoms enjoyed by
members. According to Maingot the privilege of freedom of speech
is not so much intended to protect the members against
prosecution for their own individual advantages, but to support
the rights of the people by enabling their representatives to
execute functions of their office without fear of either civil or
criminal prosecutions.
According to Bourinot, freedom of speech is one of the first and
greatest of a member's privileges. He says that one of the
advantages of legislative bodies is the right of exposing and
denouncing abuses by means of free speech.
Often in debate and question period cabinet ministers, including
the Prime Minister, will accuse the opposition of abusing their
freedom of speech. It happens here once in a while. These
comments are not only misguided and inappropriate but they strike
at the centre of the problems facing this government. The
government tolerates free speech as long as it is not being
criticized by it. Freedom exercised in this way is viewed by the
government as an abuse.
On page 25 of Joseph Maingot's book on parliamentary privilege
he talks about the origins of freedom of speech:
Until the 19th century, in the U.K. reporting what was said in
parliament was treated as contempt; until then, members required
this privilege only for the purpose of avoiding prosecution by
the king.
As members were once afraid of the wrath of the king, today
backbench members of parliament bear the wrath of the Prime
Minister who sometimes thinks he is a king. The Prime Minister
cannot prosecute members but he does have ways of punishing and
controlling them. It is unfortunate that we do not have a
privilege protecting us from the Prime Minister.
In conclusion, in regard to privileges relating to the services
of members to the House, members for the most part should be
treated like any other citizen before the law. At the same time
parliament should maintain its right to first call on the
services of its members.
Therefore, any privilege applied should not be automatic, with
the exception of freedom of speech, but should be subject to the
judgment and decision of the House.
With this modification, members would not be above the law
unless the majority of lawmakers felt it necessary to resolve a
legitimate conflict regarding the public demand on the services
of members of parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak on Motion M-53, introduced by our colleague
for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, on abolition of the parliamentary
privilege that allows members of the House of Commons to refuse
to give evidence in a Canadian court of law.
I would like to point out first of all that the motion being
addressed by this debate raises several fundamental principles
of parliamentary practice: the separation of powers and the
primacy of parliament over legal institutions, as well as the
matter of parliamentary privilege.
I am one of those who feel that the workings of parliament and
the work of legislating are, and must remain, the principal duty
and foremost obligation of a member of parliament. Moreover,
the primacy of parliament over the judiciary has been
guaranteed, since the earliest days of parliamentarism, in order
to ensure that the business of the House runs smoothly.
The sovereign did not tolerate that members could be prevented
from assembling in parliament.
1800
A summons to testify in court did not constitute for the crown a
valid reason for preventing a parliamentarian from taking part
in a sitting. This underlying principle and the ensuing
parliamentary privilege have down come through the centuries and
are still valid today.
I will quote from Joseph Maingot, in his Parliamentary Privilege
in Canada, at page 161:
Since Parliament has the paramount right to the attendance and
service of its Members, any call for the Member to attend
elsewhere while the House is in session is not in law a call
that need be answered.
The aim of this privilege is to enable us parliamentarians not
to arbitrarily escape the administration of justice, but to
properly acquit ourselves of our duties, with no outside
obstruction or interference of any sort.
To put an end to this would mean that we recognize the primacy
of the judiciary over the legislative, whereas the judiciary
arises from the legislative power, which precedes it.
In addition, Standing Order 15 on member attendance, provides,
and I quote:
Every Member, being cognizant of the provisions of the
Parliament of Canada Act, is bound to attend the sittings of the
House, unless otherwise occupied with parliamentary activities
and functions or on public or official business.
Clearly, our presence in Parliament is not only desirable but
required. Moreover, the obligation of testifying at a trial is
not specifically included in the list of valid reasons for not
attending sessions of the House.
This parliamentary privilege, based on a long tradition, and on
totally defensible principles and arguments, is embodied in the
letter of our Standing Orders.
I have no intention here of discrediting or minimizing the
importance of the role of Canadian courts. Our legal
institutions are cited as examples worldwide. They ensure
compliance with the laws passed by Parliament. Those who have
committed offences or crimes must be brought before the courts
and punished, as appropriate.
Should members by chance witness illegal acts, it is appropriate
for them to participate in the operation of the judicial system
by appearing, as required and when circumstances permit, as
witnesses. But we must not for all that forget that our prime
obligation is to perform the functions for which we were elected.
Appearing as a witness when summoned is part of everyone's civic
duty. The parliamentary privilege the member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre is proposing to abolish does not,
however, exempt us as parliamentarians from this civic duty.
Privilege simply means that, in the event of conflict between
our civic duty to appear as a witness and our parliamentary
duties, the latter should take precedence.
The second point I wish to raise concerns parliamentary
privilege specifically.
All the protections that we enjoy in this House and that we
inherited in 1868 when the Parliament of Canada declared that it
was adopting the privileges of the House of Commons in London
come to us through the long and rich parliamentary tradition of
Britain.
Over time, there has been a slow but inexorable erosion of
parliamentary privileges. This phenomenon can certainly be
attributed in part to the increasing concentration of powers in
the executive branch to the detriment of the legislative branch.
But we have also seen parliament become increasingly reluctant
or unable to defend its privileges effectively.
Decisions in recent years has been particularly telling. I need
only point to the way the infamous flag affair was dealt with by
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It would
therefore be improper for this House to knowingly and willingly
help to undermine the privileges it enjoys.
1805
Before I go further, I believe it is appropriate to agree on the
meaning of parliamentary privilege. I will cite the 6th edition
of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which defines it
as follows at page 11, and I quote:
—the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House
collectively as a constituent art of the High Court of
Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without
which they could not discharge their functions—
Motion No. M-53, in suggesting equality between members and
senators and our fellow citizens in the obligation to respond to
a summons to appear as a witness, indicates to me the
subordination of the legislative to the judiciary. Let me
explain.
As parliamentarians, we are first charged with introducing
bills, amending other laws and voting on laws. We form what is
called the legislative power. Under such a motion, a member of
Parliament could at any time and in any place be summoned to
appear before a Canadian court without regard to his role.
Thus the judiciary could, with a summons to appear, govern our
activities and interfere in the functioning of this House,
something that cannot be allowed to happen under the principle
of the separation of powers.
Thus the motion under consideration at the present time would
prevent parliamentarians from carrying out their duties
effectively, and would mean that henceforth the judiciary would
take precedence over the legislative.
Our presence in Parliament, as Joseph Maingot said, is a vital
one. Our fellow citizens have made us their legitimate
representatives so we can express their concerns here in this
House. This status confers upon us inalienable privileges that
are necessary to the performance of our duties.
In the eyes of the law, we are not superior to our fellow
citizens. We merely enjoy certain rights and protections which
enable us to be more effective in representing them.
I am concerned at the erosion of parliamentary privileges.
In this connection, even if Motion M-53 is non-votable, the mere
fact that it was introduced is indication of what is, at the
very least, a lessening of the respect for parliamentary
heritage to which I referred earlier.
All our parliamentary practices, as outlined in the Standing
Orders and in other pertinent documents of jurisprudence, have
demonstrated what parliamentary precedence is all about, what
parliamentary privileges are, and why they exist. I know very
well that we are familiar with those great principles, but it is
a good idea to go over them from time to time.
I do, however, view with alarm the fact that we have reached the
point of believing that the roles can in fact be reversed, and
that the legislative can, on occasion, be subordinated to the
judiciary, as this motion implies.
Finally, I deplore the lack of respect being shown at times for
our parliamentary system.
On the one hand, this motion reduces our parliamentary
privileges. On the other hand, it is converting our committees
from quasi-judicial parliamentary bodies into entities under the
control of the executive, which makes government members toe the
party line, thus taking away the committees' independence to
make decisions.
It is high time we turned more to the rich British parliamentary
tradition for our inspiration.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased as well to take part in the debate
pertaining to Motion No. 53 presented by the hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. The motion calls on the House to
declare that all members of the House and the Senate be treated
equally before the law.
I have no difficulty with that whatsoever, particularly in view
of the fact that all Canadians are certainly equal under the law.
Every Canadian, parliamentarians included, must enjoy equality
under the law. Protection and prosecution apply by virtue of the
Canadian charter.
The member asserted that parliamentary privilege somehow creates
inequality before the law for members of the House. He calls on
the House to therefore renounce what he contends is an
inequality.
This is a noble motion by all means but there are some misnomers
that have to be dispelled. Members of parliament and senators
are not free from arrest. Let us get that straight.
Privilege on the Hill, were it to be exercised in such a way
that a member of the House or the Senate were attempting to avoid
prosecution by remaining on the Hill 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, would perhaps be a worse fate than criminal prosecution.
1810
This would leave a wrong impression if we were to suggest this
were the case.
It is unfortunate as well that the word privilege carries so
much baggage. It is not unusual for people who encounter the
term to be offended by the notion that parliamentary privilege
might somehow denote a special status for members. The
vocabulary itself often offends the senses and sensibilities of
those whose world is not so close to the study of law and
history.
Like many specialities, parliamentary law has its own particular
vocabulary. Sometimes the vocabulary can be confusing. The
expression parliamentary privilege sounds somewhat like a perk or
a class system that exists here, or even an economic advantage.
We say that he is a rich man and leads a life of privilege. That
is not the context of privilege as it has come to be understood
on Parliament Hill. This has nothing to do with parliamentary
privilege.
Parliamentary privilege is immunity under the Constitution that
is necessary to allow members of this legislature to perform
duties without interference. The crown recognizes and reiterates
that parliament's claim to privilege at the beginning of each
parliament is vital to the operation of this place. It is
claimed by the Speakers on behalf of the members of the House and
the Senate as they addresses the governor general. It is not an
exercise in pageantry. It is not ritualism. It is a basic
assertion of freedoms that enable the members of the House to
discharge their duties without hindrance by persons who may seek
to impede parliament through agents of the crown or through
agents of the court.
We should recall that courts are the crown's courts. It is also
forgotten that this is the Queen's parliament. Keeping this in
mind, we can delve into the argument a little clearer. It was
certainly heart warming to hear the previous speaker from the
Bloc acknowledge there is a great deal of importance attached to
those particular laws we have adopted in this country. Like are
parliamentary history, there is rich importance to all Canadians
that the matter of parliamentary privilege be respected.
In the initial appearance before the governor general the
Speaker of this House on the very first day will appear. The
Speaker will on behalf of all members of this House proceed to
the Senate chamber. He will make a representation on behalf of
this place. Let us look at those words:
The House of Commons has elected me their Speaker, though I am
but little able to fulfill the important duties thus assigned to
me. If, in the performance of those duties, I should at any time
fall into error, I pray that the fault may be imputed to me, and
not to the Commons, whose servant I am, and who, through me, the
better to enable them to discharge their duties to the Queen and
country, humbly claim all their undoubted rights and privileges,
especially that they may have freedom of speech in their debates,
access to Your Excellency's person at all seasonable times, and
that their proceedings may be received from Your Excellency the
most favourable construction.
This sets out the request of this parliament through the Speaker
for privilege of freedom of speech in this Chamber and privilege
that allows these members present to do their jobs effectively.
When we return to this Chamber there are certain privileges that
attach the ability to question the government, to ask probing,
important questions, questions that might in some instances lead
to a legal action were they to occur outside of these hallowed
halls. I suggest it is one of the most important duties that
members of the Chamber can engage in, particularly from the
opposition side of the House. I think all members will be quick
to agree that is a useful exercise to engage in a process where
the government is required to at times defend its actions.
Privilege is a particular immunity under the law. There are
types of privileges that the crown recognizes in law. These
include the privacy of a confession and limited conversations
between a person and their lawyer or physician at times. I doubt
there are any members present who would want to see these
privileges abandoned. Similarly, parliamentary protections or
immunities exist for a single purpose. They were not just
dreamed up by parliamentarians of a superior class. These
immunities are in place to protect parliamentarians from
intimidation and threat.
1815
Constituents need to feel a sense of confidence that their
parliamentarians, their representatives, will respect and
represent them with a certain level of decorum and competence.
Privileges should be exercised with discretion and common sense
that is of benefit to all Canadians. Service on the Hill should
meet that same standard.
There are practical reasons that need to be respected in order
for these exercises to be fulfilled. Parliamentarians are not
above the law. I do not think that suggestion should be left in
the minds of any Canadians. They are certainly not immune from
prosecution when those unfortunate circumstances might arise.
Canadians in free elections send members of parliament to the
House to probe, to pry, to admonish and to advocate. We are
armed with the right to speak freely within these rules. We
cannot be questioned in the crown's courts for anything that we
might say in the House. Other citizens may be subject to the
actions of the courts but we are only subject to our own limits.
not those of the crown's courts.
Americanization is a fear we might have with respect to the
abolition of privilege. It might turn us into a circus-like
atmosphere that we have seen in the United States in recent
months. Perhaps that is not egalitarian in the eyes of the hon.
member, and I say this with respect. I think this is the root
concern of his motion.
However, members must be free to engage in this process that is
so important to the protection of democratic rights. The
abolition of our immunity would result in the egalitarianism of
an oppressed society. There would be no freedom of speech in
parliament.
Just think of some of the issues that we could not have debated
had the rules of privilege been abandoned. Would the member for
Palliser in the hon. member's own party been permitted to ask the
questions that he did ask with respect to the former solicitor
general in pursuit of justice? Would I in my party have been
able to ask questions with respect to illegal campaign
fundraising that was happening in the province of Quebec and be
free from prosecution?
The literary community has recently raised the danger of what is
called libel chill. The abolition of parliamentary privilege
would make it open season on every elected representative,
particularly those who expressed unpopular views. Libel chill
would become a parliamentary petrification.
Immunity, privilege, whichever is preferred, is a necessary
protection from a malevolent ruler. In ancient days it was a
malevolent king who opposed parliament. Now there are very
powerful forces that would be only too pleased to silence probing
and prying. If we were to abolish immunity, we would invite
those who disagree with any member to sue or engage us in the
courts to bring about potential financial ruin if we have the
courage to vigorously pursue the rights of all Canadians.
Specifically the issue of jury duty has been raised. Lawyers at
the bar, prosecution lawyers, are also excused when it comes to
jury duty. It has been touched on in a very practical way as to
why parliamentarians should be permitted to be exempt from jury
duty. All sorts of exemptions apply.
I realize I am at the end of my time limit. I am sure the
member who advocates turning back the clock on this element of
parliamentary privilege is well intentioned. However, this sort
of privilege is something I do not feel is abused presently in
this place. I am afraid it has been used in this context to
revisit what was perhaps a personal vendetta that may have
existed between him and a member from his own province, a member
from the Senate. This is not an abuse that occurs.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this has been a valuable debate. We are indebted to the
hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for reminding us
that when section 18 was inserted into the Constitution Act,
1867, it received in a legal sense British parliamentary
privileges but it did not jell them once and for all in space and
time.
These privileges are subject to creative reinterpretation
according to new facts. In the spirit of what Lord Chancellor
Sankey, the real person who gave us women in the Senate, the
judge who decided the persons case, said that the Constitution
was a living tree. This is true of parliamentary privileges.
1820
In a sense we have had in the debate in the House two different
possibilities presented. I was consulted several years ago by a
member of the Senate in relation to whether the privilege
extended to freedom from being served with legal processes in the
House. It seems to me where a legal process serving is designed
to humiliate or embarrass a member of parliament, or where it can
certainly be served outside the House with convenience, that is
an abuse of members' privileges. The member has power not merely
to refuse it but the House has power to punish for contempt. I
hope it would use that from time to time.
On the other hand, as we have noted today the judgment of
judicial committee of the House of Lords has made a striking
change in the law of immunities of heads of government. I have
not been able to get the judgement as yet, the actual text, but
it is saying basically that what one thought was unlimited in
time is limited to the duration of the office.
Second, it may exclude certain types of acts that in an
international law sense offend jus cogens. You could never get
immunity, for example, for crimes against humanity. That is a
rather astonishing breakthrough in international law, the more so
because it was not perhaps generally anticipated as it should
have been.
The British judges are now going in for progressive generic
interpretation. In a similar way the immunities of diplomats,
which have been considered absolute in the past, are usually by
practice waived voluntarily by the ambassador or the head of the
mission in the country concerned. That makes sense. It could be
argued that either House has the ability collectively to waive a
privilege if it felt that it was used abusively.
I think the constructive suggestion from this debate has been
that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs might
examine the question of updating the privileges. That was the
suggestion of the member for Peterborough, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Government House Leader.
I think it is a fruitful suggestion and it would be in the
spirit of the proposal of the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre to have that adopted. He is right in saying these
privileges were not frozen in the 17th century. They reflect
their particular space and time dimension. New facts demand a
re-examination. Let us have the re-examination but have it in an
all party sense.
I have great confidence in Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs. I served on it in a sense; I cut my parliamentary
teeth there. I think it would be a very fruitful suggestion
which I hope the hon. member would accept.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver—Quadra for his
remarks. I think he raised some good points in his speech. I
would like to start from the member for Vancouver Quadra and then
work my way back, last to first, in terms of responding to my
motion.
Getting to the Progressive Conservative House leader, we see an
example of somebody who has given a speech full of information
which has basically little relevance to the motion we just
debated.
I was going to rise on a point of order to point out to him that
I can see why the Conservative Party is where it is at. I can see
why Mr. Mulroney's government was tossed out on its ear. They
listened to three previous speakers and did not get what the
motion was about, either did not listen or did not understand
what the motion was about. That is an example of Mr. Mulroney's
government that we had in the country for eight or nine years. He
did and said things and his members did and said things without
regard for any of the responses or concerns of ordinary
Canadians.
I have no personal vendetta. The Conservative House leader
thinks that I do. Everything he talked about in terms of freedom
of speech and all the other freedoms, I support and embrace
wholeheartedly. I remind the member that what we were debating,
to which he did not make reference whatsoever, is the privilege
that allows members of the House of Commons and senators to
refuse to give evidence in a court of law. We are looking at
abolishing that particular reference. It has nothing to do with
other privileges which I believe are very important in conducting
our business.
1825
The Bloc whip, the Bloc member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes,
talked about imperfect respect for parliament, lack of respect
for parliament, and the rich parliamentary tradition. All of us
embrace all these things we have talked about. I find this quite
bewildering coming from a Bloc member, somebody who is paid by
taxpayers, who comes to the House of Commons and wants to break
up our country. He talks about the imperfect respect that I have
for parliament. I think people in my constituency and in other
parts of Canada will look at that comment and laugh because it is
so unbelievable.
All Bloc members stand in the House time after time, person
after person, being paid for by the taxpayers of Canada and
talking about breaking up parliament and breaking up the country.
I do not think that is perfect respect for parliament. I do not
think we want the kind of respect for parliament that comes from
that Bloc member. He has misinterpreted the motion and should
perhaps review it one more time to see where he stands on it.
I come to the Reform House leader, the member for
Langley—Abbotsford. He had some very good suggestions which I
think many members of the House of Commons might even embrace. He
talked about how we perhaps need to have the House decide, as
opposed to individual members being given these freedoms, on the
individual merits of each case when it comes to subpoenas of
members or subpoenas issued on members to appear as witnesses. I
kind of like that idea.
Then we had the parliamentary secretary to the House leader who
suggested that we should perhaps raise the issue in the
procedures and House affairs committee. I think that is a very
good suggestion. I think it is something we should look at.
I guess members do not understand what I have been doing in the
House the last four or five years. This is one example in about
five or six. I have been attempting to implement some
democratic reform and to modernize parliament. When I introduced
a bill to change members of parliament's pensions from a defined
benefit to a defined contribution, that was an attempt to
modernize what was happening with MPs. When I introduced a bill
to make the Board of Internal Economy more public like other
jurisdictions in the world and in this country, that was an
attempt to make some reform of our democratic system.
This motion is another attempt to modernize our parliament, to
modernize the way we do business in this country so that
Canadians who do not have a lot of respect for us as a collective
group of members of parliament will perhaps have a little more
respect because we are undertaking democratic reforms in a very
broad based way.
I have raised a number of issues in the House. This is yet one
more. I find that all members are coming around to the point
where they are enjoying this type of debate. They are finding
some of these ideas perhaps a little too progressive for them.
Some of them really think they are progressive and that we should
look closer at them.
I would seek unanimous consent, upon the recommendation of the
parliamentary secretary to the House leader, to refer this matter
to the procedures and House affairs committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
seeking unanimous consent to refer the motion to committee. Is
there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): 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.
TAXATION
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise with regard to a question I asked of the finance
minister during question period on October 27.
At that time I brought to his attention the predicament of
constituent Preston Tkatch who, along with millions of other
Canadians, is being squeezed into poverty by the government's tax
policies. As I pointed out to the minister, Mr. Tkatch's family
is being squeezed so hard that he feels he would be better off on
welfare. Indeed, with a monthly difference of approximately $200
between his take home pay and that of someone receiving welfare,
he has a point.
But all across the country there are millions of Canadians in
the same boat.
1830
I remind the government these are the same people on whose backs
the government balanced the budget, some of whom find themselves
on hospital waiting lists only to find that federal health cuts
make the wait longer.
In any event, it was with this in mind that I asked the finance
minister when could these families expect meaningful tax relief
so that a wager earner like Mr. Tkatch would have an incentive to
keep working instead of thinking about going on welfare.
The minister's response was nothing short of abysmal. I got
nothing but a canned response which said in effect no tax relief,
no employment insurance reduction. Basically just keep sending
it and the finance minister will keep spending it.
Needless to say, Mr. Tkatch was not impressed either. I sent him
a copy of the finance minister's answers and he took the time to
share his thoughts with me: “It is very obvious that the
Canadian government doesn't care about the average working class
family”.
Mr. Tkatch is quite right in pointing out that the child tax
benefit helps families in the lowest income bracket but it does
nothing to help those in the low to middle income groups. He is
the sole breadwinner in his family and his yearly income is
$32,000. As a result of the sliding scale by which the child tax
benefit is applied its effect on his situation is negligible.
I read more of what my constituent wrote to me: “Families of
three or more dependants should not pay any taxes on income up to
$30,000”. Think about that for a moment. The finance minister
might think that is a lot to ask but I sure do not. That is the
kind of tax relief I would like to see and there is no good
reason why the finance minister cannot deliver this in the next
budget. Unfortunately Canadians should not bother holding their
breath waiting for it to happen.
I want to put the plight of this constituent into very personal
terms for the parliamentary secretary. In his letter he states:
“I get up at 6 a.m. every morning to leave for an 8 a.m. job and
get home at 6 p.m, a 12 hour day for which the government takes
over $8,000 per year in taxes. Maybe it is time I sleep in and
hang around my yard waiting for a cheque”.
In view of this, my question now is the same as it was on
October 27. What incentive is there for Mr. Tkatch to continue
working instead of going on welfare or, to paraphrase him, why
should he even bother to get out of bed?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, when the government first took
office in 1993 it was faced with a $42 billion deficit and
certainly the overwhelming Canadian priority was to balance the
books.
But even in that climate all four of this government's previous
budgets undertook targeted tax reductions to achieve social and
economic objectives by providing assistance to education,
children, charities and the disabled.
Now that the fiscal situation has improved we have begun a
process of tax relief and our first priority has been to provide
tax relief to those who can least afford to pay, low and middle
income Canadians.
The hon. member cites the example of a $32,000 single wage
earner family. In the 1998 budget we increased the basic
exemption that essentially put more money in low income
Canadians' hands, that is money they can receive on a tax free
basis. We eliminated the general federal surtax for Canadians
earning up to about $50,000. We have also taken important
measures to assist low income families with children. In
particular, we realize the challenge we face is certainly one
that requires the assistance and the partnership of the
provinces.
The hon. member does not feel that there is any benefit or any
worth to the national child benefit program that was put in
place. I tend to disagree and I am sure that there are thousands
of Canadians who also disagree with that.
I think it is fair to say that the initial phase of our program
was to balance the budget. The second phase is to continue to
build on the 1998 budget which targeted tax relief to those
Canadians who can least afford to pay and who have the least
amount of earnings. We have begun the process. We are committed
to continue that tax relief.
We have provided $7 billion in tax relief over three years in
the last budget. The Prime Minister, the finance minister and
this government are certainly committed to putting more money
into those individuals' hands.
1835
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, on
October 9, I quoted a number of grade 11 history students from
Hamnot Collegiate in Flin Flon, Manitoba. These students are
constituents of mine who had faxed me that day with their views
on whether the solicitor general should resign. The overwhelming
majority of them said he should resign. Prior to question period
that day I asked the class if I quote them in my question. They
were ecstatic that their views were going to be heard. I was
very disturbed by the Deputy Prime Minister's response. He
called the students' comments unwarranted and unjustified and
accused me of abusing the process of this House. I will address
each of these allegations in turn.
Some of the students were very insulted that the Deputy Prime
Minister dismissed their opinions as out of hand. In a democracy
is the government not supposed to respect the views of its
citizens? The Deputy Prime Minister had no right to call their
opinions unwarranted and unjustified. His doing so goes right to
the heart of what is wrong with this Liberal government. it is
arrogant. The Deputy Prime Minister clearly does not care about
the views of Canadians. No wonder the things the government says
and does are increasingly out of touch with what Canadians want.
The same attitude can be seen in his accusation that I was
abusing the process of this House by informing the students of my
question so they could watch it on television and give their
opinions. Does the Deputy Prime Minister actually think it is an
abuse for Canadians to watch their own government on television?
Would he prefer that the proceedings go on behind closed doors so
they do not have to be accountable? It is not an abuse for
Canadians to watch the proceedings of parliament. It is a
democratic right. But this Liberal government does not seem to
care much about democratic rights.
The previous speaker, my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre, indicated his efforts to try to bring some modern changes
and some democracy into the House. Once again there is no
attempt by this government to see that change go through, not
even to the point of taking that suggestion to committee where it
could be discussed and heard and so we could finally see some
kind of change to the type of democracy this government is bent
on pursuing.
The right to protest is another crucial right in a democracy.
This is part of freedom of speech. If Canada is to be a
democracy, Canadians must be free to voice their opposition to
what the government does. When the RCMP pepper sprayed those
APEC protesters in Vancouver they were suppressing the
fundamental democratic rights of those protesters. This is a
very serious matter and Canadians deserve to get to the bottom of
it.
Rather than openly answer these allegations, the government has
been acting as if it has something to hide. First, as his
comments on the plane to Fredericton showed, the former solicitor
general prejudged the RCMP public complaints commission. The
sworn affidavits confirm this to be so. He has now resigned for
this indiscretion, proving the students I quoted were right all
along, but the matter is far from closed.
The government continues to insist the RCMP commission will get
to the bottom of the pepper spray incident which is absolute
nonsense. The commission is only mandated to review the actions
of the RCMP officers, not the political masters. Since the
commission cannot look into the actions of the Prime Minister, it
cannot determine whether he or his staff was involved in the
suppression of democratic rights. The commission has been
hopelessly tainted by the former solicitor general's comments and
by the fact that the students have not received any legal funding
while the government is represented by a team of high priced
lawyers.
The only way Canadians can get an accurate picture of what truly
happened during the APEC conference is to appoint a judicial
inquiry to investigate. If the government truly has nothing to
hide, it should appoint a judicial inquiry to exonerate itself.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
is almost funny to hear what the hon. member opposite has to
say. Her remarks are so childish and so full of contradictions.
As I recall, she started off by saying something like Canadians
deserve to go to the bottom of it.
We fully agree, but what is the approach of opposition members? It is
preventing the commission set up for this purpose from doing its
job.
On the one hand, they say that the commission should be allowed
to do its job and, on the other hand, that it should not.
1840
Another contradiction is the allegation that “the process is
tainted”. There again, the documents have been handed over to
the commission, which will rule on this matter.
What right does my colleague opposite have to prejudge the
commission's decision, claiming bias? What she says is full of
contradictions.
Members might be familiar with what Alfred de Musset had to say
about Molière. “This mighty humour, so sad and so profound that
laughter leads to tears.” He is referring to jokes that make us
cry.
[English]
HEALTH PROTECTION BRANCH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I would like to pursue a question I raised in this
House on October 22 pertaining to the particular issue of bovine
growth hormone and more generally the state of affairs in the
health protection branch.
We have repeatedly asked the Minister of Health and other
members of the Liberal government for clarification about a
number of serious allegations being raised about the way in which
business is being conducted in the health protection branch.
We have raised the matter of the need for a public investigation
into the health protection branch on numerous occasions. We
continue to call for such an investigation based on the very long
and growing list of concerns being raised about the way in which
drugs, food and medical devices are being handled in this branch
of government, a branch of government that is there purposely for
the need to ensure the safety of all such products for Canadians.
With respect to the particular issue of bovine growth hormone,
we know from public testimony before the Senate committee that
scientists with the bureau of veterinary drugs have indicated
that they have felt pressures on them to approve a drug. They
have talked about gag orders. They have talked about files being
stolen. They have talked about intimidation. They have talked
about the inability to do their jobs as scientists.
The Senate has taken up this issue. I commend senators Spivak
and Whelan for initiating this hearing, but I believe this issue
needs to be dealt with by the House of Commons.
On April 2, 1998 I presented a motion before the health
committee asking for such an investigation. Liberal members on
that committee ensured that that motion was defeated. I
subsequently wrote to the auditor general after that committee
meeting asking for an audit based on these allegations. I am
looking forward to a response from that office.
I wrote to the Minister of Health many months ago asking him to
initiate an investigation into the allegations of the
veterinarians and other scientists in the health protection
branch. My concerns have been dismissed.
I have raised on numerous occasions since then the need for a
full scale public inquiry into the health protection branch to
address concerns that are far reaching and serious pertaining to
the health and safety of products, goods, food and drugs that
Canadians need and must have.
I am simply elaborating today on this issue and trying once more
to get this government to acknowledge the serious allegations
being made and to encourage an investigation into this matter. I
look forward to a response from the parliamentary secretary who
is fully aware, I am sure, of these issues and I hope will take
these concerns very seriously.
This is not a matter that can be dismissed quickly and easily.
It is a matter that impacts very much on serious issues before
the Canadian public today. I hope the government will take this
as a serious concern and a very constructive suggestion and
pursue as quickly as possible an independent investigation into
the health protection branch.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, first let me be very clear on
the issue of rBST. It is being reviewed and evaluated
internationally. Some countries have approved rBST and some have
not.
Let me make it absolutely clear to all members of this House and
anyone watching this debate, rBST has not been approved in Canada
and it will not be approved unless the evidence proves it is
safe. It is as clear and straightforward as that.
On October 29 the Senate committee on agriculture and forestry
held hearings and the deputy minister of health stated that
internally and externally good science must have an atmosphere of
free discussion and free debate in order to survive. It does not
matter whether it is in veterinary science, human science or
economic science. What is critical is that we have freedom
within Health Canada and across government agencies to engage in
that debate and discussion.
Some scientists at Health Canada have expressed concerns and
have taken their case to the Public Service Staff Relations Board
which has held hearings and will rule on their case.
There have been no gag orders. This should be obvious from the
very fact that scientists provided hours of testimony to the
Senate committee and in fact were advised very clearly by the
department and by the Minister of Health that it was their
obligation to do so.
When issues were raised regarding the approval process of rBST
and the concern about potential gaps in research, I want to be
absolutely clear that it was a senior scientist at Health Canada
who ordered a review called the gaps analysis because there were
outstanding questions.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.45 p.m.)