36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 54
CONTENTS
Friday, February 6, 1998
1000
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Oral Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1005
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-18. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Raymond Chan |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Raymond Chan |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1010
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1045
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1050
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1055
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE JACK PEARSON
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDIAN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1100
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEVEC
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GIRL GUIDES
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Godin |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANDREW CARLSON
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1105
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAR
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUNIOR WOMEN'S CURLING
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKS
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FILM AND TELEVISION
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1110
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RESEARCH
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VICTORIA BRIDGE RESTORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1115
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1120
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1125
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SAGUENAY FLOOD
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1130
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-28
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1135
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STUDENT LOANS AND GRANTS PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1140
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBERAL PARTY
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1145
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1150
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-28
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1155
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CAMPBELLTON COURTS
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RURAL CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUNKERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1200
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tabling of Documents
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Minister Responsible for Canadian Wheat Board
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1205
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MI'KMAQ EDUCATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-30. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EQUAL TREATMENT FOR PERSONS COHABITING IN A RELATIONSHIP
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-309. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-310. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1210
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-311. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1215
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-18. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1230
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1245
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1250
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1255
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAIRING
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1330
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1345
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
1350
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1355
![V](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 54
![](/web/20061116200612im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 6, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, during the course of question period yesterday, I was
ruled out of order on a question directed to the Minister of
Finance pertaining to the relationship of the Liberal Party with
the banks and so on.
1005
Part of my point of order was that I was ruled out of order with
my question but the Minister of Finance was allowed to proceed
with an answer to my supplementary question which was in order. I
believe his answer cast aspersions on me in relation to whether
or not I attended a particular committee meeting. The Speaker
would not allow me to finish my point of order yesterday so today
my point of order is the following.
The Minister of Finance suggested to the House that I attended
or did not attend a particular meeting of a committee that I was
not a member of. I think he referred to both the industry and
the finance committees. I am asking the Speaker to make a
judgment as to whether I have a point of order, whether the
minister was in order to make reference to my attendance or
non-attendance. According to Beauchesne's rules and forms this
is a matter which all members are asked to cautiously guard
against making reference to. I would ask the Speaker to make some
judgment on this.
The Speaker: I reviewed Hansard as to the exact
words. All of the words themselves are somewhat ambiguous. As a
general rule I would appeal to all members of the House to cease
and desist from referring to whether a member is or is not in the
House or at a committee. These are the rules and traditions we
have always acknowledged among ourselves. I would encourage all
members, ministers of course included, not to make references to
attendance one way or the other. I thank you for that.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CUSTOMS ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, an act to
amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of National Revenue)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When shall the bill
be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of National Revenue)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take
the opportunity before the House of Commons to express my support
for Bill C-18, legislation which I believe will enhance the
safety and security of all Canadians, especially those who live
in border communities across this land.
This bill will strengthen the enforcement role of customs
officers by extending the scope of their powers so they can
arrest and detain individuals suspected of Criminal Code
offences. I am familiar with the work of customs officers. I
have met many of these people across this country over my
lifetime. In the process I have been enormously impressed with
the scope of their duties and the professionalism with which they
carry out their job.
I am also aware of the fact that on many occasions their efforts
to protect the safety of Canadians have been hampered by the
legal limitations of our Customs Act.
This legislation closes a longstanding gap in our ability to
address at the border criminal activities such as impaired
driving, child abduction and possession of stolen goods. It will
also allow us to deal with individuals who are the subjects of
outstanding arrest warrants. There is a clear need for our
customs officers to be able to stop suspected criminals at the
border before they have a chance to enter our country.
1010
My region of southern Ontario has four major land border
crossings which process 40% to 45% of traveller and commercial
traffic coming into Canada. A lot of the criminal activity that
has been observed by customs officers has occurred at these major
ports and at others across the land.
Customs officers have witnessed behaviour such as impaired
driving that has resulted in tragedy. They and their union have
pointed out that such tragedies are preventable if the scope of
the customs officers' powers is broadened to enable them to
arrest and detain suspects until the local law enforcement can
properly and fully respond.
Mr. Speaker, if you ask Canadians what distinguishes Canada from
most countries, they will tell you that Canada is much safer and
less violent. This is the type of Canada that Canadians want and
the type of Canada this government will strive to maintain. We
believe that all Canadians have a right to live in a peaceful and
safe community and they expect us to do what we can to keep these
communities safe.
Bill C-18 is one way that we can meet those expectations, by
giving our customs officers the power to stop criminal activity
before it reaches our communities. Clearly this bill will allow
customs officers to do more value added work that makes a real
difference. At the same time it will not diminish Revenue
Canada's ability to continue with major initiatives that are
allowing Canadians to seize opportunities created by liberalized
trade and travel. It will also enhance and protect from any
threat to our social or our economic well-being.
These initiatives are allowing the department to free up
resources to concentrate on high risk traffic with more effective
enforcement to control weapons and drug smuggling, as well as the
illegal movement of people across our borders.
Customs officers already have the power to detain and arrest
individuals suspected of customs offences under the Customs Act.
For instance our customs officers deal with serious offences such
as the smuggling of drugs and weapons.
Bill C-18 capitalizes on customs' unique position at our border
points to act as a first response against crime. This means
customs officers will be able to legally hold suspects until law
enforcement agencies can intervene. Criminals will be dealt with
at the right time, before they enter our country. By expanding
the scope of customs officers' powers, Bill C-18 will greatly
enhance the safety of citizens of border communities and in turn
will contribute to the protection of all Canadians wherever they
live in this country.
This legislation is not intended to replace police. What it
does is it closes the longstanding gap by enabling our customs
officers to act as a bridge to the law enforcement community.
Customs officers will arrest and detain suspects, who will be
turned over immediately to the police authorities for follow-up
as they see fit. The provinces will continue to be responsible
for the enforcement of the Criminal Code. Now customs officers
will be able to assist them by providing the first response
service.
This legislation is not about duplication. Customs officers
will not investigate Criminal Code offences nor will customs
officers be responsible for processing individuals for Criminal
Code offences. Furthermore, customs officers will only be
allowed to use these new powers while they are on duty at the
points of entry.
The benefits of Bill C-18 to law enforcement in this country are
very clear. That is why police officers, police chiefs and
attorneys general all know that this bill enhances the ability to
fight crime. As a result this bill has the support of police
forces, police chiefs, provincial attorneys general, victims
rights groups, the customs union and customs officers themselves.
It has broad support because it makes sense. It is the right
thing to do.
Bill C-18 is not broadening the scope of powers to customs
officers who are untried and untested. Rather, the legislation
entrusts these powers to a group of women and men who prove their
value to this country every day as skilled, dedicated
professionals.
The power to arrest is not new for customs officers. They have
been arresting people for serious offences such as drug smuggling
for decades. They have been doing so with professionalism and
with respect for the rights of those involved. That will not
change. Customs officers will continue to carry out arrests in a
manner that respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The fact is this bill supports the efforts of the police and
those involved in both law enforcement and the judicial system.
Once Bill C-18 is passed it will take six to nine months to
implement.
1015
The time will be used to renovate facilities, to designate
officers and train them on the identification of Criminal Code
offences and also on important aspects of the law, especially as
it relates to the charter of rights and freedoms.
Customs officers will have the training they need to ensure that
they act fairly and responsibly and within the confines of the
law in carrying out these new responsibilities under Bill C-18.
The broader role of this bill envisions for our customs officers
that these provisions will be carried out by probably about 2,500
officers who will be specially designated and trained. They will
be drawn from those officers who are in regular contact with the
travelling public.
Student customs officers will not have these powers. They will
continue, however, to work with the permanent customs staff and
designated officers who will be on hand to respond to the
Criminal Code situations.
Canadians can also be assured that these designated customers
officers will receive additional training to ensure that they act
fairly, responsibly and within the confines of the law in
carrying out these new functions and duties. No custom officer
will be put in a position of having to carry out their new
responsibility without the appropriate training. That would be
unacceptable to this government. Our border communities and
indeed all Canadians deserve nothing less.
We already train our customs officers in arrest procedures, the
charter and other issues that relate to the powers of arrest. We
will expand this excellent training program to cover areas such
as the identification of Criminal Code offences and related court
jurisprudence. In addition, this training will be coupled with a
clear accountability structure which will outline situations
calling for first response action.
I know that for some there is still the issue of whether to arm
customs officers. It is not an issue for this government. We are
firm in our belief that our officers should not carry weapons.
The safety of customs officers is something we care deeply about.
Customs officers already encounter dangerous people such as drug
and weapon smugglers. They have never needed guns to effectively
handle these types of situations. This is because, like police
officers, our officers are expected to assess the safety
implications of any situation. We want to avoid violence, and the
best way to do so is to use common sense, not more weapons.
We are committed to supporting the work of our officers by
giving them the additional training on the use of force for
personal protection and to compel compliance within the law.
Furthermore, by the time this bill is implemented, the department
will provide protective gear to officers who request it. On those
occasions when customs officers have to confront a dangerous
person, their training and common sense will dictate that they
avoid placing themselves or the public in danger. If they assess
a risk to their safety, they will be expected to contact the
police and withdraw from the situation. In other words, common
sense and training will work hand in hand to determine the smart
and the smartest response in each case.
I will deal now with the cost of this initiative. We have
estimated that planning and start-up costs will be approximately
$5.5 million. This includes the cost for training officers and
for renovating facilities so that we may properly detain suspects
until law enforcement agencies arrive and can intervene. After
implementation, the ongoing costs will be minimal.
Bill C-18 will do a number of things. First, it will close that
longstanding gap and strengthen customs officers' ability to
assist in law enforcement in this country. Second, it will make
use of the unique position of customs at the border to stop
criminals before they enter Canada. Finally, it will make
efficient use of our law enforcement resources to enhance the
safety and security of all Canadians.
This bill also has to date the support of all parties in this
House, a rare situation and one that speaks to its importance. We
are gratified, and I want to stress that, by this support. We
also appreciate the input from members of this House as well as
the groups and individuals who have offered their help and
support. Your ideas and suggestions will be very valuable in the
implementation of this legislation.
Customs officers and their union deserve special praise. They
identified an opportunity to improve the safety of Canadians and
have worked very hard to make this bill a reality.
On behalf of the minister I thank all members for allowing us to
do what is right for Canadians.
1020
Rest assured that during implementation we will continue to
consult with our partners, both within government and outside, to
ensure that this bill once implemented meets expectations.
In conclusion, by supporting Bill C-18 we demonstrate to all
Canadians that when it comes to their safety and security we will
not compromise. This bill serves notice to those individuals who
pose a threat to the safety of our communities that criminal
activity will not be tolerated.
In approving Bill C-18 we are recognizing the important role of
Canada's customs officers at our border and demonstrating to all
Canadians that we are prepared to do what is right to enhance the
safety and security of communities across the country.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to seek consent to split my time with the hon. member
for North Vancouver.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I am pleased to rise on behalf of the
official opposition to address Bill C-18 which the Reform caucus
will be supporting.
We think this bill seeks to achieve some worthwhile and
admirable objectives in empowering our customs officers with
certain police style powers to detain people suspected of serious
crimes when they are clearly breaking our laws as they cross our
borders. We support the intent of the bill.
In the debate on second reading of this bill we raised numerous
questions which had not at that time been adequately addressed by
the government but which we think have since been adequately
addressed by the government and were comprehensively addressed by
the parliamentary secretary in her remarks.
Those concerns included the cost of improving and upgrading the
facilities of our customs ports to permit the detention of
suspected criminals. The government advises us now that the
costs entailed will be no greater than $5.5 million which we
think is a reasonable cost for empowering these customs officers
to protect our borders more thoroughly. We will of course, as in
all matters, watch scrupulously the actual expenditures on this
new program to ensure that costs are maintained within the amount
estimated.
We also expressed concern about the training necessary to make
our customs officers capable of exercising these new peace
officer powers. We were particularly concerned about the growing
number of student customs officers and to what extent they might
be empowered by this bill. But we have been well advised by the
government that adequate training will be in place for properly
trained customs officers to exercise these powers and that
student officers will not be permitted to exercise the powers
granted by Bill C-18. So we are satisfied with that.
We were also concerned at the outset about adequate equipment.
In particular, how is it that customs officers are not armed in
order to enforce the law and protect themselves and to defend our
borders against potentially aggressive criminals whom they may
have to detain? We still have an outstanding concern in that
regard. But the government has made a compelling case that
immediate back-up support will be available with properly
empowered peace officers, principally the RCMP, who can provide
the kind of equipment needed to back up our customs officers in
difficult and potentially violent situations.
1025
Finally, we expressed a concern about the potential infringement
of civil liberties of people who could be detained at the borders
without due process. The government has satisfied us, as have
organizations such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association,
that the bill is narrow enough in its scope that it is unlikely
to lead to abuse of these new found police powers on the part of
customs officers.
Our principal concerns have been adequately addressed. We are
pleased to support this bill. It is unfortunate, in one respect,
that it has been so long in coming. It is a bill which is really
a gesture of common sense, a gesture to take the necessary steps
to protect the integrity of our borders.
Let me take this opportunity to say that I have an ongoing
concern that we are not doing enough to defend the integrity of
our borders against smuggling and the importation of contraband
across our ports of entry. I have raised in this House the
matter of a certain senior, 25-year veteran customs officer named
Dennis Coffey. Mr. Coffey has made very troubling allegations,
under oath, about corruption, fraud, nepotism and abuse at the
customs branch of Revenue Canada. He has indicated that there
are tens of thousands of shipments coming through our major
points of entry, particularly in Ontario, trucking points of
entry as well as airports, where potential contraband shipments
are not being adequately inspected.
This is a concern which was confirmed by a document which the
official opposition obtained from the security division of the
Department of National Revenue, which we released in December. It
is a document which indicates that Revenue Canada believes there
is a reasonably large quantity of contraband narcotics and
illegal drugs being imported into Canada, across our points of
entry, without adequate inspection by customs.
What this report suggests is that some drug lords are actually
couriering their shipments of hashish, marijuana, cocaine and
heroin into Canada with 24-hour, 10 a.m. delivery. I find it
quite astonishing that a drug lord can get his shipment of
cocaine to where he wants it in Canada more quickly than Canada
Post can deliver a letter, and he can do so without fear of very
serious inspection on the part of customs agents.
There are still some very large and troubling questions with
respect to the administration of the various customs statutes. We
must ensure that these contraband materials are not being
imported into Canada. The official opposition intends to
introduce legislation at some point in the future in this place
to address those concerns. We understand that less than 1% of
courier shipments from countries identified as major narcotics
exporters are being inspected. A foreign drug lord can make the
reasonable calculation that if only 1% of his contraband is going
to be inspected and detained by customs Canada, 99% will get to
his customers.
While we commend the good work done by our customs agents in
this country, while we are pleased that they will now have these
new powers to exercise, we are concerned that the government has
not taken seriously enough the issue of protecting the integrity
of our borders and we intend to fully pursue that issue and
demand that we take greater measures to ensure that shipments
coming into this country are properly inspected.
1030
We are also very concerned that the veteran customs officer to
whom I referred, Mr. Coffey, a dedicated 25 year servant of the
revenue department, was dismissed this week by the Department of
National Revenue for making public his allegations about fraud,
waste, nepotism and abuse in his department. This is not how we
should treat our customs agents. We ought to honour the service
they give to the country. We ought not take this kind of
draconian action against people who blow the whistle when they
see corruption in their departments.
It is scandalous that the Department of National Revenue has
dismissed Mr. Coffey. This underlines once more the need for
tough whistle-blower protection legislation so that public
servants can speak the truth and identify waste, fraud and
corruption where they exist in the public sector without fear of
intimidation or losing their jobs because of the government.
We will support Bill C-18 but we are not entirely pleased with
the way the government has dealt with the protection of our
borders and with the commendable service of our customs agents.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
also pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-18. The
purpose of the bill, as has already been mentioned, is to give
customs officers the authority of a peace officer, which means
that they will be able to arrest without warrant certain
individuals trying to cross the border who are perhaps suspected
of child abduction, impaired driving and so on.
Certainly I am pleased to see these sorts of actions being
introduced. It reminds me of a case not so long ago, I think in
the Vancouver area, where an impaired driver came to a border
crossing and because there was no power for the customs officer
to detain the driver he had to be allowed through. It is not an
uncommon situation, I would say.
The customs officers notified police but before the police were
able to apprehend this person he had already driven off the road
and down an embankment. It was by pure luck that he did not hurt
anyone. It was a very good illustration of why this type of law
is necessary.
Costs to implement these new requirements are a concern, as my
colleague mentioned. One of the letters of response to our
questions which came from the minister indicated that they
estimated the planning and start-up costs to be approximately
$5.5 million and that it would take approximately nine months to
complete.
The history of the government is that it is woefully lacking in
its ability to estimate costs. I rather suspect that this $5.5
million is more likely to be $11 million or $12 million. I will
use the example of the Nunavut legislation that went through the
House during the last parliament. Reform warned that the
estimates for costs in that situation were nowhere near what it
would actually cost. Already, in the last month or so, the
government is asking for more money for that Nunavut program. We
believe it will probably get to $1 billion before the dust
settles from an original $100 million estimated by the
government.
Notwithstanding the estimates of the government of $5.5 million,
I would be surprised if it happens in that cost range. Despite
that, we believe these sorts of measures are necessary.
It is quite obvious from the background material that groups
like CAVEAT, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its
Termination, have been a long time lobbying for this type of
legislation to be passed. I wonder about the fact that the
government is finally responding to public pressure for this sort
of legislation.
Is this is a sign that maybe the Liberals are finally getting
the message that they have to get tough on crime? I hope this is
a sign they are finally recognizing that the public calls for
changes to the Young Offenders Act, that the public wants rid of
ridiculous conditional sentencing provisions, and that they will
actually be acted on. We are going to see some justice restored
to what really has become just a legal system.
In that regard I hope the minister will avoid any temptation to
interfere and to thwart the activities of customs officers once
they have this new power to be able to arrest and detain people
suspected of criminal activities. The minister does not have a
very good history of allowing people in customs and immigration
to carry out their duties.
1035
I can give an example. During the last parliament five or six
people arrived from India at the border port of entry at
Vancouver International Airport, claiming to be a film crew that
was going to make a documentary film all about British Columbia.
The immigration officials, upon asking questions of this film
crew, discovered that they had no film making equipment and could
not answer basic questions about the making of films, so the
immigration officials detained them. It was a Friday afternoon.
They were put into the lock-up at the Vancouver International
Airport.
The Vancouver Sun and several other bleeding hearts jumped
on the bandwagon and said that this was racist and that the only
reason these people had been detained was that they were from
India.
The present Minister of National Revenue also jumped on the
bandwagon. He was quoted widely in the news media, claiming that
the immigration officials were racist, that they had detained
these people for no other reason than racism.
Because of all this lobbying, on the Monday morning the
Immigration Refugee Board allowed these people to go free in
British Columbia. Surprise, surprise. Within three or four days
they had disappeared. Nobody could find them.
About a week or 10 days later these people were arrested in
Washington state. They had used Canada as an entry point to the
United States. The immigration officials who were the front line
people and had asked the right questions had certainly detected
those criminals at the border.
The present minister thwarted those efforts. I would hope, now
that he is minister of the department, he is treating his
officials with a little more respect. Once this act is in law I
hope he will not keep doing things like the dismissal of Mr.
Coffey, will start to appreciate the skills in the department and
will allow the customs people to exercise their rights under the
legislation.
Getting a little tough on crime would not hurt. I saw a quote
the other day that I think would apply very well to the
situation, if customs officers are successful in detaining people
who are subsequently convicted of offences. It reflects very
well the feelings of Canadians:
We ought to require prisoners to work 48 hours a week and to
study 12 hours a week. If we kept them busy for 60 hours a week
doing something positive, they would be different people when
they came out of prison and prison would have a different impact
on them than watching movies and working out on weight machines.
If you are not willing to work 48 hours a week and study 12 hours
a week you shouldn't get any privileges.
That is a spectacular reflection of how people feel about the
whole justice system in Canada. I desperately hope the passage
of Bill C-18 is the beginning of some sort of Liberal change of
heart that will begin putting some teeth into the justice system.
Security concerns were expressed by the customs union with
respect to Bill C-18. It was a bit concerned that adequate
training and facilities would have to be provided to ensure the
safety of its staff. In consultations with the union and others
the minister has assured that new facilities will be built and
that there will be adequate training.
As I mentioned earlier, they are expecting that to cost about
$5.5 million. Tied into that concern is an amazing figure. The
customs department employs 300 students on an ongoing basis to
help with customs inspection and 900 students in the summertime.
I was amazed when I read those figures. An obvious concern is
that the students be adequately trained to deal with the new
types of responsibilities that may inadvertently come their way.
The minister indicated that these students will go through a
three week training course. I see no mention, though, of any
exam at the end of that course. I hope the minister will ensure
there is some sort of examination protocol associated with the
course, to ensure the people who go through the course are
adequately equipped to handle the responsibilities they are
given.
1040
Finally I would like to mention that there has been some
criticism of the gradual introduction of automatic ports of entry
at some border crossings. The unions say the automatic barrier
system, which looks at licence plates and allows people in or
out, is subject to some problems from time to time. I am
astounded that we should worry about it because our borders are
so porous anyway. We have this huge and lengthy unpatrolled
border. Quite frankly I do not understand why crooks even cross
at border crossings.
There are many examples in the Vancouver area where number zero
road runs right along the border for about 30 miles or 50
kilometres. All that separates Canada from the United States is
a ditch. There have been many examples of smuggling across that
border.
A famous case just a couple of years ago involved a store in San
Francisco smuggling parrots into Vancouver. They would drive up
to the border and put full cages of parrots in the ditch along
the highway. After dark someone on the Canadian side would come
along and lift the cages out of the ditch.
It is very easy to cross the border around the Vancouver area.
There are several trails, like the west coast trail, which go
across the border. There is a sign asking one to report to the
next customs station whenever it is reached.
It astounds me that so many crooks come across the border and
get caught. I hope they retain the same amount of intelligence
they already have and continue to do so. Maybe Bill C-18 will
help us to intercept them as they come through.
On balance, we support the bill with all its defects. I look
forward to voting in favour of Bill C-18.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on Bill C-18,
an Act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code.
The purpose of Bill C-18 is to broaden the scope of the
present powers of customs officers as far as arrest and detainment
are concerned. It is in response to the necessity for enhanced
control and effective intervention at Canadian customs posts. The
proposed changes would affect about two-thirds of the 3,200 customs
officers.
Like the other provinces sharing a border with the United
States, Quebec is a target for dangerous individuals attempting to
seek refuge there.
There is an indisputably urgent need to reinforce border crossing
points in order to intercept guilty parties.
Recent statistics from the Department of Revenue indicate
that, over the past three years, 8,500 cases of suspected impaired
driving, close to 200 presumed cases of child abduction, close to
2,000 persons with outstanding warrants, and more than 500 cases of
persons in possession of stolen property, vehicles in particular,
were apprehended. The department makes no mention of the number of
people going through customs at the Canada-U.S. border with drugs
and so on.
Eighty percent of these occurrences involve highway border
crossing points, not ports of air or sea entry.
These statistics speak volumes and justify the reinforcement of
border posts, as Bill C-18 will do.
Customs officers would facilitate the role of the police
through immediate intervention at the border. This would broaden
the scope of custom officers' present power to arrest and detain,
in order to fill a void between the time they detect an offence
under the Criminal Code and the time peace officers arrive and
intervene.
The proposed amendments would also enable customs officers to
arrest persons for whom an arrest warrant has been issued under the
Criminal Code.
1045
In the case of individuals suspected of impaired driving, the
designated officers would take a breath sample. Individuals
testing high would then be handed over to the police for a
breathalyser test. I wonder whether, at this point, whether they
would be handed over to the RCMP or the to provincial police, in
the case of Quebec. The provincial authorities would then have to
continue the investigation and initiate proceedings against those
presumed guilty of breaking the Criminal Code at the border.
The Bloc Quebecois and I support additional powers for customs
officials.
However, we first want Quebec's jurisdictions respected and then we
want details from the minister on the provinces, cities and
municipalities that would be affected by the changes proposed in
the bill. Then, although the president of the customs officials'
union has indicated his support for the bill, we want details on
the terms of selection and employment of the new category of
customs officers thus created, including their new
responsibilities, whether the officers would be chosen from the
pool of existing employees and what changes would be made to labour
contracts.
In the case of Quebec, the one that interests us, we want
details on the powers of these officials compared with those of the
Quebec provincial police force, the RCMP and the courts involved,
in particular on whether fines at customs posts in Quebec will be
collected by the federal government or by the government of Quebec?
A few days ago, the Minister of Revenue sent us the second
progress report on the creation of the Canada customs and revenue
agency. I will take the liberty of making a few comments here,
although it is related to C-18, because it is a serious matter for
us Quebeckers.
I was surprised to learn the following from the fact sheet.
“—the Agency's mandate is being broadened to allow it to
administer a wide range of provincial tax laws and measures—”,
“agency status means—more flexibility to manage its resources and
operations—”, “the agency would administer provincial programs
should that prove cost effective—”. This is blatant and direct
interference in provincial jurisdiction.
The establishment of this agency clearly shows that the federal
government is try to encroach even further on provincial jurisdictions.
It is not dealing with duplication and overlap as it should, but is
grabbing more and more powers from the provinces.
Quebec objected to the agency administering its programs and will
stand by the position it has taken in the interest of Quebeckers.
As far as Bill C-18 is concerned, the Bloc Quebecois and I are in
favour but we have serious reservations regarding the collection of
fines. We will keep an eye on this government to ensure that this bill
is not used as an excuse to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will try to keep my comments within five minutes so as
to allow my Progressive Conservative colleagues the opportunity
to speak.
I want to send a special hello to the hon. member for Labrador
who is watching us now from St. John's, Newfoundland. I am sure
I speak on behalf of all members, for people who work in the
House of Commons and for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans when I say Godspeed and he is in our thoughts and prayers.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: I rise to speak in support of Bill
C-18. I thank the Government of Canada for initiating this
action.
I would also like to mention a few concerns we have about the
safety and concerns of our citizens and also the perspective the
customs officers union presented to us. The customs officers were
quite supportive that this bill would pass in order for them to
do their job properly and in a more stringent matter so that they
can protect especially the citizens in border towns.
1050
The reservation I have is that the government in order to
increase resources into the customs area will decrease resources
from other police sources, that is the RCMP or that of local
police officers. We encourage the government not to do that. We
are quite pleased that it will include more resources for customs
officers in order to do their job better.
I ask the government that when this bill is passed, which we
hope will be very soon, to make sure the resources are there for
the proper training of our customs officers to handle situations
that at this time they have not been able to do.
On behalf of groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other
organizations which are fighting very hard in this country to get
drunk drivers off our roads, I wish to thank the government as
well as the official opposition and other opposition parties in
the House for their support in passing this bill as quickly as
possible.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party we do support this bill.
We thank the government for its encouragement.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today in the House of Commons to speak on
Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code.
As stated by previous speakers, this piece of legislation
concerns the authority we are prepared to accord customs
officers. Bill C-18 would grant designated customs officers the
power to arrest without warrant and to release from custody any
cases where an arrest without warrant by a peace officer is
permitted. These designated officers can detain such individuals
until they are able to hand them over to peace officers as
defined under section 2 of the Criminal Code.
This bill received unanimous support from members of the justice
committee, which included my colleague from West Nova on behalf
of the PC caucus. On his behalf and on behalf of our caucus I
would like to commend the representatives from the customs and
excise workers union for their very informative presentations
given in support of this bill.
Part of my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche runs along the
Canada-U.S. border and is home to many customs and excise
workers. I therefore have firsthand knowledge of the many duties
and responsibilities these federal employees discharge on a daily
basis. Bill C-18 gives these border employees needed resources to
keep our country safe.
Ironically this government bill comes forward for debate from
the justice committee without amendment less than a week after
this House debated Bill C-211, a private member's bill sponsored
by my Reform colleague from Langley—Abbotsford.
That bill dealt with granting peace officers additional
authority with respect to arrest warrants for offenders who have
breached their conditions of parole. The Liberals unfortunately
continued to reject this worthwhile bill. Apparently what is
good for the government goose is not good for the opposition
gander.
In any case I will attempt to restrict my comments to the
substance of this legislation, Bill C-18. One of the most
positive elements of Bill C-18 is the proposal to add a section
to the Customs Act which would allow customs officers to handle
impaired driving situations in the same way peace officers do.
This section of Bill C-18 is so important because it gives our
customs officers more power to respond to individuals who enter
Canada and who are suspected of being impaired drivers. As we
discussed several months ago in the House, Canada has more than
enough problems with its domestic drunk drivers. This section of
Bill C-18 would help clamp down on the import of drunk drivers.
Bill C-18 will also confer on customs officers any
responsibilities which fall to a peace officer under sections 495
to 497 of the Criminal Code, as well as under subsections 493(3)
and 497(3) upon the designation by the Minister of National
Revenue.
1055
Another section of Bill C-18 however clearly states that these
designated officers may not use their new found responsibilities
for the sole purpose of searching for evidence. This appears to
be a reasonable limitation on individual rights.
The final portion of Bill C-18 is technical in nature, proposing
two amendments to the Criminal Code which will ensure its
correspondence with the new section of the Customs Act.
There were some concerns regarding the potentially negative
consequences of Bill C-18. At the justice committee my
colleague, the hon. member for West Nova, raised the possibility
of responsibilities being downloaded to customs officers without
the appropriate resources being allocated by the federal
government. Officials from both Revenue Canada and the customs
employees union happily reported that this would not be the case.
In closing, I would like to emphasize the non-partisan nature in
which Bill C-18 was handled. The government acted in response to
an expressed concern from customs employees. The opposition
parties raised legitimate concerns at the committee level with
respect to potentially negative consequences of the bill yet
there was not any political grandstanding or obstacle placed in
the path of dealing with this needed piece of legislation. It
was dealt with in a responsible and constructive manner. Perhaps
this is a lesson which we can draw on in the future.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of moving
ahead with the debate, I wonder if we could call it 11 o'clock.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is a good idea,
except that we do not have the list for Statements by Members
yet. Therefore we will continue for a minute or so.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you can count on me to
fill a minute or two.
Given the words that I have been listening to in the lobby and
in the House so far in this debate, it is important to emphasize
the way this bill was handled. It was handled in a non-partisan
and constructive manner. The input from all parties has been
recognized and is appreciated.
This serves Canadians across the country well. It serves our
employees well. It speaks to the good work which MPs can do in
this country. When they see an initiative which makes sense,
they move forward correcting irritating anomalies and bringing
forth a consensus.
I do not want to make a presumption before the debate is over,
but I believe this bill will pass third reading with the support
of all parties. I look forward to continuing to work in this
manner in the House. It is appreciated by all members of
Parliament.
[Translation]
The Speaker: It being almost 11 a.m., we will now proceed to
statements by members. I do not have the list of speakers. Members will
therefore please stand to be recognized.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE LATE JACK PEARSON
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in the House of Commons today to pay tribute to Jack
Pearson of New Hamburg who recently passed away.
Jack was a World War II veteran who loved his country, loved his
community and loved his flag.
Sports and recreation, minor ball, the arena and minor hockey
were his passions. The Waterloo—Wellington senior games were
his pride and joy.
Wilmot transit for the elderly and disabled and home support for
seniors were his causes and his legacy.
Representing New Hamburg on Wilmot municipal council was his
calling and Legion Branch 532 was his life.
Jack Pearson touched so many people in so many ways over the
years. He worked hard in a quiet, unassuming way. He never
sought the limelight. He worked hard not because he sought
recognition but because he knew it was the right thing to do.
I salute Jack Pearson for being a great Canadian. He will be
missed.
* * *
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla
to express my deep concern and frustration over the lack of
compassion expressed by this government toward the residents of
four mobile home parks on Indian reserve land in my riding.
1100
This past November 51 families were evicted in the dead of
winter because their sewage system failed. Working people,
veterans and senior citizens have been devastated. Some are
facing bankruptcy. This same fate is imminent for the residents
of three remaining mobile home parks. Two hundred and
twenty-five families will face the same situation this spring
unless the federal government takes action.
Like victims of the ice storm, these people have no control over
their circumstances. This is a disaster. This is a crisis. This
government is legally responsible for lands reserved for Indians
and will be held accountable for its failures.
When will this Liberal government act?
* * *
SEVEC
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not
believe it when I was informed by an Oxford county teacher that
the Ontario government has pulled its support for the Society of
Educational Visits and Exchanges in Canada, also known as SEVEC.
SEVEC has been administering the Ontario-Quebec six month
student exchange program on behalf of the ministry of education
and training since 1990. This funding has now been eliminated by
the Harris government.
Now is not the time to cut programs that foster understanding
between Canada's regions. I thought Mike Harris was in favour of
helping the cause of Canadian unity. This cut to a crucial
program certainly does not help in keeping Canada united.
Thankfully the Department of Canadian Heritage assisted
students last year in the Canada student exchange. Hopefully we
at the federal level can fill this void so irresponsibly left by
the Ontario Tories.
If Mike Harris has any sense, which I doubt, he will restore
funding to SEVEC.
* * *
GIRL GUIDES
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Girl Guides program began in the United Kingdom in
1909 and started in Canada in 1910. They now have units in all
provinces and territories and most cities across the country with
members numbering over 230,000.
These clubs allow and encourage young people to learn and
explore the environment around them. Through different age based
groups, Sparks, Brownies, Girl Guides, Pathfinders and Senior
Leadership, Guides develop skills in camping, life skills and
leadership.
Today I welcome 48 Pathfinders and their leaders from
Kitchener—Waterloo to Ottawa. I wish them well during their
visit. I also wish Guides in Kitchener—Waterloo, across Canada
and those all over the world a very special day on February 22,
their birthday and thinking day `98.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the recent
ice storm hit every community in my riding, and the
municipalities of Saint-Isidore, Saint-Rémi, Saint-Édouard,
Saint-Mathieu and Saint-Jacques-le-Mineur in particular.
On behalf of the people of the riding of Châteauguay, I would like
to salute and thank all volunteers. While most were themselves affected,
they selflessly directed operations and helped those worse hit by the
storm.
I thank the various levels of governments, town councils, police
forces, artists, armed forces and, above all, to Hydro-Quebec
workers. Having worked there myself for 35 years, I know full
well what motivates them: the pride of serving their own people.
To rebuild an entire hydro-electric system in a few weeks
requires courage, determination, hard work and pride.
Quebec will come away enriched from this exercise of generosity and
solidarity. To the great builders that we are, many thanks, the future
is ours.
* * *
[English]
ANDREW CARLSON
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate a young man
from Mississauga. Eight-year old Andrew Carlson from Russell
Langmaid public school in Streetsville was the youngest winner of
the “postcard Picasso challenge” sponsored by Bell Canada and the
Canadian Olympic Association.
Andrew designed and coloured a postcard for the Olympic website
which features four owls and an Olympic torch. His postcard is
being featured on the wired Olympic website where Internet
subscribers from all over Canada can select his card to send
their best wishes electronically to our athletes competing in
Japan.
1105
Andrew is visiting Ottawa today with his father George. They
will be meeting with several very important persons including the
Sergeant-at-Arms and you, Mr. Speaker.
I and all of Mississauga are very proud of our young Andrew
Carlson. Winning his first art contest at eight years of age
bodes very well for an art future ahead.
* * *
WAR
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Millions of lives lost in war.
Soldiers fight, spill blood and lose life.
They live or die in honourable service.
Our veterans have our grateful thanks and respect beyond mere words.
But others who die in camps of hell are victims of war as well.
Unlike combatants, they have no swords to defend their souls.
How we recall the horrors of war is a measure of our national conscience.
We must remember all who die to reflect on the true carnage of war.
The lessons to be learned are not only from the field of battle.
Lessons too are learned from humanity's dark side.
That's why two museums are of such importance.
To properly display each face of war. Lest we forget.
* * *
JUNIOR WOMEN'S CURLING
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great pleasure that I rise today to offer heartfelt
congratulations to the new Canadian junior women's curling
champions on behalf of all citizens of Tobique—Mactaquac
Last weekend the Grand Falls curling club rink of skip Melissa
McClure, third Nancy Toner, second Brigette McClure, and lead
Bethany Toner made all of New Brunswick proud when they beat the
Ontario team in a close final.
The McClures and the Toners have proven what we in rural New
Brunswick believe, that if you set your goals high and work very
hard, you can accomplish almost anything.
Once again, congratulations and we wish them the best of luck
when they represent Canada at the world junior women's curling
finals this March in Thunder Bay.
* * *
BANKS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the close and cosy relationship between the Minister of
Finance, the Liberal Party and the banks is a matter of very deep
concern for all Canadians. The Liberals want to look like they
are standing up for consumers and small business people but the
Liberals' false bravado is severely undermined by those huge
donations from the banks.
In 1996 the Liberals received a quarter of a million dollars
from the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank. Now we learn that
during the last federal election the Bank of Montreal through its
subsidiary Nesbitt Burns gave $1,000 each to 14 of the 28 inner
cabinet members, including the Minister of Finance; that is
$14,000 to Liberal cabinet candidates. The finance minister's
former leadership campaign co-chair is also involved with the
banks. He is running the $20 million PR campaign for the
Canadian Bankers Association.
The Reform Party is promoting the foreign banks too. Why is
that? It takes donations from Goldman Sachs, a good U.S.
corporation.
Canadians have all these reasons not to believe the Minister of
Finance and the Reform Party when they act like they really care.
* * *
FILM AND TELEVISION
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for your wonderful and thoughtful speech last evening
to our friends from the Canadian Film and Television Production
Association. Your impassioned challenge to them for continued
leadership in helping to tell our Canadian stories was timely and
obviously heartfelt.
I have been married to Peter O'Brian and the Canadian film
industry for almost 19 years and I know firsthand their struggle.
We are all grateful that people like our host from last night,
Michael MacMillan from Atlantis Communications and my riding, and
our minister of heritage are fighting to ensure that our Canadian
values will always be reflected on our movie and television
screens. They know the importance of reflecting our shared
experiences as Canadians. Our culture, unity and understanding
of what it is to be Canadian are strengthened and enhanced.
Yesterday the Department of Canadian Heritage released a
discussion paper entitled “A Review of Canadian Feature Film
Policy”. All Canadians are invited to make submissions on the
discussion paper by March 20, and I encourage them to do so.
We must all continue the work of strengthening the film and
television industry in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
evening will mark the opening of the 18th Olympic Games in Nagano,
Japan. For two weeks, the world's best athletes will inspire a
wide range of emotions in millions of people.
Some 2,400 men and women from 80 countries will boldly and
bravely compete for the gold, silver and bronze medals in 68
events.
The Bloc Quebecois members are proud of the 43 Quebeckers on
the 155-member Canadian team.
Myriam Bédard and Jean-Luc Brassard have made their mark in Olympic
history. They are setting out along with other athletes, whose
cherished and justified dream it is to mount the podium.
1110
We wish all the athletes in the Canadian delegation good luck.
May they return home satisfied and rewarded for the years of
courage, perseverance and tenacity that propelled them to Nagano.
* * *
[English]
RESEARCH
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, basic
research is the starting point for applied research and
commercialization activities and the fuel for innovation in
Canada. It is of fundamental importance to the well-being of our
economy, standard of living and quality of life.
In Canada our basic research system is founded on federal
funding. The three federal granting councils, NRC, NSERC and
SSHRC, are recipients of this funding. They have been charged
with the responsibility of making Canada the leader in the
knowledge based economy of the 21st century.
Contrary to the other G-7 nations, levels of funding for the
councils have declined throughout this decade. This is having an
immediate impact and does not bode well for the future. It is
leading to a brain drain of our best and brightest researchers.
In light of the great importance of basic research in our
economy, on behalf of my colleagues in the government caucus on
post-secondary and research, I urge the Minister of Finance to
address the situation in the upcoming budget. From his actions
in the past and his desire to make Canada a leader—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government should not be forcing Canadian taxpayers
to cough up funding for international development week.
Private capital is flowing into developing nations. It is
private capital that reduces poverty, not government aid. On
the other hand, the Liberals have driven up our debt and taxes to
record levels. This government has cut 23% from health and
education spending for Canadians.
It is the private sector that should pay for international
development week, if it wants to. The Liberal and Tory
governments have already wasted $50 billion in aid and there is
still lack of accountability.
The CIDA minister's failure should not be rewarded.
International aid has failed the poor in developing nations.
Private investment has proven itself to be the real answer to
poverty, not aid.
Canadians want the Liberals to let private capital lead
business—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—St. Paul.
* * *
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a wise man once said above all else be prepared.
This government has done just that. It has restored the fiscal
strength of the nation. It has begun to modernize our valued
social programs and to lay the foundation for the new economy. It
has endeavoured to strengthen higher education, research and
development to meet the challenges of the present as we continue
to prepare for the future where knowledge will continue to play
its pre-eminent role.
Canada has had its share of Nobel laureates for excellence in
creativity and ingenuity. I am confident that our commitment to
higher education, research and development in medicine,
engineering and the humanities, measured in enhanced funding,
will continue to be part of this government's knowledge agenda,
thereby keeping the best and brightest of our citizens in the
country and propelling us to greater heights in the new
millennium.
* * *
[Translation]
VICTORIA BRIDGE RESTORATION
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is good
news about the Victoria bridge. This morning, the Government of
Canada and Canadian National jointly announced a $46 million
agreement in principle to share the costs of repairing this
infrastructure, which is essential to Montreal's south shore and to
the whole island of Montreal.
All stakeholders are quite rightly pleased at this outcome,
which is the result of the extraordinary mobilization of the
communities concerned and the willingness of the Canadian
government to find a solution in this matter of importance to
Quebec.
I would like to pay tribute to the excellent work done by
Liberal members.
Particular praise is due the members for Brossard—La Prairie and
Saint-Lambert for their extraordinary contribution.
While the Bloc Quebecois looks for a raison d'être, and spends
its time tarnishing the government's reputation and serving as
nothing more than a mouthpiece for the pre-election strategy of its
head office in Quebec City, the Liberal government and its members
have once again delivered the goods and worked for Quebec's best
interests.
Congratulations!
* * *
[English]
ICE STORM
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to convey my sincere appreciation to the people of
Madawaska—Restigouche who rallied together in support of our
friends in Quebec during the recent ice storm.
Countless truckers and volunteers from throughout the riding set
aside their daily business to give their unconditional support.
1115
I personally travelled with a caravan of trucks carrying food,
firewood and local Red Cross blankets from Restigouche and
Madawaska to Quebec.
I saw firsthand the devastation encountered by the victims and
I can only imagine the pain and suffering they have endured under
these cold winter conditions.
I also saw the warm smiles on their faces as we pulled up and
began to load their vehicles with supplies. It is acts of
kindness such as these that should make every one of us proud to
be Canadian.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister for Indian affairs asked natives to write to her
about problems on their reserves, whether financial or democratic
irregularities.
She promised that those letters would be kept confidential, but
a clear and disturbing pattern has emerged here. As soon as these
confidential letters come into the minister's department, they
get stamped and promptly leaked back to the chief whom they are
complaining about. There is a big problem here.
Why does the minister of Indian affairs think she and the
officials in her department are above the law of the Privacy Act?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, the premise, as far as I am aware, of the
hon. member's question is wrong. We are aware of only one
incident where a letter was leaked. That is the matter of the
Starlight letter.
This is being thoroughly investigated by an experienced
investigator from outside the department. The minister does not
consider herself above the law. She takes the Privacy Act very
seriously, as does the government, and the hon. member's premise,
therefore, is totally unfounded.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is nice for the minister to talk about it, but it is certainly
more than one isolated case.
Yesterday we talked about Stephen Constant and I am sure there
will be more coming because these people are feeling betrayed.
A section in the Privacy Act says that letters that are to be
taken in confidence possibly creates a breach. That is in the
Privacy Act.
I do not think the minister could just toss this off. These are
serious accusations by people who live in grassroots aboriginal
reserves. The privacy commissioner has become involved now
because he has had a request to look into it.
I would like the government to stand up now and say that it is
now not only announcing that this investigator who is looking
into it already is looking in but that the RCMP will be called in
to make sure—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the minister of Indian affairs has already said
publicly that the allegations in the Starlight letter are not
only being looked into by her department but that a copy of that
letter has gone to the RCMP.
I further want to say that the hon. member must be asking her
question without having listened to my previous answer. I said
the minister and her officials take the Privacy Act very
seriously.
They are not trying to condone any breaches of the Privacy Act.
They want to see it enforced and that is why there is an
investigation under way now by an experienced—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the problem is there is a more disturbing pattern developing
here.
The minister said there was only one case when he knows full
well that there are at least two that have been documented on the
floor of the House of Commons. Rita Galloway, the president of
the first nations coalition for accountability, says this kind of
thing happens all the time.
It is not good enough for a government to just sit there and say
we are looking into it, we hope this one isolated case goes away.
It will not go away. Aboriginals are feeling betrayed by the
government, by Indian affairs and by the minister himself.
Are these betrayals that grassroots Indians feel part of this
new partnership the department is bragging about?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like the hon. member to bring forward the
evidence she has, if any, about this alleged pattern.
She has not done so so far. I challenge her to bring forward
the evidence of a pattern because this is a very serious
allegation. It deserves to be looked into very thoroughly.
We are looking into any cases brought to our attention, as I
have said, but I ask the hon. member—I challenge her—to bring
forward the evidence of a pattern. This will be taken into
account in the investigation.
We take any possible breaches of the Privacy Act very seriously.
As I said the other day, we intend to pursue this to the utmost
to make sure the Privacy Act is being obeyed.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know
how much more evidence this government needs. We get aboriginal
after aboriginal giving testimonials that this is going on and
the government denies it.
As a direct result of this government's breach of privacy, Mr.
Starlight is being sued by his own chief.
1120
I asked a question yesterday and I did not get an answer. I am
going to ask it again today of the Deputy Prime Minister. Is
this government prepared to pay Mr. Starlight's legal fees due to
its breach of his confidentiality?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not aware of any precedent for this. Certainly this
can be looked into by the Department of Justice. I am advised, by
the way, that the second letter the hon. lady was referring to
earlier was copied to the department and a Reform MP, and so far
there is no evidence that second letter was leaked. So I think
the hon. member ought to withdraw that allegation.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, again I ask
the Deputy Prime Minister for his commitment here and now to pay
Mr. Starlight's legal fees. This is a direct breach of
confidentiality, a breach of the Privacy Act. We have got the
Privacy Commissioner looking into it now. I am asking the Deputy
Prime Minister on behalf of Mr. Starlight and his family to
guarantee to Mr. Starlight that the government is going to pay
his legal fees. Will he answer that, yes or no?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have undertaken to have this looked into. I think that
is a reasonable response and I ask the hon. member to accept that
I will make sure his suggestion is pursued.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Ninety-five per cent of the ceremony to present the Canadian
athletes to the media, which was sponsored by the Canadian Olympic
Association, was apparently conducted in English. The French that was
used for only 5% of the time was of poor quality, if not mediocre.
How can the heritage minister explain this situation, if not by
saying that it reflects the inability of her department and her
government to ensure that francophones in Quebec and Canada are
respected?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me make it clear that the COA's decision does not reflect
the Canadian reality.
Like the hon. member, I fully disagree with the manner in which the
event was conducted, and I certainly hope to have the opportunity to
discuss it with Bill Warren and to ensure that Myriam Bédard, Gaétan
Boucher, Jean-Luc Brassard and all Canadian gold medallists are treated
with respect in both official languages.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the minister for her compassion toward the francophones of this country.
However, I had several conversations with people in Nagano to check the
facts, and my sources unanimously confirmed that, of all the Olympic
events, this was the worst performance by the Canadian Olympic
Association, which managed to project a “totally Canadian” image of our
country.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage may take cover behind the COA,
but will she admit that this incident is the direct consequence of her
policy to use the Canadian flag as a symbol of Canadian unity, which has
the effect of increasingly marginalizing the French language in this
country?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is no.
* * *
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week
we were treated to a series of contradictions by the federal
government and its top guns on the topic of the Supreme Court
reference.
It is clear that the government is becoming increasingly
isolated in its attacks on Quebec's democratic institutions.
After this hard week, in which its main allies abandoned it,
why is the intergovernmental affairs minister still stubbornly
continuing with a reference which quite obviously will no longer
have any credibility in the face of the broad consensus forming in
Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, because Quebeckers are entitled not to lose Canada through
confusion, trickery and unclear procedures. Nobody wants to force
Quebeckers to stay in Canada against their will, should they ever
clearly express their desire to leave, and Quebeckers are entitled
to go on being Canadians as long as that is what they wish to do.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, speaking
of confusion, we have just had a good example.
Yesterday, the minister said, and I quote: “Sometimes
governments do things that are challenged in law by other
governments, and that generally leads to difficulties. Things are
obviously much easier when the people concerned are separated by an
ocean”.
1125
Can the minister tell us since when oceans have become a
determining factor in international law, and will the Attorney
General of Canada be using this argument before the Supreme Court?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, those who listened to Oral Question Period yesterday would
have heard me say twice that the Government of Canada feels it has
acted within the principles of international law in the so-called
turbot war.
Now, if the Bloc Quebecois wants to go on identifying its
plans for secession with the only event in which the Canadian army
was forced to fire on another vessel in peace time, that is its own
decision, but it does not bode well for its plans.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Two years ago the minister's government announced a youth
employment strategy. Despite that strategy, there are now 50,000
fewer young people working today than there were two years ago.
I would like to ask the minister why that strategy failed. Why
are there 50,000 fewer people working today than were working two
years ago despite that strategy which was announced at least
three times, including in the budgets of 1996 and 1997?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon.
member that I was very disappointed with the numbers we had this
morning on youth unemployment, but we have made progress on most
of the unemployment across the country. He is quite right that
the last month has not been very good on the youth employment
front.
We as a government were disappointed to see that this morning.
This has been a one month recul but it has not been that bad.
Over the last few months we have had substantial progress. We
were able to lower the rate down to 15.8% with hard work and with
the youth employment strategy which I think is working out quite
well. However, one month is not a trend.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the minister being forthright. I want to remind the
House that the youth unemployment rate has gone from 15.7% two
years ago to 16.5% today. In light of that figure, I think this
is probably the most important negative crisis we have in Canada
today in terms of the economy.
I want to ask the minister what new initiatives the government
is going to take now to try to put young people back to work.
Are we going to have new money coming into training, research and
development and into education to counteract the cutbacks by the
Minister of Finance a couple of years ago?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
NDP member for his very interesting question. I am glad to see
that some people in this House are interested in youth
unemployment. It has not been raised by the other parties. This
is a very important situation and as a government we are very
concerned about it.
The first reports I have on the youth employment strategy are
quite good. Eighty-five per cent of youth who have participated
in our youth employment strategy have obtained a full time job
within a year after leaving our internship program and service
Canada program. They are working and 85% have had good results.
However we need to do more. As much as we can, we will be doing
more because that is the most important element we have to face
in the labour market now.
* * *
[Translation]
SAGUENAY FLOOD
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, given the series of
disasters that have recently occurred in our country, the emergency
debate held this week provided an opportunity to pay tribute to those
who worked very hard and to also reflect on the measures that should be
taken to deal even more effectively with such events.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it is normal for a small
municipality like Anse-Saint-Jean to still be waiting for a payment of
$2.5 million, one and a half years after the flood?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
a specific case. I will take note of the hon. member's question and
refer it to the President of the Treasury Board.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, emergency measures
are covered by a federal-provincial agreement. Let me illustrate the
problem, so you can see how serious it is.
I wonder if the federal government could ask the provincial
government to at least make interest refunds eligible. Small
municipalities with a population of 1,000 to 1,500 must currently pay
interest on huge loans. This means monthly payments of $10,000 to
$15,000.
1130
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development—Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Chicoutimi is very familiar with the disaster that struck his region.
The Canadian government initially took action under the
Canada-Quebec agreement dealing with disasters and their victims.
This agreement worked very well, and the issue raised by the hon.
member is indeed a very specific one.
In order to deal with damages not covered by the agreement, we
implemented a temporary economic reconstruction program that was very
successful. I should point out to the Conservative member that there are
still funds in that program, which includes seven components.
It is a program which we would like to duplicate in the case of
disasters such as the one created by the ice storm.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fisheries minister keeps insisting that a race based
commercial fishery is legal. He has ignored advice from native
and non-native commercial fishermen that racial tinkering leads
to racial tension.
Last week a B.C. court ruled that the aboriginal commercial
fishery has no validity.
Will the minister ask the crown to drop the charges against 22
B.C. commercial fishermen who protested his racial policy?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been an important case on the
west coast dealing with the enforcement of regulations in the
fishery. There is a member of this House who has been convicted.
I think it is appropriate that we wait until the sentencing is
completed before we comment on the case.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the department admits that there are 20 secret legal
opinions on the race based fishery locked away in its vaults. The
minister knows they exist and I assume you have read past the
executive summary—
The Speaker: I would remind all hon. members to please
address the Chair in their questions.
Mr. John Duncan: Will the minister release the documents
and put a stop to this racially divisive aboriginal commercial
fishery?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has omitted to mention a
series of cases which are going to the Supreme Court of Canada
dealing with the issue of the aboriginal fishery and the right of
aboriginal peoples with respect to other entitlements, be they
land, game or other things.
It is important for him to remember the importance of
restraining himself for a few more days, or even perhaps a day,
as the case may be, until such time as the provincial court trial
judge in the case of the Queen v Cummins renders sentencing.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Finance stated that his shipping
companies, being Canadian, could not take advantage of the tax
savings offered under Bill C-28.
On the other hand, the Vice-President of Canada Steamship
Lines stated that his companies could not take advantage of the tax
changes because they are foreign-operated, and the ethics adviser
stated that he had been assured that Canada Steamship Lines does
not intend to take advantage of the terms of the act, thus implying
that it was entitled to do so.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. If it is as clear
as can be, as the minister said it was yesterday, how can he
explain these three different and contradictory interpretations?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that I gave a rather concrete and clear answer yesterday.
The proposed changes in Bill C-28 do not in any way apply to either
companies incorporated in Canada or their foreign affiliates which
are administered elsewhere.
I wonder why the hon. member, having been given this
information, continues to ask these questions and to make
allegations that are totally unfounded.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
if the minister has been refusing since Monday to answer our
questions on a bill he is sponsoring, is it because the scandal is
so huge that he is afraid, or ashamed, to explain to us that Bill
C-28 will make into law taxation practices which will save shipping
companies millions of dollars, and from which he himself could
benefit?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is making allegations which are, as I have just
said, totally unfounded. The Minister of Finance has all of his
assets in trusts, with no right of inspection.
1135
As Minister of Finance, he is not involved in any way
whatsoever with shipping. It is the Minister of State from Toronto
who is involved in those matters, and the staff of his department.
Bill C-28 is an omnibus bill with more than 300 amendments
and, I repeat, the minister is not involved at all in these
proposed amendments.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Yves Fortier has quit as Canada's chief Pacific salmon
negotiator. Why? Because he knows the United States is not
ready to change its negotiating position and most important, he
has not received the support he needs from this government.
If Canada's ambassador does not believe in the government's
process, how can British Columbian fishermen believe in this
government? Will the minister tell B.C. fishermen how they can
expect to have any confidence in this government?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has clearly failed to
read Mr. Fortier's letter. In it he says “I salute the senior
officers of DFO and DFAIT in Ottawa, Vancouver and Victoria. The
dedication and professionalism evidenced by these individuals is
without par and ensures that Canada's interests are well
served”.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is appalling and disgraceful that this minister can
stand before the House after four years of this government's
doing nothing and be proud of its position. The government is no
further ahead today than it was five years ago. Canada's chief
ambassador has quit because he has no confidence in this
government.
What is this government going to do? When is it going to do it?
Does it have a plan? What is it doing? The fishermen of British
Columbia have no confidence in this government.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the flip-flops of the Reform Party are
very obvious. Initially the member praised Mr. Fortier but when
I quoted Mr. Fortier's words to him in my response, he called it
disgraceful and outrageous. That is the type of approach we get
from the Reform Party, no consistent support for the position of
British Columbia fishermen for which we need to stand up to the
United States in this dispute.
* * *
[Translation]
STUDENT LOANS AND GRANTS PROGRAM
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
On December 2, the minister stated that even though Canada made a
huge contribution to Quebec's student loans and grants program, it
enjoyed little visibility.
After chipping away at transfer payments for education year after
year, does the minister not find it shameful that his government is now
planning to start investing again for the sole purpose of increasing its
visibility at the expense of students' basic needs?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity the hon. member is giving
me to remind the House of the major contribution the Government of
Canada has been making since 1961 to Quebec's student loans and grants
program. Indeed, Quebec's student loans and grants program is funded to
a large extent by the federal government, and we are very happy with
this. This, of course, is what a vibrant and dynamic federation is all
about.
The hon. member may rest assured that the Government of Quebec will
definitely get its share of any improvements to Canada's student loans
and grants program for the country as a whole. Improvements to the
Canadian program will be reflected in Canada's contribution to its
Quebec equivalent.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given that the
Government of Quebec has the necessary know-how and the infrastructure
to effectively manage student loans and grants, which do come under its
jurisdiction, will the minister undertake to unconditionally transfer to
Quebec its fair share of any new funds put into the program?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just said, any improvement to the Canadian
loans and grants system will be reflected in Canada's contribution to
its Quebec equivalent at the permanent structures level.
The hon. member may be referring to the millennium fund. I received
a letter from Minister Marois two days ago. What I can say is that we
will make sure that Quebec students will be well served by this fund.
We will strive to avoid any duplication of the services provided by
the Government of Quebec and work together in partnership to make life
easier for students who are having a hard time staying in school as long
as they should in this knowledge-based economy.
* * *
1140
[English]
LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Norman
Morrison, president of the B.C. wing of the federal Liberal
Party, was found guilty of misappropriating almost $9,000 which
he got for his work at the Canada Pension Plan Review Tribunal.
He got caught lining his own pocket, but Liberal ethics said he
could still keep his job with the tribunal.
Why did the government not remove him when he erred rather than
waiting three months for the Globe and Mail to expose the
story?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we learned about the
situation just before Christmas. We were concerned and looked
into the matter.
We found that his actions did not constitute cause for dismissal
according to the legal guidelines. The matter is now moot as Mr.
Morrison has resigned anyway.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this guy
was put in trust of $8,800 and he failed, and the Liberals did
not call him on it.
What are we going to do as Canadians when we have Liberal
appointed, Liberal protected hacks running a $1 billion Canada
pension fund?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted by what
they are making out of the story.
We are talking about a gentleman who did not have responsibility
for $1 billion. We are talking about a part time job which on
average was two to four days a month in terms of responsibility.
Let us keep things in perspective. The gentleman has now
resigned and we have accepted his resignation.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning Statistics Canada revealed that a further 22,000 jobs had
been lost to young people.
In the past year, since the minister announced the youth
employment strategy with great fanfare, jobs for young people have
decreased and not increased.
When will the minister finally admit that his youth employment
strategy is a miserable failure and that the only serious way to
help young people would be to transfer these programs to Quebec?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the
Bloc's finally taking an interest in young people at the end of
question period. It is about time we paid them some attention.
I will tell you that the figures announced this morning are
disappointing. We regret the increase in youth unemployment.
However, if you are asking me to transfer money to Quebec, I
have to tell you that youth programs are shared. We alone are not
responsible for the situation. It means the other side is not
doing a good job either, which I do not think is the case.
I think that the youth employment strategy is working because
85% of those who have taken part in our programs have gone back to
work.
* * *
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister for International Trade
a question regarding the multilateral agreement on investment.
With the recent tabling of the first report of the standing
committee on international trade, trade disputes and investment
came a number of recommendations regarding the MAI. However the
agreement continues to raise issues of concern for people in my
riding.
Could the minister assure the House that the best interests of
all Canadians will determine the terms by which Canada would
become a signatory to this very important agreement?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, as the member mentioned there was
a report from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
Trade. It should be noted that there was overwhelming
endorsation representing the parliamentary consensus for Canada
to continue to be at the table and to participate in
negotiations.
Second, we have always said that we will do the right deal at
the right time and not any deal any time.
Last, we also have said, and I believe very strongly, that this
matter at the MAI must be transferred to the WTO. If we truly
want an international agreement on investment it needs to find a
home at the WTO.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
fisheries committee has repeatedly asked the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans for foreign observer documents but the DFO
refuses to hand them over.
Why? Remember Larry Murray from the Somalia cover-up. Murray
now works for the DFO.
Is the minister hanging on to foreign observer documents until
Murray warms up the Somalia shredder?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it really is amazing. Earlier in the
first question the Reform Party talked about the importance of
the Privacy Act.
It talked about the importance of making sure it is protected. We
now have a member get up here 30 minutes later and say he wants
me to break the law with respect to the observer reports on the
offshore fleet.
1145
I do not understand the contradiction in the Reform Party. We
have had one member do it in his question and supplementary and
now we have two other members do it over the course of 30
minutes.
We will uphold the law. I am bound by that law and I will not
break it despite the requests by the Reform Party.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians need to know how many fish foreigners are taking from
our waters. That is not a private matter.
What is the minister hiding? Will the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans hand over these documents today, or has Larry Murray
brought the culture of cover-up to the DFO?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the information requested by the chair of
that committee has been provided. What we cannot provide, under
the law, section 20 of the Freedom of Information Act, is the
actual observer's reports.
I have offered the chair of the committee to have the committee
examine the documents in camera. What I cannot do is make them
public without breaking the law, which this member keeps asking
me to do.
With respect to Larry Murray, a distinguished public servant, a
distinguished military officer, I find the member's cheap attack
on the record of a distinguished person absolutely unacceptable.
He should apologize for his cheap partisan attack on a
distinguished public servant.
* * *
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on Wednesday the human resources minister told students in
Ontario that the proposed millennium fund for post-secondary
education would be based on need. Later that same time he told
Quebec reporters that the fund would be based on academic merit.
No wonder students are angry. They cannot get a straight answer
from the government.
Could the minister tell us which is it? Is it based on merit or
or need?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I keep saying the very same
thing in both languages and in every region of the country.
There will be elements of both need and merit in the way the
grants will be allocated.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
students are graduating with debts of $25,000 on average while
the minister makes policy by holding up his finger to figure out
which way the political winds are blowing.
Will the minister stop playing politics, get down to business,
discuss the millennium fund with the students and commit himself
to base the grants on need?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us understand things
clearly. The government is working on two fronts. We are going
to improve the Canada student loans program. I have a good
indication that this will reflect what the stakeholders have told
us, the student associations. We are going to address the needs
of students. The permanent Canada student loans program will be
improved. I hope we can do something about the debt load.
The millennium fund is another great element of our strategy to
address student loans and debts. We are doing both.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Atlantic salmon stocks have dropped to crisis levels. The
percentage of Atlantic salmon returning to our rivers this past
year was alarmingly low. Meanwhile the French islands of St.
Pierre and Miquelon still prosecute a commercial salmon fishery,
intercepting salmon bound for Atlantic salmon rivers.
Will the minister immediately demand that France stop this
commercial salmon fishery?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I say to the hon. member that I
accept his contention regarding the decline of the Atlantic
salmon. It is extremely worrying. The numbers are approximately
one-third of what we expected, calculated upon smolt escapement
of the previous cycle year.
With respect to the French, this is the one nation where we do
have, within our 200 mile limit, actual foreign territory.
Therefore we have made an agreement, a procès-verbal, with the
French government to address the problem.
Those islands are there for a fishery reason. Approximately 1.5
tonnes of salmon were taken, essentially for domestic
consumption, by those islands. That is within the overall
limit—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burin—St. George's.
1150
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that just a few short
years ago his department had a buyout program for commercial
salmon fishermen in Atlantic Canada in the name of conserving the
Atlantic salmon stocks.
Will the minister engage, if necessary, the help of external
affairs, because we are dealing with France, and immediately
start action to request that France stop the commercial salmon
fishery?
I know the explanation the minister has given, but Atlantic
Canadians have stopped fishing. They have sold their licences.
The stocks are low. Will the minister take action to end this
commercial salmon fishery?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question,
which is factually based. I would point out, however, that we
have not eliminated all salmon fishing, as he has indicated.
Certain Metis, native people and other traditional holders
continue to fish.
If he, as a member from Newfoundland and Labrador, is willing to
agree that there should be a total ban on salmon fishing,
commercially and recreationally, in his province, I would be
quite willing to discuss with him how we might approach France.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians often question why we are spending money in
other countries when we have needs at home.
Since this week is International Development Week, could the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International
Co-operation and Minister responsible for the Francophonie tell
the House how we are communicating to Canadians the important
role that Canada is playing in international development?
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
International Development Week is a great opportunity to raise
public awareness of the many facets of international development:
how it benefits people in developing countries and how it
benefits Canadians.
It is important that Canadians have the opportunity to make
themselves aware of their contribution to development
co-operation. International Development Week is one way to do
this.
We are very proud that this week was paid for not only by the
government but also by the private sector.
* * *
IRAQ
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada seems to be the only country that has declared no position
whatsoever on the crisis in Iraq. This is both unacceptable and
irresponsible. Every other country in the world has declared a
position, whether asked or not.
Will the minister finally tell us what will be Canada's role, if
any, in exposing and destroying weapons of mass destruction that
Saddam Hussein is hiding?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made very clear
our position that the problem in Iraq can be resolved by Saddam
Hussein complying with the security council resolutions.
At this stage diplomatic negotiations are going on. Other
action may be needed, but I can give the prime minister's
assurance that any action involving Canadian commitments would be
preceded by a debate in parliament.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister has just told us that the Minister of
Finance is not involved in shipping issues.
Yet the Minister of Finance is sponsoring a bill that concerns
this sector and making frequent comments outside the House, in
front of the cameras.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why does he
refuse to respond to our specific questions in this House, as is
his duty as shipowner and legislator?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is continuing to make unfounded allegations. Let us be
very clear. The Minister of Finance was never involved with and
knew nothing of the provisions we are discussing.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: He is sponsoring the bill.
Hon. Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about
amendments for tax purposes, they are directly related to shipping.
All research, discussion and decisions on the matter are and have
always been directed by the Secretary of State for Financial
Institutions and officials of the Department of Finance.
I therefore repeat that the allegations must be withdrawn
because they are groundless.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is on behalf of thousands of people in
coastal communities along B.C.'s west coast.
The minister of fisheries has staked a great deal in pursuing
quiet diplomacy to resolve the west coast salmon dispute with the
Americans. Yesterday the chief Canadian negotiator resigned,
claiming it would be naive to continue with this present policy.
1155
Does the minister agree with the views of his former chief
negotiator? Does he now acknowledge the abject failure of this
preferred approach? Will he please advise the House and the west
coast fishers of the government's next—
The Speaker: The hon. minister of fisheries.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could read the letter again as
suggested but it is unnecessary.
I will simply point out that the hon. member has obviously not
read the letter. The chief negotiator, Mr. Fortier, did not say
what has been implied by the member in the preamble to his
question.
What he said was that we are faced with an extremely difficult
situation because of American attitudes and the American
political system and in his view the unwillingness of the United
States federal government to impose its will, whatever that might
be, upon the states involved, Alaska and Washington.
That is an understanding which the Canadian government shares.
We have full confidence in Mr. Fortier. He was our negotiator
for the last four years.
* * *
[Translation]
CAMPBELLTON COURTS
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
several civil cases are not being heard in the Campbellton trial
division, because there are not enough judges.
A mother requiring a support order must wait eight to nime
months. And not a single small claims case has been heard for a
year now.
Is the minister willing to assume her responsibilities and
ensure that access to courts is no longer in jeopardy in this
region?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the question.
On behalf of the Minister of Justice let me say that we are
quite aware of the situation. Representation has been made to
the department and I am sure the minister will be able to respond
on her return.
* * *
RURAL CANADA
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Industry.
To be competitive in the next century, rural Canada needs a
state of the art communication system with which to converse with
the world.
What is the minister doing to help rural Canadians communicate
on the information highway by the year 2000?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government committed in the Speech from the Throne
to making Canada the most connected nation in the world. It
entails a very direct, active and aggressive campaign to ensure
that Canadians in rural and remote communities are able to have
access to the modern information technology and
telecommunications systems that are available.
Through the community access program we have established the
objective of connecting 5,000 rural and remote communities by the
year 2000. We are about half way there now.
Communities in every region of Canada are experiencing the
advantages both for social as well as for economic reasons of
having direct access to the new technologies.
* * *
BUNKERS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot say how relieved I am today that the government bought
back the Penhold bunker so that we can put this bunker blunder in
with all the other blunders like the Pearson airport,
helicopters, airbus and on and on and on.
Will the finance minister set up a blunder fund in the next
budget so that we can buy back a second bunker before it falls
into the hands of some suspicious characters like maybe Doug
Young?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me inform the
hon. member that we have a total of 10 such bunkers across the
country. Eight are being closed and sealed. One is being turned
into a museum and we are buying back the other one to which the
member made reference for security reasons.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Last December, the Employment Insurance Commission was
supposed to file a report with the minister on the first year of
employment insurance reform.
Can the minister tell us when he intends to make that report
public, and whether the Employment Insurance Commission recommends
improvements to the legislation, as the Bloc Quebecois demanded
when six bills were tabled in the House December 8?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Laval
Centre for her interest in this report, which we are required to
file under the act.
As you know, when employment insurance was reformed, we
committed to tabling annual reports for the first five years.
1200
In fact, we are very shortly coming up to the time when the
first annual report ought to be tabled in the House. I will let
you know a more definite date in the coming weeks. With this
report, which will be an extremely interesting one, we will be able
to take a look, a preliminary one of course, at the initial effects
of the reform on communities, individuals and the economy of our
country.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister of fisheries read directly from the letter from Mr.
Fortier in answering my question in the House. I would ask that
the letter be tabled in the House today.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to table the
letters of the special negotiator, Mr. Fortier, both to the
Pacific salmon commission and to my colleague, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, also in response to
a member's request, I would like to table a letter. The member
for Red Deer asked the solicitor general and my department to
make sure we acquire the bunkers that the member was making
reference to.
MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I seek your guidance today regarding a question of
privilege I raised and the fact that the minister replied to that
question of privilege yesterday.
It is my understanding from the government that Bill C-4, which
is in connection with my question of privilege, is apparently
supposed to come back for further report stage debate on Monday.
I would request your guidance on whether it is appropriate to
have the bill back before the House before you rule on my
question of privilege.
The Speaker: As I understand the situation, the issue is
not so much about Bill C-4 itself but whether the minister was in
contempt of the House. I see no reason why the bill, if it is
introduced, cannot proceed as such.
However, in case the member is wondering, and we spoke very
briefly at the beginning, I will be rendering my decision very
soon.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to seven
petitions.
* * *
1205
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, I
have the honour to present the 20th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
and associate membership of some committees. If the House gives
its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 20th report
later this day.
* * *
MI'KMAQ EDUCATION ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-30,
an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in
relation to education.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
EQUAL TREATMENT FOR PERSONS COHABITING IN A RELATIONSHIP
SIMILAR TO A CONJUGAL RELATIONSHIP ACT
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-309, an act providing for equal treatment for
persons cohabiting in a relationship similar to a conjugal
relationship.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce this bill, the
purpose of which is to guarantee common law homosexual and lesbian
couples the same rights as those granted under federal legislation
to common law heterosexual couples. I expect to have the support of
all colleagues in the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
[English]
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-310, an act to require special interest
groups that receive grants or loans from public funds to submit
for tabling in Parliament a report on the purposes to which the
funds were put.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are clamouring for more
accountability at all levels of government. I am pleased to
introduce a private member's bill that would require special
interest groups and other groups to become more accountable to
the government and thus to the Canadian public. I hope we have
an opportunity to examine it in this House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1210
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-311, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(reimbursement of costs following a free pardon).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this bill, the purpose
of which is to amend the Criminal Code, because it happens, very
rarely, but it does happen, that there are judicial errors because
of which innocent people must serve prison sentences, as is the
case for a constituent in my riding, Michel Dumont.
This man is innocent. In all likelihood he will be granted a
pardon, but whatever the compensation, he will have to subtract
from it the amounts he owes in legal fees.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that, in cases of
judicial error, 100% of the compensation goes to the victim of the
error, and legal fees are paid by the Governor in Council.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
[English]
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, I move
that the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
JUSTICE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition today on behalf of the people in
the community of Strathmore, Alberta who are requesting that the
honourable assembly acknowledge this petition to aid in our
ongoing problems with young offenders. Crimes such as murder,
arson, rape and robbery are on the rise at the hands of young
offenders. These crimes have increased in recent years, and in
light of this increase the laws have to be enforced. As duty
bound your petitioners will every pray. I would like to add their
signatures to the thousands that have already been tabled.
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to present two
petitions, both dealing with pay equity.
The first requests Parliament to ask the President of the Treasury
Board for authorization to pay the amount owed to all concerned
employees, calculated based on what they know is owing to each
employee.
The second calls on Parliament to put an end of this pay
discrimination by implementing the results of the joint study
through negotiations with the Public Service Alliance of Canada,
the union representing these workers.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present a petition today to the House of
Commons regarding the MAI and the conflict it would have in terms
of direct investment by Canadian companies in order of their own
country.
This certificate is on behalf of the Canadian auto workers, local
1990, a union of which I was a member for over 18 years. I am
very proud today to present this petition on their behalf.
* * *
1215
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CUSTOMS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, an
act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code, be read the
third time and passed.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon to
speak at third reading of Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs
Act and the Criminal Code. I am pleased to note that the party I
represent, the official opposition, will be supporting this
legislation.
I should say at the outset that I will be splitting my time with
the hon. member for Surrey North.
In addressing this bill I would like to speak to the irony of
the situation as I see it. We are addressing a very serious need
in our criminal justice system with Bill C-18, but at the same
time I was more than a bit taken aback by a ruling of the supreme
court on May 22, 1997, which was known as the Michael Feeney
decision.
Bill C-18 will assist our customs officers in making arrests and
in conducting searches. As well it will enable them to assist
police officers at the border as they will be able to detain
people until police officers can intervene. Further, it closes an
enforcement gap which has existed at the border by expanding the
breadth of the powers of customs officers. It will allow them to
arrest individuals who they suspect have committed or may be
about to commit a crime.
It is a very important distinction because the split decision of
the supreme court in the Michael Feeney case accomplished the
exact opposite. That is where I find the irony in this
situation. I would like to read from some clippings about that
case so those watching the proceedings today will better
understand what I am getting at.
Mr. Feeney confessed to second degree murder in the brutal death
in June 1991 of Frank Boyle at his home in Likely, a small
isolated rural community outside of Williams Lake. Mr. Boyle
died following a fierce attack involving five blows to the head
with an iron bar or similar object. The walls and furniture of
his home were splattered with blood.
The RCMP went to a small storage trailer where Mr. Feeney
normally slept, after a witness described seeing him walking away
from an accident that morning involving the victim's truck. The
Mounties knocked on the door and yelled “Police”, but Mr.
Feeney was asleep and did not answer. The officers entered, woke
him up, saw that his shirt was splattered with blood and then
arrested him.
Judge Sopinka ruled that the police did not have reasonable
grounds to arrest Mr. Feeney when they entered the trailer
without a warrant. Therefore, all of the evidence derived as a
result of the arrest and subsequent search was inadmissible. This
included the blood spattered shirt, his fingerprints which
matched prints on the victim's refrigerator, some money found
under the mattress and cigarettes of the same type that Mr. Boyle
was known to smoke.
As I said, it was a split decision of five to four. The
dissenting judges said that the investigators proceeded in a
forthright and proper manner and had to act quickly before Mr.
Feeney had an opportunity to destroy crucial evidence. Indeed
had the police not moved immediately to arrest, it is likely they
would have been criticized for allowing a murderer to continue to
remain at large in the community.
1220
It is interesting that on the one hand Bill C-18 will give more
enforcement powers, more powers of discretion to customs officers
and is supported by all parties in this Chamber regardless of
political persuasion, yet on the other hand the supreme court is
overturning traditional rights which have been granted to the
police that when the police strongly suspect a criminal act and
there is a fugitive from justice in a residence, they can enter
and arrest that person.
The situation because of that ruling is that Mr. Feeney may face
a second trial. It is possible he may not because that crucial
evidence has now been effectively ruled inadmissible. A clipping
from the Ottawa Citizen of May 24, 1997 states “Mr. Feeney
faces a second trial but his lawyer said yesterday that it may
never be held because the evidence is not admissible”. Mr.
Charles Lugosi of Prince George, B.C. said that because his
client had been drinking heavily, the appropriate conviction
should have been manslaughter in the first place. Now is that
not interesting?
Regardless of whether or not we favour capital punishment, it
really pointed to the difference between the justice systems in
Canada and our neighbour to the south. I am speaking of an
incident that happened last week, the execution of Karla Fay
Tucker, an individual who committed a horrendous crime similar to
the crime of Mr. Feeney. She brutally killed two people with a
pickaxe in the United States.
Had that crime been committed in Canada, I would suggest that
because she was on drugs at the time she committed the offence,
if she was not out today, she would be rapidly coming up for
parole. She probably would have been convicted of manslaughter
and not murder. In the United States it was the exact opposite.
She was held accountable. Whether we believe in capital
punishment or not she paid the ultimate price for that horrendous
crime and she was put to death. I wanted to point out the
difference between the two systems.
During last year's election campaign there was an all candidates
forum in my constituency. Mr. Feeney's lawyer, Charles Lugosi,
was the candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party and ran
against me. During the all candidates forum he bragged about his
victory at the supreme court. His line seemed to be that even the
RCMP must follow the letter of the law. I am not averse to that
and most Canadian citizens are not.
What struck me and the audience who listened to him that night
was he defended the fact that he took this case to the supreme
court and ultimately won it in Mr. Feeney's favour. Never mind
that the guilty may go unpunished. Never mind that our system no
longer cares whether an individual is guilty or innocent. Never
mind that lawyers can have truth ruled irrelevant because of a
technicality, he is still proud that Mr. Feeney will be granted a
new trial and crucial evidence of his guilt may be ruled
inadmissible.
The letter of the law must be changed. This is yet another
ruling by the supreme court that makes a mockery of our justice
system. Reality only serves to reinforce Canadians' view that the
justice system is merely a legal system designed for the benefit
of criminals and to guarantee income for lawyers.
This House needs to give our peace officers the tools they need
to do their job properly and to protect society, especially the
most vulnerable, women, children, the elderly and infirm, and
victims like Frank Boyle, the gentleman who lost his life to the
likes of Mr. Feeney. Is it any wonder that our law enforcement
officers and crown counsels across the land are frustrated.
The irony is that while this House is debating and will
undoubtedly pass this bill to give our customs officers a much
needed tool to better do their job, the supreme court decision
has shackled the hands of police officers.
1225
I think I speak for a lot of people. Certainly a lot of
constituents in my riding of Prince George—Peace River have
relayed this to me. Indeed Canadians from coast to coast to
coast are becoming increasingly frustrated with what they view as
ridiculous decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada which are
shackling our law enforcement services, whether they are the
police officers or the crown prosecutors. I call today for
putting an end to this.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this legislation
which is long, long overdue.
The constituency I represent, Surrey North in British Columbia,
is situated between the city of Vancouver and the U.S. border.
My home is a mere 15 minute drive from one of the busiest border
crossings in Canada. I have had the opportunity to frequently
come into contact with customs personnel at our border points to
the state of Washington.
It is my understanding that in just the past couple of years our
customs officers have encountered more than 8,500 impaired
drivers, approximately 200 suspected child abductions and more
than 2,000 people wanted on warrants of arrest. I have a great
deal of difficulty understanding how previous governments could
be in possession of this type of information and not immediately
act upon it in the interests of public safety both here in Canada
and abroad.
Imagine, 8,500 impaired drivers crossing our borders with the
potential of wreaking havoc on our streets and highways.
Meanwhile our customs officers, government employees and our
first line of defence being fully aware of the danger posed by
these impaired individuals find themselves in a position where
they are virtually powerless to do anything about it. Astounding.
This lends new meaning to the phrase “only in Canada”. This
bill will provide increased powers for the apprehension of those
who would enter this country to break our laws. As the justice
critic for the official opposition, I cannot help but be in
favour of this type of legislation.
Customs officers will now be able to effect Criminal Code arrest
warrants and they will be permitted to administer the preliminary
roadside screening test on motorists they suspect to be under the
influence of alcohol. Canadians can only be better off now that
finally something is being done. In the past our customs officers
were restricted to reporting incidents to the police who would
hopefully arrive on the scene in time before offenders moved on.
It is my understanding there are approximately 2,500 customs
officers who will be provided with these additional powers. This
is a significant improvement to what can best be described as law
enforcement responsibilities within our country. But as usual,
everything can never be all rosy with this Liberal government.
Every year at the crossing near my home, customs officers
confiscate large numbers of firearms of all descriptions. Some I
have no doubt are seized from travellers who are merely unaware
of our laws regarding the transport of firearms. However I
suspect others are being brought into Canada for more sinister
purposes.
As I have previously stated, these officers will now be
effecting arrest warrants and we all know that will, in all
likelihood, involve unpredictable individuals and potentially
dangerous situations.
This government in its wisdom will in the process of adding to
the duties and responsibilities of our customs personnel be
putting them at increased risk when dealing with dangerous
persons. However, it will not be providing them with side arms
with which to protect themselves when apprehending these people.
I believe at one point there was some mention of issuing
bulletproof vests. I suppose that is better than nothing but
sometimes I wonder whether the ministers in this government and
the bureaucrats in their departments are aware of the conditions
that really exist for enforcement personnel who are actually on
the line when it comes to protecting our citizens.
My second concern is another common occurrence with this
government which is the offloading of costs onto already
overburdened areas of responsibility. Our customs officers will
require additional training to carry out their duties. Detention
facilities at border crossings will have to be upgraded. However
this government has not seen fit to provide additional resources.
Canada Customs will have to find the finances within existing
budgets to accommodate these additional requirements.
It causes me to wonder whether this government is trying to
convince its employees to shut up and to not make any noise. The
government was forced to act because customs personnel complained
loudly about crime proceeding unheeded through our border points,
but the customs departments will have to pay the consequences and
find the money to fund the added responsibilities from within
already restricted and limited budgets.
Is the government really trying to coerce its departments into
remaining silent, leaving citizens at risk all in order to
protect their individual budgets? I hope not because we
continually witness the passing off of financial responsibility.
I cannot help but be concerned that a hidden and perhaps a very
dangerous message is being sent that at some time in the future
will become apparent, to the detriment of us all.
1230
There is a third concern. It is related to the one just
mentioned in that it is a result of the government's offloading.
The customs department has been forced because of limited
resources to automate some points of entry and to hire more part
time employees. Both these developments will seriously limit the
ability of customs to properly effect the aims of Bill C-18.
An automated customs port, by definition, means that customs
personnel are not available to make arrests on site. Part time
personnel, by definition, means less experience and capability to
detect the criminal element or to conduct a proper investigation
or inquiry and to effect appropriate arrest when required.
Inexperienced personnel will also be exposed to increased risk if
and when dangerous situations arise.
To sum up, I will be supporting the legislation because it
provides better security of Canada's borders. Unfortunately once
again the Liberals have taken years to do something which is
relatively simple to accomplish but their efforts fall short.
They go half way and then attempt to spin into the minds of
Canadians that the problem has been fully addressed. I do not
know why they simply go through the motions and refuse to provide
adequate legislation and resources which are sorely needed.
I encourage my colleagues in the House to support Bill C-18 for
the good of all Canadians, but I also call on the government to
address the shortcomings regarding funding issues and the safety
of customs personnel.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the legislation. I
also support it because I believe some steps are being taken here
that need to be taken. It is a good start but I do not think
that is where it should stop.
The purpose of the bill is “to empower customs officers with
the authority of a peace officer, in particular to arrest without
warrant individuals who are wanted on criminal warrants or who
are suspected of impaired driving”. The first thing that
crosses my mind is that I know police officers have the power to
arrest people who are wanted by the criminal courts for certain
reasons. When they arrest them, police officers are pretty well
protected. They carry guns and have clubs and other equipment
that assists them in doing that. I do not see anywhere in the
legislation where we are doing much in that direction.
If we are to empower customs officers with the ability to arrest
without warrant criminals who are wanted, we should certainly see
to it that they in turn will be likewise protected. To some
extent this is true with respect to arresting people who are
suspected of impaired driving.
You have been around for a few years, Mr. Speaker, and so have
I. I do not know if you have ever had the opportunity try to
persuade someone not to drive after drinking. Occasionally—and
this happened to me a couple of times—some people take objection
to that kind of persuasion. It can get just a bit debatable
between the two people. If a customs officer tries to remove an
individual from his vehicle because he is intoxicated, to prevent
him from driving, he should be prepared for all situations. I am
not sure the bill allows for that.
I reiterate what was stated by the member for Peace River with
regard to the Feeney case. I am pleased to see the government is
empowering some officers at the customs level. I would like to
see a little more empowering at the police level.
I have driven around, as have many of my colleagues from all
sides of the House, in the back seats of police patrol cars
observing what is happening, what the action is out there. I
found on many occasions that the abuse toward police is
remarkable in the sense that they have no way to retaliate. There
is nothing they can do about it. They have to take the verbal
abuse and give in to certain things.
When they finally make an arrest they have to make sure they have
witnesses to make certain they do not get into any trouble. They
have to make the arrest, make sure all the i's are dotted
and all the t's are crossed. If they do anything wrong
they are in for it quickly.
1235
We need to empower our law enforcement people to a greater
degree so they can better do their job. It seems the government
is adamant about making sure the rights of the criminal far
exceed the rights of arresting officers and the rights of
law-abiding people. It is becoming more and more obvious. I
hope the government will address those issues some time.
I am concerned about some of the things that happen at the
borders in terms of treatment of normal travellers. Many MPs
have likely received some of the same complaints that I have
received concerning the way travellers have been treated on their
return to Canada.
There have been complaints of rudeness and a lack of
consideration of the fact that they are visitors returning to
Canada. It may be a married couple returning from a vacation or
whatever the case might be. Many times its gets a bit out of
hand. I do not think Wild Rose people are much different from
those anywhere else in Canada. They like to be treated fairly
and with courtesy at border crossings upon their to return to
Canada, which they deserve. Sometimes that does not happen so I
would caution on that.
Some time in the future I will bring the following incident to
the attention of the minister. The national rodeo championships
are held every year in Las Vegas. This year we sent a good
contingency of cowboys from the west and some from the east to
compete. When they arrived there they received very nice jackets
from the organizing committee to signify their status as national
rodeo representatives. They were awarded the jackets in honour
of their presence at the event as Canadian ambassadors.
On one occasion one of the cowboys who was wearing his jacket
was crossing the border into Alberta. He was ostracized a great
deal because he did not claim the jacket on his declaration. It
had actually slipped his mind that he had obtained the coat. The
customs officials went further and charged him a great amount of
duty on the jacket that was given to him as a representative of
Canada. That is wrong. We need to see what went on there and do
something about it.
I do not think politicians, including the prime minister, who
have visited other parts of the world have not received some sort
of gift. I am sure they did not have to claim them or pay duty
on them. Even you, Mr. Speaker. I am quite positive you do not
have to pay duty on any gifts you receive when you are on
official business as a member of Parliament. At any rate I would
like that checked into.
Sooner than later one thing will hit the floor of the House of
Commons. I believe it has to be sooner. There is a document
that interferes a great deal. It is a real stumbling block to
people who want to do a good job at border crossings, to people
who want to do a good job of protecting society, and to front
line prison guards who are working for the benefit of all of us.
That document is the charter of rights and freedoms. It is
forever throwing up a road block to prevent them from doing the
kind of job they would like to do. Someday that document will
have to be brought into the House of Commons to be scrutinized by
members to see if there is anything we can do to legislation
which prevents peace officers of all kinds from doing the kind of
work they want to do.
1240
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a few comments on the bill before the House
today.
We can all take some instructive lessons from the bill. It
moves us closer to having the laws of the land more adequately
enforced. That is important. It was talked about this morning.
That is good. It is something members of Parliament on all sides
want to see. We all want to see the laws of the land being
enforced and the people who have taken on the task of enforcing
our laws being given the equipment to do it effectively.
Why do we want that? We want to protect the vulnerable. We
want to ensure that the laws of the land serve the best interests
of the country and its citizens. If we passionately care about
Canada, which I know we all do, we have a strong desire to see
the laws of the land upheld and officers equipped to do just
that.
Parliament, as I understand it, is where the laws are shaped and
the foundation of our legal system is set in place through the
democratic process. I heard today some members of my own party
articulating that we have lost something in Canada. The intent
of the law is to protect Canadians, the vulnerable. Sometimes it
is being negated by technicalities in the courts. This is tragic.
It does not serve to strengthen the country. It serves to tear
it down.
Many of us are concerned about it. We will continue in the days
ahead to make sure the intent of law, protecting the vulnerable
and the interests of the majority, will be dealt with.
There are some other side effects when technicalities overrule
the intent of the law and the courts. One of the real tragedies
is for the officers we are talking about to have new powers when
after carrying out their duties and possibly putting their own
lives at risk in difficult situations they see all their work
blown away in a courtroom due to a technicality. It is greatly
demotivating.
It is not just customs officers. In my own riding several
constables on the police force have had every bit of their
motivation and passion for their work torn out of their hearts by
seeing again and again cases thrown out due to technicalities in
an obviously guilty situation. To see the guilty go free is not
only devastating for them. It totally shatters the intent of the
law to protect the vulnerable. We put more Canadians at risk
when we let the courts run the land. As has been said today, we
have a legal system and not a justice system.
What does it mean for the youth of the land when they see
someone who is clearly guilty, and the evidence is greatly
stacked to suggest that some sort of court action needs to be
taken, being treated lightly or possibly freed? Respect for the
law by the young people of Canada is diminished when this
happens. This is not only tragic for today, but as young people
grow up with that kind of an attitude toward the laws of Canada
we reap very significant negative returns. We need to instil a
respect for Canadian law that has been set in place through the
democratic process and the parliament in which we serve.
Probably my most important concern is that when guilty parties
are treated lightly or set free, innocent, hardworking,
law-abiding Canadians and Canadian families are put at risk.
1245
These are the people I and the members of my party are very
concerned about. We must make sure that we do not just have law
enforcement officers and laws that are greatly diminished in
their effectiveness by a legal system and not a justice system.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will start by recognizing the good work the customs officers at
the borders are doing for Canada. They are our ambassadors.
When visitors and businessmen come to our country they are their
first contact. Their behaviour brings goodwill to Canada.
Therefore I would like to recognize the good work they have been
doing.
I feel that Bill C-18 which gives them power to enforce our laws
is a good bill and we are in support of this bill. The only
caution I make is that while it is empowering them, our
ambassadors of goodwill, we do not want them to be carried away
with these powers and abuse them at the borders, creating
negative feelings toward Canada.
Nevertheless, as all Canadians know, our laws are lax
specifically when it comes to our justice system in upholding our
laws. Everywhere across the country we can hear people who are
supposed to uphold our laws asking for more powers to help them
fulfil their duties. I think this bill goes toward that intent.
At the same time I would like to see that more laws like this are
passed so that our officers who are upholding the law can carry
out their duties.
Time after time in my riding and everywhere when I talk to law
enforcement officers they say their biggest concern is the
inability to enforce the laws of the land. Police are strongly
hampered by their inability to enforce the laws because they feel
that when they do their hard work it is difficult for them to
ensure that the final result is conviction.
I have travelled across the world and have come in contact with
officers at border crossings in many countries. At times I am
ashamed by the treatment they give to people who are visitors to
their country. At times we can see that their rudeness and their
practices of corruption are a detriment to their nation's desire
to have visitors and businessmen come into the country.
Our customs officers, the ones I have come in contact with,
have actually performed their work very well and have a respect
among travellers who are coming to Canada. I would like to again
say that I am proud and happy about the work that they are doing.
Here we are empowering them with something which we hold dear to
ensure that the laws of this country are upheld. I wish them
good luck in this. But I would also like to caution and bring to
their attention that they are our ambassadors of first contact to
bring goodwill to Canada.
1250
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what I see happening today is that a lot of times
governments will use certain law enforcement officers to fulfill
their mandate or to proceed with a mandate. I know in my riding,
and in Manitoba especially, customs officers have become known as
the enemy of farmers. They have begun to prosecute farmers for
selling their grain at a better price than they can get in their
marketing system.
I do not blame the customs officers. They do a tremendous job.
They try to do what is right. However, when they get orders to
enforce an act such as the wheat board act instead of prosecuting
farmers on the act itself, then they are manipulating these
people and the act. That is very dangerous for our country. That
is not the way the justice system is supposed to work.
I support this bill. Customs officers are a very important part
of our democratic system. When we travel to places like the
Soviet Union or Mexico we really know what a customs officer is
worth, what he can do for you, what he can help you with. He is
very important.
I say more power to the customs officers. They should work at
arm's length from government. That will make them efficient and
they will be a real benefit to Canadian society.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
say a few words about this whole question.
We are always told that Canada is a wonderful country. It is a
wonderful country for one wrong reason among all the extra fine
good reasons. The wrong reason is that it has become a haven for
a lot of people who engage in different kinds of criminal
activity. There is too much trafficking in things like illegal
credit cards. We have people smugglers. Some people come to
Canada to work illegally. People are trafficking in illegal
substances.
Anything that can be done to strengthen the enforcement of our
criminal law at the border should be supported.
One of the areas that the government should look at very closely
is the increased use of automation, whenever possible. There are
many high tech devices available to detect illegal substances. I
would like the government to do an honest assessment of the
effectiveness of some of this equipment. If it is effective, it
should introduce it and use it in greater measure.
The other concern I have is with the training of customs
officers. They have to be trained technically. They have to
know the law. They should also have a good amount of training in
how to deal with people. This is a matter of considerable
concern. Clearly it is a large concern because a lot of people
are moving across our borders, transporting goods. It is very
important for us to strengthen the integrity of our borders so
that illegal activities are not attracted to this country. We
need to do that more efficiently.
In that regard, even though this bill has some flaws, I would be
willing to support the positive changes in it. I hope there will
be more in the future.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1255
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I
ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that
we read the clock as 1.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the House give
its unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): For the benefit of
the visitors in the gallery, of whom there have been quite a few,
we proceed now to Private Members' Business which normally begins
at 1.30 p.m. Because we finished with the bill at hand earlier,
we see the clock at 1.30 p.m so that we can proceed to the next
order of business for the day.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
PAIRING
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of vote pairing
should be abandoned and the standing orders be amended to
establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a
party cast properly authorized proxy votes for no more than 25%
of its members.
He said: Mr. Speaker, thank
you for explaining to those watching either from the gallery or
on television why we have advanced the clock. It is always a
great source of amusement to people these strange and antiquated
rules we have here.
This motion I am putting forward today deals also with another
one of these strange and antiquated rules that have come to be
part of the procedures in this place.
I would like to read the motion one more time because it is an
important motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of vote pairing
should be abandoned and the standing orders be amended to
establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a
party to cast properly authorized proxy votes for no more than
25% of its members.
In a moment I will go into describing what vote pairing is and
why we should change it. First I would like to mention that
unfortunately this motion is not votable. Even though it talks
about amending the way this very House works and it would affect
potentially every single member of this House it has been made
non-votable.
I have a very good friend in the New Zealand house. As many
members know, I am from New Zealand. The New Zealand deputy
speaker, who also has the name Ian, is a good friend of mine. I
was visiting New Zealand recently and I told him that some
private members' business is non-votable. He was astounded
because in New Zealand they are all votable. That gives a sense
of accomplishment to members to at least get their material
votable. It is very sad that this motion is not votable, because
I am going to read from a portion of a 1994 report of the
standing orders committee from New Zealand.
The reason I introduced this motion is that it is a part of a
package of motions that I put forward based on some changes that
were made in the New Zealand house in 1994 which proved so
successful that they have been adopted as permanent changes.
On the issue of proxy votes, I will read a paragraph from the
report, because it describes for everybody what vote pairing is
and why there should be a change: “Parties in New Zealand have
for many years operated a system of pairing where the effect of a
member who is absent from the House is cancelled out by a member
from another party agreeing not to vote while the other member is
absent. Initially it was an arrangement entered into privately,
but since 1951 in New Zealand it was recognized as part of the
proceedings of the House. Paired members were recorded in
Hansard for any division that is taken in their absence.
The primary use of pairs was to ensure that members could be
absent from the House to carry out public business in relation to
their portfolios or constituencies and that ill members did not
have to attend the House for close divisions”.
1300
The system worked effectively for the two main parties of the
House but the committee believed in New Zealand that it would be
good to introduce a proxy system.
Under the recommended proxy system, instead the pairing members
would be required to give proper authority for a proxy vote to be
cast for an abstention to be recorded in their name. It must
state, among other matters, who is to exercise that proxy. In
practice what happened in New Zealand was that generally members
would give the proxy to their party whip and the whip was able to
exercise that vote in their absence. A member not wishing to
vote with his or her party, in other words a dissenting vote,
could be given to a member of any other party as long as it does
not exceed the 25% limit.
The limits are policed fairly closely. As I mentioned, after
having run this now for close to four years it was determined
last year that it should be made permanent because it had worked
so well. It has enabled members to fulfil their requirements in
ridings and to attend conferences related to their critic roles
or particular areas of interest. It has enabled ministers, for
example, in close governments which the New Zealand government
has to attend important conferences like the Kyoto conference
without having to worry that there may be some sort of urgent
vote where they suddenly have to be told to race back because it
could be a close vote. It is just a very civilized way of
handling necessary absences from the House that do occur.
There is no absolute requirement for the party to use its entire
25% but that figure was adopted in New Zealand and found to be
very satisfactory.
As I mentioned, it is part of a package of changes that were
introduced on a whole range of issues. Another thing they have
done in New Zealand—and I have put another motion in on it—is
that they have compressed the sitting days of the House into
three days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, so that Mondays and
Fridays are free days for members to have extended weekends in
their ridings. This is working very well.
For members of this House who are from Ontario and Quebec it
would be extremely convenient. Even for those of us who have to
travel long distances, to have those extra days to do riding
business would be very valuable. That is another change that was
introduced in 1994.
We really should learn from houses that have gone through the
process of studying these changes and have found that they are
very good to introduce.
The New Zealand House has also dealt with the issue of quorum
and, one that interests me, question period. The changes to its
standing orders require reasonable answers to questions. If the
speaker rules that the answer to the question was not actually an
answer to the question, the minister must appear at the end of
the day and re-answer the question. That has had the effect of
tightening up the entire question period into something
meaningful.
To get back to the basic motion I introduced today, it reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of vote pairing
should be abandoned and the Standing Orders be amended to
establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a
party to case properly authorized proxy votes for no more than
25% of its Members.
I defy any member to say that it would not be an advantage to be
able to have that percentage available to a party whip for
members to be necessarily absent for some purpose. It is an
absolutely sensible position to take. It is very distressing
that the motion cannot even be voted on when it is something that
is important to the operation of this place.
Because the House has the power to do anything I would like to
ask at this time for unanimous consent of the House to make the
motion votable so that members would at least have the
opportunity to indicate whether or not they think it is a good
idea. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make the
motion votable.
1305
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent.
Mr. Ted White: We can see who does not support democracy,
but I am still astounded that any member of this place would not
want to vote on something that affects their working conditions.
I am absolutely astounded.
I hope members who are bullied into voting a certain way by
their whip or somebody else will at least work behind the scenes
to have the issue considered in more detail.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Motion No. M-28 regarding absentee proxy
voting. I thank the hon. member for presenting the motion. As
he indicated, it allows us to discuss some of our fundamental
responsibilities as members of Parliament.
Canadians have elected us to represent their interests, to
propose and debate motions and laws on how best to meet those
interests, and to vote at the end of debate. The Fathers of
Confederation expressed this principle in the Constitution.
Section 49 of the British North America Act states:
—questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a
Majority of Voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the
Voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a
Vote.
Voting is fundamental to what we do in the House. As all
members know, the pairing of votes noted in the motion refers to
the practice whereby two members on opposite sides of a question
agree not to vote on a specific issue. As a result, paired votes
cancel each other out and do not affect the outcome of a vote.
Pairing is essentially a convenience to members of Parliament
which allows a member to be absent and have his or her vote
protected. The roots of paired votes go back to Great Britain in
the time of Cromwell. Pairing is a common international
practice. For example, the United Kingdom, the United States and
Australia all have arrangements for pairing.
The first paired vote in Canada was recorded less than three
weeks after the first parliament began to meet in 1867 under the
terms of the British North America Act. Pairing is therefore a
longstanding practice in Canada although its use has varied over
the life of this House.
In one recorded vote in 1946, for example, 124 members were
paired. On the other hand, between 1949 and 1957 pairing became
a rare event. One writer has suggested that this was because the
government of the day had a very large majority so the issue of
pairing became less of a priority.
The arrangements for handling pairing have also evolved since
Confederation to protect the parties involved and to ensure the
efficient functioning of the House of Commons. Codes of
procedure were developed including informal arrangements between
whips. This culminated in the introduction of Standing Order
44.1 which was adopted as part of the changes to the standing
orders made in 1991.
Standing Order 44.1 states:
(1) The Clerk of the House shall cause to be kept at the Table a
Register of Paired Members, in which any Member of the government
party and any Member of an Opposition party may have their names
entered together by their respective Whips, to indicate that they
will not take part in any recorded division held on the date
inscribed on that page in the Register; provided that independent
Members of Parliament may sign the Register in their own right.
(2) On any day on which one or more recorded divisions have
taken place, the names of the Members so entered shall be printed
in the Debates and the Journals, immediately
following the entry for each of the said divisions.
The purpose of that procedure under our existing standing orders
is so that pairing is transparent, so there is public
accountability for members who pair, so the arrangement between
two members on each side of the House is a matter of public
record.
The standing committee on House management stated in April 1993
that these 1991 amendments on pairing were built on long
established experience in Canada and other jurisdictions.
1310
The committee observed that the introduction of a register of
paired members at the table was an attempt to revive an earlier
practice of the House where a procedure had existed for
registering pairs.
The committee also noted that members often have other
commitments which prevent them from being in the House on a
certain day and pairing is an attempt to accommodate those
members.
This brings me to proxy voting which is the other arrangement
for members who, as suggested by the member, cannot for one
reason or another be in the House.
While pairing is a common procedure among parliaments in other
countries, some jurisdictions, as the member has indicated, have
sought to address the issue of absence in other ways. One of
these ways is to vote by proxy whereby a parliamentarian who is
present may cast his or her own vote as well as the vote of an
absent parliamentarian. This is the absentee voting suggested by
the Reform member today.
Representatives of the French National Assembly, for example,
can vote by proxy. Indeed the French constitution itself
provides that votes can be delegated in exceptional cases by one
member to another member. The cases in which members are
authorized to delegate are laid down in law.
On the other hand, proxy voting was proposed in the Netherlands
but was rejected because the terms of its constitution did not
allow it.
If members look at the overall international experience with
proxy voting they will find that proxy voting is an exceptional
practice.
Voting by proxy, as far as I know, in addition to the case cited
by the member is only allowed in Brazil, Cameroon, Comoros,
France, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Luxembourg, Mali, Senegal and the
United Kingdom. In a number of these cases I would add that
proxy voting is only allowed under certain conditions such as
sickness or absence on official duty.
In the United Kingdom, for example, a proxy vote is only allowed
if a member is incapacitated by illness and provided he or she is
in the House precincts.
The international consensus is against proxy voting. Why is
this so? The basic objection to proxy voting is that a member
cannot exercise his or her fundamental duty if he or she is
unaware of the issue being voted on, as frequently has been shown
to be the case if the member is not present in the House of
Commons.
International experience shows that proxy voting encourages
absenteeism. I hope the Reform Party does not want to encourage
members of the House to be absent while the House is in session.
Finally, I would point out that proxy voting has led to abuses
in other jurisdictions which have undermined public confidence in
parliamentary institutions. One writer, in commenting on the
widespread use of proxy voting in Great Britain's House of Lords
during the Napoleonic wars, stated:
I hope the Reform Party is not encouraging indolence in the
House. I urge members to look for other ways of improving our
voting procedures.
I thank the hon. member again for raising these important
matters. I would suggest that in considering the motion members
take note of the traditions and experience of this House of
Commons. I would urge that we look at issues related to voting
in a larger context which would include the possibility of other
options to address any concerns that members of the House have
with respect to our voting procedures.
I would point out that pursuant to another part of the standing
orders of the House of Commons we are required to have a full
debate on our entire standing orders between the 60th and 90th
sitting days of any parliament. Shortly there will be an
opportunity in the House to address all our standing orders,
including our voting procedures. I hope the member opposite and
all members here will use that opportunity to re-examine our
standing orders.
1315
The member is to be commended. I think he realizes that without
regular reviews such as that provided for by the debate in our
standing orders, the basic rules of this House of Commons could
easily become, whatever his expression was, strange and
antiquated. It is important when the debate on the standing
orders comes forward that we all participate fully.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to begin by simply reminding this House that democracy is not
something static, something that exists unchanging. Democracy is
a principle which must be defended and cherished every day. But it
evolves. It is transformed.
The democracy within which we operate here in Canada in this
House of Commons is, in a way, the heritage of numerous generations
of parliamentarians who passed through these hallowed halls before
us and who made Canadian democracy what it is today. Similarly, it
is our duty to keep on with this work so that the evolution will
continue.
In that spirit, I believe that the suggestion from our Reform
Party colleague is most worthwhile, but only if it serves as a
point of departure for an in-depth examination of all of the rules
governing this House, as the parliamentary secretary has suggested.
When I look at the specific wording of the motion by the
Reform Party, I cannot help but recall that, when this party first
appeared in the House in 1993, it arrived with the avowed intention
of changing everything. They came here as the Reform Party and, as
such, they wanted to reform everything.>
For a while, they tried to operate without a whip, without a
House leader. For a while, they tried to change the rules for oral
question period. But, as I have just said, the British
parliamentary system is not something that dropped out of the sky
completely formed. It is something that has been built up over many
centuries.
It is an evolving process. It is what I would call the outcome of
lengthy reflection which had produced our institutions as we know
them today, operating, functioning, in the way that they do.
I note some frustration on the other side, but when I saw our
Reform Party friends finally re-adopting practices that are very
common in the British parliamentary system, such as having a whip
and a House leader, such as maintaining oral question period as is
in Canada, I said to myself they have somehow understood that this
is how the system is, that they must operate within the specific
framework the system calls for.
That does not, of course, exclude the possibility of our
looking at potential changes to the Standing Orders, but let us go
back to the wording of the motion.
As the text of the motion indicates, the proposal is to replace the
pairing system with a proxy system.
As the parliamentary secretary rightly pointed out, the
Constitution, which forms the basis of the institutions we are part
of, speaks clearly on the subject of voting by members of
Parliament. In order to vote, a member must be in the House and
cast a vote.
The pairing system was set up at the outset, as the
parliamentary secretary mentioned, at the time of Cromwell in the
United Kingdom, in England, to allow members with opposing opinions
not to vote and be recorded as such in the record of divisions.
1320
The advantage of this measure is that it preserves the
inviolate aspect of the vote while allowing members who have not
voted to indirectly express how they would have voted. Voting by
proxy could definitely have a detrimental effect on our democracy.
Does this mean that a member wishing to vote in the House
could do so some way from his riding office in New Brunswick,
Ontario or the Yukon?
What is the direct effect of such a practice? The direct effect
comes when the institution representing democracy in a country
informs the public that proxy votes are permitted. Will we end up
with the public voting by proxy in an election? If we allow the
representatives of the people to vote by proxy, will the people
have the same right as parliamentarians?
We have to think about that, and I think we should consider
the principle of voting. Nevertheless, the problem remains for the
time being. It remains because allowing members to vote from
outside the House could have the deleterious effect of weakening
some of the dynamism of this House through the acceptance of less
rigorous requirements for attendance in the House.
The member quite rightly pointed out that the duty of a
parliamentarian naturally includes not just the work of a lawmaker,
which must be performed here in the House, in the form of voting,
but also the work of representing the public, of serving as the
link between the public and government organizations. As society
evolves, this requires that parliamentarians spend more time in
their ridings.
Earlier, it was mentioned that parliamentarians in New Zealand
sit only three days a week. A bill is now in the works to consider
whether it would not be possible to set aside one day a week for
parliamentarians to spend more time in their ridings. This is
another matter that we must consider.
But until then, does vote pairing not answer this very concern of
the member that parliamentarians be allowed to do their work in
their ridings, to perform parliamentary duties outside the walls of
the House, and still have the opportunity to make their voice heard
here in the House?
The answer is yes. As I was saying earlier, when two members
of opposing views do not vote and their absence is recorded in the
record of the division, implicitly we know how the member intended
to vote. But to allow proxy voting would, I think, be to go
against the notion that the vote is a solemn, sacred duty.
As things now stand, since no more thought has been given to
this issue, and since we will probably be called on to reflect more
generally on all the rules of the House, I can only urge my
colleagues to reject this motion and to give careful consideration
over the coming weeks and months to a possible reform of the rules
of the House.
1325
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to say a
few words on this Reform motion which calls for ending vote
pairing. The motion also asks that we establish an absentee
proxy voting system which would permit a party to cast properly
authorized proxy votes of no more than 25% of its members.
As a member of the House of Commons, I am as open and embracing
of new ideas as are most members in this House regardless of
their party. I am always anxious to hear new ideas particularly
from my colleagues in this House.
However, I do not want to give the impression that I support
this motion because it has some very interesting implications. I
agree with the member for Peterborough. He said that with proxy
voting, members voting from a distance on issues, on amendments
to acts and amendments to motions and bills would be hard pressed
to know what they were voting on.
As whip of the New Democratic Party and someone who has been a
member of this House for over four years, I can share the
following with my colleagues. Even when members of all parties
have been in the House full time during the week and have paid
attention to the debates, the amendments, the motions and the
committee work, they sometimes still do not have a clue what they
are voting on unless their whips tell them to their faces what it
is they are voting on. Sometimes there are 20 or 30 votes in the
matter of an hour and a half in the House.
It is up to the leadership of the caucuses to make the decisions
in co-operation with their caucuses and to advise others who were
not at the meetings of how their caucus is going to vote or how
their individual members might want to vote if they wish to have
an independent vote from the caucus.
This proposal would further weaken and diminish the authority of
the member of Parliament. It would certainly weaken and diminish
the authority with which a member would be voting. I flag that
issue.
I am quite surprised with the Reformers. They talk about
democracy. Reform members should learn the meaning of parler, or
Parliament which is a derivative of parler. It means to speak.
We come as representatives of the thousands of people in our
constituencies to speak in the House of Commons in Ottawa on
behalf of our constituents. We are here to parler, to speak on
behalf of our constituents on issues that are important to them.
Voting happens to be one of the responsibilities of a member of
Parliament after giving speeches or listening to the debates.
I am surprised that Reformers would want to promote democracy
and the opportunity for members to have free votes while they say
that the House of Commons is not important to them, that they
will go back to their ridings and visit with whomever they want
and not come to Ottawa to at least earn their paycheques. That
diminishes democracy. It diminishes Parliament. It certainly
blows into shreds their argument that they believe in democracy.
Time after time the evidence shows that they believe in the
contrary. The record should clearly show that.
If Reformers want to stay home in their ridings to vote, they
should resign from Parliament and run for office in municipal or
provincial government. They could stay in their cities, their
towns or their villages or their rural areas in their provinces
and they would not have to worry about coming to Ottawa. They
have options if they do not like coming here. They can resign or
they do not have to run next time, which I think is the option
preferred by millions of Canadians for Reform members who believe
in this sort of anti-democratic move.
This is just another example of the Reform Party wanting less
government. Reformers do not have a great deal of respect for
the institution of government. They do not believe that
government works. They say to everybody in this country “Vote
for me and I will prove to you that government does not work”.
In Saskatchewan we have had the evidence of the Reform Party
proving to Saskatchewan people that Reform policies do not work.
In 1982 a Reform style politician, Grant Devine, said the same
thing as this Reform member is saying today, that they do not
want to have involvement in government. “Government does not
work. You vote for us, Saskatchewan people, and we will prove to
you that government does not work”.
Saskatchewan people were tricked and they voted for this Reform
style politician, Grant Devine. He had 10 consecutive deficit
budgets in nine years. He went from a zero debt to $16 billion
in debt for the one million people in the province of
Saskatchewan.
1330
Twelve of his colleagues in that government have been charged
and most of them have been found guilty for criminal acts while
members of the legislature. That is the Reform style kind of
government.
Reformers promise less government. They say they believe in
more democracy and of course they end up giving all the assets
away in the objective of less government to all their friends who
then take away the assets and leave the debt with the people of
Saskatchewan. I am kind of surprised at this motion and why the
they would promote this.
My very major concern in the New Democratic Party is that
technically this motion is preceding ongoing meetings and ongoing
decisions being considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs that the member for Peterborough ably chairs.
We are discussing the very nature of modernizing parliaments. We
are looking at electronic voting and all sorts of things that
would modernize our system. While modernizing, we are not
looking at diminishing democracy or the role of members of
Parliament. We are actually looking at enhancing the role of
Parliament and making sure that Canadians have a voice in this
assembly regardless of their being in Ottawa or not.
My final words are that the Reform Party also surprised me with
the fact that it wants to let the government off the hook. For
the record, the NDP has never supported officially the pairing of
votes. To this day we continue not to support that.
We believe that if elected, members should be here, be
accountable and be responsible and should be on duty like many of
my colleagues here today on a Friday afternoon. I give them all
credit for being here. It is an honourable thing and a very
important thing to be doing.
I am surprised because the Reform Party, whose members want to
hold the government accountable, now wants to allow 25% of the
Liberal MPs not even to be here to ask questions. I do not
think that defines democracy or more accountability.
What Reformers are doing is encouraging the stampede away from
the House of Commons. They are encouraging the authority of the
House of Commons to be so watered down that members may as well
not come to Ottawa to vote. They may as well all vote by proxy
from their various constituencies.
I am not sure if I oppose this but the arguments that I put
forward I think persuade me that this recommendation by the
Reform Party member is not well thought out. It is
anti-democratic. It reduces the effectiveness of the House of
Commons and really is another effort by the Reform Party, very
supportive of Liberal policies, to provide the Liberal government
with yet one more opportunity to avoid being accountable,
responsible and answerable to the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would first
like to congratulate my colleague, who introduced this motion in
the House. I think it important to emphasize all the effort that
goes into introducing a motion. You will understand, however, that
I am not necessarily congratulating his party. I will come back to
this in a few moments.
I would like to commend the parliamentary secretary to the
Leader of the Government in the House, as well as our colleagues in
the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party, on the quality of
their speeches.
If it has done no more than clarify certain important
principles, I think this motion was important.
It gives us an opportunity to reflect on our role as
parliamentarians, on the principle on which our fellow citizens
rely and on which our work must be based if it is to meet the
expectations of the public.
I am, nonetheless, a bit surprised at this motion, which
alludes, among other things, to the formal disappearance of vote
pairing and, obviously, to proxy voting. It is a bit worrisome to
recall, but sometimes it is important, that, during the last
election campaign, the Reform Party wanted to see the seven million
Quebeckers and the eight and a half million French Canadians across
the country all but unrepresented in the House. They practically
wanted to exclude Quebeckers and French Canadians from the
Parliament of Canada.
1335
When there are suggestions such as this one about voting by
proxy, we are aware that there are some things in life not properly
done without direct contact with our colleagues, those within our
own party first of all and then comments from MPs in other parties.
A vote in the House of Commons represents a rather special dynamic.
There must be reflection. There must be exchanges with our
colleagues. In our caucus meetings I am glad to be able to
exchange views with my Newfoundland colleague, a former minister in
the Peckford cabinet, who makes a huge contribution on certain
specific issues, particularly natural resources, fisheries in
particular.
Our Reform Party colleague must realize that the formula we
have at the present time, of having an official register of paired
members, is a very acceptable formula. If there is one important
privilege for Members of Parliament, it is their attachment to
their personal vote. The MPs' votes are not the responsibility of
the whip, the party leader, or the Speaker of the House.
Members of Parliament must endeavour to be present here in the
Parliament of Canada, both for the official vote and for all the
proceedings leading to it. A vote is not carried out without
reflection, without exchanges with our colleagues.
Huge progress has been made in this House in the past 15 or 20
years in speeding up votes. New parliamentary habits have
developed. Thought is being given to electronic voting. Let me
point out immediately that electronic voting does not mean remote
voting.
MPs must be physically present on the Hill for the proceedings
leading to a vote and for the recorded vote itself, and this is a
process about which our fellow citizens have strong feelings.
We were not elected to this place to let our whip vote for us.
What would happen if there were surprise votes? Would the whip
pull out his list of proxies and record the votes? That is totally
unacceptable. I, as a whip, consider that this would be too much
power.
The practice of pairing is a matter of honour and respect
between MPs. Even if our colleague's motion were formally adopted,
I am convinced that this privilege could not be taken away from
MPs. That would be a change to the Standing Orders of the House of
Commons which would be unenforceable and unacceptable. Even if it
were adopted, it could not have any legal force.
I am convinced that my colleague, who is a conscientious
member of Parliament, will reflect upon this.
There is no way that two MPs could be prevented from working out a
pairing arrangement.
The reality is that an MP is the only one responsible for his
vote. It is not transferable. It would be quite unusual for a
vote to come from a whip. The vote belongs to the MP, not his or
her whip. It is a privilege conferred upon us by our fellow
citizens. We may not transfer responsibilities to others,
particularly not the responsibility to vote.
Proxy voting reduces MPs' freedom to vote. It could even go
so far as to lower the quality of voting.
1340
Nothing is more effective than contacts between
parliamentarians of all parties, except between parliamentarians of
the same party in order to take a stand on an important issue or
even a less important one. I personally think that they are all
important and that many members feel the same way. Mr. Speaker,
because I know you, I know that you share this viewpoint.
There is a very special dynamic on Parliament Hill. Many
meetings are held to ensure that members voting will do so in full
knowledge of the facts of the matters, which are often very
complex.
Voting cannot be done at a distance, and, because of its
importance, cannot be left to others.
It would be easy to argue on the subject of voting by proxy
that it could mean significant savings, since members would not
have to travel from Vancouver or Whitehorse simply to come and vote
in Ottawa. If this is the intention of the motion introduced by
the member for North Vancouver, I would submit that electronic
voting would achieve the same result.
And so, if one day electronic voting becomes acceptable, I am
sure that voting from elsewhere will be out of the question. This
is where we vote. We must certainly not vote electronically from
somewhere else and especially not hand over the responsibility to
the whips or to others.
Be assured that I and my party will always be here to defend
the importance of the privilege of pairing with a colleague.
This is one of the members' important privileges. We will be here
to defend the importance of being physically present on the Hill
and in Parliament in order to vote, to take a stand on behalf of
our colleagues and especially on behalf of our fellow citizens.
If there is one party that frequently speaks of its
constituents, because they take a stand in voting, it is the Reform
Party. It is an honour for them, I admit, but it involves being
physically present here in Parliament.
I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this
important issue, which will be followed with interest in the coming
months by all my colleagues.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am going
to use just a few minutes to give a few of my thoughts because I
want to give my colleague from North Vancouver ample time to sum
up.
A couple of observations have come to my mind as I have been
listening to the debate. I find it rather ironic, and if I can
dare use the term hypocritical, among members here. I use
hypocrisy here in the good sense where members are trying to
portray something where really it is not an accurate
representation.
All the members who have spoken after my hon. colleague in
the Reform Party on his private member's motion have spoken
against this motion. They claim that it is because of a
diminishment of democracy.
If pairing does not diminish democracy, where you agree not to
vote, how can one then argue that by giving your actual vote and
simply asking someone else to deliver your actual vote is a
diminishment of democracy compared to what we have now? To me
that is not a valid argument. I respect these other members for
their point of view but I also respectfully say that is not
accurate.
I would also like to point out that in a sense our standing here
this afternoon and debating this is a diminishment of democracy.
We are trying to persuade each other of a point of view but there
will not be a decision on this.
Just before Christmas I had a motion in the House that all
private members' business should be votable. It is ludicrous
that we should stand here and persuade each other but that the
members themselves voted I think almost unanimously and said they
do not want to vote.
They want to put forward a private member's bill but they do not
want to vote on it.
1345
I would call it a total lack of democracy. Freedom of speech is
an important factor, which is diminished by the eight pages of
words we cannot use, so I am very restricted now in being able to
express myself.
It is one thing to be able to speak, but is it not the essence
of democracy that we actually get to vote and make decisions?
That is a very important missing link.
I hope that we sincerely go about changing this Chamber. I hope
we change this place of democracy, this place of debate and votes
so that it truly works on behalf of Canadians.
I am in my second term as a member of Parliament. I discovered
very quickly that it is a full time job twice. One should be
here 100% of the time to look at the bills and the motions,
analyse them, work together with staff and communications people.
At the same time there is a full time job in the riding. People
want to be heard. They want to have access to their member of
Parliament.
Whenever I go home I go to meetings. People are eager to give
me their ideas on the issues facing our country.
We are not being realistic when we pretend that everyone is
going to be here all the time. The House sits five days a week.
Maybe we ought to look at that and make a provision so we can all
do our jobs better by having more time to be in our ridings.
We cannot be here debating issues in the House and at the same
time be in our ridings doing that work which is so very
important.
It appears to me that the way it works right now is that the
members, by pairing, are really abdicating their democratic
ability because they are agreeing not to vote. It is just like
they said in the private member's motion I presented before
Christmas, that they agree they do not want to vote on private
members' business.
We need to really think hard about these things.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that,
as a young member and newcomer here, this is the type of situation one
must often deal with. Still, I cannot believe that members from other
parties can possibly think that to vote under an absentee proxy system
would enable them to do a better job and to better serve democracy.
I fully support the comments made by my friend, the hon. member for
Chicoutimi, by the parliamentary secretary and by Bloc Quebecois and NDP
members. When I got elected, it was to represent my constituents and, of
course, democracy must go hand in hand with voting.
When I am here, when I am representing my constituents by voting on
legislation, I have no intention of waiving this responsibility and
letting my whip or someone else vote on my behalf. I believe that one
serves his or her constituents by assuming one's responsibilities, and
assuming one's responsibilities means to be present when a vote takes
place.
The practice of vote pairing is totally irrelevant. We all know
that, most of the time, there is no vote pairing. When we must vote, we
are here in this House. As my friend, the hon. member for Chicoutimi,
pointed out, vote pairing is a tradition based on an honour system
involving two members, and we must respect and preserve that tradition.
1350
I am also pleased that the subject of electronic voting has
been raised, because, obviously, we will have to look at what
enables us to do our work effectively as parliamentarians. But I do
not think the two should be mixed.
My constituents are happy to see that their member for
Bourassa is not only present in his riding but also physically
present in the House. I think a lot of people follow our debates
on television, and when I vote, the entire riding of Bourassa
votes.
I do not think that this practice is hypocritical or that it
undermines democracy. On the contrary. However, we should look
very seriously at the time of voting.
We should set aside a specific time for voting every Tuesday or
Wednesday.
I know that this is negotiable, that we could sit for four
days rather than five. I work Saturday and Sunday as well, so
Friday, Saturday and Sunday we could work in our ridings.
There exists a form of technology called the telephone. It
permits great efficiency on the days we have to be in Parliament to
resolve certain issues. I think everything lies in the way things
are orchestrated. There has to be a work plan.
Personally, I think we should be focusing on the number of
days we sit in the House.
I agree with my hon. colleague from the Reform Party that our
constituents want to meet with us, to come and talk to us. They expect
us to be physically present not only in the House of Commons but also in
our ridings, because they need us. Proxy voting will not solve anything.
I add my voice to that of all my colleagues who opposed this
motion. I think that not only is this a false debate but it undermines
democracy and makes this institution appear even more cynical. Perhaps
we could fulfil our duties differently and come up with a better system
in the House, but there is no way I will give anyone a proxy to vote in
my place.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As is customary, we
will give the hon. member for North Vancouver, who moved the
motion, an opportunity to sum up.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all
the members who stood mentioned democracy. The last member who
stood also talked about opposing the motion. However, the point
we have been trying to make here is that we cannot even vote on
it. This place is so undemocratic that there is not even an
opportunity to vote at all.
The member from the NDP got up and talked about democracy but
all he could talk about was representing the NDP's position. He
talked about this motion as if it were a Reform motion. This is
Private Members' Business. It is the business of individual
members of Parliament. If a well experienced member like the
member from the NDP has not caught on yet that this is supposed
to be a period of free voting for members then he has a lot to
learn about democracy at this point.
Pairing is something also that Reform does not support because
it does not work for a party like Reform which has written into
its party constitution that we have an obligation to represent
the majority will of our constituents in this place, as I have
done on three separate occasions, voting against the line of my
party.
Therefore it is impossible for pairing to work for new style
parties. It is great for the old line parties that refuse to
change. That is one of the problems.
For the members who stand and say that a vote in this place
actually belongs to the member and that he is representing his or
her constituents is not only naive, it treats Canadians as if
they are fools, as if they do not know what happens in this
place. Everyone over there is instructed by the Prime Minister
how to vote and everyone down at this end is instructed by their
leaders how to vote. Every single one of them is instructed how
to vote. When we talk about democracy and freedom it is just not
true.
An hon. member: As a private member you are lying. Private
members should not lie, Ted.
Mr. Ted White: The speaker from the government side tried
to mix participation in debates with voting as if that made a
difference.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair is not
certain the Chair heard the accusation that the member was lying,
but the Chair would ask all members not to address other members
in that way under any circumstances at any time.
1355
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, if there is evidence that can
be shown to me that people in other parties do not always vote
their party line, I would be pleased to see it.
The speaker from the government side tried to mix the
participation in debates with the voting, as if somehow the
debates were meaningful. The fact is even on government bills
there is hardly anybody in this place. Members stood today and
acted as if this place was full of people taking notice of the
debate and not even a dozen people are here.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The Reform private member is casting aspersions upon all
members of this House by making reference to either presence or
non-presence of members of Parliament, talking about naivety—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre is quite right in saying that we
have a convention not to refer to the absence or presence of
other members. He was perhaps stretching the notion of a point of
order and went into debate. The hon. member for North Vancouver.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly hitting some
nerves today. And we understand why that certain convention is
in place, don't we?
They talk about tradition. The member opposite on the
government side talked about tradition and how we could not
change anything because we have got to live up to tradition. The
fact is, he just wants to find a reason not to do something. It
used to be tradition in this place that there were not any women.
It used to be tradition in this place that we sat for six weeks a
year. The fact is it does not have to be a tradition. We can
change anything we want to in this place.
To say or to imply that the only reason one would want to vote
by proxy is to avoid ever coming here is also ridiculous. The
proxy votes would be under the control of the whip. The whip
would not have to allow a single person to be absent. But the
whip would have the right, if necessary, to issue a proxy vote
privilege to a member who had to be away for some reason.
I just see it as a modernization of the procedures of the House.
To say that the member has to be in the House to vote is just a
crock frankly. As anyone except the most naive will know, most
members monitor the proceedings of the House on television from
their Hill offices or their riding offices when they have to be
away. There is absolutely no earthly reason why a member could
not provide an intelligent proxy vote on any type of bill.
As a member myself who has the opportunity to speak many times
in this House, I take ever possible opportunity to do so. Every
day that I am here on duty I get up to speak in this House. I
recognize the value of speaking here. But to pretend or to claim
that I would not be able to vote intelligently if I was not
standing in here every day is totally ludicrous. In these days of
telecommunications, members simply do not have to be here in
order to make intelligent voting decisions.
I think we should wrap it up here. It has obviously created a
fair amount of emotion among the members. If I have been
successful in anything today, I would be thankful that I have
done that because we should be discussing these things, and
frankly, we should be doing it openly and publicly. We should
not be pretending to the public out there that certain things
happen here when they do not. And the public already knows they
do not.
The public knows that people vote the party line in this place.
The public knows that MPs for the most part do not represent
them. They represent the parties. We really have to do something
to put real democracy into this place instead of constantly
pretending.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no
further members rising for debate and the motion not being
designated as a votable item, the time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 1.58 p.m, this House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.58 p.m.)