36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 80
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 25, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL UNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENIORS
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROAD TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1405
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MATTHEW DA COSTA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DOMUS TROPHY AWARDED TO CITY OF LACHENAIE
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1410
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD WATER DAY AND WORLD METEOROLOGICAL DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NOVA SCOTIA ELECTION
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR LABRADOR
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien |
1415
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANNUAL MÉRITE DES GENS D'ICI GALA
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1420
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1435
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STUDENT DEBT
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1440
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
1445
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPTION CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Raymond Chan |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1450
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1455
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTIMEDIA INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1500
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1510
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MAIN ESTIMATES, PART III
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REPORT ON PLANS AND PRIORITIES, 1998-1999
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES) ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-385. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-386. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1515
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RELIEF COORDINATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-387. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEPOSITORY BILLS AND NOTES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-9. First reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Unity
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tobacco Products
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
1520
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Co-operative Housing
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Assisted Suicide
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1525
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Safety Officers
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1530
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-36—Time Allocation Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1615
(Division 112)
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
1620
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Second Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-36. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1625
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1630
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1645
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1710
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1725
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1755
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1800
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1805
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1810
1815
1840
1850
(Division 113)
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
1900
(Division 114)
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-28. Report stage
|
1910
(Division 115)
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 negatived
|
1915
(Division 116)
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2 negatived.
|
(Division 117)
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 3 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1920
(Division 118)
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health Care
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1925
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Immigration
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1930
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1935
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pharmaceutical Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1940
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Supreme Court of Canada
|
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1945
![V](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 80
![](/web/20061116184448im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 25, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will
now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for Canadians of Hellenic decent March 25 signifies one of the
most important days of the Hellenic heritage. On March 25, 1821
the revolutionary trend for national independence burst out in a
massive revolution that swept away the Ottoman empire which had
occupied Greece for well over 400 years.
With the support of the allied forces of Europe, Great Britain,
France and Russia, Greece was recognized as an independent state.
For most people the struggle for independence represents a
triumph of justice and liberal values against slavery and
brutality. For others the massive Greek revolution exemplified
the values of classical Greece and Christianity against the
darkness of occupation.
Nevertheless, the contributions of people like Lord Byron of
England, George Jarvis, Edward Everett and an array of scholars
and ordinary people made the supreme sacrifice in the name of
independence, liberalism, justice and, most of all, freedom.
Knowing very well how we Canadians value our rights and
freedoms, let us join together in celebrating Greek Independence
Day, March 25, 1821.
* * *
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Pierre Cote held hearings in Quebec City to limit referendum
funding to discourage a repeat of the Montreal rally. He is so
very wrong. Canada's unity spirit is not bought with cheap
flights. He cannot stop the Canadian will by limiting mere
dollars. He cannot abate our support for Canada by writing new
laws.
Canadians together celebrate our solidarity with Quebeckers.
Canadians are there for floods, ice storms and for unity.
Canadians will travel again and again when called. No mere man,
no sum of money, no written law will sever our Canadian bonds. We
will come by plane, by bus, by train. We will be there in
thought. We will not fail in our task to give support to our
fellow citizens in Quebec, to give support to a Canada in need.
That is our promise to Mr. Cote. He must know where reality
lies. He will never extinguish our will.
* * *
SENIORS
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity
to talk today about our outstanding seniors.
These august men and women have built this great country at
considerable cost to themselves. The United Nations has
recognized the contribution of seniors and has declared 1999 the
International Year of Older Persons.
I am proud to have a large number of very active seniors in the
great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and I am honoured to
say that the Arnprior 707 seniors group is among the very best.
Seniors have adapted to our rapidly changing world in the same
determined manner that they have demonstrated throughout their
lives.
It was Socrates who said we should regard the aged as travellers
who have gone on a journey on which we too may have to go and of
whom we should inquire whether the road be smooth and easy or
rugged and difficult. Our path through life has been made easier
because of our sterling seniors.
* * *
[Translation]
ROAD TRANSPORT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for several
weeks, since before Minister Brassard made his decision known,
people from the regions of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Haut-Saint-Maurice
and Abitibi-Témiscamingue and myself have been calling for a
public debate on the impact of increased tractor trailer loads on
secondary roads in these regions.
1405
Jacques Brassard refused to provide CRD stakeholders in these
regions with a 1991 study on a basic rail network for Quebec.
The stakeholders in these regions are concerned after we learned
last week that Raymond Bréard, a former vice-president of
l'Association du camionnage du Québec and current executive
assistant to Quebec finance minister Bernard Landry, had spoken
to Minister Brassard himself and to political officials in his
department in support of large trucking companies in Quebec and
Ontario, at the expense of Quebec rail workers.
That is a major conflict of interest.
* * *
MATTHEW DA COSTA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday, March 16, I had the pleasure of participating in a
concrete action in support of the economic life of Montreal's
Black community.
On that occasion, the hon. secretary of state responsible for
economic development for Quebec announced a $1.25 million
investment in the Matthew Da Costa development corporation,
providing it with the necessary tools to continue to ensure the
economic development of the Black community and at the same time
make a contribution to the entire Montreal region.
Job creation is a concern shared by all Canadians, and this
program shows how our government is committed to helping small
and medium size businesses through innovative solutions.
[English]
I am delighted that the Matthew Da Costa fund has received $125
million from the Government of Canada, along with money from
Quebec as well as the FTQ foundation.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if it is the slow bleed that kills, then our health care
system, which has been hemorrhaging for some time, is in
critical shape.
Sick Canadians lined up in emergency rooms wait for a vacant
hospital bed while whole wards remain closed due to a lack of
funds. Injured people wait one and a half years just to see a
specialist and another year to get treatment. Some even die
waiting to get medical care, the medical care they were led to
believe would be there during their time of greatest need.
Yet the government allows, on the one hand, violations to the
Canada Health Act, but on the other pretends to uphold the act in
order to look like a white knight.
The government uses health care as a political football to make
itself look good while patients are sacrificed on the altar of
political expediency.
Is this what the government means by putting health care first?
Is this what it calls its number one priority? The government
must put patients first and give politics a back seat.
Patients are dying.
* * *
[Translation]
DOMUS TROPHY AWARDED TO CITY OF LACHENAIE
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to announce that the city of Lachenaie has been awarded
the Domus trophy for municipality of the year, residential
sector, by the Association provinciale des constructeurs
d'habitations du Québec, known as the APCHQ.
The population of this municipality, in the riding of Repentigny,
has expanded from 7,000 in 1976 to its present 19,000. The Domus
trophy attests to the dynamism and quality of residential
development in the municipality of Lachenaie.
I wish to congratulate Mayor Marcel Therrien, the municipal
councillors and the urban planning office under the direction of
Guy Daoust for ensuring that their municipality develops in full
harmony and with respect for the quality of life of its
residents.
* * *
[English]
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
never seems to amaze Canadians just how low the Reform leader and
his band of merry jokers will go to grab a headline.
Take for example the Reform leader's shameful and inaccurate
statements yesterday about government appointments which, by the
way, are undeniably necessary.
Yesterday the Reform Party released a list of appointees,
dubbing them “loyal Liberals” and also citing that“membership
has its privileges”.
The Reform must have forgotten about people like Judd Buchanan
for his supposed plum appointment as chairman of the National
Tourism Board. This position garners a whopping $1 per year.
What about other so-called loyal Liberals such as Perrin Beatty,
the Tory cabinet minister? Or better still, Jack Fraser was
appointed to the Veterans Affairs and Appeals Board. By the way,
he is a former Reform MP.
The Liberal government appoints people based on qualification,
not party. The leader of the Reform Party and his band of jokers
have it wrong again.
I think they owe their western supporters more than this. Shame
on them.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
WORLD WATER DAY AND WORLD METEOROLOGICAL DAY
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we all know
that water, air and climate are the keys to life on this planet
Earth.
Since we have just celebrated World Water Day and World
Meteorological Day, there is no better occasion for reminding
all the people of Canada and of Quebec of the importance of
protecting our water and our air in order to protect our climate
and our lives.
Everything in the air ends up in the water eventually: acid rain,
carbon dioxide, heat. Everything in the air affects climate as
well. Our factories, our automobiles, our waste disposal sites
all emit heat-retaining gases which are turning our planet into a
giant greenhouse.
This appears to result in such things as floods and ice storms.
It is therefore the responsibility of governments, as well as
each and every one of us, to do their part to reduce atmospheric
gases. Our lives are at stake.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
people like Lou Sekora in Port Moody—Coquitlam understand the
meaning of effective representation. Leadership means working
for policies that help people in their everyday lives:
eliminating the deficit, lowering the tax burden, reducing the
debt.
It also means making direct connections with people, as with the
millennium scholarship program and student loans where the
federal government has provided an annual grant of up to $400 to
parents who are saving for their children's education through
RESPs.
Our last budget provided tax relief to over 1.8 million British
Columbians. That is 92.5% of all B.C. taxpayers. After getting
the nation's fiscal house in order, we reinvested in quality
health care by increasing the cash floor in transfers to the
provinces by $1.5 billion. We have direct contacts between the
federal government and municipalities in infrastructure programs
that develop new and more cohesive community relations.
That is the new federalism emerging under federal government
leadership.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
government endlessly talks with great arrogance about holding
itself to a higher ethical standard, but its actions show a
different story.
In Liberal opinion, part time farmers in western Canada who were
affected by natural disaster do not deserve the same compensation
as farmers in Ontario and Quebec.
They label us as anti-Canadian because we did not give a speech
at the rally in Montreal just before the last referendum.
Reformers were there, Mr. Speaker, but the reason you did not see
our leader on the podium is because the Liberals did not allow
him to be on the podium.
Then there was the Liberal rejection of the Canadian flag on our
desks. I thought nothing could top this. But yesterday the
Prime Minister took this honour. During question period
yesterday the Prime Minister said that my colleague from Peace
River was a beggar and was not worthy to sit in the Senate. Is
that because my colleague does not golf or have a financial
connection with the Prime Minister?
Actions speak louder than words. Liberal actions show their
arrogance. Is this the politics of division that the Liberals
speak of so often?
* * *
NOVA SCOTIA ELECTION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Nova Scotians voted NDP in historic numbers,
demonstrating that last June's wake-up call to Liberals was no
one time occurrence.
Nova Scotians have again sent a message to this federal Liberal
government: health care matters.
But are Liberals listening? Canadians urged the federal
Liberals to reinvest in health care, yet the budget produced not
one new dollar for health transfers.
Nova Scotia Liberals did not listen either. Today they are not
quite so smug. Atlantic Canadians face the lowest level of
health care spending in the country despite the fact health care
makes up the largest proportion of provincial budgets.
The problem: federal Liberal cuts; federal Liberal
indifference. Liberals have not listened. Perhaps they will
now.
The Speaker: I will now recognize the hon. member for
Labrador, whom I want to welcome back to the House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
MEMBER FOR LABRADOR
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
really appreciate the round of applause. It is great to be back.
I rise today to thank the many people, both in this place and
beyond, who were with me in spirit and prayer during my medical
absence from this honourable House.
1415
I say thanks to my many friends in Labrador, in Ottawa, across
the province and indeed the whole country, and throughout North
America for their kind words of encouragement. My wife Alice, my
son Michael, my daughter Amanda and I draw strength from knowing
we were in their thoughts and prayers.
Their cards, letters and phone calls were a source of comfort
and support and have helped me to get back on the mend. I want
to let them all know that I feel better than ever and I look
forward to continuing to work for my riding for a long time to
come.
* * *
[Translation]
ANNUAL MÉRITE DES GENS D'ICI GALA
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, next weekend,
the annual Mérite des gens d'ici gala will be held in my riding.
It is held to honour the accomplishments of various individuals
in the community. I would like to pay tribute to them.
Generosity, commitment and devotion are the words that spring to
mind when we think of those exceptional people who realize the
hopes of our community.
They all contribute to improving the well-being of the community
and provide us with the finest examples of achievement.
My thanks to the Mérite des gens d'ici committee for making known
and more importantly recognizing the worth of the people in the
community.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday when we asked the Prime Minister about the
5,000 latest job losses in the B.C. salmon industry he did not
have an answer. Instead he talked about east coast cod crisis
and blamed it on the Tories.
The B.C. salmon crisis is a recent problem. It was not
inherited from the Tories. The Prime Minister might try to point
fingers at others for the east coast fishery crisis, but who will
he blame for the B.C. salmon crisis: the department, the
fisheries minister or himself?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a number of factors are involved in the
west coast problem we are facing at the present time.
First is the cyclical nature of salmon in any event and it was
predicted that this would be a low cycle year.
Second is El Nino which has played hob with predictions on the
west coast and indeed with salmon returns. We have problems with
prices which are now one-third of what they were nine years ago.
I appreciate the hon. member's question because this is an
historic day. For two days in a row in his first two questions
he has asked about British Columbia salmon for the first time in
his entire time in the House. I am delighted to see we are at
last getting attention, that the byelection is getting the
attention of the Reform Party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if Ontario were in an economic nosedive and heading into
a recession, the Liberals would declare a national emergency. If
central Canada's unemployment rate had jumped one-half of 1% in a
month, the Liberal cabinet would be in an emergency session.
Those nightmares are coming true in B.C. and the Prime Minister
does not even have a briefing note on British Columbia. All he
can say is “we gave you the APEC conference instead of giving it
to Toronto”. Thank you very little.
Why is it that the government never treats British Columbia
issues as genuine national issues?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one thing is very clear. The tactics of the Reform
Party do not create one job in B.C.
I would like to indicate that there was a contract of $225
million to MacDonald Dettwiler of Richmond, B.C., a few days ago;
a $30 million investment in Ballard a few months ago; and $70
million to support the TRIUMF Particle Physics Research
Laboratory at the University of British Columbia.
Do you want more?
Some hon. members: More, more.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: I could go on but I will get up
again.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the east coast fishery collapsed the government
treated it as a national issue, and rightly so. When the west
coast salmon fishery is threatened the government dismisses it as
a regional problem.
If the supreme court renders a decision prejudicial to Quebec it
is treated as a national unity issue. When the supreme court
renders a decision prejudicial to B.C. like the Delgamuukw case
it is ignored.
1420
British Columbia is on the way to becoming the second largest
province in the country. How long will it be until British
Columbia issues are treated as national issues?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party, a party
which has had more British Columbia members than any other in the
history of the House, has finally discovered that British
Columbia exists. I congratulate him. Finally we are getting
questions from them. I thank them for their interest.
With respect to the fishery that he talked about, $136 million
was put into the revitalization of the west coast fleet. We had
retirement of licences. We had programs for displaced fisheries.
Last year in terms of fish we had a better than average year.
The hon. member forgets that the price is one-third of what it
was nine years ago. In addition we have El Nino.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as far as the Liberal government is concerned British Columbia
should be seen but not heard.
The most laughable idea brought forth by the Prime Minister was
that he expects us to be grateful that Vancouver hosted the APEC
conference. B.C. happens to be the only province that touches
the Pacific Ocean, and APEC could not be given to Shawinigan,
Quebec.
Other than tax B.C., ignore B.C. and insult B.C., I want to know
what he has really done for British Columbia.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very grateful the hon. member has given me the
opportunity to carry on with my list.
Since 1993, $210 million has been invested in the universities
in B.C. by the natural science and engineering program for
research projects; $36.6 million from Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council; $37 million in loans to 1,900 small
businesses through Community Futures, which created 5,800 jobs in
B.C; and another $70 million in partnerships with businesses.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let me tell the government what it has really done.
The Prime Minister forgot to list the billions we put into the
federal coffers. What he has really done is shut down our army
base in Chilliwack, British Columbia. He is shutting down our
lighthouses. He took the Senate seat that belonged to the people
of British Columbia and gave it to his buddy. He slashed funding
from fish hatcheries and let Americans—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I encourage my colleagues to listen to the
questions and to the answers. I will go back to the hon. House
leader of the opposition.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, while he slashed the fish
hatcheries he let American fishermen vacuum our oceans, cut the
quota for our fishermen and told them to go on welfare.
What does the Prime Minister have to say to British Columbia
fishermen: take this job and shove it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the mud slinging by the Reform Party on the other side
looks very desperate and does not create one job.
An example of what we have done which was very good for British
Columbia was our Open Sky agreement. It increased the capacity
at the Vancouver International Airport from 300,000 passengers a
week to 500,000 passengers a week. As a result, there has been an
investment of $350 million in expansion, creating 1,500—
* * *
1425
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
millennium fund project is losing its lustre.
All of Quebec is criticizing this project and feels that the
federal government has no business in this sector. Even Quebec
Liberals are trying to help the federal government out of the
mess.
Since even Quebec federalists are refusing to throw their support
behind the millennium fund project, will the Prime Minister admit
that, if he sticks to his guns on this one, he is going to start
another fight with Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think that students in Quebec, as everywhere else, are very
anxious to get their hands on these scholarships.
When the finance minister included in the last budget a system by
which parents can set money aside to put their children through
university, this is not interference in education.
What we are doing is giving young people in Quebec the
opportunity to benefit from the education system. I think this
is what we have been doing for a very long time and we have been
doing it in many sectors, because this is not about disagreement,
but about giving the youth of Quebec more opportunities.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
seems that there is not even agreement within his Cabinet on this
issue. Those working directly with the Minister of Human
Resources Development say that nobody wants to meet with the
minister.
Is the Prime Minister aware that his Minister of Human Resources
Development is not even capable of meeting with Quebec's
education sector, including students, because the latter are
demanding that the Government of Quebec be present at these
meetings, and that the federal government has no other choice
now but to rethink its decision?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, any little snippet can be
distorted when taken out of context. It is absolutely
ridiculous.
I have already met with the Fédération des étudiants
universitaires du Québec. I have spoken with a number of
stakeholders in the education sector in recent weeks because we
want this project to be a success for Quebec's students.
We are going to see that this project benefits the students, who
will decide which institutions they wish to attend, but they will
have this access. We are going to implement the project in a
manner entirely consistent with the existing systems in Quebec,
which we are already funding through the Canada student loans
program.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, part I of Bill C-36, which establishes the
Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, confirms what we all
knew, namely that the foundation will have an administrative
structure, whose members will get paid for their services.
The minister has always said that the foundation would never
duplicate existing loans and scholarships programs.
How then can he explain how the structures required to manage
this scholarship fund do not amount to duplication?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the foundation will operate at
arm's length from the government and will work with the
appropriate provincial authorities to avoid any duplication of
existing services. It will complement what is already provided by
provincial governments.
The foundation will be in charge of the first selection and
awarding of the fellowships and it could even sign contracts
with the approriate provincial authorities.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, should the minister not listen to reason and
give the money that he intends to spend, if not waste, on his
scholarships and on its administrative structure to the Quebec
government, which would use it to restore funding to
post-secondary education?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has a vision. It
wants to help young people gain the knowledge they will need in
the economy of the future.
The reason we established a millennium scholarship fund instead
of building new concrete structures or monuments is that we have
a vision.
The foundation does have a structure, but it also has a
responsibility to get money from the private sector. Indeed, we
hope that the private sector will contribute to the millennium
fund, so as to promote knowledge and prepare Canada for
tomorrow's economy.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the federal human rights commission delivered a strong
wake-up call to the Prime Minister. So did Nova Scotians.
The commission says that poverty and social inequality are being
fuelled by federal cuts to health care and other social support
programs. The Liberal government has stubbornly ignored this
growing crisis.
Will the Nova Scotia election results finally convince the Prime
Minister to keep the Liberal promise to reinvest in health care?
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with what we have done already, there is a bill in the
House of Commons at this time to re-establish $1.5 billion to the
health care system. It is exactly the level of $12.5 billion
that was recommended to the government by the national forum on
health. The budget has a series of initiatives for investment in
medical research, AIDS research and other programs related to
health to help people. We have done it. We want to do it in the
years to come—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the
budget there is not one new cent in health care transfers.
Yesterday the human rights commission stated: “Poverty is a
serious breach of equality rights and has no place in a
prosperous country like Canada”. Unlike this government, the
commission recognizes the dangers in the widening gap between the
rich and everyone else.
My question to the Prime Minister is simple. Will he make the
commitment today to include poverty and homelessness as
prohibited grounds for discrimination in Canada's human rights
legislation? Will he do that, yes or no?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has indicated
that it is going to undertake a major review of the Canadian
Human Rights Act in the coming months. I suggest that it is
quite apparent to everyone that as part of that review, we will
be looking at the possibility of including a ground of social
disadvantage or poverty. We look forward to hearing from
Canadians on that issue before we prejudge the conclusion.
* * *
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP FUND
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
auditor general is the Canadian taxpayer's watchdog in Ottawa.
The millennium scholarship fund is to be funded with $2.5 billion
worth of Canadian taxpayer money, yet the budget implementation
legislation does not give the auditor general any right of access
to the books of the foundation. Could the Minister of Finance
explain why the auditor general will not have access to the
foundation's books?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general will have access to the millennium
fund's books.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
budget implementation legislation does not guarantee access for
the auditor general and it is well known that there has been a
public dispute between the Minister of Finance and the auditor
general. Is the minister's fight with the auditor general the
real reason the auditor general's access to the foundation's
books has not been guaranteed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there will be an independent board that will have the
right to make its decisions and to make its nominations but, as
with all things, if the auditor general would like to have access
to those books, it will be arranged.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Connie Jacobs
and her son Ty died tragically this week when the RCMP tribal
police and a band social worker tried to seize six children from
Mrs. Jacobs' home on the Tsuu T'ina reserve. This is not a time
for political finger pointing. It is time to grieve for Connie
and Ty and to pledge to solve the root problems that led to this
tragic shooting.
Aboriginal people are calling for a judicial inquiry. Will the
Indian affairs minister ensure that the root causes of this
tragedy are thoroughly investigated and not just the shooting
itself?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I informed the House yesterday, we are investigating
this. A criminal investigation has started. The province of
Alberta has jurisdiction in this case. I understand that even as
we speak, Phil Fontaine, representatives of the local first
nation and the RCMP are meeting with the attorney general's
office in Alberta. I suspect there may be an announcement as
early as today.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the wrong minister answered the last question. This
shooting on the Tsuu T'ina reserve raises many troubling
questions that go way beyond legalities. Why is it that Connie
Jacobs and the six children who were living with her were living
in such squalor when this band is not poor? Why are so many
reserves plagued with alcoholism, drug abuse and violence when
Parliament gives this minister's department so much authority and
so much money to deal with these problems?
1435
What is the minister, what is the department, what is the
government doing to get to the roots of these problems rather
than just dealing with the—
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition shares the grief
of all the people here and I hope he will respect the expressed
request on the part of the first nation to not politicize this
issue. It is a tragic event. Many people are calling for calm
and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to do the same.
* * *
[Translation]
STUDENT DEBT
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Bill C-36 indicates that the government intends to increase the
period a student cannot include student loans in a bankruptcy
from two to ten years.
By increasing to ten years, the usual repayment period, the time
that must elapse before a student loan may be included in a
bankruptcy, is the minister aware that he is abandoning students
to the banks and ignoring even the most elementary responsibility
for them?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a look
at what the government has done reveals that it permits students
facing enormous difficulties to reduce their loan principal by 50%.
Regarding interest rates, students earning minimum wage, that is,
less than $28,000, will be allowed to reduce their rate of
interest. Those earning less than $20,000 will be allowed to
not pay interest. We—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlesbourg.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister can give all the explanations he likes, his legislation
puts students in the same category as defrauders, criminals and
those who fail to pay child support in the Bankruptcy Act.
How can the minister claim to be helping students when he is
discrediting them by treating them as defrauders under the
Bankruptcy Act?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just explained that there are a whole series of measures to
enable students not to have to declare bankruptcy.
However, I find it both incredible and inconceivable that this
same member opposes the millennium scholarships, which will
provide $3,000 to 100,000 students a year. It is ridiculous.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
two days ago in the House the Deputy Prime Minister said: “The
Senate is a partisan political body. It is organized along party
lines. Why should the Prime Minister not appoint people who
would support his party and the government program?” This is
indeed quite an insight into the Liberal mindset.
Considering that the Deputy Prime Minister already considers the
Senate to be a partisan body, will the Prime Minister explain to
the House what the job description really is for a senator? Is
it simply to be a Liberal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first thing a member of Parliament should do is read
the Constitution.
In 1867 Canadians decided to have a Senate. It was a copy of
the House of Lords in England. In the House of Lords members are
named for life, and it goes from father to son.
Here there is a time limit. Some are partisan and some choose
to sit as independents. It is their choice. The Senate studies
and reflects on the bills of the House of Commons. It is not
under the pressure of the next election. Perhaps we should not
have—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
maybe white wigs would help in the Senate, who knows.
Senator Andrew Thompson's attendance record has been dismal for
years. The Prime Minister only admitted this and it became an
issue several months back when it became a disaster for public
relations for the Liberal Party. Now Senator Andrew Thompson has
retired so that he can get his huge enormous pension.
The Prime Minister still has not told Canadians what he
considers to be the acceptable attendance record for senators.
Will he answer for us today just how much is acceptable, 30%,
50%, which is it?
1440
The Speaker: The member is asking an opinion of the Prime
Minister. If he wants to answer the question, he can.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the question is not in order but it shows the
desperation of the opposition.
The opposition does not know what to ask questions about, so it
has to be completely out of order to get the attention of the
House of Commons.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed the view of the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that federal mismanagement of
the fisheries has resulted in a disaster. He also seemed
receptive to the idea that there must be assistance for fishers
and fishery workers and told us that the Minister of Human
Resources Development was working on it.
Can the minister tell the 22,000 people still relying on the
TAGS program when and how they can be reassured about their
future?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have a Prime
Minister who is concerned about the situation of fishers in
eastern Canada as well as of those in British Columbia.
The Prime Minister asked me, in my capacity as Minister of Human
Resources Development, to look at the situation of fishers and of
fishery workers as well, which is of very great concern to us.
This is why we are now looking at ways of making the transition
to a post-TAGS environment in eastern Canada.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that spring is now here.
It is time he came out of hibernation and did something.
Fishers are waiting.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development follow up on the
recommendations of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans, not just by extending the TAGS program, but also by
launching a broad program of economic diversification for all
coastal regions of eastern Canada?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that our
friends in the Bloc Quebecois are taking an interest in the
adjustment program. We have often talked about the transitional
job creation fund. It is one of the effective tools used by
this government and we certainly intend to continue providing
assistance to the unemployed in this way.
We are going to respond to the committee in due course. The TAGS
program will wind up in August, as we have already announced in
the House, and we are looking at the post-TAGS environment in a
completely responsible fashion.
* * *
[English]
TRANSPORT
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians hope there has been a mistake made by this
government in deciding to investigate helicopter pilot John
Gibson who heroically rescued two people in a Manitoba air crash.
Would the Prime Minister please tell this House what action he
is willing to take to call off the investigation of this Canadian
hero?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks an
important question and I think he deserves an answer.
The answer is the individual is not being investigated. The
helicopter pilot is part of a much larger investigation, one that
stretches back starting in January. The investigation is looking
at the flights that landed prior to and right after that tragic
accident.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is confusing because the article reads differently.
I am wondering why there is no attention paid by this government
to why there was not a helicopter in place to do the job instead
of depending on a private helicopter pilot who was willing to
risk his life to rescue these people and who is now getting the
this type of publicity.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not
suggesting that we should ignore the rules that are laid down by
Transport Canada.
We are trying to make sure that Transport Canada and all those
who are flying have the safest system in the world. It has been
demonstrated and it is very clear.
The individual in question is not being singled out. He is part
of a larger investigation. If the hon. member read on in the
newspaper articles he would have seen how Transport Canada has
said on many occasions that the individual is part of a larger
investigation, that the investigation—
1445
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has said that all information
on Option Canada had been made public, but we are still waiting
to get a copy of the letter the minister is supposed to have sent
to the president of Option Canada requesting explanations on how
$4.8 million was spent.
Will the Prime Minister intervene immediately to ensure the
minister honours her commitments and the letter is made public
right away, as she promised last Thursday?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have it here.
* * *
[English]
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific.
British Columbia has caught a case of the Asian flu which
affected the economy of the Pacific rim in 1997. How is the
Liberal government showing leadership in restoring the economy
and helping B.C. in business and jobs?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is indeed very concerned
about the Asian financial crisis and its impact on British
Columbia. That is why we are supporting international efforts to
stabilize the troubled Asian countries. At the same time we
continue to promote job growth and exports by organizing Team
Canada and other trade missions to the region.
We continue also to invest in technologies in British Columbia.
Just a couple of weeks ago the Minister of Industry announced a
$300 million project with MDA in B.C. to build a new satellite.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has a rule that any companies
unloading oil off ships in Canada have to pay a fee. Fair
enough. What is not fair is they are forced to pay a different
amount depending on the province they are in. Same oil,
different price.
In Quebec for example it costs 44 cents to unload a tonne of oil
but in Ontario it is $1.85. In the minister's own home province
it is $1.52, almost four times as much as in Quebec.
Why is the minister from B.C. in charge of this fee
discriminating against B.C. businesses and consumers?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the foundation of the question
is simply inaccurate.
We have a double system whereby the coast guard provides
standard services across the country. We in addition have
response organizations organized by private industry. They must
have the capability of dealing with a spill of 10,000 tonnes.
Because of different volumes which are moved in different areas
and the different requirements for the equipment to be kept in
stock, there are different costs. In some areas, to get the same
level of environmental protection one must pay more.
Environmental—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
know the minister from B.C. really is not the minister for B.C.
He is actually the minister from Ottawa to B.C. telling B.C. how
things are supposed to work.
We would think at least he would listen to the legions of
backbenchers from Ontario. They have been complaining for weeks
about this double standard that forces Ontario consumers to pay
at least a cent a litre more for gasoline.
Why is the minister treating Ontario and B.C. as if they were
second class provinces?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, typically the opposition chooses an
Alberta member to comment upon a British Columbia or an Ontario
issue. Despite the fact that British Columbia has the largest
representation in their caucus, they constantly ignore the B.C.
members in the official opposition.
As a British Columbian I am simply appalled at the treatment of
the majority British Columbian members in their caucus by the
Alberta—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
* * *
1450
FISHERIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
And if he is the best that B.C. can be offered by the Liberals,
then God help us.
British Columbia's coastal and upriver communities are
profoundly affected by the upcoming Pacific salmon treaty
negotiations with the United States. In order to ensure that all
key voices are at the table, will the minister assure the House
that the Government of British Columbia will be a fully equal
partner at these upcoming Pacific salmon negotiations?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of the Pacific salmon treaty is
a very important one, except apparently to the official
opposition.
The issue is structured so there will be one chief negotiator on
both the American and Canadian side. They will be supported by a
team. British Columbia will have a representative on that high
level team. The level of participation of the British Columbia
government will depend entirely upon how active it wishes to be
and how good and useful its suggestions are.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, as the minister knows, coho salmon are in crisis
especially the northern coho as a result of Alaskan overfishing.
Will the minister assure British Columbians that any interim
fishing deal will address this issue and the equity issue in the
upcoming season, and not simply allow the United States to
maintain the status quo which is absolutely disastrous both for
fish and coastal communities in British Columbia?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly can assure the member of
that. The issue of coho protection in northern British Columbia
is an extremely important one. It will mean we will have to have
extensive negotiations with the Americans on this specific issue.
I am quite willing to point out to the member that this is one of
the reasons for our concern this year on the catch levels we will
have to establish.
* * *
CANADA MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance has said on numerous occasions in this House
that a good government is a transparent government. However the
millennium scholarship foundation is not subject to the Access to
Information Act.
Will the minister allow true transparency by subjecting the
foundation to the Access to Information Act?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an outside foundation. Its books will certainly
be available. They will be audited. This government as in all
other things will continue to be open and transparent and so will
the foundation. Its board of directors will consist of educators,
leading Canadians from coast to coast. Their integrity should
not be questioned.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
was not questioning the integrity of any of the directors on the
board, or their abilities or competence. I am asking in a
transparent society, when $2.5 billion of our taxpayers' money is
going to be spent on a millennium scholarship foundation, why is
that foundation not subject to the Access to Information Act?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, because it is an outside foundation and will operate as
an outside foundation.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a recent
advisory panel report on regulations governing natural health
products suggested several changes to provide consumers with
greater freedom of choice.
Will the Minister of Health assure the House that serious
consideration will be given to this report calling for a fair and
effective regulatory framework for natural health remedies?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what is happening
right now. The issue is before the Standing Committee on Health.
It is holding hearings in Ottawa and has been doing so for the
last three months. It will move on to other areas in particular
in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec to hear all the
stakeholders and consumer groups, including the one that had a
press conference yesterday to publicize its own concerns.
All of those issues are being brought forward to the committee.
The committee will make its report both to the House and to the
minister in short order.
* * *
1455
FISHERIES
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, fisheries management in British Columbia is in a mess.
However our minister thinks he has found a way to solve the
Pacific salmon crisis. He wants to let the Americans fish all
our salmon and then place B.C. fishermen on a west coast TAGS
program. His answer to the problem is to fold to the Americans,
kill thousands of jobs and place British Columbians on welfare.
What an embarrassment.
Why is it that the only solution this minister has is to put
B.C. fishermen on welfare?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon.
member from British Columbia. Thanks to the goading of the
Alberta director of that party he was allowed to ask a question.
I am glad he was.
I would point out to him that type of question only suggests to
the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition that perhaps he should
be kept in his seat along with the other B.C. members.
* * *
[Translation]
MULTIMEDIA INDUSTRY
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
A recently released report on the multimedia industry concludes
that it is absolutely vital to quickly find new sources of
financing if there is to be Canadian and Quebec content in Canada
and in Quebec, in health and education, for instance.
Is the minister prepared to finally do what is necessary to help
the financing of this industry of the future?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage and myself are working together to
try to help this very important sector of the economy, not only
in the Montreal region, but everywhere in Canada.
* * *
[English]
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the finance minister.
Last month the government received the post-TAGS review known as
the Harrigan report which recommended a successor program for the
Atlantic groundfish strategy. The fisheries and oceans committee
recommended the government continue TAGS until May 1999 and
endorsed a new federally funded multi-year infrastructure and job
diversification program.
Can the finance minister tell the people of Atlantic Canada if
he will make sufficient funds available to finance the
recommendations contained in these two reports?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, TAGS will
continue until the end of August 1998. As for the other
recommendations of the report, my officials are looking into them
right now and are taking them into consideration.
We will be addressing the post-TAGS environment in eastern
Canada in a responsible way.
* * *
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
a study done by the CIBC bank states that more than 200,000 youth
out of school have dropped out of the labour market. When
combined with those who are registered, the figure jumps to
450,000 unemployed youth in this country.
What is the Minister of Human Resources Development prepared to
do to prevent our youth from being caught in the cycle of no
experience, no job?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are very preoccupied by
the situation of the young unemployed in Canada. Even though the
situation has improved substantially in the last few months, it
is still much too high at over 15%.
This is why we have brought forward our youth employment
strategy which has the precise aim of eliminating the conundrum
of no experience, no job, no job, no experience. It will provide
thousands of young Canadians through Youth Service Canada and
Youth Internship Canada with summer jobs and good advice in order
for them to have something on their CVs to break the conundrum.
* * *
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Calgary declaration was adopted on September 14, 1997 by the
premiers and leaders of nine provinces and the territories. Since
then a copy of the declaration has been provided to every single
Manitoba home and an extensive consultation has been undertaken.
I wonder if the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs could
tell us the results of that consultation.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the premier and Manitoba's
legislature for their contribution to the Calgary process.
On Thursday, March 20 the Manitoba legislature unanimously
adopted a resolution which reflected a wide consensus among
Manitobans with regard to the Calgary declaration.
1500
[Translation]
The Calgary declaration reflects the support of Canadians for a
federation that always seeks to ensure greater fairness and
equality, as well as respect for our country's diversity, which
includes the unique character of Quebec society.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am from B.C. Let us look at how the fisheries minister handled
the problem of fish in B.C. creeks.
There was a conservation initiative called the habitat mapping
and inventory program. The government spent $115,000 on the
program. It was ready to go but last month some members of the
United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union criticized the
minister. To punish them he cancelled the program, throwing 45
workers out of work and endangering the fish habitat.
Why does the minister always put politics ahead of what is best
for the fishery?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take a certain satisfaction in having
Reform members in British Columbia, goaded of course by earlier
questions, demonstrate why we do not need another Reform member
from British Columbia.
With respect to the project in question, we have funded 48
projects of that organization, totalling $14.7 million. On this
particular one, yes $115,000 came from my department but after
consultation with my department and human resources, we did not
think it was one of the very top ones we should fund at this
time. The reason is that we have four times as many projects
come to us as we are able to finance.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of hon.
members to the presence in the gallery of a number of
distinguished visitors.
I present His Excellency Eduardo Ferrero Costa, Minister of
Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Peru.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Mr. Zlatko Dominikovic, Minister of
Agriculture and Forestry of the Republic of Croatia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Parliamentarians from the United Kingdom
branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association led by Mr.
Andrew Macinlay, MP.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1505
POINTS OF ORDER
STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point
of order raised on Tuesday, March 24, 1998 by the House leader of
the official opposition. I would like to thank the opposition
House leader and the member for Windsor—St. Clair, who chairs
the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, for their
contributions on this matter.
[Translation]
The House leader of the official opposition argued that the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was not complying
with the terms of an order of reference of the House contained in
two motions adopted on October 30, 1997.
[English]
The first motion was presented as part of the business of
supply. He called on the government to present a motion under
Standing Order 68(4), instructing the committee to prepare and
bring in a bill concerning penalties for impaired driving. The
motion further stipulated that once the committee was so
instructed, it should report by May 15, 1998. That motion was
adopted by the House.
[Translation]
Following the adoption of that motion, a second motion,
introduced by the Minister of Human Resources Development
pursuant to Standing Order 68(4), instructed the committee to
prepare and bring in such a bill.
[English]
The hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair, as chair of the justice
committee, argued that there was no deadline contained in the
motion supplied to the committee as its order of reference by
Journals branch. She further maintained that while the committee
had every intention of complying with the order of reference,
pressure of other business referred to the committee by this
House would prevent it's dealing with it immediately.
Having looked into the matter, it appears that the basic
confusion arises from an original misunderstanding about the
order of reference given to the committee. I understand that the
text of orders of reference to committees are duly noted within
the Committees and Legislative Services Directorate and that each
committee is advised accordingly of any new order of reference it
receives.
Reference is simply an extract from the actual Journals
published by the House which are the official minutes of our
proceedings and the record of our decisions. Ordinarily an order
of reference is contained within a single motion, and this may be
where the confusion has arisen. I understand that only the
minister's motion was originally communicated to the committee
through the usual channels within the directorate.
I have reviewed the two motions carefully. It is clear to me
that these motions must be read in conjunction one with the
other. The first motion presented as part of the business of
supply contains two parts. The first part calls on the
government to move a motion of instruction to the committee
pursuant to Standing Order 68(4). The second part sets out a
deadline to apply once such a motion of instruction has been
adopted by the House. The second of the two motions is of course
the motion of instruction itself presented by the minister and
unanimously adopted by the House.
Once the motion of instruction presented by the minister was
adopted, the deadline contained in the earlier motion adopted by
the House became applicable, as this had already been agreed to
by the House in adopting the supply motion as amended.
It is therefore my decision that the instructions to the justice
committee adopted by the House October 30, 1997 do include a
reporting deadline of May 15, 1998.
[Translation]
That said, it appears that the committee has been operating in
good faith on the understanding that its instructions did not
contain a deadline for reporting back a draft bill on impaired
driving.
[English]
I realize that in a matter as serious and complex as the
preparation of legislation, the time which remains for the
committee to carry out this work is short, particularly given its
other responsibilities on other fronts.
1510
If the committee deems that more time is necessary to deal with
this matter, then it may by way of report request the House to
grant an extension to the original time frame.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
MAIN ESTIMATES, PART III
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
my colleagues, I table part III of the main estimates consisting
of 80 departmental reports on plans and priorities.
These documents will be distributed to the members of the
standing committees to facilitate their consideration of the
spending authority requested in part II of the main estimates.
* * *
[English]
REPORT ON PLANS AND PRIORITIES, 1998-1999
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the
report on plans and priorities in relation to the main estimates
for the House of Commons.
* * *
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 18 petitions.
* * *
[English]
MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES) ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-385, an act to amend the Marriage
(Prohibited Degrees) Act (marriage between persons of the same
sex).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to
confirm that a marriage is not invalid by reason solely of the
fact that the parties are of the same gender. While federal
statute law is silent on the capacity of gay and lesbian people
to enter into marriage with their partners, a Liberal MP has
tabled a bill that would deny gay and lesbian couples who wish to
marry the right to do so.
I believe our relationships should be celebrated and affirmed as
just as loving, just as committed, just as strong as heterosexual
relationships, and federal statutes should reflect that equality.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-386, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
and the Canada Pension Plan (definition of spouse).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to amend
the definition of the term spouse in the Income Tax Act and the
Canada pension plan to ensure that the same financial and fiscal
benefits relating to pensions are available to both heterosexual
and homosexual couples. The current law which is being
challenged in the courts denies equality to gay and lesbian
people. We pay income tax and make contributions to the Canada
pension plan and our partners should be entitled to equal
benefits and other equal responsibilities as heterosexual
couples.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1515
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RELIEF COORDINATION ACT
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-387, an act to establish a national committee to
develop policies and procedures to ensure co-ordination in the
delivery of programs by governments in the case of agricultural
losses or disasters created by weather or pests, the co-ordination
of the delivery of information, assistance, relief and
compensation and study the compliance of such programs with World
Trade Organization requirements.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the preamble, this
particular piece of legislation is to deal with the consistency
of programs that are available to agriculturists throughout
Canada, particularly the inconsistency with respect to programs
that deal with disasters, not unlike what happened with the ice
storm of 1998 and the floods of 1997.
It suggests that a national committee be struck made up of 21
members and that it look at these national programs to deal with
consistency as well as to deal with the requirements of the World
Trade Organization.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DEPOSITORY BILLS AND NOTES ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill S-9, an act respecting depository bills and
depository notes and to amend the Financial Administration Act,
be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
PETITIONS
CRIMINAL CODE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition
signed by several Albertans.
They say that they want to draw the attention of the House to
the following:
That as deeply concerned citizens they believe that the
provocation defence, as it is currently used in femicide and wife
slaughter cases, inappropriately and unjustly changes the focus
of the criminal trial from the behaviour of the accused and his
intention to murder to the behaviour of the victim who from then
on is identified as the one responsible for the accused violence.
Therefore the undersigned request that Parliament review and
change relevant provisions of the Criminal Code to ensure that
men take responsibility for their violent behaviour toward women.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have the pleasure to present a petition containing hundreds of
names of Canadians from all across Canada who are concerned about
the multilateral agreement on investment.
They see it as the latest in a series of regional and global
agreements which, in the name of liberalizing trade and
investment, expand the powers of multinational corporations at
the expense of the power of governments to intervene in the
marketplace on behalf or our social, cultural, environmental and
health care goals.
They see this agreement as being flawed in so far as it seeks to
protect the rights of investors without seeking similar
protection for workers through binding core labour standards.
They see it as being anti-democratic.
They therefore call upon Parliament to reject the current
framework of MAI negotiations and instruct the government to seek
an entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve
a rules based global trading regime that protects workers, the
environment and the ability of governments to act in the public
interest.
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to present to this House a petition on national unity.
Petitioners in my riding are saying that they want a Canada with
Quebec. The Quebec issue is causing political and economic
instability in Quebec and throughout Canada. Therefore they
encourage our government to strenuously continue its efforts at
national reconciliation.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a result of
the ice storm, thousands of workers temporarily lost their jobs
in my riding. While the employment insurance fund shows a $7
billion surplus, a two-week waiting period was imposed on them
before they could receive benefits.
The petitioners, all 1,134 of them, call on Parliament to
abolish this two-week waiting period.
[English]
TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am tabling today two petitions, both on behalf of the
member for Windsor West and myself.
The first petition calls upon Parliament to enact legislation
making it illegal for persons under the age 19 to possess tobacco
or tobacco products.
1520
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition calls upon the government to provide
a settlement to existing human rights complaints based on pay
equity and to cease treating workers differently based on gender.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to table two petitions on behalf of constituents.
The first petition asks that Parliament support the immediate
initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international
convention which will set out a binding timetable for the
abolition of all nuclear weapons.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition deals with parental rights. In particular, the petition
asks Parliament to retain section 43 of Canada's Criminal Code
which recognizes and affirms parental rights for Canadians.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by
residents from across Canada who are deeply concerned about the
fact that the Government of Canada is currently negotiating an
international trade agreement at the OECD called the MAI or the
multilateral agreement on investment.
The petitioners note that the MAI is fundamentally flawed in so
far as it seeks to protect the rights of investors without
similar protection for workers. They also note that it is
anti-democratic.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the
current framework of MAI negotiations and to instruct the
government to seek an entirely different agreement by which the
world might achieve a rules based, global trading regime that
protects workers, the environment and the ability of government
to act in the public interest.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my honour to present a petition to the House from my
constituents in St. Catharines and from people in the Niagara
area.
The petition states that Canadians are alarmed and deeply
disturbed by further victimization of the families of Kristen
French and Leslie Mahaffy by reason of the use of the Bernardo
video tapes.
The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House that
section 486(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada mandates that all
evidence presented at criminal trials be presented in open court
and be fully available to the public and media.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend this law by
creating a specific exemption to this open court rule to exclude
evidence of child and coerced pornography.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to introduce a petition signed by petitioners who
believe that the MAI is anti-democratic in so far as it would be
binding for 20 years, thus tying the hands of several Parliaments
and future governments.
The petitioners call on Parliament to reject the current
framework of the MAI.
CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to present a
petition from several hundreds of constituents of
Scarborough—Agincourt.
The petitioners indicate that the Government of Ontario has
already breached its own agreements with provincially funded
housing co-operatives and has threatened to introduce legislation
to cancel the contracts and operating agreements of housing
co-operatives participating in federal programs once the federal
government devolves its responsibility to the province.
The petitioners also indicate that the interests of the
co-operative housing owners and members can be protected in these
negotiations only if the Government of Canada insists that there
be specific safeguards preventing the province of Ontario from
using its legislative authority to cancel existing contracts and
operating agreements.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ask the
minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation to immediately suspend negotiations on social housing
with the province of Ontario and to resume negotiations only if
the minister proceeds under publicly declared principles
established with the input of co-operative housing stakeholders.
Being a neighbour of one of the petitioners, I totally agree
with the petition.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member for
Scarborough—Agincourt knows it is improper to suggest whether he
agrees or not with a petition. I hope he will refrain from doing
so in the future.
ASSISTED SUICIDE
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present a petition to the House of Commons assembly
today.
Several hundred citizens of Canada pray that Parliament will
oppose the decriminalization of assisted suicide. They urge
members of Parliament to oppose Motion No. 123 in the vote this
evening.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am proud to present
five petitions against the MAI. I am especially proud to present
a petition which comes from Calgary.
The petitioners say that the MAI is anti-democratic in so far as
it would be binding for 20 years, thus tying the hands of several
Parliaments and future governments.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the current
framework of the MAI negotiations and instruct the government to
seek an entirely different agreement which would achieve a rules
based global trading regime that protects workers, the
environment and the ability of governments to act in the public
interest.
1525
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, under Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a
petition. This petition is signed by residents of my riding, by
residents of Winnipeg and by residents of Thunder Bay, Ontario.
The petitioners are very concerned about the multilateral
agreement on investment. They are very worried that Canada is
currently negotiating an agreement which will threaten the very
notion of Canadian unity, sovereignty, our cultural identity and
our health care system.
The petitioners are worried that this is not an investment deal
but a global constitution for corporations and that it will
create the same rights for foreign owned corporations as for
Canadian citizens.
The petitioners call upon this government to reject the current
framework for the MAI and to proceed on a much more sensitive and
humane basis.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of
Canadians, including Canadians from my own riding of Mississauga
South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that police officers and firefighters are required to place their
lives at risk on a daily basis as they discharge their duties and
that when one of them loses their life in the line of duty, not
only do we all mourn that loss, but the employment benefits
provided often do not provide sufficient assistance to their
surviving families.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to establish a
public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of
police officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of
duty.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to table a petition from citizens from across Canada who are
opposed to the multilateral agreement on investment as it is
fundamentally flawed in that it seeks to protect the rights of
investors without seeking similar protection for citizens' rights
and workers' rights through labour standards or for our
environment.
Therefore, the petitioners want this Parliament to reject the
MAI.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure, on behalf of many Canadians in
Saskatchewan and Edmonton, Alberta, to present a petition in
opposition to the current negotiations on the multilateral
agreement on investment. They believe that this agreement is
flawed. They believe it will hurt Canadians and Canadian
businesses and, in particular, our independence.
They are calling upon Parliament to reject the current framework
of the MAI negotiations and are asking the government to seek an
entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve a
rules based, global trading regime that protects workers, the
environment and the ability of governments to act in the public
interest.
* * *
[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 would
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all notices of motions for the production of papers be
allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it has been over five months since I placed an order for the
production of papers designated as P-8 on the Order Paper. I
raised this issue a month ago under another point of order and I
am forced once again to ask the parliamentary secretary when I
can expect a response from the government on this matter.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's
concern. I will look into this as soon as possible and will
produce a response as soon as possible.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that all Notices of
Motions for the Production of Papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: Under the circumstances, I do not
know what else we can do. Members can ask to have them
transferred for debate, otherwise they stand.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1530
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
BILL C-36—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-36, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24,
1998, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to
the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill
and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for
government business on the second day allotted to the
consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any
proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required
for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question
necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under
consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without
further debate or amendment.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The net effect of the motion put forward by the House
leader is to invoke closure, something that the hon. member
opposed when he was a member of the opposition. This is pure
hypocrisy.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not hear any point of order
coming from the hon. member on that point. I think he may wish
to debate the merits of the motion but that is not for a point of
order.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1615
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
– 138
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
(Roberval)
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McDonough
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Ramsay
| Ritz
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 104
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Byrne
| Cannis
| Collenette
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Dhaliwal
| Lefebvre
|
Marleau
| McCormick
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| St - Hilaire
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
1620
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I rise, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I
know sometimes we all have other duties but I think you will
notice that the member for Fundy—Royal actually left his chair
and the member for St. John's West left the Chamber completely
during that vote. I am not sure that either of their votes should
count.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not certain that their
votes should count either, but in the circumstances given the
outcome, I think we will leave the vote undisturbed. Hon.
members may have noticed that I was indicating that members did
have to remain in the House at the end of the vote for the yeas
and that I was administering appropriate chastisement. I think
that in these circumstances hon. members will seek to remain in
the House, in compliance with the rules, during a vote and we
will leave it at that.
SECOND READING
The House resumed from March 24 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be read the second
time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. When the debate was
interrupted on this bill, the hon. member for Markham had the
floor. He has three minutes remaining in his speech.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, one of the
important issues that was not acknowledged in this budget by the
federal government was the millennium bug, commonly known as the
year 2000 problem.
The year 2000 is less than 20 months away and there was no
mention of its repercussions by the Minister of Finance in his
budget. No attention was given to the significant cost and
consequences this problem will have on Canadian businesses. No
mention was made as to the aspirations of this government in
combating the huge implications of this issue.
In the report by the Task Force Year 2000 released in February
this year, it was recommended that the federal government
introduce revenue neutral tax incentives, measures that focus
primarily on small and medium size enterprises. It recommended
that there be no delay in implementing this. The Minister of
Finance ignored this recommendation and did nothing for small
business enterprises in his budget respecting the year 2000
problem.
The PC Party feels that we urgently need to immediately
implement formal action using the tax incentive levers available.
The minister has missed his chance to make this incentive
available to businesses at the earliest possible time. Now
businesses may struggle on their own to attack this inevitable
deadline of the next millennium with no monetary or tax relief
from the Liberal government.
In conclusion, the 1998 budget may go down in history for being
the first balanced budget in 28 years. However it will not be a
budget that is to be remembered by Canadians as the budget that
helped Canadians get ahead in life. The 1998 budget should have
included initiatives to put money back into the pockets of the
taxpayers. The 1998 budget should have introduced policy
decisions that would have provided relief to small businesses,
tax relief to Canadians, lowered the federal debt level and
restored dollars to the provinces for health care, education and
social assistance.
As I have indicated, the 1998 federal budget does little in the
way of providing for taxpaying Canadians. We are not content to
see the government spend away their sacrifices. We want to see
more money and more jobs for Canadians. We must keep young
Canadians in Canada and give them the opportunity their parents
have had. It is crucial that we solve the alarming trend that
has come to be known as the Canadian brain drain.
Taxes are still too high in this country. They penalize
initiative. Taxes slow investment, investment that creates jobs.
The result is that investment is being driven outside Canada. We
also know that taxes encourage highly skilled entrepreneurial
Canadians to seek their futures in other countries.
1625
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was speaking
about small business. I would like the hon. member to recognize
that small business benefits from balanced budgets, low interest
rates and low inflation. The tax relief which was provided in
this last budget took 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls. It
provided relief to 90% of Canadian taxpayers.
The hon. member talked about the debt level. The hon. member
only has to read the budget to understand that this budget
contains measures that will actually decrease the value of the
budget and keep the debt to GDP ratio on a continued downward
track, which is really the measure that is used by countries
around the world.
I want to draw the member's attention back to the 1989 Wilson
budget. He only has to look at that budget to realize that his
party added the surtax, raised corporate taxes and raised
personal income taxes. It did everything that he now stands up
in this House and accuses this government of doing.
I would only hope that the hon. member could stand in his place
and recognize that this budget, for the first time in a long
time, has started to give Canadians hope. As we have said, the
tax cuts are modest. We will continue on that track. I hope the
hon. member would stand up so that constituents in his riding
could hear him say that this budget is on the right track for the
first time in decades. It certainly is not as a result of what
the Tories have done, and it certainly is not as a result of the
Reform Party across the way which does nothing but heckle.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the
hon. member that the way the Liberals got to this balanced budget
was by one of the initiatives which was brought in by the
Conservatives when they were in power, the free trade agreement.
The free trade agreement has yielded incremental tax revenues of
approximately $25 billion.
The hon. member said that the government helped small business
by taking 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls. How does that
help small business? I did not see any tax relief in here, like
reducing the employment insurance premium.
Yesterday we heard in the industry committee that as high as 30%
of small and medium size businesses could be out of business by
the year 2000. I did not see any tax relief to help those
businesses move into the next millennium.
When I look at the debt level, now that we have balanced the
budget and the Liberals put in a contingency reserve of $3
billion, I would have brought in a balanced budget or debt
reduction law. The way they are dealing with the $3 billion, it
will take 200 years to pay it back. They could have done a lot
more to assure Canadians of the long term stability of this
country.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the hon. member who just spoke would like to elaborate
a little more on the possible implications and the possible
results that could obtain for example with hospitals in their
intensive care units not having some of the embedded chips in
certain parts of their control switches for the monitoring
systems. What kind of an impact could that have on the
intensive care units in some of our hospitals?
Could he expand on that a little further as the hon. member is
somewhat familiar with this area.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Kelowna for the question. He and I sit on the same committee.
We are starting to realize the very seriousness of the year 2000
problem. It is probably the biggest disaster since the second
world war that could affect the world. We are talking about $6
billion just to fix the problem. Who knows what the legal
ramifications will be.
Yesterday we had a presentation on the embedded chips. It is
not that easy to fix something. They are embedded in
instruments, equipment and technology, maybe 300 or 400 chips at
a time. It is the cost of replacing them.
If critical equipment shuts down in a hospital, the impact on
health care could be severe, lives could be lost or the
information obtained or the diagnostics given could be wrong. If
the problem has not been addressed, it could also cause legal
ramifications for hospitals or other agencies.
1630
This is a very critical problem which the government has to get
serious about. I notice that with the millennium scholarship
fund it is planning for education in the future. It is also
planning the millennium party. It is time that it planned for
the most important problem, the millennium bug problem.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38
to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at
the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Mississauga South, Health Care; the hon. member for Vancouver
East, Immigration; the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore,
Fisheries; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre,
Pharmaceutical Industry; the hon. member for New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Supreme Court of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me no great pleasure to stand today in the House to state
the budget is not a very big winner back home in the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Yes, we are all very much aware the
budget has been balanced, but we have to ask ourselves at what
price to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
There has been a 35% cut in transfer payments to the various
provinces to achieve that balance, a 35% cut in moneys dedicated
to health and post-secondary education. As a result, health and
education services provided by the provinces have been cut
severely.
In a poorer province like Newfoundland, the provincial
government does not have the financial wherewithal or ability to
make up for the reductions. The effect of the cuts in
Newfoundland has been more severe than it would be in most
provinces in Canada.
I point out to the government that the minister of finance of
Newfoundland was quite quick to condemn the budget a couple of
weeks ago, and well he should have condemned it.
As a result of the budget, the health care system, which
incidentally has made Canada the envy of the world, is now a mere
shadow of its former self. In post-secondary education the
federal cuts have driven up tuition rates and students,
especially those in Atlantic Canada, can least afford these
increases. Our students, not only those in Newfoundland and
Labrador but students all over Canada, are graduating from
various universities and post-secondary education institutions
with a debt load that is equal to a small mortgage.
Therefore, while student debt relief measures might be welcome,
they should be recognized as a federal bandage on a wound caused
by federal cuts in the first place. I do not think the
government deserves a great amount of credit for the modest
increases it has given to students across the country.
The budget makes a great deal of the $7 billion increase in
federal transfers to the provinces. However, in the case of
Newfoundland, that only slows down the rate of cuts announced in
previous budgets, and there have been cuts in previous budgets.
We still receive less and less money in each of the next several
years. This budget will cost the provincial government, as the
provincial minister of finance has already indicated, in excess
of $30 million.
1635
In order to undo the damage that has already been done
Newfoundland needs an increase, not a smaller decrease, in
federal transfers for health and post-secondary education in
particular.
The real tragedy in the budget for Newfoundland is that it
contains no real job creation effort. The federal government
seems to be quite happy with the fact that the national
unemployment rate has gone down to 9%. We rejoice and
congratulate the government and everyone who is responsible for
bringing the unemployment rate down to 9%.
However, that is cold comfort for Newfoundland and Labrador. We
have an unemployment rate that is double the national average. We
have an unemployment rate that is officially up around 19.5%.
There are many communities within the riding of St. John's East
which has an unemployment rate of 60% or 70%. For these people
that is cold comfort.
We also had a net outmigration in Newfoundland last year of
9,200 people. If this number were added to the official
unemployment of 19.5% in my province, our unemployment rate would
be up around 22% or 23%.
In addition, there was news this week that possibly there would
not be a follow up on the TAGS program. Thousands of people in
the fishery are about to come off the TAGS program who are not
yet included in the statistics. If the 20,000-odd people who
will be coming off TAGS were added to the 19.5% unemployment rate
for our province, the unemployment rate would probably be in
excess of 22% or 23%.
In balancing the budget the federal government has laid off as
well roughly 15% of the nation's federal employees. Newfoundland
and Labrador, the poorest province in Canada, took the biggest
hit in terms of federal employees being laid off with roughly 30%
of them being laid off.
An economic development fund has been set out in the budget for
northern Ontario. I do not begrudge the people of northern
Ontario their economic development fund, but Newfoundland has the
highest unemployment rate in the country and as yet we do not
even have a commitment from the federal government that there
will be a follow up program on TAGS.
I will talk about the tax rates in our province and in Canada
generally. The tax rates are far too high. They act as a
disincentive to job creation. Tax cuts announced in the budget
are very modest indeed. They are not large enough to kickstart
the nation's domestic economy. No matter how we look at it, this
is not a jobs budget.
One more matter of importance to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador is the equalization program. It keeps the province from
starving and from moving ahead as well. Revenues raised from
major economic projects such as Voisey's Bay and Terra Nova are
deducted dollar for dollar from our equalization payments.
With equalization payments currently running at about $900
million a year in Newfoundland, we need to raise a billion
dollars in revenue to be $100 million better off.
1640
It makes it very difficult for a have not province, a poorer
province, to catch up under our current equalization formula. We
need a better formula.
In the case of Hibernia a special deal was negotiated that would
see us losing only 70 cents on the equalization dollar. We need
a more generous arrangement for equalization entitlements. We
need that arrangement extended to other resource developments if
we are ever to catch up to the various provinces, especially
those in central Canada.
In short, the government is celebrating that the federal books
are balanced. It sees light at the end of the federal tunnel.
However the health and education systems run by the various
provinces are in a shambles. They are in tatters.
The bad news for the unemployed people of the country and the
people of Atlantic Canada in particular is that they will remain
unemployed. For many Canadian citizens, especially people in
Atlantic Canada, there is no light at the end of their tunnel. As
I said earlier, the books have been balanced, but at what price
to some of the provinces and their people?
Having balanced the nation's books, it is now time to start
balancing opportunities in the nation. In Newfoundland and
Labrador we want to be part of that Canadian dream without having
to chase that dream all over Canada.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member covered a lot of ground. I wanted to make a comment
about the health aspects of the budget implications and ask him a
question about his final comments.
He will well know that transfers to the provinces are comprised
of two components: the cash component and tax points that were
seconded to the provinces, which are basically the taxing
authority of the provincial governments.
The net reduction in transfers to the province of Ontario under
the Canada health and social transfer were some $850 million,
whereas concurrently the Government of Ontario, the Mike Harris
government, cut personal income taxes by $4.3 billion.
Five provinces have balanced budgets and have not seen fit to
invest more into health care. Many of them are following the
recommendations and the observations of the national forum on
health which says that it is not a matter of money but of how
wisely the money in the system is spent. Each province will have
to look at that carefully.
My question for the member results from his final comments. He
said to the people of Newfoundland that they would remain
unemployed. He also said that there was no light at the end of
the tunnel for them.
I do not think the government has given up on the people of
Newfoundland. I am sorry the member has. A number of
opportunities are facing us. One of the reasons members of
Parliament are here is to work on behalf of all Canadians,
especially those in most need like those in the province of
Newfoundland.
Would the member like to rise and maybe withdraw his comments
with regard to the position of the people of Newfoundland?
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon.
member that I do not have to withdraw because I did not make the
comment specifically about the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. The comment I made applies to the people of Atlantic
Canada generally.
This was a bad news budget for the people of Atlantic Canada.
There are no job creation efforts in the budget. It is the same
old song and dance routine with the Liberals. They talk about
the band-aid but they ignore the gaping cut they have created in
the budget.
The hon. member talked about transfers to the various provinces.
I am sorry I did not have a little more time to go into them. The
budget and the CHST cash transfers to the various provinces are
unfair. Ontario, Alberta and B.C., the three richest provinces
in Canada, are all getting an increase, albeit a modest increase,
in their cash transfers.
Yet provinces like Newfoundland, P.E.I., Quebec, New Brunswick,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia are feeling the pinch from
this budget. These are the provinces that have been hit the
hardest.
1645
It is the same song and dance routine from this government. I
did not make the statement that the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador specifically have no future or that there is no light at
the end of the tunnel.
Many good things are happening in Newfoundland. There is the
Hibernia project. The Terra Nova project will soon kick in.
Voisey's Bay hopefully in the not too distant future will start
up. These are things which will happen in the future.
We need jobs now in Newfoundland and Labrador. Nine thousand
two-hundred people a year are leaving our province. It may not
be a significant number in Ontario but when there is a population
of 500,000, 9,200 people a year is a very, very significant
number.
Last year school enrolment in Newfoundland went down by 4,200
students, 4.3%. That is very dangerous in a province with a small
population base. If that continues and if the federal government
does not make some commitment to job creation, or at least give
some indication of a post-TAGS program, then we are going to see
the next outmigration from our province double what it is now. I
really fear for that little province. Newfoundland should not
have that kind of haemorrhaging.
There are young people coming out of university on a daily basis
who cannot stop at the university door. They go to the airport
immediately and head to other provinces, like B.C. and Ontario.
We are educating people, spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars a year on education in Newfoundland, to have those people
travel to B.C., Ontario and Alberta. We have a great deal of
concern about that.
The Deputy Speaker: I should advise the House that the
five hours allowed for speeches of 20 minutes with questions and
comments have now expired. We will now begin 10 minute speeches
without questions and comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in considering Bill C-36, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget, it is important to remember that the
1998 budget marks a milestone in Canadian history, thanks to the
support of and indeed the sacrifices made by Canadians during the
past five years.
This year, for the first time in 30 years, a balanced budget was
tabled. The crushing $42 billion deficit we inherited in 1993,
the highest deficit in Canadian history, is now a thing of the
past.
In addition, the budget affirms our commitment to balanced
budgets over the next two years; this will be the first time in
nearly 50 years that balanced budgets will have been tabled three
years in a row including this year.
With only a few minutes to comment on this budget, one has to
focus on one particular aspect and it is somewhat difficult to
select one out of the many interesting facets of the budget. One
would have much to say, for instance, on this successful effort
to achieve what is commonly called a zero deficit while slightly
reducing the debt, providing some tax relief and making targeted
social investments. This in itself would deserve extensive
comment.
One could also comment on the good news for Canadian families,
particularly with respect to the assistance provided for
children and education. This budget could also be addressed from
the perspective of recovery, of high tech research, in response
to pressing demands in that area.
It all boils down to this being a budget which reassures those
who have to make investment decisions, the economic agents, as
well as those who are looking for work or for a new job, even
though the unemployment level is still too high.
1650
I would like to address another angle in particular. My choice
of subject is inspired by the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who spoke yesterday on the budget. As we
know, he is the Bloc Quebecois finance critic.
I heard him announce his intention to do everything possible to
block the millennium scholarship program. He said “This is a
program we detest because it encroaches, and shamelessly to
boot, into an area of Quebec jurisdiction. It is a program
totally unacceptable to us”.
He also said that he hated this millennium scholarship program so
much that it would galvanize his energies, that he was full to
overflowing with the energy to fight this budget, and this
proposal in particular.
It is very sad to see an MP, his party's official critic for
Finance, and a man who has a certain influence in Quebec, or
claims to, calling for people to join forces to do battle,
calling for Quebec to fight this measure, which he detests, and
stating that he will focus all of his energies on hating it.
This finance critic also accused the government of having
accumulated surpluses in the employment insurance account that
are too large, in his opinion, while at the same time accusing it
of putting $2.5 billion in this fiscal year, which are in a way
part of that surplus, into the millennium fund.
On the one hand, he is unhappy because the government is
accumulating surpluses in the employment insurance fund; on the
other, he is unhappy because that money is being put into the
millennium fund.
This critic needs to get real. He must admit that there are very
direct links, very important ones, between access to higher
education, access to post-secondary education, and the ability
for young people to find jobs, and it is they who will be the
primary beneficiaries of the millennium fund.
This hon. member needs to admit that there is a direct link
between the EI fund surplus and the immediate investment—not in
two or three years—in the millennium scholarships.
Instead of rejoicing over this investment in young people, the
Bloc Quebecois critic is pouring negative energy into blocking
this measure.
It seems to me that these people, he and others, who went on in
school and obtained advanced post-secondary degrees, BAs, MAs,
have forgotten that there are others in their footsteps, that
there are young people today who also want to go on to higher
education because they know that that is the key to landing an
interesting job. It is also the key to mobility throughout their
career.
They also know that these scholarships will enable them to obtain
Canadian experience, to see what is going on in environments
other than their own, and to be able to acquire international
experience, to study abroad, to find out how other countries see
things.
It would look like members of the Bloc Quebecois have forgotten
about others, or that they do not want others to have access to
these forms of education, which are important for the careers of
young people wanting to work.
The strategy at the heart of this budget is equality of
opportunity. I think this is what bothers certain critics most,
particularly the Bloc Quebecois critics, because it is an
approach that directly targets the needs of people, young people
in particular.
1655
In his speech, the Minister of Finance said “Canadians know that
there is more to taking care of the nation than simply taking
care of the books. Canada is not just a marketplace. It is a
community. Our country is anchored in shared risk and shared
benefits, in lending a hand knowing that, some day, we too may be
in need”.
These comments hurt people like the Bloc Quebecois critic,
because they are about Canada-wide solidarity and exchanges.
They are about sharing, supporting each other, and investing
together a large amount—that will serve us for years to come,
that will serve young Canadians, including Quebeckers—in a joint
account in which there will then be money available to meet our
needs.
The notion of a Canada-wide solidarity hurts Bloc Quebecois
members, because they are always saying that everything must be
repatriated to Quebec, that there is nothing good throughout
Canada.
Equal opportunity is an important issue for us in the Liberal
Party, in the government, because it is a matter of basic
fairness and social justice. We strongly believe in it. We also
know that learning must be the central part of any national jobs
strategy.
There are a number of elements to this strategy. I have not got
the time to list them all now, but there are seven important
ones, the first of which is definitely the millennium fund. We
were told that $2.5 billion would be taken from this fiscal year
and used starting in the year 2000 and for several years
afterward.
Other measures worth a total of $3 billion will be spread across
seven programs over the next three years, for a grand total of
$5.5 billion.
I think these are significant sums. Canadians have the right to
know the truth.
The nine young people in the delegation of 18 that accompanied me
to our convention last weekend in Ottawa said they were very
happy. They were not turning their noses up at the scholarship
program and other measures.
On the contrary, they were very happy, and I think they are
representative of Quebec youth, which is happy to have the
federal government providing them with a considerable amount of
money for the next decade.
Once again, we are talking about opening the door to
co-operation. The federal government planned for negotiations
with the provinces to avoid duplication and to reach an agreement
on implementing this measure.
Instead of taking offence, pouting and trying to block
everything, the government in Quebec and one part of the
opposition here should try to co-operate. I think it would
benefit young people in Canada and Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, before I
talk about the budget implementation legislation, I must put on
the record how upsetting it is to have the 38th time allocation
motion moved by this government. It has done this 38 times. It
used to be done once and literally a government would be gone at
the next election because of it. Thirty-eight times. It is
pretty hard to explain to our constituents that we were not given
an opportunity to speak because this government used time
allocation.
There is a lot of deception in this budget. Liberals are
talking about the golden age, the financial problem being all
taken care of and the great auditing that has been done. Yet the
auditor general deplores the methods used by the finance
minister.
We seem to have conveniently forgotten about the debt. In 1969
our debt was zero. In just three years it quickly went to $18
billion. In 1993 our debt was $489 billion. Today it is $583
billion. That is the thing we should be talking about. That is
what the people say we should take care of. That is what is
threatening our social safety net.
That is what is threatening our health, education and pensions.
That is what is going to hurt our future generations more than
anything else. This government chooses to ignore that and begin
more spending.
1700
The tax and spend concept does not take into consideration what
is happening in the world around us. We do not hear from the
other side any mention at all of the potential Asian meltdown or
what effect that might have on this country and how we should be
so cautious to take care of that potential rainy day that might
be down the road.
Look at a country like Indonesia with 200 million people with a
60% drop in its economy. People are unemployed. People are
literally on the streets because they have lost their sources of
income. Rice prices have gone up time after time. Japan has an
overextended bank situation. In Korea people are literally
bringing their gold to the government to try to get themselves
out of this crisis.
This is the kind of thing that this government should be taking
into consideration in putting forward its budget. It has
absolutely no consideration about the world in which we live.
In B.C. we see the beginning of what will be potential
implications for all businesses. What businesses need most is a
drop in taxation so they can plan to counter what those potential
dark clouds might be. What happens when cheap competitive
products come on the market? What happens when there is less
purchasing power in some of those Asian economies? That is going
to effect the U.S. economy. When it gets a cold we get
pneumonia. This government has totally abrogated its
responsibilities in planning for that future.
Look at the figures regarding our debt. Our interest payment is
$45 billion. That interest payment is equivalent to other
figures that should be considered, close to $12 billion of
federal money for health care, $14 billion for education, $22
billion for pensions. Our interest adds up to more than all
those payments put together and yet this government totally
ignores that debt and that interest payment.
In 1993 when a number of us came to this place the taxes brought
in about $125 billion. By the year 2000 that figure will be $173
billion that this government is taking in. Some of that is due
to growth but a great deal of that is due to increased taxation.
We are falling behind other places in this world. All you have
to do is go around to different places to realize that our
economy is dropping. Our expendable income is dropping. We are
not the same country we were 10 or 20 years ago. This government
by its high taxes and spending and by the kind of budget that we
just saw is doing nothing to deal with that problem.
Look at our dollar. Just try to travel using the Canadian
dollar and see where we are now in the world's economy.
This government had choices. It could deal with the debt and
the problems it brings. I could have dealt with the taxes and
brought them down which would have meant jobs and a great
increase in our well-being in this country. Or it could have
dealt with spending. It chose the third option. It chose to
increase spending and to forget about the debt and let it take
care of itself by this mythical dream that so many of these
governments have about growth taking care of the problems. It
never has and it never will. By raising taxes as this government
has done it has done nothing to help improve the job situation
for our young people.
The Liberals had a choice and they chose to ignore the debt.
They chose to keep taxes the highest in the G-7 countries and
they chose to start spending.
1705
If we start to look at some of that spending it is shocking:
Canadian opportunities strategies, $4.6 billion in increased
spending; the millennium fund, which we hear about over and over
again, a couple of billion dollars; Canadian culture, $440
million. That is pretty scary when we think of what has been
spent on things like, dare I mention, the flag issue, $24 million
to hand out flags and we know what happened in this place. Are
there savings we could make?
The patronage appointments that constantly go on with this
government, the waste that occurs here, the total desire to
maintain the status quo and not change anything in this place are
why we are in so much trouble.
What does this mean to us as Canadians? The saddest part is
that all of this inactivity regarding the debt, regarding the
taxes, is going to affect the next generation. It is going to
affect the kids and grand kids of most of the people in here, and
even further than that. Those are the people who are going to
have to finally face up to $583 billion, to 30 cents plus of
every dollar going to interest payments. That is what a future
government is going to have to face.
This government should be embarrassed by the budget that has
been put forward and by all the bragging about the golden age,
that we have our financial problems taken care of, that we have
nothing more to worry about. People out there are not stupid.
People out there know that is not true. Far and away the biggest
number of people out there are saying take care of that debt. In
surveys which have been done, and it does not matter whether they
are done in Quebec or Alberta or B.C., people have said that.
This government chose not to listen. I believe that as
Canadians digest what is in this budget there will be a reaction.
That reaction will not be favourable to the finance minister or
to this government.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the bill we are debating today includes some very
important elements of the Canadian opportunities strategy which
was introduced in the 1998 budget.
In particular, the bill launches the Canada millennium
scholarships foundation. With an initial endowment of $2.5
billion this foundation will provide more than 100,000 students
full time and part time at colleges, vocational and technical
institutes as well as universities with scholarships averaging
$3,000 per student.
The bill also includes some very important measures to help
manage student debt. It introduces a Canada education savings
grant to help families save for their children's education. It
gives employers an employment insurance premium holiday for
hiring additional young Canadians, reducing payroll costs for
those employers by about $100 million over two years.
These measures are only part of the strategy that we set out in
the 1998 budget, a strategy that will help Canadians by expanding
their access to the knowledge and skills they will need for
better jobs and higher standards of living in the 21st century.
I want to take a moment to outline the other elements of that
strategy. It is important to view these measures in the context
of one another since they work together to provide a
comprehensive set of tools to increase Canadians' access to
knowledge and skills.
As part of the Canadian opportunities strategy the government
proposes to introduce new Canada study grants. These grants
recognize that many student needs are not fully met by
scholarships and students loans. Beginning in 1998-99, Canada
study grants of up to $3,000 a year will go to over 25,000 needy
students who have children or other dependants. These grants
will help both full time and part time students and will provide
$100 million annually.
Assistance to students is only part of the information age
equation. We must also recognize that nothing is more critical
to Canada's economic success in the 21st century than vigorous
broad based research and development.
1710
To support graduate students and researchers as they develop the
leading edge skills needed in a knowledge based economy, the
opportunities strategy will increase funding to the three federal
granting councils, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council, the Medical Research Council and the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council.
These very important councils provide research grants,
scholarships and fellowships. Over the next three years their
combined budget of $766 million in 1997-98 will be increased by
$400 million, and by the end of the year 2000-2001 the councils'
budgets will be at the highest level in history.
As the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech, Canadians
do not need to be told that student debt is a problem. That is
why the strategy includes a range of measures to help reduce the
financial burden on students, measures included in Bill C-36.
In addition, our strategy proposes that for the first time
students will be given tax relief on interest payments on their
student loans. This will be provided through a tax credit and it
will help one million Canadians who are repaying those student
loans.
Many Canadians in the workforce want to take time away from work
to upgrade their skills through part time or especially full time
study. But they often lack the necessary resources, so the
budget also proposes several new measures to improve their access
to learning through their lives. Therefore beginning January 1,
1999 Canadians will be able to make tax free withdrawals from
their RRSPs for lifelong learning.
The need to continually upgrade knowledge and skills can be
particularly hard for the growing number of Canadians studying
part time and trying to manage the difficult balance of work,
family and study. We are proposing therefore two new measures to
help them.
Beginning in 1998 the education credit will be extended to part
time students. This measure will benefit up to 250,000 Canadians.
In addition, for the first time parents studying part time will
also be able to deduct their child care expenses within certain
limits. Currently only full time students are eligible. This new
measure will benefit some 50,000 part time students with
children.
Finally, our strategy takes action to improve Canadians' access
to the information highway. Beginning in 1998-99 we will provide
an additional $205 million over three years to expand and extend
SchoolNet and the community access programs. There will be an
additional $55 million to the Canadian network for the
advancement of research, industry and education.
The Canadian opportunities strategy provides a diverse and
comprehensive set of tools. These tools will help Canadians
acquire the knowledge and skills they will need for better jobs
and a better life in the 21st century. By expanding access to
opportunity we are building a stronger economy and a more secure
society.
[Translation]
The federal government has done its utmost to ensure that the
Canadian economy continues to be built on solid foundations.
The federal government will continue to offer programs which meet
Canadians' needs and expectations.
[English]
That is why I urge all members to support Bill C-36 in moving
us forward to implement key elements of our strategy. I know
certainly that the people of Waterloo—Wellington support this
bill and want it to proceed and I know that all Canadians indeed
want this bill to proceed as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
participate in this debate on Bill C-36, the purpose of which is
to implement certain provisions of the 1998 budget.
This bill contains a number of elements, but I shall address two
of them in particular. First, the millennium scholarships. A
foundation is being created to provide new scholarships to
Canadian students starting in the year 2000, but it is being
created immediately through this bill, taking $2.5 billion from
this budget to structure the foundation so that it will be able
to start awarding the scholarships in the year 2000.
1715
This has been a pet project of the Prime Minister for some time,
it seems. This is a project which the Minister of Human
Resources Development is trying to defend, without much
enthusiasm it seems, since it was obviously not his idea.
I have examined the various clauses in this bill, as it is the
duty of every member to do when a new bill is introduced. I
have noted a few details as I went along.
Clause 4 states:
It is, therefore, a foundation that is not a direct agent of the
government.
In principle, this would be a totally independent foundation. I
raise a question here, because it is nevertheless a foundation
created by an act. Both Canada and the provinces have
legislation providing for the creation of not-for-profit agencies
or organizations, so a special bill does not need to be
introduced.
When one is, this means there is a specific mandate, or the
government wants to retain some power. Specifically, it retains
power over the 15 foundation directors. Six, that is the
chairperson and five other members, will be appointed by
cabinet. These six will then appoint the others.
This much control right from the start means the government can
choose who will be a member. Obviously, these will be friends of
the regime, very probably people whom the Liberal government can
trust.
These people together will fill the positions on the board of
directors with other people, who will likely enjoy the same
Liberal confidence.
Some things are a bit odd. If we look, for example, at clause
13(5), we see when a member of the board ceases to be a member.
The reasons given are fairly obvious, and it is rather odd that
they take the trouble to identify them. The first point is
“when a member dies”. This is rather self-evident. Some things
in this bill are unnecessary.
But that is not the problem, as we know. The problem is that the
foundation directly interferes in a provincial jurisdiction. The
government is trying to say that the foundation interferes only
indirectly. However, since it controls the members of the board
of directors and appoints the first six, it is the federal
government that will be distributing the scholarships to
students. Why in the year 2000? Because it will look good and
the government will have a high profile as it distributes cheques
with maple leaves on them to thousands of students. It is after
visibility.
On the subject, I would point out that this fits in well with the
Liberal government's strategy of increasing its visibility
through various means. There is of course the flag flap and the
more than $23 million in the program the Minister of Canadian
Heritage set up after the 1995 referendum.
There was also the promotion of Canadian unity in the primary
schools. This program cost $60 million including the flags.
Then there is the Canada Post Corporation, which changed its
name. It cost $8 million to put “Canada Post” on the trucks.
I am the Bloc Quebecois critic on regional development. On March
4, the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec
announced that the Federal Office of Regional Development—Quebec
was changing its name. To what? To the Canada Economic
Development for Quebec Regions Agency.
1720
This is all a visibility operation. The federal government is
targeting Quebec in particular, because of the dreaded third
referendum of course. It is seeking visibility any way it can,
even if it means sending cheques directly to students.
I mentioned regional development, and since we are talking about
the budget, I would like to draw attention to figures quoted in
recent budgets, which seem rather odd to me. The budget allocated
to the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec
for administration increased by 16.9%, or $33 million. This is
for the federal office for regional development in Quebec, which
employs more than 260 people and which now has a new name.
The federal government plans to spend $380 million in Quebec
without taking into account the strategy adopted by the Quebec
government, which is to rely on decentralized organizations such
as the RDCs, Quebec's regional development councils, and more
locally, the local development councils, a new type of
organization whose purpose is to ensure development at the local
level within each RCM.
So, the budget was increased but, oddly enough, there is also a
whole series of cuts. For example, there is $3,448,322 less for
Quebec under the agreement on municipal infrastructures,
$1,478,300 less for contributions for programs to improve
manufacturing productivity, $1,256,943 less for the business
development program, $959,890 less for the subsidiary agreement
on tourism, $633,254 less for the innovations program, $845,362
less for the salmon economic development program, and $910,690
less for assistance programs in depressed areas.
I will skip the small figures. There is also $2,640,045 less for
Montreal's industrial recovery, $4,462,000 less for Montreal's
development fund, $635,000 less for industrial recovery in
Southwest Montreal, and $40,000 less—a small cut, but still—for
organizations promoting regional development.
So, the government came up with new names and approaches to
increase its visibility, The federal office of regional
development also has a new name, but again this is to increase
visibility.
Finally, some cuts affect very specific programs. The overall
increase is explained by the simple fact that Quebec had to deal
with an ice storm. The amounts transferred by the President of
the Treasury Board to the Federal Office of Regional Development
have the effect of temporarily increasing the envelope for
regional development, but if we look at each program
individually, we realize that major cuts are being made.
All this leads me to say that the millennium scholarship fund,
regional development and other issues which will be raised later
on by some fellow Bloc members, are a smoke screen to hide the
ever increasing interference by the federal government in areas
of provincial jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, two years ago British Columbia introduced a scheme
whereby welfare recipients were required to have lived in the
province for at least three months before they were entitled to
benefits. This was directly aimed at the poorest sector of the
economy, the people who were most in need.
I find it incredible that an NDP government should do something
like that, something that would be more typical, shall we say, of
California or the western United States.
1725
Nevertheless it was done and it led to quite a confrontation
among the NDP government in British Columbia, various poverty
organizations and the federal government.
As a result of the NDP action the federal government cut $47
million in transfer payments to B.C. on the grounds that the
Canada health and social transfer going to B.C. was aimed at all
Canadians, not Canadians based on residency. Indeed this
principle is enshrined in the charter of rights, in the Canada
Health Act and certainly in the Canada health and social transfer
program.
There were some angry words on both sides, but in the end an
arrangement was made whereby the British Columbia government
backed down and permitted anyone to collect welfare in British
Columbia regardless of their province of origin.
Where this has relevance to the debate today is that we have a
situation now in Quebec where the Quebec government receives
money under the Canada health and social transfer, uses it to
provide operating costs and tuition support for students in
Quebec and, as of a year and a bit ago, the Quebec government
introduced a differential tuition requirement for students out of
province.
In Quebec today a student from elsewhere in Canada pays 41% more
in tuition to go to a university in Quebec than a Quebec student.
Tuition for Quebec universities is quite a bit lower than the
rest of the country and this does reflect, indeed, some very wise
spending decisions on the part of the Quebec government.
However, just like all other forms of cash transfers from the
federal government for social assistance, the very essential
principle is that it should go to all Canadians regardless of
where they are from.
Section 6 of the charter of rights specifies that anything that
is accorded Canadian citizens should not be accorded to them or
withheld from them based on their province of origin.
We have a Quebec government that is today discriminating against
students from outside the province. It keeps young people in
Quebec who were born and raised there based on territory
and makes attending university in Quebec very difficult for
students outside Quebec.
It makes a lot of difference to students. There are 20,000 of
them in Quebec who have to pay the extra tuition because they
want to go to a Quebec university. It is a difference of $1,200.
That is a very high and tough price for a student coming out of
province, who may be a francophone, to pay to go to university in
Quebec.
What do we do about it? We have several choices. One thing we
could do is create a national university in Quebec where it is
fully funded by the federal government and where everyone has
equal opportunity to go to that university. That is one
possibility.
Another thing we could do is what was done in British Columbia
and threaten to withhold the transfers that are due Quebec until
it allows all students equal opportunity, including those from
out of province.
Finally, we can make sure the money in the millennium fund is
managed by an independent body outside Quebec and distributed
equally to young people who want an education inside Quebec or
outside Quebec. In other words, a student going from Ontario to
Quebec who is a francophone should be given money from the fund
equivalent to what a Quebec student saves. Any student in Quebec
should have equal opportunity to travel anywhere in Canada to get
an education. That way we get away from the fortress mentality
of Quebec separatism and we build a better Canada for tomorrow.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[Translation]
EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE
The House resumed from February 2, 1998, consideration of the
motion and of the amendment.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to Motion M-123, moved by our colleague, the hon. member
for Burnaby—Douglas, whom I congratulate, by the way, on his
courage.
The motion reads as follows:
That a special committee be appointed, pursuant to Standing Order
68(4)(b), to review the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing
with euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and that the
Committee be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in
accordance with Standing Order 68(5).
Beyond the differences of opinion that are normal and even
desirable in a democracy such as ours, we have all, you, I and
all members of the House, one thing in common: we were elected
by our constituents to study, debate and make laws on all sorts
of issues. We are lawmakers, and our actions therefore have a
direct impact on the lives of all our fellow citizens.
But rarely, almost never, are we called upon to deal with issues
as important and sensitive as the one now before us.
Motion M-123 is not about amending marketing standards, about
increasing or reducing the budget, or about implementing
international accords, although all these issues have their
importance. This motion touches on the very essence of who we
are and what we believe, on the very essence of life and, since
life would not be life without it, death.
Whatever the angle from which we approach the issue, we must keep
in mind that our actions must be carefully weighed and
considered, because there are some issues where a bad decision
is not an option. The only other possibility excluded from the
outset is indifference, or acting as though the problem did not
exist.
But despite the apparent scope of this debate, we can take
comfort in knowing that we are not starting from zero. Many
discussions have taken place, many rulings have been handed
down, and recommendations made at various levels, here in
particular.
After spending several months hearing witnesses and gathering
briefs from everywhere in Canada, a special Senate committee on
euthanasia and assisted suicide tabled a full report on this
issue in June of 1995. Even though the committee did not reach a
consensus on what ought to be done or not done, which was not
part of its mandate, the outcome of its study will be very useful
to us, as elected parliamentarians, during the forthcoming
debates and discussions.
These last few years, besides this Senate committee, several
cases were given wide coverage by the media. The most famous one
is probably the story of Sue Rodriguez, a woman with amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis who, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, challenged the ban on assisted suicide in the Criminal
Code.
In December 1992, the Supreme Court of British-Columbia turned
down her request, stating that section 241 of the Criminal Code
did not go against the charter.
On March 8, 1993, the Court of Appeal of the same province
rejected the appeal by Ms. Rodriguez. Lastly, on September 30,
1993, the Supreme Court of Canada put an end to her crusade, with
a close five to four decision that did not quash the debate, far
from it.
On this issue, the comments made by dissenting justice Peter
Cory reflect the state of mind of several of his colleagues. He
stated and I quote “The life of an individual must include dying.
Dying is the final act in the drama of life. The right to die
with dignity should be as well protected as is any other aspect
of the right to life. State prohibitions that would force a
dreadful, painful death on a rational but incapacitated
terminally ill patient are an affront to human dignity”.
1735
Despite some dissension within the Supreme Court, there was
unanimity on one issue, namely that the decision belongs to us,
as elected representatives. Whether it be the British Columbia
Supreme Court, the British Columbia Court of Appeal or even the
Senate committee, all those who studied this issue have said that
it is our responsibility.
On February 12, 1994, Sue Rodriguez, assisted by a physician,
took her own life. I will let my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas
speak of this case in further detail if he wishes to do so.
In Quebec, in 1992, the case of Nancy B. gave a lot of people
food for thought. The 25-year-old woman was suffering from an
incurable disease called Guillain-Barré syndrome.
At a certain stage of the disease, she had to be hooked to a
respirator. She asked for the right to stop supportive treatment.
The Quebec Superior Court recognized that right, and Nancy B.
left this world courageously, in silence, in sickness, but at the
time of her choosing.
Two other cases are worth mentioning here. First, there is the
case of Austin Bastable, a 52-year-old Ontarian suffering from
chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. During the 35th
Parliament, he wrote several times to members to ask, just as Sue
Rodriguez had asked the courts, for the right to die at the time
of his choosing, with the assistance of a physician.
Like Sue Rodriguez, he realized that it is not easy to get an
answer from a government that may be ill prepared to deal with
such a request.
Austin Bastable had to go to the United States, away from his
family and friends, to die assisted by a physician whom he had
probably never seen before. That is not dying with dignity.
Finally, the case of Robert Latimer raises other questions. In
this case, he was not the one who was sick. He and his wife
decided to take the life of their daughter Tracy, who was
suffering from cerebral palsy and from serious physical
malformations causing incredible pain. She had no hope of getting
any better.
Although we will have to deal with this issue, Mr. Latimer's
case is outside the scope of this debate since it is murder for
compassionate reasons, which means that someone decided to take
someone else's life.
It must be understood that we are talking here about the right
of a competent adult who is terminally ill or who is suffering
from an incurable disease to make that decision for himself or
herself.
The decision is not meant to be made for that adult by another
person, a doctor, a relative or a parent.
To conclude, these four examples of individuals who have fought
to further the debate each in their own way clearly show how
important it is that the matter be clarified once and for all.
So far, the courts have had to decide the many difficult issues
brought before them. Without minimizing the importance of their
work, it seems clear to me that we will not always be able to
leave this in their hands. Sooner or later Parliament will have
to make a decision.
Both the current Minister of Health—and former justice minister—
and the Prime Minister promised a free vote in the House on this
issue. Federal Liberal Party members have already passed a
resolution along those lines at one of their conventions.
The Bloc Quebecois too repeatedly asked that the House address
this issue. More than ever, it is important that this serious and
current issue be debated and debated now.
Motion M-123 is a perfect opportunity to do just that, and I hope
it will be supported by a majority of parliamentarians. Because
there is no life without death, because death is part of life, as
its hidden face, we have a duty to develop frameworks which are
fair and which respect human dignity.
Could we really imagine choosing for ourselves and all our loved
ones anything but a gentle and humane death with dignity?
Anything but the freedom of choice?
1740
[English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to oppose the motion proposed by my colleague the member of
Parliament for Burnaby—Douglas.
If adopted by this House, the motion before us would put into
place a process that would see the development of a special
committee designed to review certain provisions of the Criminal
Code of Canada. The provisions of which I speak are those
governing or outlawing the practice of euthanasia and physician
assisted suicide. In addition to that, the special committee
would also be required pursuant to Standing Order 68(5) to report
its findings back to this House in the form of a bill.
In short, this motion is calling upon the Parliament of Canada
to devise a mechanism of study with the budget, mandate and
capacity to further explore this highly emotional and deeply
personal issue. I would respectfully submit to all members of
this House that we have concluded this debate. As such we should
put it behind us once and for all.
This issue is not a new concept. The practice of euthanasia has
been around for as long as mankind has experienced disease. It
is however only in the last two centuries that this matter has
entered the political arena.
The issue of euthanasia, better known to many of us as mercy
killing, is one of the most highly contentious matters ever
examined by modern politicians. It has commanded the political
spotlight for years. However, despite the prominence of this
divisive and emotional topic and regardless of the constant
attention it has received, euthanasia defenders seem reluctant to
allow the issue to fade.
The subject itself is one that predates most other topics
brought before this House of Commons. The term euthanasia is in
fact an ancient Greek word meaning good or easy death. This was
the original meaning. However, today the Campaign Life Coalition
defines euthanasia as a practice of acting or failing to act so
as to cause the death of a human being for the purpose of
relieving suffering.
As well as understanding the exact definition of the term, it is
also important that for the purpose of debate we clearly
differentiate between a sound medically based decision to end a
life and the practice of euthanasia.
Permitting an individual with a terminal illness to conclude
their life in a natural fashion is simply not euthanasia. Where
the situation is medically hopeless, a decision not to provide or
to halt the continuation of artificial or extraordinary measures
is in my opinion ethical, legal and consistent with standard
medical practice. This would also be consistent with thousands of
years of established religious philosophy.
In essence the textbook definition of euthanasia is the
deliberate act of one human being designed to promote the death
of another human being. This could be accomplished through the
use of several methods such as a lethal injection or the
intentional and deliberate failure to provide the essentials of
life to another.
The practice of euthanasia can be further subdivided into two
groupings, passive and active. I believe however that the terms
passive and active euthanasia are simply that, terms. In all
cases of this nature the intent is to kill; the method is simply
a question of strategy.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the matter of assisted
suicide. Few would argue that assisted suicide has attracted the
lion's share of public attention over the past several years. The
argument of quality of life versus quantity of life is most
commonly used which, if allowed to go unchallenged, could lead to
countless abuses of basic human rights.
In instances involving assisted suicide, the mind is willing to
commit the fatal act but the body due to the individual's
physical impairment is not able to perform the required action.
As such the individual is forced to seek the assistance of
another to perpetrate the fatal act.
Although assistance of this type is usually provided reluctantly
for compassionate reasons, this is not always the case. It
should be noted that regardless of the method, classification or
motive, Canadian law currently does not recognize compassion as
an acceptable justification for killing another individual.
In fact the Canadian Medical Association has democratically
determined that it is in the business of promoting health and
recovery. It does not want its members to engage in the practice
of assisted suicide. The British Medical Association also took
this stance as it believes that to permit doctors to kill or to
assist in killing would seriously jeopardize the continuation of
their traditional role as healers.
I feel Dr. Christoph Hufeland summarized it best over 200 years
ago when he stated “If a physician presumes to take into
consideration in his work whether a life has value or not, the
consequences are boundless and the physician becomes the most
dangerous man in the state”.
I have been a member of this House for only a few short years.
However, I have been an avid participant in the political process
for much longer than I would care to recall. I can remember
several instances in the very recent past when this matter
sparked heated debate in this place.
1745
In 1991 there was Bill C-203 and Bill C-261, both introduced
with the intention of dealing with the mercy killing issue. In
1993, Motion No. 397 made its way to the floor, followed in 1994
by Bill C-215 and Motions Nos. 218 and 277.
Despite constant attention the issue continues to be on our
agenda. I believe that we should get on with the business of
running the country and should stop dwelling on the resolved
issues of the passed.
The national news headlines often glisten with names such as
Jack Kevorkian, Sue Rodriguez, Nancy B and Robert Latimer. While
these individual cases can serve as tangible reference points,
they also can distract from and act as a compelling hindrance to
our grasping of the deeper moral and spiritual argument
surrounding this matter.
Due to the contentious nature of this issue, the public, the
courts and many of our nation's legislators find themselves
struggling with their own personal value system.
As representatives of the people we must also consider the
thoughts and opinions of our constituents. In addition, we must
be ever vigilant of the media and various special interest groups
seeking to influence the outcome of this debate.
In short, it is our duty to examine this issue based upon the
facts, examples and testimonials at hand. We must make our final
decision with an unbiased frame of mind and not because of any
political agenda or due to media based sensationalized
propaganda. We have already done that.
My personal views with respect to euthanasia are quite simple.
It would seem that we have now somehow confused the right to die
with the subject of euthanasia, or the deliberate killing of
those who are suffering. They are not the same.
The right to die is defined as an individual's right to
determine whether unusual or heroic measures should be taken.
These measures would typically involve expensive, artificial
and/or mechanical means of life support intended to prolong life
in cases where death is almost certainly inevitable.
Supporters of euthanasia would claim that it is an exercise of a
fundamental human freedom. I would strongly disagree. Euthanasia
is not an exercise of a basic human freedom but rather an
abandonment of that freedom.
In the February 17, 1993 edition of Hansard, the member
for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell summed up this entire debate
when he said “what we are debating is whether we will give the
right to any human being to kill another human being”. I
personally fear that society would devise an infinite number of
uses for death once it has become a legal means for solving human
problems.
During one of the world's darkest time periods, the Nazi party
developed and promoted a set of proposals designed to weed out
certain people who were considered to have no value to society.
The idea was adopted by the general public and the medical
community of the day. As a result, the war machine euthanized
more than 300,000 mentally handicapped children and adults in
addition to the thousands of elderly people who were deemed to be
useless by the Third Reich.
I understand that this is an extreme example. However, if
members would like a more recent testimonial, they need look no
further than the 1991 article written by Jack Kevorkian which
suggested that the concept of a planned ending of a human life by
the direct action of another human is only the tip of the
iceberg. In that same article he suggested that the moral
reasoning could be extended to capital punishment, both voluntary
and involuntary; obligatory suicide; or quasi-optional suicide
for relief from illness, disability and old age. This is
absolutely unacceptable.
In my maiden speech in this place, I stated that it is by
personal belief that life is a sacred gift from the moment of
conception to the moment of natural death. For that reason I
believe that as legislators we must never condone or legalize the
deliberate unnatural taking of life.
At the same time, when life can be only sustained through the
use of extreme medical measures, allowing the natural and
inevitable process of death to run its course is not necessarily
wrong.
Once again I reiterate my opposition to the motion before us.
The Criminal Code of Canada currently regards euthanasia or mercy
killing as culpable homicide or murder. In fact, section 229
provides for a 14 year jail term or penalty for assisting in the
planned death of another person.
I have been and continue to support the law as it stands. I
feel that striking another special committee represents an
unnecessary revival of an already concluded matter. The 1997
year end edition of Maclean's magazine labelled Canada and
Canadians as confident, united by bedrock values in a wide
variety of ideas including spiritualism.
Canadians are calling for their government to provide direction
and guidance with respect to this bedrock value. A special
committee would be unnecessary, wasteful and counterproductive.
The wishes of the majority of Canadians are already recognized
and supported by the current law.
It is for these reasons that I will not be supporting Motion No.
123 this evening.
1750
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to split my time with the member for Calgary Southeast
and would like unanimous consent of the House to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
hon. member split the 10 minutes allotted to him with the hon.
member for Calgary Southeast?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, in a 1997 poll of
British Columbians 54% said they supported euthanasia. I would
like to probe that poll a bit more deeply to demonstrate that the
slim majority would collapse if three simple steps were taken.
That slim majority would collapse if the public were better
informed about what euthanasia is and is not and what the
criminal code does and does not say about end of life issues.
In Canada it is perfectly legal to refuse life sustaining
treatment and allow oneself to die. Such refusal is not
considered euthanasia. The poll in B.C. revealed that over
two-thirds of supposed euthanasia supporters mistakenly believe
that euthanasia includes refusing treatment. Apparently a
considerable number of people who appear to support euthanasia do
not realize that what they would like to see legalized is already
legal in Canada.
Pollsters and their respondents have not been speaking the same
language, which undermines the reliability of such polling
results. That slim majority support for euthanasia would
collapse if steps were taken to better inform the public about
palliative care. I believe that would be the second reason that
slim majority would collapse.
The B.C. poll revealed that most supposed supporters of
euthanasia have formed their opinion based on a concern about
pain and suffering. Only a minority, only 23% of all who were
surveyed based their opinion on the belief that assisted suicide
is a basic human right. That means that most supposed euthanasia
supporters see changing the criminal code as a means to alleviate
suffering. They incorrectly suppose that euthanasia is the only
logical solution to pain, a false assumption which proponents of
euthanasia work very hard to perpetuate.
The truth of the matter is palliative care is a third option and
a much better one. It is a specialized field that has made great
advances over the last several decades. It has now made it
possible to die without unbearable suffering. Even in rare cases
of extreme pain, controlled sedation can bring relief for those
who request it and sedation is often required for only temporary
periods completely in accordance with the patients' wishes.
The public needs to know that. Only when people are aware of
the effectiveness of palliative care will there be any validity
to polling. That slim majority support for euthanasia would
collapse if governments were to step up their efforts to make
palliative care widely available.
In 1995 a special Senate committee on euthanasia recommended
that palliative care become a top priority in the restructuring
of the health care system. Unfortunately palliative care
services have not been promoted as vigorously as that special
committee recommended. The availability of these services varies
from region to region. It also varies depending on a patient's
disease, with cancer patients usually having the best access.
Then there is the problem of inadequate funding for research and
implementation. In addition there is limited training in
palliative care in medical schools. These shortcomings are not
something to be proud of, but they do suggest that a tremendous
opportunity to meet the needs of Canadians lies before us.
At a time when Canadians are expressing their sincere concern
about pain at the end of life, it is exciting to think that
palliative care has advanced enough that it can genuinely address
those concerns. All that remains to be done is to implement
programs that will ensure the universal availability of
palliative care services. It is entirely within our grasp, which
is one of a number of reasons euthanasia is such an unattractive
solution to the problem of pain.
If Canadians were to see governments moving strongly to fund and
promote palliative care, we would see the supposed public support
of euthanasia decline significantly.
If these three steps were taken the only true supporters of
euthanasia who would be left would be those who argue that
euthanasia is a basic human right, an argument that was rejected
by the supreme court. It is crucial to realize that such people
are in a decided minority and only 23% of those polled supported
euthanasia on such a basis.
As I pointed out, a good number of them did not really understand
what euthanasia was. That is hardly representative of the
democratic will.
1755
This is only one of several reasons I am opposed to the
legislation on euthanasia and will be voting against the motion
this evening.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
some of the pertinent and important technical aspects of the
debate that have been addressed by some of my hon. colleagues,
questions such as the Senate committee hearings on these matters
and the availability of palliative care, are all important issues
and ought to have a bearing on the judgment we make here today.
However, ultimately what is before us today is a question
fundamental to the nature of liberal democracy, a question that
drives to the heart of what it is to be a citizen, a question of
how we exercise personal liberty, and a question of the
fundamental rights vested in parliament to protect on behalf of
its citizens.
The preamble to the Constitution of Canada states that “whereas
Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of
God and the rule of law”. This was no accident. Its placement
in the charter reflects a long and central tradition in the
theory of liberal democracy, the notion that we do not grant
rights unto ourselves. We do not create ourselves and we
therefore do not create our own rights, but we are created and
rights are bestowed upon us. Fundamental human rights such as
the right to life are inalienable. Even individuals cannot
through the exercise of some radical personal autonomy alienate
rights which cleave to the human nature of individuals because
they were granted to us by our Creator.
This is what the preamble of our constitution suggests. This is
what the first section of our constitution suggests where it
enumerates fundamental rights, the very first of which is the
right to life.
This is an echo of the foundational document of liberal
democracy, the American Declaration of Independence which states
that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, and that among these is the right to life.
Certain inalienable rights are rights that cannot be alienated
by a legislature, rights that cannot be alienated by a doctor
whose business is killing and rights that cannot be alienated
even by ourselves.
In this motion we are ultimately discussing whether or not
parliament will grant to people the right to destroy themselves
and the right to destroy the inviolable dignity stamped on them
by the Creator of which our constitution speaks.
I say that we must never, in this society animated by a profound
understanding of the inviolable dignity of the human person,
allow a radical notion of personal autonomy or a disordered
understanding of human liberty to overcome our most profound
obligation as people, as creatures and as legislators to protect
human life.
If parliament were to consider the motion and were consequently
to pass legislation legalizing euthanasia and what is
euphemistically referred to as physician assisted suicide,
parliament would be entering the final taboo which would permit
the wilful killing of the human person.
This century, the 20th century, what Pope John Paul II referred
to as the century of tears, is tragically filled with a history
of political movements based on the disordered notion of the
authority of the state or of the authority of the individual
which has resulted in the deaths of thousands and millions of
human persons and sometimes the death of those persons based on
physician assisted suicide and on euthanasia.
1800
We must as legislators look seriously at the history of this
century and understand that when the inviolable value of human
life becomes compromised we all stand at risk.
I call on my hon. colleagues this evening to vote against what I
think is a very dangerous motion.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House to
support the motion of my colleague, the member for
Burnaby—Douglas, that a special committee be appointed pursuant
to Standing Order 68(4)(b) to review the provisions of the
Criminal Code dealing with euthanasia and physician assisted
suicide and that the committee be instructed to prepare and bring
in a bill in accordance with Standing Order 68(5).
As a new member of this House I have come to learn that the
House of Commons deals with many important issues, but rarely do
we get an opportunity to discuss with reason and clarity the
issue that is before us today.
First, I would like to thank my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas
for bringing this motion forward again. He has done it with
courage. He has raised this issue in the House before. He has
been an advocate for the dying with dignity movement and has
become personally involved with this issue in a number of cases.
It is not an easy matter to deal with. The fact that he has
brought this forward and called on the House to enter into an
intelligent discussion is something that shows courage and
strength which all members of this House should support.
I would like to deal with several points. The first point I
would like to make is that the status quo as it exists today is
simply impossible and increasingly untenable. That is why this
issue will not go away. It is increasingly untenable not just
for Canadians as individuals in our society, but also for us as
parliamentarians and under the law.
We only have to look at the tragedy of what happened to Sue
Rodriguez. We only have to look at what has happened to
Canadians who have been forced to leave Canada in order to
exercise personal choice about their health and circumstances in
their lives. We only have to look at the cases that have been
spoken about in this House of people who are in desperate
situations having to take desperate action because the law has
been inadequate, the law has been archaic, the law has not been
able to deal with the needs of people today.
The impossibility of the status quo exists in part because of
our inaction. I will be the first one to rise and
acknowledge—and this is the first time I have debated this
issue, but I have heard it debated by other members—that this is
a complex and difficult issue to take on.
I do believe that Canadians expect and want to see debate and
guidance from Parliament, from their member of Parliament and
from the House as a whole, on this issue. The reason I say that
is that all of us know that Canadians today take more and more
responsibility for the choices they make about their lives and
particularly about their health care.
We only have to look at the debate that is going on in the
standing committee on health around herbal remedies to know what
an incredible industry has developed around alternative
medicines. More and more people are choosing to become educated
and informed about their health. In that context there has been
a public debate.
There are polls which indicate that Canadians want the issue of
physician assisted suicide to be clarified and to be resolved,
not just to be debated, but for the status quo to be examined.
I was interested to see a poll that was done in December 1997 by
Pollara. Astonishingly maybe to some members of this House, it
found that 70% of Canadians would find it acceptable in some
circumstances for a doctor to help a patient die.
The history of this issue in the House and in our local
communities makes it very clear that Canadians believe the status
quo is unacceptable.
The second point I would like to make is that the right to die
with dignity is a most personal issue. It has been very
interesting to hear the debate of some Reform members and
government members in this third hour who have talked about the
intervention of the state. I have heard Reform members on other
issues talk about how the state should stay out of the lives of
Canadians.
1805
Here we have a most fundamental issue, and a personal issue,
which is someone's right to die with dignity. I believe very
strongly that the purpose of the law should be to facilitate
individual choice, not to facilitate the denial of choices. But
unfortunately today's status quo situation leaves individuals
suffering a terminal illness or an incurable disease without
legal choices.
We are debating in the House the basic right of a competent
adult to make a decision about their own life when they are in
circumstances of a terminal illness or an incurable disease. I
think it is fundamental in this motion, and in all the debate
that has taken place, that what is key is that the decision can
only come from the person involved, not from anyone else. It
cannot come from a doctor, not from a family member, a stranger
or a health care provider. The decision about what we do with
our life is our decision alone.
I have some personal appreciation of how difficult and how
intensely personal these matters can be. I do know what it means
to be with someone you love who is dying. I do know what it
means to care for someone in that situation. What I have learned
is that the needs and wishes of that person are the most
important things on the mind of a care provider. Nothing else
matters.
In those circumstances I believe that for family members
involved and for the person facing these kinds of choices there
is actually a heightened sense of clarity about what choices
there are and what it is that is personally ethical.
There is no question there are difficult decisions, even around
issues of palliative care. A number of members have spoken about
palliative care and have suggested that it somehow is the answer
to this issue, that if we could somehow make that work better we
would not be dealing with physician assisted suicide.
I am a very strong supporter of palliative care. From personal
experience I know what is involved and what it means. Even in
that situation there are very difficult decisions to be made by a
patient or by family members. But at least in that situation we
do have a health care system that provides some support and
guidance.
But when it comes to other circumstances, when a person has made
a fundamental decision that the time has come, that they need to
have assistance to end their life because of their circumstances
and what they are facing, then there is no question that families
are often left alone with no help, no support to make those very
painful decisions that they know to be right. That is something
we cannot take away from people.
I believe we have an obligation to resolve this issue. We have
an obligation to review the law. We have an obligation to guide
the law and we have an obligation to make the law fit our society
today and the right to die with dignity.
The motion before us, which we will vote on today, simply asks
that a special committee be appointed to review the provisions of
the Criminal Code. That is something that should be supported by
all members of this House in the acknowledgement and
understanding that if we do not do this today we will likely be
debating this matter in another few months or in another year
because the issue will still be here.
Surely it is the proper course of action that we pass this
motion. This is what we are here to do. We are here to debate,
to review and to decide on issues that affect our lives, the
lives of Canadians, not just in terms of budgets and resources,
but in terms of the quality of life itself and the right of a
competent adult to make her or his own decision concerning their
life.
I urge all members of the House to support this motion.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the matter of euthanasia and assisted suicide has
enormous ethical and legal ramifications.
At the outset it is critical to note that the non-initiation and
cessation of medical treatment is distinctly different from a
deliberate action taken to bring about the death of a patient. A
huge difference exists between allowing to die and killing.
1810
We are engaged in a discussion on whether we as legislators
should change the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the killing
of persons with permanent or terminal illness. Let us be clear
about that.
The right of a competent individual to refuse or cease medical
treatment has long been accepted in law and in care giving, but
for this country to permit euthanasia and assisted suicide,
removing the penalties of criminal law, as has been done in
Holland, will in effect redefine the values of the state.
Further, it will gravely impinge on the traditional relationship
between the patient and the physician and the role of palliative
care within our health system.
Let us consider the doctor-patient relationship. The trust
inherent here must be preserved. The belief that the patient's
self-interest is always the physician's priority is the most
vital component of that relationship. By creating a society in
which the physician may participate in the active taking of life
we cross a threshold and threaten the trust of beneficence that
is the root of the physician-patient relationship. Where there
is already vulnerability we risk the creation of fear and
mistrust.
It is imperative to consider what motives might be behind a
person's request for euthanasia or assisted suicide. Frequently
the patient has begun to see himself as a burden on loved ones
and feels obligated to cease being so. Sometimes the seriously
ill patient is fearful of unrelieved pain that might not be
managed and looks to assisted suicide as a way out.
While it is diminished, our health care system is capable of
correction and of providing the resources and priorities
necessary to address these fears. With appropriate support from
hospitals, hospice and community care the concerns of the patient
can be remedied. When the efforts of the care givers shift from
curative to creating a comfortable environment wherein the person
receives pain control, psychological and spiritual support, the
opportunity exists for great integrity in the final weeks or
months of the ill person's life.
As a former hospice worker I have witnessed great intimacy and
honesty between the terminally ill person and his or her family
that would never have occurred should the road chosen have been
euthanasia instead of palliative care. Not only does resorting
to euthanasia risk hijacking palliative care in this country and
endangering the patient-physician relationship, it also leads our
society on a trajectory we do not want.
The example of Holland, the only western country to officially
sanction euthanasia and assisted suicide, cannot be omitted from
any debate. Although the Dutch guidelines require that the
patient be experiencing unbearable pain, that requirement is now
read to include psychic suffering or the potential disfigurement
of personality. I ask my colleagues how far down the slippery
slope this shows the Dutch have gone. A further example is the
landmark decision of 1993 in which a Dutch psychiatrist was ruled
to be justified in helping his depressed but physically healthy
patient to commit suicide.
The trajectory becomes a downward spiral, one on which this
country must not embark.
In 1982 the Law Reform Commission of Canada raised the concern
that there is a real danger that the procedure developed to allow
the death of those who are a burden to themselves may be
gradually diverted from its original purpose and eventually used
to eliminate those who are a burden to others or to society.
In a world that does not try to give positive meaning to old age
and suffering, it could become normal to ask to put an end to
life and abnormal to want to live despite subtle pressures from
all sides. We will have to justify our own survival.
The day that an individual must justify his or her own survival
must never be allowed to dawn in this country.
1815
The legal framework must enhance the common good. Removing the
Criminal Code restrictions against euthanasia and assisted
suicide will in the long run deny that common good and the
principles that have so enriched this country's jurisprudence. As
legislators it is our obligation to reaffirm, not deny, the
common good we have been elected to safeguard.
Our denial of euthanasia and assisted suicide must be
accompanied by a greater commitment to far greater resources
being assigned to palliative care in this country. Death and
dying receive the least amount of support from medical research
funding agencies. Palliative care is not fairly accessed nor in
sufficient quality for all Canadians in all provinces and
territories. Likewise greater priorities and resources must be
assigned to palliative care in our medical schools than is
currently provided.
The distinction drawn in the United States Supreme Court
decision in Quill must be seen as critical: When a patient
refuses life-sustaining medical treatment, he dies from the
underlying fatal disease or pathology; but if a patient ingests
lethal medication prescribed by a physician, he is killed by that
medication.
In the first instance, the patient is allowed to die. In the
second instance, the patient is killed. The distinction is
integral. We would be debating the latter, the killing of
patients by deliberate action taken to bring about their death.
We have rightly accepted the concept of allowing to die. We must
not accept the concept of killing.
This House will decide the timing of such a debate. The essence
of that debate is as I have described. We must look to all the
issues that are before us. We do not have the option to engage
in emotionalism.
For us as legislators, there is a great onus to dissect and care
for all the ingredients before us before we change a law like
this that will have such enormous implications and ramifications
for our society, for the continual downward spiral I have been
describing.
We are not able to take an easy course. We are not able to
participate further in a society that would allow for instant
gratification on so many other fronts to be brought to bear on
any issue as critical as this.
There must be no fear among people entering hospitals in this
country. There must be no concern among seniors who already in
many cases are coping as they are with other issues that do not
remedy the worst things that come to them. They must feel that
their care and their health is their physician's first concern.
It is their legislator's first concern.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member
but the time for the consideration of the amendment has now
expired.
[Translation]
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1840
[English]
Before the taking of the vote:
The Speaker: Colleagues, as it is the practice, the
division will be taken row by row starting with the mover and
then proceeding with those in favour of the amendment sitting on
the same side of the House as the mover, and then those in favour
of the amendment sitting on the other side of the House will be
called.
Those opposed to the amendment will be called in the same order.
1850
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Blaikie
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Brison
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Desrochers
| Dromisky
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Ianno
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
Meredith
| Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Telegdi
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver) – 71
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cummins
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Massé
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nunziata
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert – 160
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cauchon
| Collenette
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Dhaliwal
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Lefebvre
| Marleau
|
McCormick
| Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1900
And the Clerk having announced the result of the vote:
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
inadvertently voted for the motion and I have also voted against
it. I want to clarify my position. I am profoundly opposed to
this motion.
The Speaker: So noted.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Blaikie
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Brison
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desrochers
|
Dromisky
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grose
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McDonough
| Meredith
| Nystrom
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Telegdi
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 65
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chatters
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Massé
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nunziata
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 169
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cauchon
| Collenette
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Dhaliwal
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Lefebvre
| Marleau
|
McCormick
| Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
The House resumed from March 23, 1998 consideration of Bill
C-28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax
Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada
Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property
Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the
Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax
Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Tax
Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the
Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain Transition Payments
Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Monday, March 23,
1998 the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions at the report stage of Bill C-28.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
1910
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Marchand
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nunziata
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Ramsay
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 74
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood
– 162
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cauchon
| Collenette
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Dhaliwal
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Lefebvre
| Marleau
|
McCormick
| Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 2.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that the members who are recorded as having voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting nay on this motion.
1915
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes to this motion. I would like to add the
member for North Vancouver as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc members are in favour
of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present in the
House tonight vote yes.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote
yes.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes to
this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marchand
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Ramsay
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 104
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Massé
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 132
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cauchon
| Collenette
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Dhaliwal
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Lefebvre
| Marleau
|
McCormick
| Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 3.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree I would propose you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting nay, except for the member for Labrador who had to
leave.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc members are against
this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote
yes.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
wonderful people of York South—Weston, I vote in favour of this
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Brison
| Casey
| Davies
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Price
| Robinson
|
Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 31
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Massé
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 205
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cauchon
| Collenette
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Dhaliwal
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Lefebvre
| Marleau
|
McCormick
| Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 lost.
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this concurrence motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc members vote
against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP in the
House tonight vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote
against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will vote with the
Conservatives on this matter as a tribute to their leader.
1920
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Massé
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nunziata
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 132
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marchand
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 104
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Brien
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Cauchon
| Collenette
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Dhaliwal
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Lefebvre
| Marleau
|
McCormick
| Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
last week I had an opportunity to ask a question of the Secretary
of State for Children and Youth about the issue of fetal alcohol
syndrome.
Fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects are permanent
mental and physical damage done to the fetus caused by alcohol
consumption during pregnancy. This tragedy is 100% preventable
and studies have concluded that most Canadians are not
sufficiently informed of the risk of even modest consumption of
alcohol.
In 1992 the Standing Committee on Health produced a report
entitled “Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: A Preventable Tragedy”. In
the report it was found that there was no question maternal
alcohol consumption could have devastating impacts on the fetus.
The basic fact is that when a pregnant woman drinks her unborn
child also drinks, that is the alcohol in the mother's blood
stream circulates through the placenta into the blood stream of
the fetus. It is possible that the blood alcohol level of the
fetus will remain at elevated levels for a longer period than
that of the mother because the immature fetal liver metabolizes
the alcohol much more slowly.
Research shows that 5% of all fetal defects are due to alcohol
consumption during pregnancy. According to Health Canada, FAS
occurs in 1 out of every 500 live births. This is more than for
Down's syndrome which occurs in 1 in 600 live births.
FAS children can reflect the following: severe neurological
disorders, social dysfunction, permanent behavioural problems,
life span reduction, reduced brain development, learning
disorders, hyperactivity, mental retardation, post and prenatal
growth retardation, speech and vision impairment and other
physical deformities. Needless to say, it is a very serious
problem.
FAS is estimated to cost $1.5 million during the lifetime of an
FAS child. The annual cost to Canada is estimated at some $2.7
billion in terms of increased health care, special education and
other services.
FAE or fetal alcohol effects is very similar to FAS with the
same range of problems in a less severe form and without the
characteristic facial deformities. However, it should be noted
that FAE occurs two to three times more frequently than fetal
alcohol syndrome.
The medical profession concedes that the detection techniques
are literally in their infancy in terms of their sophistication.
As well, those with FAS or FAE generally have difficulties
discerning the difference between right and wrong. There is a
substantial concern that a large number of inmates in our prisons
are victims of this terrible situation.
In October 1996 the Minister of Health and the Canadian
Pediatric Society issued a joint statement in which they said
that there was no safe level of alcohol consumption during
pregnancy. They also said very clearly that the best decision
for pregnant women is to abstain from alcohol during pregnancy.
1925
I raise this matter in the House because I believe it is time
that awareness of this issue come before the House again so all
members of Parliament, and indeed all Canadians, know more about
the problem. The fact is that even modest levels of alcohol
consumption during pregnancy can have severe and devastating
impacts on a fetus and for the remainder of their lives.
I raise the question with the secretary of state in the hopes
that there can be some action taken with regard to improving
public awareness of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol
effects.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the
House to address the problem of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal
alcohol effects.
Fetal alcohol syndrome more commonly known as FAS is a medical
diagnosis that refers to a set of alcohol disabilities associated
with the use of alcohol during pregnancy. Fetal alcohol effects,
FAE, is used to describe children with prenatal exposure to
alcohol resulting in learning disabilities.
Although there are no statistics regarding the extent of FAS and
FAE in Canada, it is estimated that one to three children in
every 1,000 in the industrialized countries will be born with
fetal alcohol syndrome.
I should qualify this statement by saying that work is being
done in Canada. Specifically the work I am familiar with is
being done in B.C. by a working group of professionals. Some of
the notables in that professional group are Dr. Geoffrey
Robinson, a former nurse by the name of Marilyn Van Bibber,
originally from the Yukon Territories, and many others who are
worthy of mention.
In the interest of time I have to say that no single group,
organization, community, ministry or level of government can deal
effectively with the problem on its own. Broad based efforts are
required, given that everyone has a stake in addressing this
complex issue.
I thank my colleagues, not just the member for Mississauga South
but also the member for Moncton who shares a great deal of
commitment and interest in this critical issue.
I would like to make a couple of suggestions. We need a
national process. Perhaps a few suggestions are in order. There
are many helpful recommendations in the standing committee report
entitled “The Preventable National Tragedy”. We might
incorporate those into—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the
minister's time has expired.
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker,
there is still very strong concern in my riding of Vancouver East
regarding the immigration legislative review.
Vancouver East is one of the most multicultural ridings in
Canada. It is made up of people whose mother tongue is English,
Chinese, Italian, Spanish, French, Tagolog, Vietnamese, as well
as other languages. Vancouver East has a strong historical
multicultural root and has always welcomed immigrants from every
continent.
It has the rich tradition of a working class immigrant
settlement shaping such diverse neighbourhoods as Strathcona,
Chinatown, Grandview-Woodlands, Little Italy, Oppenheimer Park
and Japan Town.
Vancouver East is also home to many multicultural organizations
and services. I provide this brief snapshot of my community to
illustrate why the recommendations of the legislative immigration
review concern me deeply. If implemented, the recommendations
stand to fundamentally change Vancouver East as a living, vibrant
example of multicultural diversity that enriches everyone in the
community.
Prior to the hearings that began in Vancouver on February 27, I
met with local organizations and organizations that served the
immigrant communities and multicultural communities including
organizations such as Success, the Chinese Benevolent
Association, Mosaic, Immigrant Services Society, the Philippine
Women's Centre and the Storefront Orientation Service.
My constituents and those organizations told me that they were
deeply concerned about the recommendations contained in the
report, particularly involving language, education and the fees
imposed on prospective immigrants to Canada.
I also heard very strong concerns about the process of the
review itself. Even before the report became public there was a
very closed door process, by invitation only, in which many
organizations not only in my riding but in other ridings were not
allowed the opportunity to have input into the report before it
became public.
1930
The public hearings themselves that began in Vancouver were also
something that caused a lot of concern in my riding. Many groups
wanting to speak to the hearing were not heard and even though
the minister provided some extra days of hearings there was
inadequate time for local organizations to be heard on what
really is the most serious situation involving potential change
to Canada's immigration and refugee policies during the last 25
years.
There was also a lot of concern about the recommendation
concerning language requirements. Reading through the report and
from what I heard from my constituents is that in Vancouver East
we believe very strongly that the recommendations show a very
deep bias toward non-anglophone and non-francophone people. If
those recommendations are implemented they would fundamentally
change the kind of neighbourhood and the kind of riding that
Vancouver East has been over the years.
I want to call on the government and the minister on behalf of
my constituents to make it clear that this report will not be
adopted. There is a lot of concern this report will be rushed
through by the end of the year or that some recommendations will
be dropped and that other recommendations, which maybe do not
have popular support in terms of policies around refugees and
lack of security around an independent process, will be pushed
through by the government.
I would like to get an assurance that the government is not
going to rush through legislative changes, that there will be a
full and open debate around our immigration and multicultural
policies and that the government will assure us that there will
not be punitive and biased recommendations—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The Parliamentary
Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it
should be clarified that the report submitted for public
consultation is not a government report. It was written by an
independent group of consultants. It is not the minister's or
department's report. The minister is not bound by any of the 172
recommendations.
The minister has made it clear a number of times that the
recommendation with respect to the language issue is not on. I
think the hon. member is creating unnecessary anxiety where there
is none because there is full consultation. In preparing the
report, for example, the legislative review advisory group
consulted with hundreds of groups and individuals across Canada.
There were consultations that also took place in 1994, as the
hon. member will remember. They have done very thorough work. The
minister has no intention of duplicating the work at this point.
The minister, however, has travelled across Canada and has
consulted with various interested parties about these
recommendations. The public submissions to the minister that
took place in seven different cities across Canada were only one
part of the broader consultation effort. The minister has also
invited all interested Canadians to read the report, look at its
recommendations and submit their comments in writing. All
opinions and comments will be taken into account in the
development of new legislation.
Initially the minister intended to conduct five days of
consultation. That number more than doubled to accommodate
requests from a variety of groups, allowing for even more voices
to be heard on more issues. The fact that the minister extended
the consultation days is a clear indication that the minister is
listening.
It is the government's desire to develop legislation that will
reflect the needs of Canadian society and prepare Citizenship and
Immigration Canada for the 21st century while keeping in place
Canadian values.
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, my question for the parliamentary secretary of fisheries
and oceans is quite clear. He was on our west coast tour with
the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans when we toured the
west communities to find out exactly what is going on out there
and why there is so much distrust between the communities that
are involved in fishing activities and that of the DFO and of the
current minister.
That is why I asked a question on behalf of west coast fishers
and I will repeat that question.
I will give it a little preamble after that as well.
1935
My question was quite straightforward. The Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans has stated to our committee that there is no
12 mile protection zone around Langara Island on B.C.'s west
coast from commercial trawlers. He definitely stated there was
no protection zone around that island. However, DFO documents
clearly state otherwise.
The minister also stated that one should never give allocation
of quota from one sector of the fishing industry to another. You
should never to do that. This is exactly what has happened when
DFO cut off the chinook salmon to B.C. trawlers and fishers and
gave it to the Sport Fishing Institute. Ms. Velma McColl, who
once worked for the Sport Fishing Institute and lobbied very
hard, is now the minister's assistance in British Columbia.
My question was straightforward. Why does this government allow
DFO to have a policy that helps the minister's friends in British
Columbia and not that of west coast fishers?
We have a crisis in B.C. with our coho stocks and that many
thousands of B.C. fishers are now going to be facing unemployment
and tragedy in their coastal communities. These people who are
watching now have a right to an answer and I would like that
answer as clear, concise and transparent as possible.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will try to be
very concise.
I am disappointed that the member is trying to allege
favouritism because of one individual who works for the minister.
The minister is very fortunate to have individuals within his
ranks who have experience in the fishery. That is what we need in
the fishery.
On the issue of Langara Island at the north end of the Queen
Charlotte Islands, disputes between the recreational sector and
the commercial seiners and trawlers have been an issue since the
mid 1980s. It began with the growth of the chinook recreational
fishery in the area and more recently these gear conflicts
intensified. There is competition for the fishing area by the
various groups, particularly for the relatively sheltered spots.
Seine fishers because of the use of beach tie-offs and the size
of the net interfere with or displace the significantly smaller
recreational vessels. Similarly, fishing patterns of trawlers
also may conflict with recreational fishers.
I stress that the primary focus of the Langara Island issue is
not about conservation. It is about the desire of the different
sectors to fish in the same area and the inherent incompatibility
of these gears to co-exist in that same area. A small area
around Langara Island is closed to commercial salmon trawlers
early in the season to slow the catch rate of the chinook salmon.
This is intended to ensure trawlers have a longer season and to
minimize gear conflicts. This area around Langara Island
referred to as a chinook red line boundary is less than seven and
a half miles—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the time
has expired.
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, on March 16, I asked the Minister of Industry about
the links between his department and the pharmaceutical industry.
This question came on the heels of a decision by the Minister of
Industry to push through drug patent regulation changes. This
decision was made despite the fact that it added another two
years to an already lengthy period of 20 year patent protection
for brand name drug companies.
This decision was made despite the fact that it will continue to
push up drug prices. This decision was made contrary to the
wishes of Canadians, health care consumers, health care activists
and the generic drug industry. This decision was made despite
the fact that it will make it actually harder for the generic
industry to compete in this important health care sector. This
decision was made despite the fact that the Minister of Health
acknowledged that the notice of compliance regulations were
problematic and that cabinet would be dealing with them
seriously.
It should be noted that the draft regulations were released
January 24. The public was given until only February 23 to
respond. The government then proceeded to revise those
regulations and without any further chance for consultation
pushed through the regulations and made the law on March 12. It
should also be noted that when the cabinet decision was announced
Merck Frosst had all the paper work ready to block a new generic
heart drug from entering the market.
1940
Is it any wonder that Canadians believe the drug industry is
running this government? Is it any wonder that Canadians believe
this government is always putting the needs of industry
ahead of the common good, ahead of the public interest? The hope
they had for positive change from this government has been
dashed. They have been left with nothing but broken promises,
disappointment and a feeling of helplessness in the face of this
huge hold by the multinational drug industry over this
government.
All of us are asking the question: Who is in charge? Is it the
industry or is it the Minister of Health? Is the Minister of
Health involved? Where is the Minister of Health? Is it the
position of this government that the wishes of the big brand name
drug industry should rule the day?
All that we are asking for is that the government reconsider
this important issue to put some competition back into this
industry and stop this monopoly hold by big brand name drug
companies which is forcing up prices. It is time for a national
vision for pharmaceuticals, a vision that puts patients before
profits, science before salesmanship and leadership before
lobbying.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as previously stated by the
Minister of Industry, it is impossible to conclude that the
changes to the patent drug regulations were rushed through. The
review of these regulations goes back to February 1997, in
keeping with the legislative requirement to review Bill C-91.
Over a six week period the industry committee examined all
aspects of the Canada drug patent. I should mention that her
party seldom attended these meetings. During this time the
committee heard some 130 witnesses and received an additional 40
submissions, many of which raised issues surrounding the
regulations.
Counsel from both the generic and brand name industries appeared
before the committee to assess various proposals on how to deal
with the regulations. The committee recommended revisiting the
regulatory regime.
Discussions with stakeholders have continued since that time. As
a result changes, were proposed to the regulations. These changes
were pre-published on January 24, 1998 with a full 30 day
consultation period, as is the normal practice.
The final regulations that were approved by this special
committee of counsel, on March 11 and registered on March 12,
should have come as no surprise to anyone. It was business as
usual.
After five years of experience with the old regulations we knew
there were problems with this scheme that needed to be
addressed, such as unnecessary litigation that wasted court
resources, an unworkable damages provision, evergreening of
patents and difficulty in administering the patent lists.
The new regulations address these problems. The regime we have
put in place is a balanced one, recognizing the importance of all
sectors of this industry, the generic, the brand name and newly
emerging biopharmaceutical companies. It is fully in keeping
with the government's objectives of a fair, more efficient system
with reduced litigation that provides effective patent protection
while enabling generic drugs to enter the market immediately on
patent expiry.
Canada has the most pro-generic pharmaceutical policy in the
developed world. We are the only country that has both a
regulatory—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that the
hon. member's time has expired.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to
raise my concerns regarding the answer I received to my question
of December 3, 1997.
At that time I asked the justice minister how the next supreme
court justice could be put through a more appropriate public
examination for the appointment process. The minister simply
replied that she was willing to consult with Canadians who were
interested. But this statement clearly indicates that the
minister was not willing to bring forward a defined process of
choosing a supreme court judge.
The minister stating that she is willing to consult simply
means that the minister is not bound by any public input. The
minister's reply to my question was out of touch with Canadians.
I ask, in appointing the supreme court justice, what specific
consultations did the minister do? Did the minister travel from
coast to coast asking Canadians what kind of judge they wanted?
Exactly what kind of sociological advice did the minister receive
in making the appointment? If the minister consulted with the
provincial attorneys general, the chief justice, law societies
and the Canadian Bar Association, does the minister believe this
was adequate?
If the system has supposedly worked fine for 130 years, then why
would former supreme court Justice Gerard La Forest comment that
the Canadian process needs reform and that his replacement should
be appointed only after a public review process has taken place?
Did the minister not consult with former Justice La Forest?
1945
In the United States the president nominates candidates to their
supreme court. However before any person is able to take a seat
on the bench they must appear before a Senate committee where
their experience is tested, anything from their personal life to
political views. In the United States they understand that these
things are relevant for future quality decisions. To date, 12
nominations have been rejected and 17 have been withdrawn.
The public process has merit. Should we not want the absolute
best judges to make rulings in our highest court? Do we not want
to raise the public esteem of the court?
It is evident that who does the deciding is just as important as
what is being decided at the court. The time is now for this
government to open up the process to allow the public to have a
say in who is to be chosen.
The appropriate public examination needed includes a forum for
all Canadians to participate. I am suggesting that the process
look similar to that of the United States. For example, our
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has the capability
to review appointments of chairmen to the National Parole Board,
the RCMP and CSIS just to name a few. Why would it be so
difficult to set up a process for supreme court judges? On the
other hand the Senate could hold ratification hearings.
In conclusion, I want to make it clear that Reformers are not
implying that newly appointed supreme court judges are incapable
or incompetent in any way. What we are saying is that the
process to find replacements must change and must be modernized.
Canadians want change. Provincial justice ministers want
change. Former supreme court justices want change. Why is the
minister ignoring these pleas? The government even says that it
wants change and then nothing happens. It is like the Young
Offenders Act issue since 1993.
It is widely expected that before the end of this year two more
justices will step down. A responsible minister would work on
changing the process right now. Will the next appointments be
made the same old way, or will the minister give way to the
public's wishes and do the right thing?
Among the varied screening processes there needs to be a
vigorous public accountability threshold to maintain the
integrity and public regard for our highest court.
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as you
know, appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada are made by the
governor in council. Puisne judges as well as the chief justice
are appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in
consultation with the Minister of Justice. In the process leading
to an appointment, senior members of the bench and the bar are
consulted. While there is no formal involvement of provinces in
the selection of the judges, the province from which the
appointment is made is consulted as well.
[Translation]
This selection process has produced excellent results in the
last 122 years, by allowing for the appointment of highly
qualified jurists. However, since the adoption of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the bench, and particularly the
supreme court justices, have become the interpreters and
protectors of the values enshrined in the charter.
Canadians now show an increasing interest for the judicial
function and for those who fulfil that function. Consequently, it
is important to make sure that those appointed to the bench are
receptive to the values reflected in the charter.
As she said on the appointment of Mr. Justice Bastarache, the
Minister of Justice is open to expanding the consultation
process leading to the identification of qualified candidates for
a position with the court.
Unfortunately, because of the untimely death of the late Mr.
Justice Sopinka, just a few weeks after the appointment of Mr.
Justice Bastarache, the Department of Justice has not yet had the
opportunity to closely examine all the possibilities.
[English]
In any case it is very clear to the Minister of Justice that
Canada should avoid the adoption of a U.S. style confirmation
hearings process which has too often become a sideshow in which
reputations are routinely destroyed by opposing politicians'
intent on scoring political points.
Let me assure this House that this government—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the time
has expired.
[Translation]
The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.50 p.m.)