36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 87
CONTENTS
Friday, April 3, 1998
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-38. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1010
1015
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1020
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1025
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1030
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1045
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT, 1985
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-3. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1100
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | J. R. SHAW
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL WILDLIFE WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA-LEBANON PARLIAMENTARY FRIENDSHIP GROUP
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BOBCAYGEON
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1105
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NORAD
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GENERAL CHARLES DE GAULLE
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN COLLEGE OF NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIÉTÉ SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1110
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEVCO
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | O'NEILL COLLEGIATE CHOIR
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ivan Grose |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE ROB THOMPSON
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1115
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR SHERBROOKE
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1120
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPTION CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Godfrey |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1125
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Godfrey |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1130
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIVE COMMUNITIES
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1135
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACQUISITION OF SUBMARINES
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1140
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PEACEKEEPING
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1145
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1150
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD LABOUR
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1155
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1200
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYS AND MEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Notice of Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Food and Drugs Act
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Family
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1205
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-13
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Death Penalty
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Prostate Cancer
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Nudity
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
1210
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT, 1985
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-3. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1225
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1240
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1245
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1250
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1255
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1300
1305
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1320
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1325
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-284. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1330
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1355
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1400
1405
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1410
1415
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 87
![](/web/20061116175255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 3, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[Translation]
NATIONAL PARKS ACT
The House resumed from April 2 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-38, an act to amend the National Parks Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to participate today in the debate at second reading of
Bill C-38, an act to amend the National Parks Act.
This bill will not necessitate a lengthy debate as it contains a
single clause adding Tuktut Nogait National Park in the
Northwest Territories to the list of national parks in Schedule
I to the act.
The added Part XII specifies the boundaries of the new park,
which covers 16,340 square kilometres or 6,310 square miles.
Future negotiations may result in park boundaries being expanded
to include land that is currently part of Nunavut and
traditional Sahtu Dene and Metis territories, which would
increase the total area covered by the park to 28,190 square
kilometres.
In 1995, the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Inuit
of Nunavut and the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreed to leave the area
to ensure the interim protection of the future location of the
national park once the project has been completed.
The name of the park will be Tuktut Nogait National Park, which
means “caribou fawn” in the Siglik dialect of Inuvialukton.
As indicated in the press release from the secretary of state
responsible for Parks Canada announcing the tabling of this
bill, this is a most appropriate name since the new park will
protect the calving grounds of the Bluenose caribou.
The park is located in Melville Hills, east of Inuvik, in the
Northwest Territories. It represents the natural region of
tundra hills in the Canadian national parks system. Melville
Hills consist of tundra vegetation, rolling hills and deep
canyons. Its rich biodiversity is uncharacteristic of Arctic
regions and comes from the variety of microhabitats it
incorporates.
The many cliffs and ramparts provide ideal nesting areas for
birds of prey.
Moreover, the lush vegetation of the hills and the valleys
provides an excellent habitat for caribou and musk sheep.
The closest inhabited place is Paulatuk, where we find a
Inuvialuit community of about 300.
The park protects a natural site blessed with impressive tundra
landscapes—spectacular canyons, many caribou, musk sheep,
wolves, birds and other wild species from the North—as well as
archaeological sites which confirm that there was a human
presence thousands of years ago. These natural lands will enrich
Canada's natural parks network, whose reputation is already well
established around the world.
The territory covered by the park has a great cultural and
economic importance for the region's population. Tuktut Nogait
also has many features that are of interest to the scientific
community.
The high altitude areas escaped glaciation and served as a
refuge to the biota during the Wisconsin glacial stage.
The only comparable zone in all of the Arctic's continental
regions is found in northern Yukon. The park has a number of
pingos, which are steep, ice-cored mounds. It also has one of the
largest population of eagles and falcons in the Northwest
Territories.
From a scientific point of view, it is interesting to see signs
of a human presence throughout the region. Contrary to what one
might think, a large area of the park was inhabited a number of
times during the last millennium. The interpretation of
archeological sites raises important questions about the culture
of Thule Inuit in that area, and about the origins of Inuit
society.
The region provides visitors with an opportunity to discover
untouched Arctic landscapes, and to observe wildlife and plant
life. Activities include hiking, camping, birdwatching, nature
watching and photography.
Among the points of interest, let us mention the spectacular
canyons along the Hornaday and Brock rivers, the impressive
LaRonciere Falls, and the abundance of birds, wildlife and wild
flowers. Visitors can also familiarize themselves with the life,
culture and history of northern peoples.
1010
The first European to visit this part of the Arctic coast was
Samuel Hearne, of the Hudson's Bay Company. He descended the
Coppermine River in 1771 in search of copper deposits, the
abundance of which had been considerably exaggerated.
The Tuktut Nogait region was not visited again until over 50
years later. Between 1821 and 1852, the royal navy renewed the
search for the Northwest Passage. Many explorers, including
John Franklin, surveyed the coastline. After 1900, eminent
researchers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson, R.M. Anderson and
Diamond Jenness, studied the region and its people.
The agreement creating the park was signed in 1996 by Canada,
the Government of the Northwest Territories, and four
representatives of the Inuvialuit: the Inuvialuit regional
corporation, the Inuvialuit game management council, the
Paulatuk community corporation, and the Paulatuk committee of
hunters and trappers.
The purpose of the agreement creating the park was to fulfil the
commitments made by the federal government to the Inuvialuit
native peoples when it passed the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit)
Claims Settlement Act in 1984. This legislation implemented an
agreement that conclusively settled Inuvialuit claims over
certain lands in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon
territory that they traditionally used and occupied.
As compensation for the extinction of their ancestral claims,
rights, titles and interests, the agreement provided that
certain lands would be granted to or set aside for the
Inuvialuit, and upheld their right to hunt, fish, trap and
conduct commercial activities thereon, subject to certain
limitations.
The agreement was intended to give the Inuvialuit a way to
retain their cultural identity and values within a rapidly
evolving Nordic society, while making them full participants in
that society and its economy. The agreement contained the
requirement to protect the fauna, environment and biological
production of the Arctic.
Creation of the Tuktut Nogiat park is, therefore, an offshoot of
the Convention recognized in the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit)
Claims Settlement Act.
This becomes obvious when the objectives of the park's creation
are examined. They are: to protect the Bluenose caribou herd
and its calving and post-calving habitat; to protect in
perpetuity a natural area in the Tundra Hills region, and
encourage the public to understand and appreciate the region in
such a way as to leave it intact for coming generations; to
encourage collaboration between the Inuvialuit, the Government
of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories with
respect to the planning, operation and management of the park;
to encourage and support the creation and maintaining of jobs
and businesses in the region, by encouraging subsistence use of
the park; to encourage greater understanding and respect of the
cultural heritage of the Inuvialuit and their natural
environment; to create an
environment suited to long-term research into its ecological and
cultural heritage; and to preserve the ecological integrity of
the park.
The park board will be responsible for reconciling these various
objectives of preserving nature, economic and tourism
development, and the respect of aboriginal traditions. This
body will have a membership of five, two appointed by the
Inuvialuit, two by the federal government, one of these on the
recommendation of the Government of the Northwest Territories,
and a chair to be appointed with the agreement of all parties.
The legislation proposed today will provide this national park
with complete protection according to the limits set out in the
1996 agreement under the National Parks Act and regulations.
Even if we are in agreement with the principle of this bill, it
seems we are being called upon to deal with it rapidly.
1015
This bill was introduced at first reading on Monday, March 30,
and here we are today, April 3, at second reading. The
documents relating to the analysis of this bill, a press release
and a briefing note, are still warm from arriving in such a
hurry.
It is interesting to note that the government is assuming the
park will be created. On page 102 of Heritage Canada's
estimates, Tuktut Nogait appears as one of the three Northwest
Territories parks. And yet, Bill C-38 has not been passed.
I think it would have been wiser and less presumptuous to add
the word “planned” beside the name of the park.
It would take little for us to question whether this was not a
breach of the privileges of this House.
We will approve this bill in principle at second reading. But we
reserve judgement until we have had time to read the agreements
that led to this bill and until we hear the witnesses interested
in this bill in the course of the public hearings that will be
held by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments about
this bill by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. As he
indicated, Bill C-38 does establish the boundaries for a new
national park in the Northwest Territories. Last night the
critic for parks from the official opposition, my colleague for
Saskatoon—Humboldt, spoke at some length about this legislation.
I had the opportunity to raise a similar issue out of concern
for the Porcupine caribou herd. This is another herd of caribou
in the far north that happens to be in the western end of Yukon
and its calving grounds overlap into Alaska. I raised that issue
on September 29, 1995. I think it is quite appropriate that the
government has moved to protect the Bluenose herd east of Inuvik.
The Reform Party is supporting this legislation. Comments from
the Bloc member indicate his party is supporting this legislation
which is moving very quickly through the process so the very
fragile environment up north can be protected.
One of the concerns I have is to achieve a balance between the
economic interests of the nation with protecting the environment
and specific species of plant and animal life. This is
especially relevant in the far north where those conditions are
very fragile.
I am reminded of a couple of recent events in northern British
Columbia. One was when the B.C. government moved to establish a
provincial park in an area known as Tatshenshini-Alsek region in
the northwestern corner of British Columbia. There was a
projected $1 billion mine that was going to go into that region.
That ultimately was cancelled once that region was turned into a
park.
In the background research for this park in the Northwest
Territories some exploration rights had been granted earlier in
error to a company called Darnley Bay Resources. Fortunately it
did relinquish its exploration rights for that part that was
included in the park.
1020
Does the hon. member believe that there is a necessity to
achieve a balance to include all the stakeholders, the industry
and the people who derive their livelihood from the land, whether
it be trappers or hunters or tourists, to ensure that it is not
only in the best interests of the environment of the country but
so we can achieve that balance between environmental protection
and the protection of our economy?
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Madam Speaker, I thank my
hon. colleague for his edifying remarks on this bill and the
creation of this national park.
I believe I said in my speech that the bill of course contains
provision for protection of the park's ecosystem. Accordingly,
I think my colleague would agree that, in protecting the unique
ecosystem of the Tuktut Nogait park, we will be able to turn the
park into a tourist site unique in North America.
I indicated that the only similar or comparable site is to be
found in the northern Yukon.
In addition to the tourist activities that should not only
continue but increase and involve the native populations of the
territory, I also referred in my speech to the fact that we
should involve local populations in the region's commercial and
economic development.
I do not think that the bill excludes the possibility of
economic and commercial development of the territory, far from
it. It simply aims to provide a framework for protecting the
ecosystem and the cultures and values of the Inuvialuit that
live there. It also makes provision for economic and commercial
development, outside of this protective framework.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to my
hon. colleague's reply. He may have missed the point I was
trying to make.
When provinces or the federal government establishes parks there
will no longer be any development within those boundaries. A
case is the recent mining activities in the Northwest Territories
and the new found wealth with the diamond mining activities in
jobs and increased economic activities. What I was trying to get
the hon. member to comment on is that once the park boundaries
are formed, we exclude those types of activities. We will not
have mining within the boundaries of that park, no matter what is
eventually found in the way of underground resources.
Does he believe that before we establish parks across the
country all the necessary research be done so that the country
and the people understand very clearly what they may be giving up
when we establish the boundaries and exclude industrial activity?
I am not denying that this is necessary in this case to protect
the calving grounds of the Bluenose caribou herd.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I think I now understand
better the hon. member's question, and I thank him.
We are indeed faced with a dilemma as to whether we should give
priority to the protection of our ecosystem, at the expense of
possible industrial development.
It is a very real dilemma. A more in-depth study of the bill by a
committee and the hearing of witnesses will help us see just
what the implications are.
1025
I believe the bill still allows for development of the land for
economic purposes. We have to determine how far this development
can go. Is this national park subject to the same restrictions
as Canada's other national parks? All this will have to be
closely examined in committee.
However, I should remind the Reform Party member that the
objectives pursued by such a bill include some basic elements.
Fundamental issues are at stake, including the protection of the
region's ecosystem, which is unique in North America, and that
of the culture and heritage of the people who live in that
territory.
Therefore, as I pointed out earlier, there are extraordinary
opportunities for economic development that must also be taken
into account in assessing the benefits and the drawbacks for
local people, when they give up, as the hon. member mentioned,
certain rights for the establishment of a national park.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, on behalf
of my colleague, the member Churchill River and the NDP parks
critic, I am very glad to speak on Bill C-38, an act to amend the
National Parks Act.
The purpose of this bill is to establish the boundaries for a
new national park in Canada's western Arctic called Tuktut
Nogait. New Democrats support Bill C-38. Tuktut Nogait national
park is an important step toward the completion of the Parks
Canada objective for national parks, to protect for all time
representative natural areas of Canadian significance in a system
of national parks and to encourage public understanding,
appreciation and enjoyment of this natural heritage so as to
leave it unimpaired for future generations.
Our system of national parks and national historic sites is one
of Canada's, indeed the world's, greatest treasures. This noble
effort began a century ago with Banff National Park and continues
with Tuktut Nogait today. This vision for the preservation of
Canada's natural spaces rests on a fundamental principle to
protect a representative sample of each of our special
landscapes. Canada was divided into 39 distinct national park
natural regions with physiology and vegetation as a basis for
policy to achieve this goal.
To date just over 60% of this goal has been completed. A great
deal of work and political leadership is required to complete the
vision. Unfortunately it is not expected that the noble effort
of the national park system will be completed by the Liberal
government by the year 2000, another failed promise.
Tuktut Nogait national park is representative of the tundra
hills, a unique region of the Canadian shield. This tundra
landscape includes spectacular river canyons, areas of scientific
interest, archeological sites and abundant wildlife. Elevated
areas within the park's boundaries are designated as refugia. A
refugium is an area with a population of organisms that can
survive through periods of unfavourable conditions. Northern
Yukon is the only other comparable area of the mainland Arctic
with similar biota. Canadians will recall that this government
abandoned a glacial refugium in Alberta.
In this park evidence of human use and occupation over the last
millennium exists. Protection of the hundreds of archeological
sites is imperative. The knowledge garnered from these sites
will provide answers to questions on the development of Thule
Inuit culture in the regions and the origins of Inuit society.
Visitors to the park will experience a pristine Arctic
wilderness. The wilderness, birds and vegetation cover the
spectrum of northern species. Abundant caribou, musk ox, wolves,
birds and other northern wildlife will be protected by the
national park designation.
1030
It was a community idea to protect this area, a portion of the
Melville Hills east of Inuvik in the Northwest Territories, which
led to a community prepared conservation plan in 1989. The
primary goals contained in the 1996 parks agreement were to
protect the Bluenose caribou herd and its calving and
post-calving habitat and to protect for all time a representative
natural area of Canadian significance.
Paulatuk, the closest community to the park, recognized the
importance of this area and acted upon the community wishes to
preserve this integral part of its history, culture and
livelihood. On behalf of the New Democrats I would like to
commend Paulatuk for the initiative, dedication and perseverance
to establish Tuktut Nogait.
Seven years of consultation and discussions led to the consensus
decision of 1996. The boundaries are set out in Bill C-38 in
accordance with the 1996 agreement signed by the Government of
Canada, the Northwest Territories, the Inuvialuit Regional
Corporation, the Inuvialuit Game Council, the Paulatuk Community
Corporation and the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee.
The boundaries for Tuktut Nogait are unique for several reasons.
I ask my colleagues to pay attention to what I am about to say on
this point. It is important that we understand the very complex
origin of this national park to better appreciate the incredible
levels of co-operation and consensus building which led to the
bill before the House today.
Tuktut Nogait lies within three land claim agreement areas: the
Inuvialuit Settlement Region or ISR, which encompasses
approximately 58% of the park area; the Nunavut Settlement Region
including about 36% of the area; and the Sahtu Dene and Metis
claim area including about 6% of the park.
I call upon my colleagues to imagine the consultation,
discussions and negotiations that evolved across the years
between the different parties united in a common purpose to
protect this significant natural area.
Tuktut Nogait national park includes over 16,000 square
kilometres. The parties came together around the absolute
necessity of protecting the core calving ground vital for the
Bluenose herd's survival. The parks name, Tuktut Nogait, means
caribou calves in the Siglik dialect, a direct reference to the
park's purpose. I also note at this time that this area is
important to the Bathurst herd in addition to the Bluenose herd.
The reason for explaining the significance of the consensus
forming is relevant when one considers recent efforts to change
the boundaries of the park. It is an issue that will arise
during committee submissions and will contribute to the final
decisions on the ratification of Bill C-38 boundaries as outlined
today.
As my colleagues are no doubt aware, there is a magnetic anomaly
that straddles the Tuktut Nogait's western boundary. This
anomaly is said to rival the Voisey's Bay discovery and, if
developed, could be a source of jobs and fiscal rewards to the
region and of mineral extraction interests. Some 80% of the
anomaly is located outside the park boundaries. In 1994 Darnley
Bay Resources Limited of Toronto voluntarily relinquished
exploration rights to the remaining 20%, the area within the park
boundaries.
Now the developers have changed their minds and Darnley Bay
launched a recent effort to delete an approximate 415 square
kilometres from the park boundaries.
This may not seem like such a big concern, especially when to
most observers looking at a flat map the proposed area the
developers wish to delete appears insignificant when compared to
the overall scope of the park. Nothing could be further from the
truth for several reasons. First and foremost, the thought that
it is okay to shrink a national park boundary to permit mineral
development is reprehensible.
It would be hypocritical for the government to chastise our
American neighbours regarding development impacts upon the
Porcupine herd calving grounds in Alaska's Arctic National
Wildlife Reserve while allowing development to harm the Bluenose
herd calving grounds.
The second reason is that the location of the proposed deletion
is crucial to the overall biodiversity of the park. The deleted
area includes a section of the Hornaday River, critical char
spawning habitat and acknowledged in company reports as part of
Paulatuk's summer and fall fishing areas.
1035
The third reason is that it is the summer and fall caribou
harvesting area. A founding principle for the degrees of
co-operation exhibited by all participants during the consensus
process was the need to ensure the continuing provision of
traditional sustenance and subsistence for the Inuvialuit, the
Sahtu Dene, the Gwich'in and Metis people.
Also the proposed deletion includes the most probable main entry
point to the park. Does a mining interest wish to dictate access
to the park or collect gate fees? The proposed deletion area is
located in the Inuvialuit settlement area. They are in agreement
with the developers and the territorial government for exclusion.
The Sahtu Dene and the Gwich'in are opposed to the deletion. They
fear the impact such development may have upon the core calving
and post-calving grounds.
As parliamentarians it is our duty to question the abrupt change
in direction, a switch from the preservation of lands and
heritage to a wish for development and its impact upon future
generations.
Why the sudden need for a deletion, an exemption by one
participant that runs counter to the continuing process and
perseverance of the other participants? Are extracted ores more
valuable than the survival of the 100,000 strong Bluenose caribou
herd?
For centuries this herd has helped support northern peoples
across Canada's Arctic, spanning thousands of kilometres and
dozens of communities. Does one mineral discovery merit the
impact upon all native northern peoples?
Why the sudden need to change the boundaries after seven years
of consensus building? Will the addition of an approximate 20%
in development areas increase southern investment in the project
for the benefit of those lucky shareholders involved?
I will take this moment to state clearly that the New Democratic
Party is neither anti-mining nor anti-development. We believe,
though, that the development can occur and support projects that
are environmentally, socially and economically sustainable.
Contrary to recent decisions by the Liberal government such as
the Cheviot decision where a federal minister okayed the
destruction of fish habitat, the NDP fully support the
sustainable development principles as described by the Brundtland
commission in 1987:
Development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.
I believe the principle of sustainable development is the reason
Paulatuk set out to protect this area in 1989 and led to the bill
before us today.
I call to the attention of my colleagues that this is not a
recent discovery or find. The first clue to the anomaly was
identified in 1955, over 40 years ago. In 1969 the geological
survey of Canada described the Paulatuk find, titled the Darnley
Bay gravity anomaly, as the strongest gravity anomaly in North
America.
The following year a magnetic anomaly was identified coincident
with the gravity anomaly. I am not a geologist, obviously.
However I can understand the excitement in the mining industry
during the early 1990s when sampling of basic sills identified
minor amounts of copper, nickel and platinum group elements. At
that time things were looking pretty good for extraction and the
environmental implications on the Bluenose core calving grounds.
After decades of speculation about a significant mineral find
surrounding Paulatuk, exploration permits were awarded to Darnley
Bay Resources. In 1994, after the sampling results were
favourable to extraction, Darnley Bay voluntarily relinquished
those permits within the park boundaries.
Why the change? Is it the depressed metals markets? What
became of the founding principles for the co-operation to protect
critical wildlife habitat and to preserve a representative
example of the Tundra Hills natural region?
Those are the questions and answers we still have to discuss at
committee. They are some of the questions and answers we will
face as parliamentarians as we defend the 1996 boundaries.
I thank the government for displaying a rare instance of
intestinal fortitude and moral conscience in an environmental
matter. The minister of heritage has changed direction on park
commercialization levels on occasion. The lack of Liberal
foresight and planning and a lack of respect for Jasper National
Park, a world heritage site, resulted in an international
condemnation and a terse letter from UNESCO regarding the Cheviot
decision.
Liberal ignorance in habitat protection through the Cheviot
decision evolved into legal challenges and Canadians learning
about another international embarrassment via their morning
newspapers and televised news conferences.
Canadians are continually learning about poor Liberal habitat
policies and the repeated loss of our reputation as protectors of
wilderness areas and stewards of a clean environment.
1040
The decision to protect and to honour the 1996 agreement on the
Tuktut Nogait national park boundaries is a rare occurrence for
the government and a decision that the New Democratic Party will
support.
As Bill C-38 is discussed at committee I urge my colleagues not
to be swayed by submissions and witnesses that put forward a
variety of arguments to promote boundary changes. As a submitter
presents facts and data that suggest 5% of the core calving area
can be removed, I ask them to question where that 5% is located
and the significant effect that a small 5% slice could have upon
the overall Bluenose caribou population; the loss of char
spawning areas; where muskox will mate; the further loss of
Canada's extremely limited refugium areas; and the impact upon
fragile wild flowers and lichens where few footsteps have tread.
When jobs are discussed they should remember the capacity for
sustainable development and the unforgiving limits the tundra
environment allows for habitat and species recovery, and the
centuries required to repair basic intrusion.
When socioeconomics are discussed they should remember the
benefits that are presented through eco-tourism and the unique
variety of enterprises available to the community: bird
watching, hiking, camping, natural appreciation, natural and
environmental sciences, archeology and photography. The list
continues.
Ten years of studies of the Bluenose herd have identified the
necessity for the preservation and the location of core calving
and post-calving areas. They should not be swayed by
pro-development arguments that more studies are required.
We must protect the current boundaries of Bill C-38, the
designation of Tuktut Nogait national park in the National Parks
Act for generations yet unborn. To shrink a national park
boundary to permit mineral development is reprehensible and
should not be tolerated.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to speak in favour of Bill C-38, an act to amend the
National Parks Act to include Tuktut Nogait in the schedule of
national parks.
[Translation]
The proposed site for Tuktuk Nogait Park is close to Paulatuk,
in the western part of Canada's Arctic. In 1989, the community
of Paulatuk submitted to the federal government a conservation
plan recommending that a new park be established to protect the
calving ground of the Bluenose caribou herd.
[English]
In 1993 the federal government announced its willingness to
establish a national park near Paulatuk. In 1996 the governments
of Canada and the Northwest Territories, the Inuvialuit Regional
Corporation, the Inuvialuit Game Council, the Paulatuk Community
Corporation and the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee
signed an agreement to establish a national park in the
Inuvialuit settlement region near Paulatuk in the Northwest
Territories.
The agreement also recognized the boundaries of Tuktut Nogait
which represent approximately 16,304 square kilometres. It is
also important to note that this area represents the Tundra Hill
national region, an area not currently represented under the
national parks system.
It is unfortunate that it has taken the government so long to
bring in a simple piece of legislation that would see the
establishment of Tuktut Nogait. In consequence, the government
has delayed the creation of long term meaningful jobs and
economic growth for the north.
As the members of the House heard yesterday, the Government of
the Northwest Territories is reviewing a request by the
Inuvialuit Regional Corporation to remove part of the lands
agreed upon in the 1996 agreement. What we are talking about
here is the removal of 415 square kilometres to permit mineral
development within the core calving ground of the Bluenose
caribou herd.
1045
My party is not against mineral development but we cannot start
carving out parts of our national parks to make mining companies
more attractive to investors. The proposed reduction of Tuktut
Nogait for mineral development would set a dangerous precedent
for this park and other parks that are not protected under the
National Parks Act.
I would like to remind the House that we are awaiting amendments
to our ore legislation for seven other parks which represent 20%
of the national parks system. I want to assure my colleagues
that my party will continue its efforts to ensure that our
natural heritage is preserved for our generation and generations
to come.
We would hope this government would move more quickly in future,
especially in light of its commitment of completing the national
parks system by the year 2000.
In closing I want to congratulate all of the stakeholders for
their ongoing efforts in establishing a national park in the
Tundra Hill national region. I thank them for their contribution
to the protection of Canada's ecological integrity.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
* * *
PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT, 1985
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions), Lib.) moved that Bill
S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and
the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate this
opportunity to speak today in support of Bill S-3. This
legislation offers concrete and well-considered measures to
enhance the supervision of federally regulated private pension
plans.
As hon. members know, this bill was introduced through the
Senate on September 30 last year and was reported back on
November 4 with seven amendments. I would like to take this
opportunity to thank the Senate committee for its rigorous review
of the bill and the thoughtful amendments that were made. I will
highlight the thrust of these amendments later.
Updating the Pension Benefits Standards Act 1985, or the PBSA as
it is usually called, is long overdue. I would like to explain
to my hon. colleagues that the PBSA is the legislation that
governs private pension plans in sectors subject to federal
jurisdiction. Examples of these sectors include banking,
interprovincial transportation and telecommunications.
The PBSA is administered by the Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions, or OSFI as it is usually called, on
behalf of our federal government. Of Canada's 16,000 pension
plans, 1,100 are covered by the PBSA. They represent
approximately $45 billion or 10% of the asset value of all
private pension plans in Canada.
With the number of Canadian seniors growing rapidly, I want to
assure the House that ensuring sound secure pension plan systems
has been and continues to be a priority of the government. My
hon. colleagues know that over the past two years the government
has embarked on a dramatic reform to the public component of the
national pension system.
1050
Not only is the old age security program being transformed into
a revised seniors benefit, but also more recently there was the
federal-provincial agreement to reform the Canada pension plan.
These are two of the three pillars of retirement security for
Canadians.
Private pension plans represent that vital third pillar. Here
too there is a need for action, although much less dramatic since
prudent supervision and good governance are the issues that need
to be addressed with respect to private pension plans.
As I stated earlier, these changes are long overdue. The PBSA
has not been materially revised since it came into force in early
1987. This is in contrast to the federal institutions legislation
where the supervisory and prudential systems were significantly
strengthened in 1992, 1995 and again in 1997.
There is no question that the PBSA needs to be updated. While
most federally regulated pension plans are fully funded, some
pension plans have come under financial pressure as a result of
both demographic and economic factors. These include the aging
workforce and corporate downsizing we have experienced in Canada.
These are two factors which make pension funding relatively more
expensive for employers.
In this environment there have also been solvency concerns with
some plans while others have been wound up without sufficient
assets to pay all the promised benefits. In these situations the
employer, whether a single employer or an industry group,
experienced economic difficulty.
In addition many pension plans made substantial improvements to
pension benefits in the 1980s with the expectation that employers
would always be able to fund them. This also added to the
challenges. In some cases insufficient contributions were made
to fund these improvements.
As these problems emerged it became clear that the current
prudential and supervisory framework is not equipped to deal with
problem plans. The range of powers and regulatory components
needed are not there. Bill S-3 meets these challenges. Under
this legislation the federal government and the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions will have additional
necessary powers to work with plans that are experiencing
problems.
I want to go into the basic principles. I want to assure hon.
members that these are not patchwork band-aid measures. The
measures in Bill S-3 flow from a series of basic principles
outlined in the government's July 1996 white paper.
Included are the principles that private pension plans are
supervised for the benefit of members, retirees and other
beneficiaries; that the pension regulatory and supervisory
framework should contain the incentives and safeguards necessary
to reduce the possibility that pension promises are not met; and
also that early intervention in and resolution of pension plans
experiencing some difficulty should occur.
Outside supervision cannot and will not be expected to guarantee
that pension promises will always be met nor can it be a
substitute for good governance of the plans by the administrators
of those plans. Regulation and supervision must be cost
effective.
The regulatory framework for private pension plans should not
impose undue costs on existing plans or unduly inhibit the
creation of new pension plans. Members of private plans should
receive adequate information from the administrator concerning
the financial condition of their plan. There must be appropriate
accountability and transparency in the supervisory process.
I want to discuss the basic principles in more detail. The
first principle helps us to focus on what pension plans are. They
are really employee benefits.
Employers, and often employees, contribute to these plans but
let us keep in mind that employees often have no opportunity to
withdraw from their employer plan while they work for the
organization. Without the opportunity to cease making
contributions, employees must rely on the plan's administrator to
make sound financial decisions with their money so that benefits
will be available for them in the future.
It is precisely because of this situation that the government
believes OSFI must have new powers to resolve the troubled plan's
problems early on.
1055
Clearly when an employer's economic difficulties affect a
pension plan and a plan fails to manage its risks, it is to the
advantage of the plan's members, retirees and other beneficiaries
to have the situation resolved promptly.
This should not necessarily mean that the plan be terminated.
There may well be other approaches and actions that can more
fully preserve the employees' contributions and benefits. Yet
termination is currently the only supervisory tool available to
OSFI. This leads to another closely related point.
It is important that our regulatory approach recognize that the
termination of a pension plan with insufficient assets to pay the
promised benefits does not in and of itself represent a failure
of the supervisory process. Even in vibrant economies, pension
plans occasionally terminate with insufficient assets to pay the
promised benefits. The health of pension plans is inescapably
tied to the health of the pension plan employer and the industry
in which it operates.
In a market economy some companies will inevitably encounter
problems. This is simply business reality. The corollary then
is clear. With insufficient assets to pay all promised benefits,
no supervisory system could even begin to forestall any pension
plan termination without the authority and resources to oversee
all management decisions made by the sponsor.
Even if it could work in theory, such total supervision is
neither feasible nor desirable. Without question this is not a
viable approach in a dynamic economy like that which Canada
enjoys. What is required is a balanced approach that melds
appropriate supervision with responsible internal governance.
I would like to highlight one final principle. That is the need
for transparency of the supervisory system, a similar one to the
financial institutions supervisory system. If the financial
condition of a pension plan deteriorates, it is important that
pension plan administrators understand the steps authorities
could be expected to take. This understanding provides a
realistic and credible incentive for plan supervisors to act in a
timely fashion. Furthermore the supervisor must have a clearly
defined role.
Amendments in this bill to OSFI's mandate include recognition of
the importance of OSFI taking prompt action to deal with pension
plans in trouble. To complement Bill S-3, a guide to
intervention clarifying actions that could be expected in the
role of OSFI in various situations has also been introduced.
This guide is similar to ones issued for financial institutions.
I would like to move on to another aspect of this legislation.
Bill S-3 allows for the future introduction of a simplified
pension plan. This measure is intended to help small employers
and to foster an environment that provides incentives for the
creation of new pension plans.
The low pension plan participation rate of small businesses
suggests that the traditional pension plans do not adequately
meet the needs and expectations of small employers. The
government believes that action is necessary and needed to
correct this situation. Bill S-3 opens the door for the creation
of a cost effective regime for pension plans below a certain
size, for example, one with 250 members.
In a simplified pension plan, financial institutions could
propose standard pension contracts containing both general and
specific provisions for the small employer. In addition,
financial institutions would be responsible for administering the
pension plan.
Standardizing pension plan contracts and transferring
responsibilities for plan administration to financial
institutions will greatly reduce costs for the small employer.
The details of this regime will be introduced later through
regulations.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member, but it being 11.00 a.m. it is time to proceed to
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April
19 to 25 is National Volunteer Week. It was first proclaimed in
1943.
Women's voluntary services organized special events to draw the
public's attention to the vital contribution women made to the
war effort on the home front.
1100
Today volunteers play a crucial and critical role in
contributing to the quality of life in our communities. It is
through their tireless efforts and commitment to community values
that events such as Canada Day and winter carnivals can be
celebrated. Organizations such as the CNIB and the Cancer Society
benefit from their energy, skills and dedication.
This year's National Volunteer Week motto is “Volunteers open
the doors to a better world”. In my riding of the Oak Ridges
the Helpmate Community Information and Volunteer Bureau provides
skilled volunteers to many organizations and I pay tribute to
their efforts in honour of National Volunteer Week.
* * *
J. R. SHAW
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of all Canadians to congratulate J. R. Shaw,
chairman and chief executive officer of Shaw Communications, on
his induction into the Canadian Business Hall of Fame.
Canada was built by entrepreneurs who with vision, determination
and hard work achieved success and built a country. Through
their efforts, their products and services they have helped to
define us as Canadians both at home and internationally.
J. R. Shaw built a small family business into a true western
success story. A diversified Canadian communications company,
Shaw provides an electronic link to millions of people through
cable television, telecommunications, high speed Internet access,
paging, specialty television programming networks, radio,
satellite and digital delivery of music. The Shaw name is well
known and well respected and is positioned for continued success
in the growing and competitive telecommunications market.
This House congratulates J. R. Shaw, a true Canadian
entrepreneur.
* * *
NATIONAL WILDLIFE WEEK
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, April 5 to 11 marks National Wildlife Week, an
opportunity for Canadians to pay tribute to a national treasure.
The beaver, loon and polar bear on our coins and the maple leaf
on our flag are symbols that epitomize the richness and diversity
of this country's wildlife. These symbols help bind us together
as a nation.
This year's theme is: “Give Wildlife an Edge: Protect our
Shorelines” which reflects the importance of sustainable
wetlands for the future of wildlife.
In communities throughout Canada people are involved with their
environment. They donate their time to help wildlife and their
habitats.
I encourage all Canadians to use National Wildlife Week to take
up the challenge in their communities so we may ensure that
future generations inherit a country as rich and diverse in
wildlife as the one we enjoy today.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA-LEBANON PARLIAMENTARY FRIENDSHIP GROUP
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce to this House that a new
parliamentary friendship group has been formed: the
Canada-Lebanon Parliamentary Friendship Group.
Some 30 Canadian parliamentarians from both the House of Commons
and the Senate established this group, whose purpose is to
foster exchanges between Lebanese and Canadian parliamentarians,
propose initiatives to promote better understanding of national
and international issues and develop co-operation between our
two countries.
As chairman of this friendship group, I thank my colleagues from
both Houses who have agreed to join me on the executive of this
group.
Let us hope that our parliamentary friendship group will help
strengthen the bond between our two countries, Canada and
Lebanon, which share tens of thousands of citizens and both
consider themselves as full-fledged members of the French-speaking
community.
* * *
[English]
BOBCAYGEON
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate Bobcaygeon, Ontario on
becoming the first millennium village community in Canada.
Volunteers have been working on millennium projects for over a
year. Founders Gail Thomassen, Frank Poole, Michael Murphy and
Catherine Brayley deserve a great deal of credit, as do the more
than 700 people participating in many different millennium tasks
within the village.
Projects include everything from changing the face of the
downtown core to organizing a millennium size cake served with
millennium flavoured ice cream to 40 knitters working toward a
goal of 2,000 mitts for needy children to various other projects.
The 2,500 people of this community have taken an active role in
reflecting their pride as Canadians.
I encourage all to participate in this one in a thousand year
celebration we call the millennium.
* * *
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
members of Canada's armed forces have paid with their lives and
health in service to our great country. How well we attend to
our veterans' concerns is a measure of our national conscience
and is the expression of the will of our nation. Some of our
veterans' concerns still sit, as they have for over 50 years,
gathering dust as we prepare to leave for another two week break.
Hong Kong veterans' enslavement compensation by Japan has not
been resolved despite assurances. Merchant navy requests for
full war veteran status have not been given in spite of
recognition by other allied countries.
Our gulf war veterans suffer ailments of the gulf war syndrome
which has not been recognized as an official disease.
1105
Most of these issues have existed for over 50 years. Most of
the veterans have little time left to enjoy restitution. The
veterans of Canada want our government to listen now and not
later. Our veterans' concerns should not be a new millennium
project.
* * *
NORAD
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
1998 NORAD Top Scope air control competition was held on March 31
at Tyndell Air Force Base in Florida, involving American and
Canadian personnel. I am proud to note the impressive
performance of two Canadian members.
Corporal John Lynch of 22 Wing North Bay, a native of Dartmouth,
won the title of Best Weapons Director Technician following six
days of intense competition.
Captain John Woodbeck, a native of Peterborough, won the title
of Best Airborne Warning and Control System Surveillance Officer
following fierce competition from his Canadian and American
peers.
NORAD is respected worldwide for its radar technology, but the
utility and performance of this technology is only as good as the
experts controlling it. That is why this biennial competition is
so important.
Again I salute these two men on behalf of all Canadians and
congratulate the armed forces for continuing to produce such high
calibre personnel.
* * *
[Translation]
GENERAL CHARLES DE GAULLE
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, 30 years ago General Charles de Gaulle visited Quebec
and shouted his famous “Vive le Québec libre” from the balcony
of Montreal's city hall. France will be issuing a commemorative
medal, which was unveiled at a ceremony at Institut de France.
Originally, the plan was for France to issue not a medal but a
commemorative stamp. However, pressured by the English-speaking
majority, the Prime Minister of Canada phoned French President
Jacques Chirac and stopped the project. Such interference is
absolutely outrageous.
We are pleased with the French initiative. In the words of
Pierre-Louis Mallen, president of the association for the
commemoration of the general's historic visit, “Fewer medals
will be awarded, but they will last much longer. Thanks to this
medal, people will still remember General De Gaulle's visit to
Quebec a hundred years from now.”
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN COLLEGE OF NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the theme of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine's open
house in Toronto tomorrow is “The Road To Wellness”.
This college offers Canada's only four year full time program,
educating doctors of naturopathic medicine, the integration of
scientific knowledge with traditional healing wisdom.
Naturopathic doctors use non-evasive therapies such as clinical
nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathic Oriental medicine,
acupuncture, hydrotherapy, lifestyle counselling and prevention
to assist the whole person in maximizing the body's inherent
self-healing capacity.
The tremendous increase in enrolment in the college reflects the
increasing demand for naturopathic doctors in Canada. We wish
the college a very successful open house.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada pension plan is $485 billion in debt and
rising. To repay this debt the government has decided to tax
young Canadians through premiums that are over two times what
they should be. Canadians know that it is unfair to place so
much of the burden of past Liberal mistakes on future
generations. Many measures will be required to remedy the
financing problems of the CPP.
The Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has proposed
some measures that would help, the most important of which is
that the limit on the CPP investment fund to invest in a diverse
international portfolio be raised from the current 20% to 30%
over five years.
Why did our finance minister turn his back on this sensible
proposal, one that would have increased the fund's performance by
as much as 1.5% per year? Why does our finance minister turn his
back on future generations, many too young to vote or even to
speak for themselves?
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIÉTÉ SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning I am calling upon all the sovereignists to dissociate
themselves as quickly as possible from the words used by one of
their group, the president of the Montreal Saint-Jean-Baptiste
society. Guy Bouthillier is calling for the creation of a media
monitoring agency to ensure fair coverage of the views expressed
during the next referendum campaign.
Words like this are not only evidence of a form of total
intolerance, they are also a perfect example of undemocratic
behaviour that is both threatening and worrisome to the quality
of life of citizens in a sovereign Quebec.
This sovereignist notion was also in the air during the 1970s.
The Parti Quebecois government of the day had to move quickly to
dissociate itself from it.
1110
One might have expected the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to
stand up at the first opportunity in order to speak out against
such remarks coming from a sovereignist with whom he has crossed
paths on numerous occasions, but there has not been so much as a
peep out of him since these shocking words by Guy Bouthillier.
The silence from the sovereignists is a source of concern.
* * *
[English]
DEVCO
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
situation in Cape Breton is becoming desperate. Today more
layoffs were announced at the Cape Breton Development Corporation
in addition to the more than 500 men who are already off the job.
The government says there is no Devco without Phalen, so Devco
is now on a 15 month plan.
This government denied the 15 month plan existed and it denied
that the cabinet memo existed.
Why will the government not be honest with Cape Bretoners and
tell them that, yes, the government has failed to make Devco
commercially viable and is now in the process of pulling the plug
on industrial Cape Breton?
Honestly, that is all we are looking for. Is that too much for
the people of Cape Breton to ask?
* * *
O'NEILL COLLEGIATE CHOIR
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
recognize a group of students from my riding who are in Ottawa
today. These students are members of O'Neill Collegiate's
intermediate chamber choir. Members who saw and heard them
yesterday as they performed in the rotunda will acknowledge that
they are fine.
O'Neill Collegiate bands and choirs have represented Oshawa and
Durham region at music festivals and concerts across Canada and
in Europe. One of the reasons for this recognition is the
efforts made by their teachers to provide their students with
outstanding quality opportunities to work with the best
clinicians and hear the finest ensembles on the continent.
I am proud to tell the House that in Oshawa we not only make the
finest cars in the world, we also turn out quality people.
We were not sure whether the O'Neill choir could be here because
its fame has spread even to Ottawa. They were invited to perform
at Gloucester High School.
To the members of this House I present some of the finest young
people in this country from Oshawa.
* * *
THE LATE ROB THOMPSON
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
month Nova Scotia lost one of its favourite sons, Rob Thompson.
Rob was 23 years old when he died of cystic fibrosis in a North
Carolina hospital on March 17.
I first met Rob when I was a student at Dalhousie University,
working as a lunch monitor at LaMarchant School where he was a
student. Even then his optimism and his sense of humour were
very evident. These were the traits that helped him in the face
of adversity. His long fight with CF did not stop Rob from
contributing to Halifax, Nova Scotia and to Canada as a student,
an athlete, a journalist and, most importantly, a leader. In
the words of Rob himself, “The more you put into life, the more
you get out”.
On behalf of this House I would like to express our sincere
condolences to Rob's family, his friends and his community.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week the Minister of the Environment announced an
action plan to manage toxic substances released from the electric
power generation sector. This plan is the result of
consultations with key stakeholders, including the industry, the
provinces and environmental groups.
The action plan includes the development of environmental
standards and performance agreements with the provinces and the
utilities in order to reduce the release of toxic substances from
the sector.
The action plan will reduce emissions of harmful particulate
matter and toxic metals from oil and coal fired power plants by
more than 100,000 tonnes annually by the year 2003. This
represents a reduction of up to 85% of total emissions from the
electrical power generating sector.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada launched an unprecedented
attack on democracy and on our constitutional order in what can
only be described as an exercise of raw judicial power.
In the name of the charter of rights and freedoms the court
ruled that Albertans do not have the right or freedom to govern
themselves. In the name of the Constitution the unaccountable
justices created a law that had been explicitly rejected by
Alberta's elected officials and they did so basing this judgment
on a right that cannot be found in the Constitution and one which
was explicitly rejected by this parliament and the legislatures
when the charter of rights was ratified.
In the name of protecting basic rights, the court has violated
the rights of people to freely associate around common values in
a private religious institution.
The Vriend decision was not about interpreting the Constitution.
It was not about protecting rights.
It was about unelected and unaccountable justices taking upon
themselves the position of elected legislators and legislating
from the bench.
1115
Abraham Lincoln said that the candid citizen must confess that
if—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Laurentides.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR SHERBROOKE
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the
former Conservative leader announced he was in the running for
the leadership of the Quebec Liberal Party, he said he was ”fed
up with the endless squabbles cultivated and maintained by the
sovereignist leaders, which are sapping our energies”.
Between 1960 and the present, the sovereignists have been in
power about 12 years and the federalists more than 25. Did
Fulton-Favreau fail because of the “nasty separatists”? Did
Victoria fail because of the “nasty separatists”? Was the 1982
patriation and Pierre Elliott Trudeau's rejection of the Quebec
Liberal beige book the fault of the “nasty separatists”?
Were the failures of Meech and Charlottetown the fault of the
“nasty separatists”?
If we have been up to our ears in squabbles since 1960, this is
because the federalists are incapable of getting along together.
That is why the only solution left is sovereignty.
The former Conservative leader claims he is going to succeed
where all those before him have failed. We are anxious to know
exactly how he will go about this, because at the moment we are
simply faced with a big black hole.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the health minister has used the word “compassion”
dozens of times this week when he was asked why he abandoned
thousands of hepatitis C victims.
The arguments he advances for justifying the government's
position are legal arguments, accounting arguments and political
arguments. There is no real compassion in either the
government's position or in the minister's deeds.
Where is the compassion in abandoning tens of thousands of
victims of poisoned blood who were infected through government
negligence?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government does have compassion. The government is
concerned. It is expressing its compassion and concern in a
practical way by putting forward $800 million aimed at helping
tens of thousands of victims of this tragic situation.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a reflection on compassion. Just a few weeks ago
this is what the health minister was saying to victims of
poisoned blood.
He said “We have to remember what this is about. It is not
about fiscal federalism. It is not about politics. It is about
providing compassionate and fair and appropriate compensation to
people who were injured through no fault of their own and we have
to keep our eye on that goal”.
Why did the health minister take his eye off that goal?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all governments in the country that worked together on this
difficult problem kept their eye on the goal of doing the right
thing in accordance with sound public policy. All governments,
all ministers of health, worked together toward showing
compassion as the Deputy Prime Minister has said.
We have now created an offer of $1.1 billion for the direct
benefit of over 22,000 victims of this tragedy. That, in the
judgment of every government in the country of every political
stripe, is the appropriate response to this tragedy.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there used to be a day when ministers would actually
resign rather than violate the principles.
If the health minister actually believes that this decision
should have been based on compassion and morality rather than on
legal or accounting arguments, why did he not go in to the Prime
Minister and say “these are the principles I am committed to. If
you can't accept them and if the cabinet can't accept them, then
find someone else to do your dirty work?”
If the minister is really committed to compassion and morality,
why did he not resign rather than violate those principles?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, is the Leader of the Opposition saying that Premier
Ralph Klein of Alberta lacks compassion and morality when he said
about this deal, referring to Premier Clark of British Columbia,
“Without wanting to sound critical of Premier Clark, it seems to
be sort of late in the game to start to change the rules and to
express concerns?”
Is he saying that Premier Klein of Alberta lacks compassion?
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during the
health minister's meetings with victims of hepatitis C he said
that he would be their guardian. He said in fact that he would
be their champion.
Today those victims ended up here on Parliament Hill and the
minister somehow did not meet them.
They ended up pounding white crosses into the lawn in front of
his office to tell him what they think of him.
1120
Did the minister fail to meet with those victims because he is
ashamed to look them in the eye?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should know that in the course of the past
several months I have met with many victims of the tainted blood
tragedy, spoke to them directly, spoke to them about the approach
being taken toward compensation and personally explained to those
victims, as I have in the House of Commons, the reason for the
approach taken by all governments in the country toward the issue
of compensation.
I explained to them that as the ministers of health looked at
the history of these tragic events they found there was a period
between 1986 and 1990 when governments could and should have
acted and did not, and that is the basis on which compensation is
being offered.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have a
solution for the public relations nightmare the minister is
facing.
B.C. has said that it is ready to move. Saskatchewan is now
ready to have a conference call on the issue. Why does the
health minister not just lead a new charge for a supplementary
compensation package for all the victims of hepatitis C so that
he can once again look those victims straight in the eye?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
every provincial government stands solidly behind this agreement.
Every provincial government respects the agreement that they
themselves negotiated, including British Columbia and Quebec.
Every province and both territories stand solidly with the
agreement that they negotiated.
Last Friday we sat opposite victims, looked them in the eye and
told them, as we believed, this was the right approach to the
issue.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Howard Bullock,
Canada's ambassador to China and the senior official responsible
for operation unity at the time of the referendum told the Bloc
member for Repentigny, currently in China, that the Bloc
Quebecois could ask all the questions it likes on Option Canada,
it would find out nothing, because it was he who spent the
money.
My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
What can the minister, his boss at the time of these events,
tell us about Mr. Bullock's statement?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is very simple. We, and most Quebeckers and other Canadians,
support the Canadian option. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois
opposes it and he is mistaken.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister can certainly not justify the expenditure of
public funds by not responding to any question on the pretext
that he is defending Canada. Is that what I am to understand
from his response? It does not make any sense.
I would ask him whether the minister responsible for operation
unity at the time, now the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, could confirm that the link between operation unity
and Option Canada was such that the senior official of one
ordered the other to spend?
Mr. John Godfrey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have already answered
all these questions many times. We have submitted over one
hundred pages of responses. The matter is totally clear. There
are very few responses, because we have already provided the
documents required and requested.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
remind the House that Mr. Bullock, now the Canadian ambassador
to China, was then director of Operation Unity and therefore
reported directly to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Since Option Canada's budgets were apparently spent, as she
herself said, by the director of the Operation Unity team, how
could the minister claim not to be perfectly aware of how the
$4.8 million given by the federal government to Option Canada
right in the middle of the referendum campaign was spent?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, the question is based on false premises.
Second, we know that the Standing Orders do not allow ministers
to comment on their previous responsibilities.
I repeat, it is too bad, but most Quebeckers and other Canadians
support the Canada option and the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to
it. Present polls show that the Bloc Quebecois is mistaken in
its criticism.
1125
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister's response is also based on false premises.
Since the federal government could already rely on the services
of Operation Unity, which had a budget of almost $12 million at
the time, a budget which could easily have been increased if
necessary, why did the federal government pay almost $5 million
to a phoney organization like Option Canada, unless it needed a
front to get around Treasury Board's usual accounting
requirements?
Mr. John Godfrey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have responded to the
criticisms, of the auditor general for instance, by saying that
changes will have to be made in future. We then answered the
questions asked.
But we also have our own questions. We could also ask the Bloc
Quebecois about Plan O, a plan to spend billions of dollars in
the event of Quebec's separation. This question should be put
to the representatives of Mr. Parizeau in this House.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. Whether or not the
federal minister likes it, health ministers will hold further
talks next week on hepatitis C compensation.
To date the health minister and his cabinet colleagues have
closed their eyes to the injustice and inhumanity of not
compensating tens of thousands of hepatitis C victims. Canadians
are watching. What will the health minister take to next week's
talks?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is woefully misinformed. Next Monday, Clay
Serby, minister of health for the NDP government in Saskatchewan
who this year is the chair of provincial ministers, will
co-ordinate a conference call among provincial ministers of
health to talk about the membership of the board of directors and
other details for the creation of the new blood service.
The ministers of health of the governments of the country, all
governments of all political stripes, believe strongly that we
have an appropriate and a justified approach to the compensation
issue. They are solidly behind this deal. The hon. member
should not cruelly raise—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister can repeat his mantra. He can continue to try to evade
his responsibility but it does not change the facts.
Unlike this health minister, some provinces have had the courage
to acknowledge that the proposed compensation package does not
provide a satisfactory solution for tens of thousands of victims.
Is the minister now prepared to negotiate a new deal? Will he
say yes to all victims by bringing more money to the table, or
will he continue to say no to fair compensation for all hepatitis
C victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is simply wrong. If her reference is to Premier
Clark, I assume Premier Clark has by now spoken to his minister
of health with whom I spoke yesterday and has been reminded that
the British Columbia government was at the table, part of the
discussions, part of the agreement, and stands solidly with the
rest of the governments of the country behind this agreement.
As to responsibility, we did take responsibility as those
responsible in government. We considered a difficult matter. We
came to a conclusion as to the appropriate response. We
announced that decision and we have explained the principles
behind it. That is the responsibility of public officials.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, small
private woodlot owners are being penalized by the federal tax
code for following environmentally responsible standards.
The national round table on the environment and the economy
report tabled last October recommended that private woodlot
owners be treated as small business owners. This would require a
change to the tax code to allow sound forestry management
practices and silviculture expenses to be deductible from their
taxes against their income.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. What is the
government's response to the round table's recommendation, and
when can private woodlot owners expect a change?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me advance notice of
the question.
It is my understanding that there is a differential between the
odd woodlot owner and a woodlot owner who has a business plan and
is actually in the business. Owners under the second category
are considered to be in the business of operating the woodlot and
would be able to claim silviculture expenses.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the minister for his unusually succinct answer.
1130
The national roundtable also recommended that private woodlot
owners be provided with the same capital gains tax exemption
currently available to farmers. At present if an owner wishes to
pass on their woodlot to an heir it is more advantageous to
clearcut the woodlot and pay less capital gains tax than manage
the woodlot in an environmentally sound manner. The current tax
code offers an incentive to prematurely clearcut woodlots rather
than use sustainable forestry practices.
When will the government respond to this recommendation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I guarantee you that if I am given advance notice I can
be succinct.
We have again looked at the capital gains tax. The view was that
would be a very small part of the solution to the problem of
overcutting. We are certainly prepared to sit down with the
national roundtable and with the provincial governments and take
a look at the overall problem.
The question is simply one of expense versus the cost.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the health minister says he does not want the government's
approach to compensation to set a legal precedent.
It is possible for the government to compensate hepatitis C
victims infected before 1986 without admitting legal liability.
To use a legal term, it can simply compensate ex gratia, out of
grace.
Why is he inventing a doomsday scenario in order to avoid across
the board compensation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is sound reason for the approach taken by the governments
of Canada in dealing with this difficult issue.
I refer the hon. member, for example, to the writing this week
of Professor Bernard Dickens of the medical law and ethics
faculty of the University of Toronto. He wrote at length an
analysis that was published in the popular press about the proper
role of government when it comes to a tragedy like this and the
distinction between paying compensation based on accepting
responsibility and going beyond that and the implications for the
health care system.
I urge the member to think through the position he is expressing
and its possible consequence for health care in Canada.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a good thing the minister never read that article before
the ice storm in January and the Red River flood.
The health minister says the government is not liable for
infecting those victims before 1986. He believes it was an
unforeseen tragedy. In the last budget the government set up a
$3 billion contingency fund precisely for needs unforeseen by the
government.
Why is this minister saying that his compensation plan is the
best that can be done?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Speaker, because in our analysis carried out by every government
in Canada when we looked at the history of this matter as
sketched out in the Krever report and elsewhere, it was clear
that in the period 1986 to 1990 something could have been done to
manage the risks. Something should have been done to prevent the
infections and it was not.
In those circumstances all the governments of Canada agreed that
is the appropriate basis on which the public should offer
compensation to those who were harmed.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIVE COMMUNITIES
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Government of Quebec introduced its new policy of
cooperation with Quebec's native peoples, a policy that was very
well received by many native leaders, but that requires the
cooperation of the federal government.
In a gesture of open-mindedness towards Quebec's native
communities, will the federal government agree to match the
Government of Quebec's contribution of $125 million over five
years for the native people's development fund?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has not
been advised of the details of the negotiations to which the
hon. member refers in his question.
When we have these details, we will of course duly examine them
and reply to the Government of Quebec after careful
consideration of the matter.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Quebec has also decided to give Quebec's native
peoples an opportunity to collect the QST paid by natives and
non-natives on and off reserves.
In order to give Quebec's native peoples greater financial
autonomy, is the federal government prepared to allow native
communities to collect the GST?
1135
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government has already signed similar agreements with
native peoples in other provinces, and we are certainly prepared
to sit down with the Government of Quebec and with the native
peoples residing in Quebec for the same purpose.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the health minister is running out of excuses. One of the lame
excuses he trots out is that if he compensated all the victims it
would open up the legal floodgates. He said that anybody who is
sick would sue the government. But that is ridiculous.
These victims are not suing because they are sick. They are
suing because the government made them sick. It is government
negligence that is to blame. That legal precedent has already
been set through the treatment of AIDS victims who are now
compensated on the principle of negligence.
Why the two tier standard?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I made the point that in the HIV example of 10 years ago the
government proceeded on the same principle. It looked at what
happened. It found that government should have been more
vigilant, should have put surveillance systems in place, should
have been more keenly aware of what was going on in Europe and
other countries, and did not.
On the basis of that, compensation was offered. We are using
the same principle in this case. It is a sound principle. It is
a principle accepted by every government in this country.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the principle is that when the government is negligent it should
pay. The government was negligent because it had a test that
could have screened for hepatitis C as far back as 1981. That is
when the German government started using the same test to screen
for hepatitis C. The facts are irrefutable.
The government should have screened for hepatitis C as far back
as 1981 but it did not. That is called negligence. Some people
would call it malpractice. I call it just plain wrong.
Why will the health minister not right this wrong? Why will he
not compensate the victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): First, Mr.
Speaker, it is accepted by most commentators who know the history
of this file that it was in 1986 that Canada ought to have
adopted testing procedures. I rely, among others, on the Krever
report in that connection.
The hon. member refers to 1981. Is he now arguing against his
colleagues by suggesting compensation should only go to 1981 and
not before that? The Reform Party should decide on one approach
to this issue because it is contradicting itself.
* * *
[Translation]
ACQUISITION OF SUBMARINES
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of National Defence.
Everyone recognizes that the provinces are having a hard time
providing front line health services because of the cuts made by
the federal government.
How can the government be preparing to spend $800 million on
submarines, while refusing to return the funds it dramatically
cut from health care in recent years?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no connection between
the two. The question of the equipment that is necessary for the
Canadian forces has been a matter of long discussion. It is a
matter of where we deal with these equipment purchases within the
budget, within the allocation of funds for defence purposes. It
is part of protecting the sovereignty of our country on land, in
the air and at sea.
I think the health minister has advised members of the House
well with respect to the very fine position the government is
taking in dealing with hepatitis C.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would the
government be preparing once again to make an important
decision, such as buying submarines during the parliamentary
recess in order to avoid a public debate on its misguided
priorities?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the House yesterday,
this matter is still under discussion with the British government
and until that matter is finalized we are not in a position to
announce a decision one way or the other.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what is so disappointing here is that the health minister seems
to not care. He just goes back on his own words.
1140
In November he told the Ottawa Citizen that he did not
want to see hepatitis C victims spend their lifetime in
litigation.
A few weeks ago he said all victims would receive
“compassionate and fair and appropriate compensation”. The
minister broke those promises, and all the empty sound bites in
the world will not change that.
Just when did he sell out on his principles and was it worth it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all the health ministers in the country took those same
principles to heart as they worked for months toward this
compensation package.
As a result of our work and the agreement among all governments
over 22,000 Canadians have been spared litigation. Over 22,000
Canadians are going to be the beneficiaries of a compensation
offer that totals $1.1 billion.
For them and their families that is very significant evidence of
compassion on the part of governments.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I asked the minister if he was proud of the fact that he
abandoned those people who now will spend their lifetime in
litigation, the people who are not being compensated in his
package. His package is wrong. He knows it. Other ministers of
health in the provinces now know that too.
Is he now saying that he does not care about those excluded
hepatitis C victims? Is he saying that he does not care if they
spend their lifetime in litigation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I have explained, all the governments of Canada brought those
same principles of compassion and fairness to the table. We
looked at the history of the matter. We proceeded on what we
believe is sound public policy.
For example, in the Vancouver Sun this week some of these
points are made very elaborately confirming the wisdom of the
decision of all the health ministers and all the governments of
the country supporting it and saying the position is fully
justified. Across the country evidence can be seen of people who
have thought about this issue agreeing with the position taken by
all the governments of the country.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans harshly
criticized the federal government's management of the entire
industry. In the meantime, the people in the fishing industry
are very anxious and concerned.
I ask the minister to tell us when and more importantly how he
plans to decide what is surplus in the fishing industry.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have
made a series of decisions and statements. Some aspect of
almost every one of my announcements concerns fishing and the
need to conserve stocks.
I assure him that I will reply in detail to the recommendations
of the committee, and he will see what I want to do about each
recommendation.
* * *
[English]
PEACEKEEPING
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
As part of a new United Nations peacekeeping mission in order to
contribute to the stability of central Africa, the Government of
Canada has just announced that it will deploy Canadian troops in
support of this operation.
Will the minister advise this House as to the nature of the
Canadian forces contribution to this UN mandated mission?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has again been asked to
participate in peacekeeping by the United Nations. The United
Nations pays great tribute to this country's involvement in
peacekeeping by asking us to do so. This is a great tribute to
our forces.
Our forces will be providing some 45 personnel, 25 of whom will
be signals personnel who will be able to manage the communication
system on this mission. They will be part of a 1,350 troop
mission to help bring peace and security into the central African
republic.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
family of Connie and Ty Jacobs broke their silence about the
tragic shooting two weeks ago on the Tsuu T'ina reserve.
Yesterday they went public asking for help.
Connie's sister, Cynthia Applegarth, said “As long as there is
poverty on reserves and no economic development you will have
deaths, suicides and murders”. She wants an independent inquiry
into the social, economic and democratic conditions on the Tsuu
T'ina reserve.
1145
Why will the Indian affairs minister not listen to Connie's
grieving family?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these questions have been asked
repeatedly this week. The hon. member should listen to the
answer from the government in spite of the heckling from the
Leader of the Opposition who is so undisciplined this morning.
I want to tell the hon. member that the government has taken
this issue and issues involving aboriginal Canadians very
seriously. He knows of the RCMP investigation. He knows of
course of the province's inquiry. He knows that the council of
elders can advise the inquiry and he knows that it is led—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is ignoring the people. It is not the inquiry we are
talking about. We are talking about the conditions on the
reserve.
Connie Jacobs probably did not donate a lot of money to the
Liberal Party, nor golf with the Prime Minister, nor fly with him
across the country on trade missions. I do not think she ran in
the federal Liberal election.
Chief Roy Whitney does not want an investigation. He is the
close friend. He does not want an investigation into the
economic, social and democratic conditions on his reserve. Of
course not.
Why is the minister listening to Chief Whitney instead of Connie
Jacobs' family?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed in
the hon. member taking an unfortunate incident such as this and
linking it to such things as political contributions or
otherwise. The misfortunes of other people should not be abused
by the hon. member across. He knows this as well.
We have been doing a lot of work with respect to the conditions
of the aboriginal communities in Canada. The hon. minister today
is meeting with aboriginal communities and continues to do
excellent work in trying to promote the well-being of aboriginal
Canadians.
All the Reform Party wants to do is cut $1 billion for
aboriginal Canadians.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health is wrong about the health
ministers conference call on Monday. It is our clear indication
that this meeting has been established to talk strictly about
whether or not all the provinces are still on the same page with
respect to the serious issue of compensation. It is clearly a
concern that is growing as more information is made available
showing that this unjust compensation package is based on false
information.
Is the Minister of Health now prepared to go back to the drawing
board, re-open discussions with the provinces and come up with a
fair and humane compensation package?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the people who will be speaking on the phone on Monday are the
same people with whom I sat at the table representing governments
across Canada who agreed that the approach we are taking to
compensation is the right one. Every provincial government
stands with us. We stand with them. This is the right thing to
do.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, given that these discussions will be taking place on the
compensation package, it would be helpful for the Minister of
Health to address the real question about whether or not 1986
makes sense at all in terms of liability. We do know as
previously mentioned there was a study, a report in 1981 showing
that surrogate testing was recommended and the department of
health and the Red Cross turned it down because of expense.
Is it the minister's position that the victims who were
abandoned back then due to the cost of prevention should be
abandoned now due to the cost of compensation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is possible to find reports, whether here or in other
countries, of isolated suggestions of tests before 1986. There
is no question about that. It is referred to in the Krever
chronology.
The point is it was in early 1986 that experts agreed it was
incumbent upon those responsible in this country to respond and
to put the systems in place. They chose not to do so and the
consequences were tragic. It is for that reason we have chosen
that year.
There is broad support in many circles for that approach. I
refer to the Saskatoon Star Phoenix editorial of this week
which said that the health ministers, who had to evaluate the
Krever “recommendations in the context of their ramifications on
the entire health system, made a difficult but justifiable
decision”.
1150
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Last Saturday I had the pleasure of meeting with some members of
the Merchant Navy Association in my riding. These men and women
along with all merchant navy vets risked their lives during World
War II to supply our troops on the front lines with the
necessities of battle.
The minister keeps saying that the merchant navy vets are equal
under Bill C-84 but there are 40 restrictions applied to them
that are not applied to the other vets. Will the minister
correct this injustice by enacting legislation that would grant
these veterans full veteran status under the act and make them
equal?
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
hon. member for her question.
It was the present Minister of Veterans Affairs and other
members of the Liberal Party along with Conservative members who
brought legislation forward which gave the merchant seamen
veteran status under the act. I say to her that they did receive
that and they will continue to receive it. There will be further
legislation coming later in the year and what that entails I do
not know as yet.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, there are
40 restrictions so they are not totally equal. The men and women
of the merchant navy have become so disillusioned that they are
planning a hunger strike on Parliament Hill for May 12 if they
are denied again what is rightfully theirs.
Why now are we failing to help those who gave us freedom? These
men and women are requesting a small compensation settlement for
the many years in which they were not recognized. Is the
minister's plan to wait until they are all gone or will he act
immediately to correct this injustice?
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislation that
gave the merchant seamen veteran status came into force in 1992.
Therefore everything that was in place then they are eligible
for. All of the members who were merchant seamen with high seas
voyages qualify for every compensation that is available to every
veteran in Canada.
* * *
CHILD LABOUR
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the use of child labour is a scourge that steals the
innocence of childhood and prevents children in many nations from
the possibility of an education and ultimately a better life for
the future.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs share with the House an
explanation of what this government is doing to ensure that
Canadian companies do not participate in or benefit from the
labour of children forced by circumstances to abandon their
childhood?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have established the
child labour challenge fund which rests on a voluntary code of
conduct for businesses. It does provide financial inducements to
corporations.
We do recognize the need for sanctions. We are negotiating
directly with the International Labour Organization in Geneva for
a new international convention. We expect it to be completed
next year. Implementing legislation by the Canadian Parliament
will follow immediately.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I see that
the Liberal backbenchers are only allowed to ask those kind of
softball questions.
Cynthia Applegarth does not want another cover-up to occur on
the Tsuu T'ina reserve. She just wants to know why her sister
Connie Jacobs and her son died. She wants to know whether or not
the poverty and the social conditions in which they lived
contributed to this horrible incident.
Would the government House leader assure the House today that
the inquiry into the death of Connie and her son will also
include an examination of the social conditions in which the
family lived?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the
precise terms of the inquiry have not yet been fleshed out. We
will take his suggestion as representation.
I would like him to know that this inquiry is going to be under
the direction of a judge of the province of Alberta, Judge Thomas
Goodson, an aboriginal judge. I am sure the representation the
hon. member is making will be duly noted and will probably assist
all those interested.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
In Kelowna, British Columbia, the Heritage Canada office is
designated bilingual, but no public servant there is capable of
providing service in French.
A study was carried out in order to identify those employees
suited to learning French. The Kelowna office of Heritage
Canada will therefore be providing services in French in two
years.
1155
Will the government admit that it must respond to the Fédération
des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique and provide services
in French to the francophones of that province earlier than two
years from now?
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government takes the matter of official languages in Canada
very seriously.
Evidence of this is our recent creation of a task force headed
by Yvon Fontaine, in response to a recommendation by the
Commissioner of Official Languages that the quality of official
languages in the public service be improved, particularly in
areas involving privatization, but also in all others.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, over 30
years ago our government set up independent drug testing in the
wake of the thalidomide disaster, a disaster which made Canadians
realize we needed control over drug safety and that health
outranked cost considerations.
Today, rather than protect public safety, the government is
interested in the controlling of costs at all costs. To save a
few bucks the Liberals threaten to put many more Canadian lives
in jeopardy by giving effective control over drug approval to the
drug manufacturers themselves. How does the health minister
justify substituting commercial and corporate interests for the
public interest?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for Health Canada, public safety is the bottom line. We have
excellent professionals in the department who conduct the
appropriate tests and investigations before any drugs are
approved.
To remove any doubt and to ensure public confidence in the
excellence of their work, I have appointed a science advisory
board chaired by Dr. Roberta Bondar, herself a distinguished
scientist. They will look at the science capacity in the
department. They will report to me and I shall make public their
report on the question of whether we have the people we need in
the Department of Health to fulfil our important public
responsibilities.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the
Liberal government eliminated the feed freight assistance
program. This decision has had a serious impact on the hog
industry in West Nova. For one farm alone in my riding this
decision means an additional cost of $65,000 per year.
Can the minister of agriculture tell this House if he is
prepared to offer hog farmers any assistance with the high cost
of freight?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am answering on behalf of the
minister of agriculture. The Government of Canada has had a long
interest in assisting the agricultural industry in particular
with feed freight assistance. As to the detail of the hon.
member's question, I will have to note it and the minister of
agriculture will respond at an appropriate time.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday, March 28, volunteers from the Certified General
Accountants Association of Ontario held a tax clinic for seniors
in my riding. These dedicated men and women provided an
excellent service to over 80 seniors by helping them prepare
their tax returns.
Can the parliamentary secretary to the minister of revenue tell
the House what Revenue Canada is doing to help seniors and the
disabled, those least able to cope with complicated tax
procedures?
[Translation]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National
Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for
his question.
[English]
Revenue Canada does have special programs especially at this
time of the year. The community volunteer program has over
15,000 volunteers across the country helping over 282,000 people
prepare their tax returns. I stress that Revenue Canada
employees, on their time, help train these volunteers. That is
very commendable and it works well.
Telefile is enabling about eight million people with very
straightforward simple tax returns to do their tax files from
their homes.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, why does the minister not just send out a news release?
Does anyone in the government care enough to listen to the
message sent by the death of Connie Jacobs and her young son? Her
family hopes something good will come out of this tragedy if
living conditions on the wealthy Tsuu T'ina reserve can be
improved. This is exactly what Bruce Starlight's letter warned
the minister about.
1200
The minister ignored Bruce Starlight's warning. Please tell us
that the minister will not also ignore the appeals of Connie
Jacobs' family.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and indeed all
hon. members opposite know what the government has been doing to
assist and to improve the lot of Canadians living on reserves.
The hon. member will know, of course, of the commission of
inquiry which has completed its report. She will know that
First Nations governments have received assistance from the
Government of Canada. She will also know of the progress that
has been made in the communities and of our continuing interest
in this area.
Cutting a billion dollars from native programs, which is what
the Reform Party wants, will not assist anyone.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite
what the government says, the francophones in Kelowna will have
no services in French until two years from now.
How does the government explain its failure to comply with its
own Official Languages Act?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite knows full
well that the government's official languages policy works and
works well.
Naturally, there are parts of the country where discrepancies
need to be rectified. That is why we have a commissioner of
official languages.
I would remind him of the words of his former leader, Lucien
Bouchard, who said that the official languages program in Canada
was a success. He said that when he was responsible for
Canada's Secretary of State.
The Deputy Speaker: That concludes oral question period.
[English]
I would like to thank hon. members first for their co-operation
and for sticking within the time limits.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table notice of a
ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act.
This amendment provides sales tax relief for the purchase of
motor vehicles specially equipped to transport persons who use a
wheelchair.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration
of the motion.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to 84 petitions.
* * *
PETITIONS
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present to the House today. The first
petition comes from a number of Canadians, including some from my
own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the Food and Drugs Act is designed to protect Canadians from
the harmful effects of alcohol consumption and that the
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause serious health
problems. In particular, fetal alcohol syndrome and related
birth defects are 100% preventable by avoiding alcohol
consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners are therefore petitioning parliament to mandate
health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages.
FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition has to do with the family. The petitioners
would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which is not recognized for its value to
our society.
The petitioners particularly point out that the Income Tax Act
does not take into account the real cost of raising children for
families who provide care in the home to their preschool
children.
1205
The petitioners therefore petition parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home to preschool children.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to table a petition pursuant to
Standing Order 36 on behalf of the constituents of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, specifically the Sisters of
Bethany in Antigonish.
The petition states the position of the group, which opposes the
Multilateral Agreement on Investment. The petitioners caution
the government on the mode in which the negotiations have
proceeded and request that a moratorium be placed on the
ratification of the MAI until full public hearings have been held
across the country so that Canadians may have an opportunity to
partake in the discussions and put their opinions forward.
BILL S-13
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the constituents of Nanaimo—Alberni I have two
petitions to present.
In the first petition the petitioners call upon parliament to
withdraw Bill S-13 from the House of Commons and to resolve never
to consider state sanctioned homicide on the grounds of health,
age, illness, disability or any other dehabilitating infirmity
whatsoever from this day on.
DEATH PENALTY
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition contains 389 signatures.
The petitioners request that parliament allow Canadian citizens
to vote directly in a national binding referendum on the
restoration of the death penalty for first-degree murder
convictions.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to be able to present a
petition on behalf of constituents of mine and other residents of
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
The petitioners call upon this government to look seriously at
its commitment to participate in the development of the
Multilateral Agreement on Investment. They express serious
concerns to this government about the way in which
this agreement will jeopardize democracy, sovereignty and our
economic and social institutions in this country.
They believe the MAI is fundamentally flawed in that it seeks to
protect the rights of investors without providing similar
protection for workers through binding core labour standards.
They believe that the MAI is undemocratic and that it will tie
our hands as elected parliamentarians for 20 years.
They call upon this government to reject the MAI and to look at
globalization and international trade deals on the basis of
compassion and humanity.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I present to this House a petition carrying the names of
residents of Kitchener Centre and surrounding areas calling for
action in the situation in the Serbian province of Kosovo.
The petitioners ask parliament to consider the best interests of
all citizens of Serbia and to take action toward peace and democracy
in that region.
PROSTATE CANCER
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning.
In the first petition the petitioners note that one man in eight
will suffer from prostate cancer and that one-third of those
sufferers will die of the disease. The cost for treating
prostate cancer is very high.
The petitioners request that the sum of $1 per Canadian per year
be made payable to cancer research earmarked for prostate cancer.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition was organized by Mr. Doug Massey of
Ladner, British Columbia. The petitioners are residents on lands
claimed by Tsawwassen, Musqueam, Sto'lo, Burrard and Katzie
Indian bands. They call on parliament to hold a referendum to
seek the consent and authorization of residents prior to
beginning negotiations concerning waterways, rights, et cetera.
They further request that a second referendum be held to ratify
the final agreement.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to present three petitions on behalf of the constituents of
my riding of Stormont—Dundas.
The first petition calls for a review and a revision of the
Young Offenders Act.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is a request for Canada to take a lead role in
the campaign to abolish all nuclear weapons by the year 2000.
PUBLIC NUDITY
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition calls upon parliament to amend the Criminal Code,
specifically subsections 173 and 174, the indecent act and public
nudity provisions, to clearly state that a woman exposing her
breasts in a public place is an indecent act.
* * *
1210
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 28, 1997, I presented Question No. 33 and on
December 2, 1997, Question No. 56.
Question No. 33 references the refusal of the Oak Bay Marine
Group to supply the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with
adequate catch data.
Question No. 56 is with regard to the arrangement between the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans and sport fishing lodges in
1995 for the provision of daily catch data.
Those questions have not been answered.
In addition, I presented Question No. 51 on December 1, 1997.
Question No. 51 dealt with aboriginal fishing activities in
British Columbia during the period March 31, 1992 to March 30,
1997.
There have been no responses to these questions and they are
long overdue.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the department has
tried to respond in a timely fashion. I will make note of the
hon. member's concerns and pass them on.
Sometimes when members ask questions the information takes a
great deal of time because the data has to come from many
sources and in some cases it dates back over a long period of
time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT, 1985
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, an
act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House broke for question
period the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Revenue had 29 minutes remaining in her remarks and she
now has the floor.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will try to wrap it
up a little earlier than the full 29 minutes.
I believe when I left off I was speaking about standardizing
pension plan contracts and transferring, especially for the small
employer, some plan administration responsibility to financial
institutions as a cost reduction measure. The details of this
regime will be introduced later through regulations.
I would like to move now to speak about reducing regulatory
burden.
Under Bill S-3 the Minister of Finance would be able to enter
into a multilateral supervisory agreement that is currently being
developed by OSFI and the provincial pension regulators through
the Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities,
known as CAPSA.
OSFI has been participating in this development for upwards of
two years now. By reducing the number of rules to be complied
with the regulatory burden facing multi-jurisdictional plans will
be reduced. This goal is consistent with the government's
objective of reducing overall regulatory burden.
While a number of issues remain to be worked out it makes sense
to include the authority to enter into this agreement now to make
way for future reductions in regulatory burden. In drafting this
package I should point out that the government reviewed
legislation in other jurisdictions in order to benefit from their
experience and to minimize any regulatory differences.
I have highlighted the key principles underlying the proposed
legislation and now I want to turn to some of the specifics of
Bill S-3 itself.
I will start with OSFI's supervisory focus, wherein Bill S-3
replaces OSFI's obligation to review all plan documents and
amendments with the requirement that plan administrators certify
at the time of their filing that documents and amendments meet
the regulatory requirements.
This change focuses the ultimate responsibility for the plan
administration where it belongs, on the plan administrators. In
turn, this allows OSFI to allocate resources to solvency concerns
or higher risk plans. This refocusing is consistent with the
government's intention to further clarify OSFI's mandate. It
must also be noted that OSFI retains the right to review
documents and amendments on a case by case basis and will do so
as appropriate.
1215
As I mentioned earlier, the superintendent currently has very
limited powers to take remedial actions with respect to a pension
plan. Bill S-3 introduces several specific new authorities and I
will only describe the most important of these.
The most significant is the authority to issue directions of
compliance to plans regarding conduct which is contrary to safe
and sound financial or business practices and for breaches of the
act. This is similar to the power in the financial institutions
legislation.
Bill S-3 introduces an appropriate due process along with the
authority for the superintendent to seek a court order requiring
compliance with the direction. In addition, Bill S-3 gives the
superintendent the authority to attend and call meetings with an
administrator or to require an administrator to call a meeting
with members and other professionals in attendance.
This authority could be used when OSFI believes that the pension
plan members or all the members of a particular plan's board of
trustees are not fully apprised of the problem. The
superintendent will also have the authority to obtain independent
professional advice at the expense of the plan. Some plans
routinely neglect to file reports required by OSFI to adequately
monitor plan solvency. This authority will help the
superintendent to have these reports prepared.
Finally, the superintendent will be able to remove an
administrator and appoint a replacement when a plan is being
wound up and circumstances suggest that members' interests are
not best served by the incumbent.
I am going to take a minute to cover the funding rules which
have been advanced under this bill.
Under Bill S-3 the superintendent must approve any benefit
enhancements that reduce the plan solvency ratio below the
prescribed rates or levels. This reflects the government's
belief that it is not appropriate for pension plans already
experiencing financial difficulties to make improvements when
there is no way for the employer to increase funding.
I have received some concerns, as I am sure my colleagues have,
with respect to this approach. It is important for this House to
understand what concerns have been voiced and to know that the
government is working to address them.
First, we want the House to realize that the concerns being
raised relate primarily to the solvency threshold which plans
must maintain in order to improve benefits. This bill does not
specify that threshold. Those details will be provided in the
regulations.
Our original white paper indicated the government was looking at
requiring that plans now show a solvency ratio of 105% after an
amendment, with this requirement being phased in steadily over
approximately a 15 year period. Subsequently a range of experts
was consulted on this proposal. Professional and industry groups
and unions have pointed out that this threshold may be too high
and that more flexibility is desired. Consultation is continuing
on the regulation that will provide the details behind this
provision while recognizing that it serves pension plan members
no great service to be promised benefit improvements that cannot
be delivered.
Alternatives are being considered for achieving the same result.
This could involve a lower threshold accompanied by realistic
commitments from the plan to fund itself in an appropriate
manner. There may also be other options that will emerge as this
work is further fleshed out. It should be made clear that the
government will undertake considerable consultation prior to the
issuance of the regulations associated in particular with this
provision.
I will spend a couple of moments on the arbitration process for
surplus assets. In the white paper interested parties were
invited to comment on proposals dealing with entitlement to
pension plan surplus assets. Many comments were received but not
many concrete suggestions were made. Most comments indicated
that this is a difficult area to legislate and any improvement
would be welcomed.
The government believes that Bill S-3 facilitates arrangements
between employers and employees concerning the use of surplus
assets in two ways. It provides a lower cost alternative to
going to court and it promotes an environment where employers and
employees work toward a mutually satisfactory compromise.
1220
Briefly, Bill S-3 proposes that if entitlement to surplus assets
is not clearly demonstrated in the pension plan documents then
the employer can propose to the employees a surplus withdrawal.
If more than two thirds of the employees consent and required
solvency thresholds are met, the superintendent may approve the
withdrawal. For ongoing plans, if less than two thirds but more
than one half of the employees consent, then the employer can opt
to seek arbitration.
Originally Bill S-3 provided that for plans being wound up if
less than two thirds but more than one half of the employees
consented, arbitration would be mandatory. As I noted earlier,
the Senate made a few amendments to the bill, all dealing with
the surplus issue. The Senate was concerned about certain
situations regarding plans in the wind-ups.
From the point of view of pension plan members and retirees, the
timely statement, settlement and distribution of surplus assets
is a priority. We agree that this is a concern. As such, the
original bill had a certain no man's land. No definitive action
to deal with surplus assets or surplus was required if less than
one half of the employees consented to a proposal.
The Senate passed an amendment that requires arbitration within
18 months after the termination of the plan, irrespective of
consent levels achieved for any proposals. The Senate also
questioned the intent of the requirement for the superintendent
to approve the withdrawal. Clearly the intent is there to ensure
that certain minimum solvency thresholds are maintained.
Obviously the superintendent is not going to consent to a surplus
withdrawal that would jeopardize plan solvency.
The Senate agreed with the intent but perceived that the
original drafting of Bill S-3 provided the superintendent with
pervasive scope for not consenting to a surplus withdrawal, in
particular if the superintendent did not think that the deal was
fair.
There was a concern that if an employer went through the rather
lengthy consent and arbitration process the superintendent could
arbitrarily deny the withdrawal. As such, an amendment was passed
by the Senate which requires that the superintendent in deciding
whether to consent to a refund must recognize the claim of the
employer to the surplus or part of the surplus, as arbitrated
under the provisions of the act.
The government believes that the Senate amendments fill gaps in
Bill S-3, and we appreciate the additions. Other more technical
amendments were also passed.
The measures in this bill are the result of a broad consultation
process. When drafting this legislation the comments received on
the initial proposals contained in the white paper were
considered and the appropriate amendments made. Provincial
ministers responsible for the supervision of provincial pension
acts were also invited to comment and there was ongoing
consultation among pension supervisors throughout CAPSA.
Other proposals in the white paper not addressed in this
legislation will be introduced later through regulation. Areas
such as additional disclosure requirements and funding rules are
already dealt with through regulations, and this approach will
continue.
In other cases such as planned governance and investments, the
government believes it is more appropriate to develop best
practices. We recognize that the size and other attributes of
individual pension plans will effect governance structures and
investment strategies.
Considerable additional consultation will take place prior to
the implementation of these regulations and any resulting
guidelines.
At this time, on behalf of the government I would like to thank
the Senate and the many industry participants and other
stakeholders who provided constructive and insightful advice. I
can assure them that the government looks forward to additional
feedback on its regulations and guidelines in the future.
I have highlighted the important issues dealt with in this
legislation. Bill S-3 will enhance the stability of Canada's
private pension plan regime to the benefit of plan members
throughout Canada. Of that we are confident.
I encourage my hon. colleagues in the House to give speedy
passage to this bill and I thank them for their attention.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish I could say at the outset that it is a pleasure
for me to rise today to speak to Bill S-3 but it is not. I say
that not because I am particularly opposed to this piece of
legislation but because I am very much opposed to the way the
government has decided to introduce some of this substantive
legislation through the other place.
1225
Bill S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act,
1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions Act, accomplishes four things. First, it enhances
the powers of the superintendent of financial institutions to
supervise a pension plan which includes the authority to issue
directions of compliance. Second, it is designed to clarify that
the office of the superintendent of financial institutions' focus
with respect to the supervision of pension plans is on matters
affecting the funding and financial condition of pension plans
and not on reviewing the text of all pension plans and amendments
that are filed.
Third, it provides a mechanism for an employer to establish
entitlement to surplus assets, including obtaining
membership consent and access to an arbitration process. Fourth,
it authorizes the Minister of Finance to participate in
agreements with designated provincial authorities respecting the
application of provincial law to any pension plan that is subject
to federal jurisdiction.
These changes are intended to improve the supervisory regime for
pension plans under the PBSA which regulates approximately 1,100
of Canada's 16,000 pension plans. These changes also reduce the
administrative burden regarding private sector pension plans and
allows the office of the superintendent of financial institutions
to have increased supervisory powers to take action when concern
arises over the safety and soundness of a plan.
I will talk about some of the highlights of this bill under two
main areas. The first area is that of administrative reductions.
Under the amended bill, plan administrators will be allowed to
certify that all pension plan amendments meet with the standards
of the law. This is instead of the present requirement which
states that each change must be reviewed and improved
individually. The change will allow for greater time to be spent
on other matters.
A new kind of simplified pension plan is also created under Bill
S-3. In this plan a small employer can use a standardized plan
text administered through a financial institution such as a trust
company. This is designed to permit defined benefit plans to be
extended to small employers who were formerly frozen out of
offering such plans due to the high administrative costs involved
in creating a customized plan. This will be an added bonus for
these small businesses. This bill will allow employers to act as
administrators for plans established under collective agreements.
The second area is increased supervisory powers for the office
of the superintendent of financial institutions, OSFI. There are
several increased supervisory powers for OSFI. Most of these
changes will allow the office of the superintendent of financial
institutions greater powers.
Some major changes include the following. The superintendent
will have the right to call meetings with plan administrators or
to force administrators to call meetings with plan members to
discuss problems. The office of the superintendent of financial
institutions may enforce changes to a plan before the plan faces
bankruptcy. Under existing legislation the superintendent has
only two options, to close the plan down or to let it run.
Changes in this bill would also allow the OSFI to expect that
the administrator of a plan would use such techniques as
diversification and match assets to liabilities to avoid risks.
The OSFI may issue directions of compliance, a kind of court
order, to prohibit certain actions on the part of individual plan
administrators. The OSFI will be given the powers to remove
administrators and replace them with a court appointed
administrator when a plan is being wound up. The OSFI will also
be given the power to administer a new set of rules requiring
that surplus assets in the wind-up of a plan will be distributed
fairly and in an open manner. A vote must be held among plan
members to determine how the surplus will be distributed.
In principle I support the bill, as does the official opposition.
However, there are some serious concerns regarding how the bill
came before us today and I mentioned that at the outset.
1230
The bill was introduced and passed by the Senate of Canada and
is before us today as the sober second thought before the bill is
passed and given royal assent to become law. It is ironic that a
bill of this nature, one which would normally be introduced in
this place and then sent to the Senate for final approval, is
brought here by the very place that is to provide a second look
at legislation normally.
Our House leader, the member for Langley—Abbotsford, raised a
question of privilege on this very issue because of the nature of
this place. Three of the five political parties did not have the
opportunity to discuss the bill in the first instance in the
other place. The hon. member also argued that a similar bill,
Bill C-85 introduced in the 35th Parliament, received royal
assent and did not this time. There were also arguments made
that this was a supply or in other words a money bill and we all
know from Canadian history and politics courses that bills of
this nature are only to be introduced in this Chamber.
The Speaker ruled this was not a question of privilege and that
the bill is properly before the House now after being introduced
and debated in the other place. I am not arguing with the
Speaker's judgement but I am calling into question why the
government would have this legislation introduced in the other
place.
My main concern comes with the representation of the people of
Canada. There will be several individuals affected by this
legislation and my concern is why the government introduced this
particular piece of legislation in the Senate, an institution
that is unelected and unaccountable to the citizens of Canada.
As a member of Parliament I was elected by the people of Prince
George—Peace River to represent them. My constituents, knowing
their feelings regarding the Senate, an unelected, unequal and
what many perceive to be an ineffective institution, would not
agree with this practice. Many feel that I am their
representative, not an individual appointed by the Prime Minister
who may or may not serve the best interests of the province of
British Columbia, depending on whether they actually show up for
work.
We as the elected members of Parliament need to serve as the
first voice for our constituents, not as the sober second thought
of legislation. That was the intent of the other place, and so
it should remain.
I agree with the intent of the bill before us today but not with
the way it came to us to be debated.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among
representatives of all parties. Some of our colleagues who would
have liked to debate this subject matter are not present today
but look forward to taking part when we resume the debate at a
later date. This is with particular reference to the members of
the Bloc Quebecois.
I think there would be consent that those who want to
participate and are available for debate today do so and that
when we return to this subject matter at a later date the
representative for the Bloc Quebecois, in accordance with
Standing Order 74, be given 40 minutes on debate if he or she so
chooses.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I just want the record to
clearly show we have agreed to this in an honest attempt to try
to keep our House working well together and I would like the
record to show that the Bloc owes us one.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there agreement to
proceed as such?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1235
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
my discussion will centre not on the bill, because by and large
we support portions of the bill, but on the origins of the bill.
The bill originated in the Senate, and this is where the Reform
Party has some difficulty. The Senate is unelected,
unaccountable, unlike the House of Commons, and we feel bills
should be originating in this House. They then should go through
the other place for sober second thought. That is fine. We
agree with that. However, we have major difficulty with having
bills originate in the Senate
The reason we have the difficulty is the unelected and biased
nature of the other place. I would like to go through the
appointments the Prime Minister has made to the other place since
he came to power.
There are 28 appointments and the reason I wish to go through
this list is to show how biased the appointments are and that
legislation originating in the other place has to be biased
because of the make-up of the Senate.
The Prime Minister's appointments to the Senate were Sharon
Carstairs, a former Manitoba Liberal leader; Landon Pearson, who
is married to the son of former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson;
Lise Bacon, former Liberal deputy premier of Quebec; Jean-Robert
Gauthier, a long time Liberal member of Parliament. John G.
Bryden was a candidate for Liberal leader in New Brunswick and
managed the Prime Minister's 1990 New Brunswick Liberal
leadership campaign. The point I am making is that these people
are all very biased.
Rose-Marie Losier-Cool has no patronage connection disclosed;
Céline Hervieux-Payette, former Liberal cabinet minister under
Prime Minister Trudeau; Marie-Paule Poulin, former deputy
secretary to the cabinet in the privy council office. These are
all senators appointed by the Prime Minister.
Doris Anderson has no patronage connection that was disclosed;
Bill Rompkey, former Liberal cabinet minister in the Trudeau
government; Lorna Milne, former Liberal riding president and a
Liberal Party worker; Joseph Landry, former Liberal member of the
New Brunswick legislative assembly; Shirley Maheu, former Liberal
member of this House.
Nick Taylor is a former Alberta Liberal leader; Jean Forest's
patronage connection was not disclosed; Eugene Whelan, former
Liberal cabinet minister under Trudeau; Leonce Mercier, Quebec
Liberal organizer; Wilfred Moore, no patronage connection; Lucie
Pépin, former Liberal member of Parliament.
Catherine Callbeck is former Liberal premier of Prince Edward
Island; Sister Peggy Butts, no Liberal connection that we could
find; Fernand Robichaud, former Liberal MP in the government;
Marisa Ferretti Barth, no connection; Serge Joyal, former Liberal
MP and prominent Liberal backroom fellow. Thelma Chalifoux has no
patronage connection; Joan Cook, failed provincial Liberal
candidate and loyal Liberal worker; Archibald Johnstone, no
patronage connection.
The last appointment which raised a lot of concern in this House
and across the country was Ross Fitzpatrick, prominent B.C.
Liberal organizer and golfing buddy of the Prime Minister. In
fact, he is a former business associate of the Prime Minister.
The point I wish to make is that 20 of these 28 appointments
have blatant Liberal connections. Any bill that originates in
the Senate, as Bill S-3 did, and then comes to this House by
definition has to be biased.
1240
What these appointments demonstrate is that the Senate is not
working and it needs to be reformed. The Senate was set up by
the Fathers of Confederation to represent the provinces. That
was the original intent of our Senate. Quite clearly from the
list I have just read, the majority of senators appointed by the
Prime Minister represent not the provinces they come from but the
Liberal Party, the party of the Prime Minister.
Again, that is the concern we have with legislation that
originates because it is by definition biased. The bill we
largely support but we do not support the process. The process
is flawed and any bill that comes through the Senate should be
looked at. By definition, a money bill cannot come through the
House but other bills we feel should originate with all of us who
are elected, accountable.
If we go back to our constituents and they do not like what we
have done, we will not be elected in the next election. That is
accountability. There is no accountability in that other place.
By definition we feel all bills should originate in the House.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I ask my
colleague to comment on the distribution of the members of the
Senate in terms of how many there are from each province relative
to the population of British Columbia and so on. I think he is
aware of these numbers and he could enlighten us as to how well
the Senate does in representing the different population areas of
the country.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the opportunity to expand on the numbers in the Senate.
When the Senate first started and the country was small, between
Upper and Lower Canada or Ontario and Quebec there were 24
senators each. The maritimes have 30 collectively. Where it
falls apart is west of the Ontario border because instead of each
of the western provinces being given a number of senators equal
or in comparison to the other provinces that were already in, the
four western provinces got only twenty-four senators, in other
words, six for Alberta, six for B.C., six for Manitoba and six
for Saskatchewan.
This is a major discrepancy and it is something that will take
constitutional change. For example, electing a senator does not
take constitutional change. That can be done as was shown with
Senator Stan Waters. The difficulty in the numbers is what is
going to take quite an arm wrestling match because there is a
disproportionate number across the country.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, Bill
S-3 proposes to update the Pension Benefits Standards Act, a law
through which the federal government supervises private pension
plans.
Canada's system of retirement income has three pillars. The
first pillar is the basic old age security paid to all seniors
together with the various supplements paid to low income seniors.
This first pillar will soon be undermined by the proposed seniors
benefits which will result in effective marginal tax rates
approaching 70% for some seniors from the combined effect of
existing tax rates and the 20% clawback on family incomes above
$26,000.
Retirement savings experts are already telling middle income
Canadians over the age of 50 to be wary of savings in RRSPs
because what they save now will be most likely eaten up in higher
taxes later. This creates a direct disincentive for Canadians to
do what is right and that is to save for their own futures and
for their retirements.
The second pillar consists of the employment based Canada and
Quebec pension plans. Under the government's reforms to this
pillar Canadians will have to pay more to get less.
The third pillar includes retirement savings such as RRSPs and
employer pension plans. The government has moved to restrict
access to RRSPs by freezing contribution limits and forcing
seniors to mature their RRSPs two years earlier.
1245
The legislation deals with the other part of the third pillar,
employer pension plans. Most employer pension plans are governed
by provincial law, but 500,000 Canadians belong to the 1,000
plans that fall under federal law.
Ten years ago the Progressive Conservative government overhauled
the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the law that covers those
plans. Significant changes were made to the minimum standards
that plans must meet in areas ranging from survivor benefits to
information disclosure. The bill before us updates that act.
The goals of the bill are to improve the way that plans are
governed, to improve Ottawa's ability to step in when plan
administrators do not appear to be following sound financial
practices to set up rules for the withdrawal of pension
surpluses. It will also allow Ottawa to enter into supervisory
agreements with provincial regulators through the Canadian
Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities.
Unlike other recent changes to our system of retirement savings,
the only parts of the bill to generate even minor controversy are
the provisions that pertain to the withdrawal of pension
surpluses. Pension fund managers are concerned that the surplus
and the wind-up provisions in the bill are weighed heavily
against employers.
However, the bill is not particularly controversial. There has
been some controversy over the introduction of some government
bills in the Senate, a practice which has fallen into disuse in
recent years.
Without getting into a debate on Senate reform, if bills are to
be introduced in the Senate, Bill S-3 is especially the kind of
bill on which the Senate can do solid work before sending it on
to the Commons. This is particularly the case given the
combination of the technical nature of the bill, the expertise of
those on the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce in
the area of corporate governance and the non-partisan spirit of
co-operation with which members of this committee approach such
legislation.
To not optimize the collective skills, wisdom and experience of
these senators is an affront to the Canadian taxpayer. We do
have a Senate. The senators on this committee have demonstrated
prowess, ability and expertise in these areas. I would remind my
colleagues in the Reform Party that to not optimize this
expertise would be denying Canadian taxpayers another level of
deliberation on this type of important legislation.
It is an approach that we could use here from time to time when
we look at legislation, especially legislation affecting areas of
corporate governance where there is a significant amount of
institutional knowledge in the Senate.
The Senate banking committee has made six substantive amendments
as a result of the testimony it heard from officials and from
outside witnesses. The Senate amendments further clarify the
rules to be followed when an employer wants to withdraw from the
pension surplus. It struck a provision that would have given the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions the ability to decide if
a particular allocation of a surplus was fair, as the issue of
fairness should be left to the employees and employers to be
settled, not to a public servant.
It also improved a process for allocating the surplus in cases
where a company goes bankrupt or winds down. It is very
important that we protect individuals when a company is faced
with the types of dramatic downsizing and corporate readjustments
that have occurred over the past few years. The legislation will
help improve that process.
Those amendments were developed by opposition and government
members in the Senate, working in a spirit of co-operation with
the officials. A spirit of co-operation might be something that
we should try to duplicate in the House periodically when we are
working on legislation as important as this legislation.
At the end of the process finance officials conceded that the
bill had been improved by the contribution of the Senate. Our
colleagues in the other place have done well on this rather
technical bill. That does mean that we do not have to do our
work or that we do not have further work to do.
I look forward to the committee examination of the bill and to
further improving it through contributions by the House.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague who just
spoke.
As I understand it, the opposition which my colleagues made to
this was the fact that the issuance of the bill that came from
the Senate was in violation of Standing Order 80 that says:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament
of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons—
1250
Section 53 of the Constitution Act provides that only the House
of Commons may table money bills. It goes on to say that bills
which require the expenditure of public funds or invoking a tax
or an impost. That means fines, levies, duties and penalties.
These bills are totally out of order with Standing Order 80 and
run opposite to section 53.
Does the member agree that these bills should not originate in
the Senate but should come from here first?
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, the hon. member would
seek to deny Canadians the benefit of the expertise of the Senate
on this type of legislation. As a parliamentarian I am quite
proud of the spirit of co-operation and the level of expertise
that benefited Canadians through the work of the Senate on the
legislation. I work alongside senators to provide the good
representation Canadians deserve.
Senate reform is another issue. It is arguable that there needs
to be some significant Senate reform. It was under a
Conservative government that Stan Waters was elected as a
senator. While there is a need for Senate reform in the interim
we need to maximize both houses. This may mean that some
legislation will periodically be introduced in the Senate where
more substantive, non-partisan co-operation and expertise can
benefit Canadians before it reaches the House.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I will follow up on the issue raised by my colleague.
The member rightly points out that there are some very fine,
dedicated and capable people serving in the Senate. We could all
wish they were more democratically chosen but that does not
necessarily reflect on their abilities. That is a good point.
However we have a different problem. We have an issue that lies
at the heart of democracy. In a democracy it is the people who
rule. When decisions are made with respect to spending their
money, shaping their future and ordering their lives, should it
not be the people through their elected representatives who bring
those measures forward? If we are to endorse a situation where
the other place—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I have to
interrupt at this point. The question of what emanates from the
Senate is a question for the Senate and for the House. As far as
the bill being receivable in the House is concerned, the Speaker
has already ruled on that matter.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, with respect, that
seems to be a very integral part of the bill which goes to the
heart of who makes decisions for the people of Canada. If we are
not allowed to discuss that issue here then the democratic
process is not well served.
While I want to respect the concerns raised by the Chair, I
might appeal to the Chair to consider whether we really want to
cut off the issue of debate at this time.
1255
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The purpose of the
debate is not to question what has already happened. I am
prepared to let the debate continue at this time with the
understanding that the Senate has to make its own rules.
As far as this is concerned, does the hon. member have a
question to ask at this point?
Mr. Jay Hill: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker,
on the same question that was raised and for further
clarification of where we are coming from here. In the bill
there is an enacting clause which says “Her Majesty by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons”.
How can challenging the advice from the other place be out of
order when it is in the enacting clause? Not only is the Senate
mentioned in the enacting clause of the bill, but the bill was
introduced in the Senate and it is the Senate that is asking the
House of Commons to consider it.
When a bill is under time allocation it is appropriate to debate
the use of time allocation. Time allocation has nothing to do
with the principle of the bill. Yet it is fair game to debate it
because time allocation was used to advance the bill through
parliament.
In this case the government is using the Senate to introduce
bills to advance its legislation through parliament. For this
reason it should be in order to debate this procedure as it is in
order to debate time allocation. How can it be relevant to
debate some procedures and not relevant to debate others?
Citation 459(1) of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:
Relevance is not easy to define. In borderline cases the Member
should be given the benefit of the doubt—
The case for debating the use of the Senate to introduce
legislation must be allowed. You may have some personal doubts,
Madam Speaker, but I would suggest that you give the member who
is addressing the bill the benefit of the doubt.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The matter has
already been ruled on by the Speaker and the purpose of the
debate today is to debate the bill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, today we are debating a bill that probably does not
affect a lot of Canadians, but every legislative procedure which
ties the hands of and puts regulations in place for any Canadian
is of interest to all of us.
The bill is entitled amendments to the Pension Benefits
Standards Act.
The bill amends an act that was brought into place some time ago.
Its purpose is to improve the supervisory regime for pension
plans that are regulated under the act, especially private
pension plans established for employees who are subject to
federal jurisdiction such as in the fields of banking,
interprovincial transportation and telecommunications. Provinces
have similar legislation to look after private pension plans that
fall under provincial jurisdiction.
1300
The whole point of the exercise is to make sure when employees
put their hard earned dollars into the hands of their employers
on the understanding that they are going to have some pension
benefits at the end of the day, that their interests will be
protected and looked after. This is so they will not end up 20
years later with the company in bankruptcy and a notice on the
door saying sorry but they have no pension.
This is an important bill, not just in the federal jurisdiction.
Quite often measures put into place federally are looked at,
mirrored and seen as a benchmark for what is done in the
provinces.
For at least a decade there has been controversy about actuarial
surpluses in private employer-employee pension plans. This is a
very nice problem to have. It is wonderful to be a member of a
pension plan that actually has more money in the bank than will
ever be needed to pay the full pensions of all the people in the
plan.
That is such a nice situation one could only very much wish that
the same prudence had been exhibited by our federal government
with respect to the Canada pension plan. Far from having to worry
about who gets a big surplus in the Canada pension fund, we have
to worry about who is going to get stuck with paying for a debt
in that plan of $485 billion. The government says it is no
problem, that it will just make our kids and our grandkids pay
it, so what is there to worry about? The money is not there but
the government will just get it from them. That is how our
federal public pension plan has been managed.
Fortunately there has been a bit more prudence in some of the
private pension plans and there is actually a surplus. One issue
which has been raised is what happens to a surplus when there is
one. Obviously it should not just sit there for ever and ever.
It needs to be allocated in some fair and reasonable manner.
This was not a problem much before the mid-1980s, but there has
been spectacular growth in some of the private pension plans over
the last few years. One plan we know about enjoyed a 21% growth
in 1995, 20% growth in 1996 and 17% growth in 1997. It would be
nice to have that kind of return on our Canada pension plan.
Instead, our kids are promised less than 2% growth. That is what
we are giving our kids but the private pension plans do not seem
to have that trouble. It is nice for them. It is too bad the
children and the youth of Canada cannot expect that kind of
prudent management for their pensions.
If there is a surplus in the millions of dollars in these
pension plans, who is entitled to it? One might think that the
entitlement would be fairly simple, that it would go back to the
people who put it in, the employers and the employees. But there
always seems to be some tension.
Is the employer company entitled to the surplus because it
managed the plan so well and therefore the surplus should be its
reward? Or should the surplus belong to the workers who actually
made the capital investment in the first place? These questions
in the past have been left to the courts to decide. The judicial
part of our system does rule in these kinds of disputes.
This issue was brought to a head in 1986 when the owner of
Dominion stores took back $63 million from three employee pension
plans. The employees were not too impressed with this so they
went to court. The court ordered the owner of Dominion stores to
return the funds to the employees. This caused some concern in
the provincial sphere because at that time the province of
Ontario had legislation that regulated these funds.
1305
In 1986 Ontario put a moratorium on all the surpluses so they
could not be taken or distributed. Although the moratorium has
been relaxed somewhat, the provincial rules for division of
surpluses are very stringent. There has to be agreement by 90%
of the employees before any surplus in private pension funds can
be distributed.
The official opposition believes there are some questions in
Bill S-3 with respect to accountability. It is our duty, mandate
and responsibility on behalf of the citizens of this country to
hold the government accountable by being a watchdog to make sure
when the government takes steps that it is doing the right thing.
The Reform Party has been playing that role vigorously with
respect to the whole issue of payment of compensation to
hepatitis C victims. In a host of other issues the official
opposition looks at the issue and indicates its concern that the
government is not treating citizens of this country fairly.
When this bill goes to committee and at third reading the Reform
Party will work vigorously on behalf of Canadian citizens whose
moneys are deposited with private pension plans. It is important
to make sure that when government brings this legislation forward
that we research and understand who it is that stands to benefit
from it. There are not many big pension plans in the country.
Therefore it is a limited number of people who may or may not
benefit or who may or may not be penalized or who may or may not
suffer potential loss with this kind of legislation.
The role of the superintendent of pension funds is set out under
the Pension Benefit Standards Act which is the act we are talking
about amending. The superintendent is supposed to make sure that
the private pension plans are well funded. In other words the
superintendent makes sure that if employees are putting their
monthly or weekly contributions into a company pension plan that
the company manages those funds in such a way to protect the
interests of the employees.
It is unfortunate that the same standard of care and the same
vigorous oversight of the Canada pension plan is not in place.
There are millions of Canadians in a Canada pension plan that is
not funded. Less than 10% of the funds needed to pay pensions
under the Canada pension plan are actually in place. Imagine the
outcry if private pension plans were allowed to operate with only
6% of the funds that would be needed at the end of the day to pay
out pensions actually kept in the fund and the employer spent the
rest of the money for its own business purposes. Somebody would
be in jail but of course when the federal government does this,
nothing happens.
Fortunately for people with private pension plans there is a
little more diligence. Somebody does care what private employers
do even if nobody seems to care how imprudent the federal
government is. The superintendent makes sure that the plan
remains solvent and does not hand out surpluses. The courts
decide who gets any surplus.
Under these amendments, the role of the superintendent is
broadened. If 50% of the employees agree, the superintendent
appoints an arbitrator to decide how the surplus in a pension
plan is to be distributed.
The superintendent did not have this role before.
1310
There is something we are going to be asking some pretty pointed
questions on in committee. We understand that under the present
act it is very unlikely that the employer would get anything out
of a surplus in a private pension plan. Under the new act
employers will now have the door opened to recover or to be able
to use some of the surplus. Again we wonder whether there is any
potential conflict of interest, whether this is appropriate and
why this possibility is being opened up at this time. We are
going to be asking some questions about that.
Right now an employer might try to approach employees for
agreement saying he will get half and they will get half, but
they will all get something. Even if the employers and employees
agreed, the courts would still be required to give their blessing
to any distribution. Under these amendments however, an
arbitrator would be appointed by the superintendent who would
make that decision. The question in our minds is whether that is
a better way to go, whether this is something that is
appropriate.
We want to raise this concern at second reading before the bill
goes to committee. We want to make sure we do our job, not to
just say that it looks like a good idea and modernizes the act so
let us just go ahead. We have a responsibility to look into
these matters and we will do that. I want to put on the record
that is where we will be going on this.
We want to encourage modernization of some of the measures. We
want to reduce administrative burdens where this can be done
because it is really the employees, the people who benefit from
pension plans, who have to pay those costs. If they can be
reduced it is a good thing and we would applaud that.
We would also make sure there continues to be a very high level
of supervision of these plans. No one wants to find out at the
end of the day that the pension plan they paid into all their
working lives and are counting on has gone missing, that the
money is not there or has not been managed in a way that makes
sure pensions are available.
That is the same concern the official opposition has regarding
the Canada pension plan. Down the road we believe our children
may say they are not going to pay money for a very low return for
themselves and the Canada pension plan will simply not be
available for us.
As with many bills, we see some positive measures. We see some
benefits for the citizens who are affected. However we also do
have some real concerns regarding how much this broadening of the
ability outside the courts for the distribution of a surplus
should be increased. That is a real concern. I urge other
parties in the House to also look closely at this area.
We will continue to study the bill during the committee
hearings. Other issues may arise. However we have identified the
main one. We believe we need to be vigilant on behalf of
Canadians to make sure there are not employers who seek to gain a
disproportionate advantage from employees, as was the case with
the Dominion stores distribution.
We as official opposition in this second reading stage see some
good measures of streamlining in this bill. We also see some
areas where we would like to probe a little more deeply, look at
some of the winners and losers a bit more carefully.
With those remarks I hope we will be in a position to ensure
that in whatever form this legislation comes back at third
reading, it will truly be in the best interests of all Canadians,
particularly those directly affected by the act.
1315
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill for her
excellent presentation on Bill S-3.
I noted in her speech that she mentioned the modernization of
the pension plan regime, and I would like to add to that: What
about modernization of the place where the bill originated?
I would like to clarify that earlier one of my other colleagues,
the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, rose on questions and
comments. I believe he was not questioning the validity of the
Speaker's ruling. When the Speaker ruled that it was in order,
that the Senate actually introduced Bill S-3, the bill that we
are debating today, I do not believe he was questioning that.
Would the member for Calgary—Nose Hill like to comment on the
general practice where a government would continue to introduce
legislation through the back door, as it were, through an
unelected, unequal and unaccountable Senate?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, this is an issue that
will continue to be of concern to Canadians.
Democracy really means rule by the people. In a democracy,
since we cannot all be in Athens and put our black bean or our
white bean into the circle, we elect people to represent us in
that capacity. We rule through the agent of our elected
representatives.
We have another house of government in the country which is not
elected and does not have a mandate from the people who are
supposed to be the rulers of the country. That being the case,
unelected people in a democracy should not be bringing forth
measures on behalf of the people. That totally flies in the face
of the whole principle of democracy.
When bills are introduced in that way, my position and I believe
the position of most Canadians is that is terribly undemocratic.
It contravenes some of the most cherished traditions and values
of our country.
It must be fought vigorously, not because the people in the
Senate are competent as many of them are and not because the
people in the Senate do not have levels of expertise sometimes
greater than that of many members of the House but simply and
solely because senators are not the democratically chosen
representatives of the people whose job it is to order their own
lives, spend their own money and shape their own future.
We will oppose the introduction of bills at every turn of the
wheel.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak for a moment. I
probably will not take my allotted time because the member for
Calgary—Nose Hill did a superb job of analysing what is in the
bill and how it will affect the lives of a lot of people.
I would like to take a moment to say a couple of words with
regard to the Senate. I ask the senators and constituents who
are watching this debate on television to hang on to their
armchairs because I am about to say something that is very nice
regarding the Senate. That is probably a shock to a lot of
people.
I want to allude to the fact that the bill originated in the
Senate. At the present time a committee of senators are
travelling around the country, particularly in the west, meeting
with grassroots, hard working farmers regarding Bill C-4
respecting the wheat board. The senators are meeting with these
people and I hope they are listening.
I feel it is very efficient for the Senate to be doing that. If
someone were to identify it as a job description, a very
important part of it would be getting into the country and
representing the regional interests of all Canadians.
1320
In this place 104 members of Parliament from Ontario and 79
members of Parliament from Quebec, which constitutes a high
majority, voted in favour of a bill that does not affect any of
their constituents but has an impact on western farmers in
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and northern B.C.
I commend the senators for being out there in the region
affected by a bill that is being passed. They are making certain
that it is in the regional interest. If they are truly listening
to the people, I am certain they will come back disillusioned
that the House would pass such a bill based on the votes of
people who live outside the territory being affected.
Let us look at the types of legislation being put into place in
the land. We on this side of the House become quite concerned
when decisions are made by judges who are unaccountable,
unelected individuals or legislation is brought forward by people
who are unelected and unaccountable. It is our duty as an
opposition party to question the avenue used by the government to
bring in the legislation and to suggest that it should stop.
The people of Canada have elected individuals to come to this
place to represent their interests. These interests should be
brought to this place by their elected representatives. That is
what Canadians expect and that is what they want. They do not
want unaccountable judges and unaccountable senators making laws
of the land. They want their elected officials to do that task.
That is what we were elected for.
I commend my colleagues from Calgary—Nose Hill and Prince
George—Peace River for their comments on Bill S-3. I agree
fully with their comments. The House can expect support from
this side. Our only objection would be to the origination of the
bill.
Mr. Bob Kilger: I rise on a point of order. Correct me
if need be, Madam Speaker, but I do not believe anyone was rising
on debate. We have had some discussion among the parties that if
this occurred, before the normal adjournment of the debate, we
would agree to adjourn the debate at this time, to see the clock
as being 1.30 p.m. and to proceed to the Private Members'
Business under the name of the member for Calgary Centre.
If you seek unanimous consent, Madam Speaker, you would find
that we agree to adjourn the debate and to see the clock as being
1.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the consent of the House to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 1.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1325
[English]
CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian
Human Rights Act (offences against children), be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-284
this afternoon. The bill proposes to amend the Criminal Records
Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to sexual
offences against children. I was pleased that the bill was drawn
and made votable. I do not buy lottery tickets but I feel like I
have won.
The bill addresses some of the very real concerns of parents. It
addresses some of the procedural shortcomings of our current
policies regarding an individual's criminal record. Essentially
the bill allows for the disclosure of an individual's criminal
record if the individual has been convicted of a sexual offence
against a child and later applies for a position of trust with
respect to children. We would think that this would be the
current case but it is not.
Before I delve into the details of the bill, I would like to lay
out the big picture that lies at its heart. Our families are the
building block of society. Children are our nation's future.
As one of the constitutional principles of my party, we “affirm
the value and dignity of the individual person and the importance
of strengthening and protecting the family as essential to the
well-being of individuals in society”. Our children are a most
precious resource as they are our future. If we protect our
children we are protecting the future of Canada.
Reformers are concerned about the safety of our children.
Reformers are concerned about ensuring that those responsible for
children will not abuse their position of trust. Reformers are
concerned about how difficult it is for children's organizations
to know whom it is that they are hiring and to be sure that they
are not putting children at risk.
Especially with respect to sex offences against children,
Reformers and hopefully all of us in the House are concerned
about protecting those most vulnerable from the potential sexual
predator. We justifiably recoil in horror when we hear some of
the stories of children being sexually abused. As
parliamentarians in the House we have the responsibility to
fulfil the fundamental role of government to ensure the
protection of our citizens. This is particularly true for
children who are the most innocent and vulnerable in society.
Bill C-284 before us today is designed to help address these
legitimate concerns. It would enable those responsible for
children to make fully informed decisions about whom they hire.
It would help ensure public confidence that those responsible for
children or looking after children have not abused this position
of authority in the past.
Bill C-284 was based on an earlier bill in the 35th parliament
tabled by the Reform member from Fraser Valley, which again
underlines our commitment to children and families. His bill was
in response to a petition from over 25,000 people across Canada
which called for specific changes to prevent those convicted of
sex offences against children from holding positions of trust
over children. This is what Bill C-284 is concerned about. This
could effectively be achieved when Bill C-284 is passed.
Let us look at the mechanics of our current legal system in this
regard. It is true that when one is convicted of an offence,
including a sexual offence against a child, one receives a
criminal record and justifiably so. It is true that if a person
applies for a position of authority over children in day care, et
cetera, the children's agency may do a record check, flag the
fact that the person has been convicted of such an offence and
take these facts into consideration when considering a job
application. This all makes sense and that is how it should be.
Where is the weakness in our current laws? The weakness occurs
when an one's sentence is completed and one receives what is
termed a “ pardon”. Let me be clear that “a pardon does not
erase the fact that you are convicted of the offence”. This is
a direct quote from the pardon application booklet of the
National Parole Board. The individual has still committed the
offence.
Rather, a pardon allows people convicted of a criminal offence
to have their criminal record sealed and effectively erased from
the public record. This means once a pardon is awarded for an
offence for which one is convicted, any federal agency or
department that has records of convictions must keep those
records separate and away from the public.
Therefore, once a pardon is granted the fact that a person was
convicted of a criminal offence will not be disclosed or made
accessible to anyone without prior approval of the Solicitor
General of Canada which, for practical purposes, is an impossible
process.
1330
Essentially once a person receives a pardon for a previous
conviction there is no record accessible to the public that there
ever was such a conviction or that the pardon was ever even
granted.
I do not want to spend too much time debating the merits of
pardons, although I will note that according to the National
Parole Board for the last number of years 96% of the total
decisions it makes are in favour of granting pardons. Very few
are denied. More specifically, in 1996-97 there were 18,294
decisions made and 104 decisions were denial, 1% of the total.
With that background let us go back now to Bill C-284. In the
preamble of the bill it recognizes that there are certain
circumstances in which it may be appropriate to grant a pardon to
a person who has been of good behaviour following a conviction
for a criminal offence and a period following the completion of
the sentence.
Bill C-284 also recognizes that if a person has been granted a
pardon for an offence the record of that offence should be kept
separate from other records and access thereto should be given
only in cases where public interest overrides the privacy of the
record.
Bill C-284 would submit that public interest clearly overrides
the privacy of the record in connection with the interests of
caring for children, particularly when those responsible for
children are reviewing applications for employment in positions
of trust regarding children.
However, as I earlier indicated, once a pardon has been granted
for any offence, including sexual offences against children, the
current official policy is don't ask, don't tell. Employers
guided by the Criminal Records Act are not to ask someone to
disclose a conviction for which a pardon has been granted or
issued.
To rectify the situation Bill C-284 proposes to allow the
limited disclosure of an individual's criminal record when an
individual applies for a position of trust with respect to
children, even where a pardon has been granted.
I hear one member saying that makes good sense. I hope we can
all concur and speedily pass it through the House.
Children's organizations would then be able to identify those
who are more of a risk of abusing a position of trust with such a
disclosure, the end result being better protection of Canadian
children.
I think we will all agree that the protection of our children is
paramount. Those who have suffered from sexual abuse
characterize it as a life sentence. We in Parliament have a
responsibility to ensure that when one's child is being placed in
the hands of another individual those hands are not likely to be
abusive. These are the concerns of Bill C-284.
The bill would enable those responsible for children to make
fully informed decisions about who they hire. Bill C-284 would
give parents with children in third party care the assurance that
those responsible for looking after their children have not
abused this position in the past. This is important because all
the evidence indicates that individuals who have sexually abused
others in the past are at greater risk to repeat this abusive
behaviour. I will speak further to this a little later, but
first I will summarize the particulars of the bill.
First, it is specific in its intent in order to better protect
children from those who have been abusive in the past.
Second, Bill C-284 proposes to allow for the limited disclosure
of an individual's criminal record if the individual has been
convicted of a sexual offence against a child and later applies
for a position of trust with respect to children. Such a
disclosure will include an individual's criminal record for a
previous sexual offence against a child or children, even if one
had served one's sentence and had later received permission to
have the notice of a conviction removed from the individual's
criminal record.
Bill C-284 does not propose that sex offences against children
can never be pardoned, although that might be another reasonable
thought. The bill does not propose that if one makes a mistake
such as this it should be forever on one's criminal record.
Again, that might have merit but that is not what this bill is
all about.
1335
Rather, Bill C-284 proposes that if one does sexually abuse
children that person could effectively be prevented from holding
a position of care or authority over children ever again. Those
responsible for children will be able to see that a job applicant
has abused such a position in the past and thus be more
judicious and wise in their hiring practices.
Why is Bill C-284 necessary? Essentially it sends a message
that protecting our children is paramount. Bill C-284 provisions
are common sense and because studies have shown that those who
abused children sexually once are more likely to do it again.
This is not harsh on my part. Those are the facts.
Correctional Service Canada studies have shown that about one
third of all sex offenders are convicted of a new criminal
offence after release. I am referring to a study done in 1996 by
Correctional Service Canada, “Forum on Corrections Research”.
To reference this same source, according to the offenders intake
assessment process most of the 808 recent federal admissions with
a sexual offence history had recommitted a sexual offence.
There are other studies I can quote but for sake of time I am
going to move on to one other study which indicated that sexual
offenders who had committed sex offences in the past had a
subsequent sexual recidivism rate of about 30%. Again, not to
use my words, but to quote this study's authors, the strongest
predictor of repeating sexual assault crimes was not surprisingly
a previous sexual offence.
Bill C-284 would address these troubling statistics by giving
responsible agencies the means to deny sex offenders the ability
to place themselves in high risk situations ever again. It would
be good for both the offender and of course for the children.
What about the right to privacy, some may ask. In a May 1996
discussion paper the privacy commissioner explained the Privacy
Act does not prevent the release of personal information if it is
in the public interest to release such information. In fact, the
act specifically permits the release of personal information in
public interest.
The April 1996 RCMP protocol manual defines public interest as
“evaluated on the basis of whether it is specific, current and
probable, where there is a possible invasion of privacy balanced
against a public interest, consideration may be given to who
would be receiving the information and whether any controls can
be placed on further use or release”. That is from the RCMP
disclosure of personal information in the public interest
document.
I submit the disclosure provisions in Bill C-284 fall well
within the accepted protocol for the release of personal
information, of which one's criminal record is a part.
It is in the public interest for children not to be exposed to
those who have abused them in the past and are more likely to do
so again in the future, as the statistics I have quoted so
clearly show.
It is in the public interest for parents to have confidence in
those who are caring for their children, to evaluate public
interest on the basis of whether it is specific, current and
probable.
Bill C-284 is specific in that the disclosure takes place only
when those responsible for children request the information upon
reviewing an individual's job application for a position of trust
with respect to children. Therefore it is specific. Bill C-284
is current in that disclosure takes place only if an individual
applies for a position of trust over children. If no appropriate
application is made, then no disclosure is given.
Bill C-284 is probable in that it allows for disclosure only
during the time an individual applies for a job with children and
information disclosure is very relevant to the situation.
Overall the bill is important for the protection of our
children.
1340
Those who have suffered from sexual abuse characterize it as a
life sentence. I am quoting Abby Drover who as a 12 year old was
held captive in an underground bunker in 1977.
How can we say no to parents and child care agencies crying out
for this simple straightforward tool to protect innocent
children? How can we say no to the protection of our children as
we look into their eyes, place them in someone else's hands,
close the door and drive away? We cannot.
Children and their parents thank members for their anticipated support
and speedy passage of this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in
the debate on Bill C-284 introduced by the member for Calgary
Centre.
The bill deals with sentencing, release on parole, and
Canadians' fundamental rights and freedoms, all topics familiar
to us in the House.
Over the last 10 years, various justice ministers have presented
a variety of legislative initiatives, some of which were
specifically intended to introduce stiffer penalties and delay
the release of those convicted of crimes involving the sexual
exploitation of children.
In 1992, for instance, the House considered and passed an
important bill introduced by the then solicitor general and
intended to replace the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act with
the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I must point out
that, after a few years, even this act was constructively
amended.
With all due respect for the member who introduced this bill, I
cannot understand why the House is devoting time to issues that
have recently been extensively debated here and in committee,
especially when we know that the time allocated to private
members' business is limited.
The proposals have been made, however, and I will take the
opportunity available to me for comment.
All Canadians know of examples of terrible crimes and what
happened to the victims of these criminal acts. From the
comments sent to riding offices, mail received and reports in
the media, we know that some of our fellow citizens are living
in fear of crime and feel that the government has not been
successful at protecting society at a time when people's
perception is that the law is being flouted.
I would emphasize that this is not a view held by all Canadians.
Far be it from me, however to ignore the concerns of individuals
and groups wanting us to take a stronger stand against
criminals.
Not long ago, the crime rate rose every year. More crimes and
different types of crimes were being reported, because victims
of domestic violence and sexual harassment were less stigmatized
and less afraid to speak out and help in the efforts to bring
their aggressors to justice.
However, in recent years, violent crime has declined. Despite
the vast media coverage of sensational crimes, the general
public must be better informed about the way the justice system
works and about the measures taken to reduce crime.
Clearly an informed public is more likely to see the gaps in the
system it knows only superficially.
Those directly responsible for the security of Canadian
communities, from the police through prosecutors, judges and, at
the end of the line, the federal and provincial criminal law
systems, must respond to the criticisms that arise from
increased awareness and greater surveillance. This is the least
we can do as legislators.
When we look at the statistics, we can see many factors
affecting individuals' vulnerability to crime. For example,
geographical location is a factor. More violent crime occurs in
urban centres than in the country.
1345
What I want to point out is that crime is not endemic everywhere
in the country. I agree that many Canadians have no choice but
to live where they are and they never know who they will run
into one day.
However, it is also reasonable to think that, for many other
Canadians, the only violence they will witness will be what they
see on their televisions in the evening.
[English]
We must respond to these concerns and we must do so in a very
effective manner. In the case of individuals, problems may often
be dealt with directly by referring them to community and victim
support groups that are available within the Ministry of the
Solicitor General, from the Correctional Service of Canada and
the National Parole Board regional offices throughout the
country.
In addition, most police forces assign officers to community
service duties and many courts are monitored by representatives
of victims service organizations. This direct intervention by
our staff members and constituency offices to provide information
and assistance is the most satisfactory and personalized solution
to constituents who are feeling baffled or neglected by the
criminal justice system.
When protests are prompted by system faults, the system must be
changed from within, or if necessary, must be altered through the
legislative process.
As is sometimes the case in isolated and regrettable instances,
the correctional system's failures can be traced to human error
where established policies and procedures that would protect the
public are ignored or often misapplied. Extraordinary incidents
occur with some tragic unfortunate results.
We must do everything in our power to reduce the number of these
incidents, but an ineffective response can be worse than no
response at all. Piecemeal legislation change is not a solution
to the problems perceived.
I believe Bill C-284 is too narrow in its focus and too
punitive. The law must be fashioned to accommodate a range of
offenders in any given category. That is not to say that there
are good people who commit violent and deplorable acts and bad
people who are convicted of the same type of offences. There are
however levels within each class of offender that lead us to
believe that some may more readily resume a law-abiding lifestyle
than would offenders who are serving sentences for similar
offences.
[Translation]
This bill would reject the guiding principle of correctional
services, which is that the public is best served if “the
criminal is put back on the straight and narrow”. Inmates who
react well to the opportunities for treatment, training and
education offered by our system can return to society one day as
law-abiding citizens.
Regardless of what we do for, or to, them, these individuals
will be back in the community one day. Consequently, those who
no longer constitute a threat must benefit from all reasonable
opportunities, so that they may again be part of society as soon
as possible.
Not only would the present bill restrict those opportunities for
too many criminals, but it would also lengthen sentences without
taking court deliberations into consideration, as well as
punishing criminals for what they might do after serving the
entire sentence for what they have done.
Now that I have mentioned some of my reservations concerning
this bill, I will use the rest of the time allocated to me to
remind my colleagues of a related initiative carried out during
the last session of Parliament on behalf of the Minister of
Justice and the departmental portfolio of the Solicitor General.
Bill C-55, a cohesive and complete set of reforms which came into
effect last August, enables the courts to order the surveillance
of certain criminals for up to 10 years after the end of their
prison sentence.
In earlier initiatives we also revised the Criminal Code in
order to allow the courts to ban persons found guilty of sexual
offences involving children from the vicinity of schools,
community centres and playgrounds.
In parallel, criminal harassment and stalking have become
offences on which it is now easier to act because of certain
clauses in the Criminal Code. The efforts expended to tighten
up the legislation relating to these categories of criminals may
have escaped the notice of the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
1350
That is surprising, because I know that he is greatly interested
in this and other related issues. Nevertheless, provisions and
proposals of this nature constitute opportunities for frank
discussions, in my opinion.
I will be satisfied if, as a result of this debate, the public
acquires more knowledge of this part of our correctional system.
The hon. member who introduced Bill C-284 obviously shares my
opinion, and I congratulate him for his perseverance in bringing
criminal justice into the public eye and thus helping to make
Canadians better informed.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-284. I
commend the work of the member for Calgary Centre in tabling such
an important piece of legislation. Bill C-284 is important in the
sense that it focuses on one of the highest priorities, if not
the highest priority the criminal justice system should have,
which is the protection of children from abuse.
Conservative estimates indicate that one in three girls are
sexually abused before the age of 18 while one in six boys are
sexually abused before the age of 16. These are tragic and
disturbing figures. As a former crown attorney I often dealt with
cases that put a human face on these statistics.
Even more frightening is the fact that most abused and neglected
children never report these incidents to the proper authorities.
This is especially true of cases of sexually abused children
since there may be no outward sign of the physical, psychological
or emotional harm that has resulted. Furthermore, sexually abused
children are often reluctant to report these crimes for they feel
intense shame, and secrecy is often the result.
For these and other reasons we must focus our attention and our
efforts to combat child abuse at the prevention level. It is a
serious matter of public interest which Bill C-284 if passed
would help to address.
As outlined by previous speakers in the House, this bill amends
two existing statutes, the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian
Human Rights Act.
The amendments to the Criminal Records Act would allow for
limited disclosure of criminal records of persons pardoned for
sexual convictions against a child. This disclosure would occur
when the pardoned person applies for a position of trust over a
child. The information would be provided to those individuals
with responsibility for the child who are considering such an
application. Any inappropriate disclosure of information by these
individuals would be subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.
Put simply, these changes would give organizations that deal
with children an additional tool to scrutinize potential
employees or volunteers before they are placed in positions of
trust, in positions where children are most vulnerable where a
relationship of trust might exist. Groups such as Scouts Canada,
Girl Guides of Canada , Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Canada
and minor sports teams would have access to information that is
extremely relevant to the selection process they must undergo.
For those who would object on the grounds of privacy rights for
pardoned offenders, I suggest they examine the reality of sexual
offenders. Among criminal offenders, those convicted of sexual
offences have one of the highest rates of recidivism.
Our children are far too important to risk having repeat
offenders enter into positions of authority and trust. We must
give child centred and youth centred organizations the tools to
prevent further tragedies of sexual abuse. It is a sad irony that
we presently have a government that cracks down on law-abiding
gun owners and leaves tens of thousands of hepatitis victims
twisting in the wind but nevertheless feels that the rights of
convicted child sex offenders should take precedence over
children's safety.
The second component of Bill C-284 amends the Canadian Human
Rights Act. It would permit organizations to refuse to employ
individuals in so-called child trust positions on the basis of
persons having been pardoned of sexual offences against children.
This amendment is a logical step in this bill.
Once an organization has access to relevant information, it
should certainly be free to act upon that relevant information
without fear of reprisals.
1355
I share the view of those who believe that rehabilitation is a
laudable goal. I also believe that securing employment for
offenders re-entering society is often critical to ensure that
they do not become repeat offenders and that rehabilitation can
occur. This in turn helps protect public safety and confidence
in our criminal justice system which is something that has been
sorely lacking in recent years.
However, we need to draw the line at allowing convicted sex
offenders irrespective of whether they are pardoned to secretly
enter into positions of trust over children. On balance it is
far too important. The consequences and the potential for harm
are something we really have to consider in this instance.
Canadians need peace of mind that organizations in which they
entrust their children's safety have taken all precautionary
steps necessary to protect their children's safety. Bill C-284
gives these organizations another very crucial weapon to fight
child abuse. This bill is a reasonable compromise between the
rights of offenders and the rights of society, which is something
that we always wrestle with in our justice system. In particular
this bill protects our most important citizens in this country,
our children.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, I urge all
members to support this legislation. Let us support our
volunteer driven organizations that deal with our children and
the future of our country. Let us support our families and the
safety of our children. Let us do it and let us do it quickly.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I begin by commending my colleague from Calgary Centre
for his wisdom and effort in bringing this legislation before the
House for consideration.
Bill C-284 has all the elements that make excellent legislation.
First of all it is based on common sense. Our society does not
accept child molesters in any position of trust when it comes to
the issue of children. Common sense tells us that it is simply
too risky and any parent is unwilling to accept that kind of risk
when it comes to their children.
This legislation is also simple and direct. It sticks to the
very matter at hand and pinpoints a specific flaw in our justice
system.
Finally this bill is reasonable and fair. While its central
focus is to protect our children, the amendments proposed under
Bill C-284 do not flagrantly harass convicted child molesters who
have been pardoned. There is absolutely no impact on their
search for gainful employment that does not involve children.
Unless children are involved, they continue to enjoy the
privilege of not being required to divulge their conviction.
This bill closes a loophole and that is one of the things MPs
are sent to the House to do. We must close the legal loopholes
that jeopardize the safety of Canadians and fail to protect and
improve their lives. When we discuss this loophole we are not
talking about extreme cases, worst case scenarios or remote odds.
We are talking about a common occurrence where a convicted child
molester has been given a pardon and is perfectly free to seek a
position involving children with no scrutiny and absolutely no
questions asked.
Only about 1% of convicted criminals who apply for pardons are
refused. That means 99% are pardoned. It is not as though a
child molester must fight through challenging hurdles in order to
get himself or herself into a position of trust over children.
The possibility of this happening is very high and very real.
Once the pardon is granted, the current laws mean a day care or
nursery school is breaking the law to even ask a child molester
if he or she has ever been pardoned for a criminal offence
against children.
This debate can be boiled down to one central issue, the quest
to appear politically correct versus the protection of our
children. We are well aware of this government's effort to ensure
the rights and freedoms of prisoners and convicted criminals.
1400
They are so very sensitive to the newest theories in criminal
rehabilitation. That is all very well and good, but never can
these accommodating gestures be made at the expense of victims
and potential victims, in this case the most vulnerable in our
society, our children.
Which is more important, the right to privacy for a pardoned sex
offender or the right to life and safety of a child? I believe
Canadians want the law to place children first. As for the
privacy and potential harassment of a pardoned criminal, this
bill does not advocate pasting their name and photo on every
telephone pole, something that has become a great source of
controversy in this country and around the world. This
legislation is simply designed to prevent and discourage sex
offenders from working with children. That is all.
Members of some of the other parties in this Chamber have
accused Reformers in the past of sensationalizing crime and
inflating the problems in our justice system. In rebuttal I
would argue that the only thing Reformers have done has been to
raise the unpleasant and horrifying impact of government inaction
in rectifying faulty laws, legal loopholes and weak enforcement.
Reform MPs have done many things in Ottawa that members of other
parties have not dared to do, things that would disturb the old
guard and the status quo. We have dared to bring these
preventable crimes to light.
I am not going to relate the horrible tragedies in which
convicted child molesters have managed to regain access to
children. We all know it happens. We all read the newspapers
and watch television. Instead I want to appeal to the mothers
and fathers, the grandmothers and grandfathers, the aunts and
uncles, the Godmothers and Godfathers and anyone else who is
fortunate enough to have a child in their life who they love and
who loves them.
Like many children that child will probably at some point in
his or her life enrol in a nursery school, a play group, a day
care, a sporting activity, a hobby club or a service organization
such as Brownies or Scouts.
Let us take the example of a nursery school. The parents of
that child have the right to demand that their two, three or four
year old child is not susceptible to sex offenders or child
molesters.
To achieve this level of safety the nursery school, like most
organizations involving children, requires that any employee,
volunteer, or any other individual for that matter, with access
to those children while they are under the responsibility of the
school undergo a criminal reference check. This would include
the nursery school teachers, any assistants or any parents who
help with the children's activities.
Individuals obtain from the police documentation stating that
they have no criminal record. At this point, if a parent feels
certain their child is at no risk of being in the care of a child
molester, they are unfortunately misguided. When a convicted
criminal receives a pardon for his or her offence the police are
required to remove any record of that conviction from their
personal records. So, unwittingly, the police may issue a
positive criminal reference check for a pardoned child molester.
That is certainly not the fault of the police. It is the fault
of the law. It is obvious that we need to remedy this horrifying
oversight.
I believe Bill C-284 is the ideal solution. It would ensure
that organizations like nursery schools do not mistakenly hire
a child molester. At the same time the bill offers a reasonable
approach.
This fairness can be seen in the following example. Again I
will refer to my nursery school scenario.
A father of one of the nursery school's young students is
required, along with all parents, to assist the teacher during
some classes, or to drive students on a field trip. When this
man, now in his late thirties, was 18 years of age perhaps he was
involved in a bar room brawl and subsequently received a
conviction for assault. It undoubtedly was a stupid thing to do
and part of his youth that he is not very proud of, but he has
taken responsibility for his actions, served his debt to society
and some two decades later has a career and family of his own.
He requests, and is granted, a pardon for his assault conviction.
Is it fair that this man be prevented from participating in his
own child's nursery school activities? Of course not. He was
young and he made a mistake.
1405
Under Bill C-284, with his pardon, this man would still receive
a positive criminal reference and be able to fulfil his parental
obligations to the nursery school. He poses little risk, if any,
to the children and Bill C-284 acknowledges that.
But child molesters do pose a very high risk, a very serious
risk to children's safety and they should never, ever, be put in
a position of trust over children.
Just how much of a risk do children face? In studies conducted
by the Correctional Service Canada, pedophiles were found to have
the highest rate of sexual recidivism when compared to other sex
offenders.
One such study called “Managing the Treatment of Sex Offenders:
a Canadian Perspective” said that “It appears likely that
pedophiles, especially those men who offend against young boys,
are at greater risk to recidivate sexually than are rapists”.
Another study called “Factors Related to Recidivism Among
Released Federal Sex Offenders” found that one-third of sex
offenders were convicted of a new criminal offence following
release. This study also found that pedophiles had the highest
rate of sexual recidivism.
Yet another study by the Canada working group found that when
sexual aggressors do re-offend they tend to repeat the offence
for which they were originally convicted.
It is very fortunate that this bill has been deemed votable.
This means that we in this Chamber have the opportunity to enact
some very good legislation, the kind of legislation that will
reap benefits, restore faith in the justice system and, first and
foremost, protect children. Obtaining these goals is part of our
job as parliamentarians and I encourage all members of this House
to do their job and support Bill C-284.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I too want to congratulate the member for Calgary South for
bringing forward this private member's bill.
He started off his comments by saying he felt he had already won
by getting selected in the lottery and, as all members know, that
is a matter of being fortuitous.
The more important success the member has achieved is that he
has brought an issue before the House which has received the
support of a committee of his peers to be votable. I think that
is the success, that the bill is before this House and will be
subject to a vote of members of Parliament. For that he
should be congratulated.
I believe he has brought a matter to the attention of the House
which is important for debate. The greatest value of Private
Members' Business is that it provides an opportunity for public
debate and for consultations among the parties to determine
whether or not there is some basis for influencing legislation
either directly or indirectly.
Recently we have talked a great deal about the Young Offenders
Act and the issue of whether or not the names of young offenders
should be disclosed and what impact that may have on their
ability to be rehabilitated. I see many parallels between that
issue and the issue which the member has brought forward. The
only difference is that this bill targets the sexual offenders of
children.
This is one of those issues about which people should be very
cautious because of the inherent risks involved. If we had to
pit the interests of one against the other, clearly, most people
would say that public interest is more important than the
interest of the individual who has been convicted of sexual abuse
against children. It is a very difficult issue to deal with, but
legislators have to deal with difficult issues.
Questions have to be asked whenever we do Private Members'
Business. It is a matter of whether legislation should come
forward with regard to a certain aspect that we may have
identified. Or, has the fact that this has come forward
identified other areas? Are other things going on that are
related which would provide some synergy or make the legislation
even better?
This is always the frustration or the difficulty with Private
Members' Business because to get the confidence of members it has
to be somewhat straightforward without too many tentacles leading
to other areas of other legislation. That is the problem and
that is why most Private Members' Business does not pass in this
House. I would support changes or some reform to Private
Members' Business to allow a better airing of some of these views
so that good ideas, such as the one brought forward by the
member, do get worthy consideration.
1410
Let me talk for a few moments about the Criminal Records Act.
The development of the Criminal Records Act was based on a
proposal put forward in the same way as this private member's
bill, although the intention of the sponsors of the two private
members' bills and their ultimate foundations were somewhat
dissimilar.
Private members' bills and initiatives should be taken very
seriously. Without such respect, however, we may have some
unexpected consequences. I raise the caution from the standpoint
of a member who has been very active in private members' bills. I
must admit that from time to time issues are raised by other
members that I have not contemplated. That is understandable
because ordinary members of Parliament do not have the resources
to be able to do that exhaustive work.
This member has touched on an area at which I know the
government has been looking as well. There are some
possibilities which have to be explored.
Obviously the objective before us is to determine how we can
improve the Criminal Records Act. It was introduced in June 1996
and referred to the justice committee of the day. It held formal
meetings between March and November 1967. The proposed changes
were discussed at length and the committee had the opinion of
many interested parties. These are the kinds of things that
would occur at committee should this matter be referred there.
That justice committee report came back to the House. The
government at the time proceeded with a study of the initiative.
In the current situation we face the same fundamental question as
was posed when the legislation was first discussed some 20 years
ago.
The issue is the legitimate balance between the objective of
assisting those who have transgressed the law to reform and lead
crime-free lives and the equally legitimate needs of the policing
authority and the community at large to be protected from a
recurrence of criminal activities.
The principal issues obviously extend to others. They include
where the line is drawn between individual and collective rights.
Is it worth the time of parliamentarians to ensure that all
options may have been canvassed and discussed? Should we make
one change to a complex piece of legislation that may have some
far-reaching implications on other pieces of legislation? Has
sufficient study been done?
I do not know whether the process at this point allows for
sufficient study to have been done to date. I do know, however,
that the House would provide the venue and the envelope in
Private Members' Business to have that kind of consultation.
It is true that the ideas for change which led to the passage of
the Criminal Records Act were first presented to the House in the
form of a private member's bill. The government of the day
apparently recognizing the importance of the change in this area
encouraged the initiative. I believe the parallel exists here as
well.
The bill proposed comprehensive reform and resulted in a
consensus among those who had knowledge of the subject. I think
it will take some work to get the House up to speed on the
sensitive criteria related to it. Thereafter the government bill
was sent to committee for additional study. This is certainly
something that should be considered in terms of this bill as
well.
I understand the officials of the Department of the Solicitor
General have had occasion to study the various suggestions our
hon. colleague has raised. I think I can conclude that the
member has identified a potential weakness in the system. I am
not exactly sure whether what he is proposing is precisely the
way to do it, but I want to make a recommendation to him with
regard to how we proceed from here.
Very often good ideas in Private Members' Business do not
receive the confidence of the House in terms of a vote, but there
is another opportunity that has happened on many occasions. When
substantive issues raised in a private member's bill are valid
and enjoy the support of the House, the bill may very well not be
voted on and dropped from the order paper. However the member or
someone in support of the member can rise in the House and ask
that the subject matter of the bill be referred to committee.
1415
It means that it would still remain alive as an issue. It means
that if the government is serious about the issues that he has
raised and some ancillary issues this member would still see his
initiative go forward in legislation that may be brought in by
the government. I ask him to keep that in mind as we move
forward.
I would support referral of this matter to the standing
committee on justice.
I again congratulate the member. All private members' business
deserves our respect and attention. I believe he has done a
excellent job in raising this issue. We should be thankful for a
fine job on behalf of all private members.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I too would like to congratulate my colleague from
Calgary who has brought this private member's bill in. I too am
pleased that it has been drawn as a votable item.
I would like to withhold most of my comments for the second
round of debate on this bill because time does not permit it
today.
However, there are a number of observations I would like to
make. There are a number of suggestions I would like to make to
hon. members on the government side.
Members of the Reform caucus do not seek any glorification in
winning a so-called political battle in bringing this motion
forward. We have but one purpose. We are not vindictive. We do
not hold malice. We have one thing in mind. We are not satisfied
with the 31% figure of pedophiles coming back to abuse our
children.
The hon. member who spoke earlier from the government seemed to
suggest that number was satisfactory. I do not think the last
member who spoke from the government would agree. He would agree
that if we can by any means bring that down to 15% that would be
better for all of the people in Canada, never mind this House. We
are here because of the people of Canada. This bill came forward
because of the children of Canada, whom we want to protect.
My profession has put me front and foremost of watching young
people suffer because of sexual molestation. I have watched them
struggle through life. I watched them struggle through high
school. Now I watch them struggle in adulthood. If there are
ways and means to prevent this, then let us go for it. I say to
my hon. colleague who spoke last from the Liberal side of the
House we do not care what happens. If he would like to readjust
the bill and bring it back in, we would be pleased with that. We
are not looking for credit in any way. The hon. member who
initiated this bill would be the first to agree to it.
Different organizations have been mentioned. I want to tell
members of the difficulties I had hiring teachers on whom I could
not obtain the information I should have obtained. They were
protected. This led to a disaster. I was the CEO to the board.
A bill like this would prevent school boards from becoming
trapped in an issue. It would prevent communities that hire
recreational directors from becoming trapped. They should have
this right. To deny the main purpose of this bill, to deny the
main intent of this bill will mean this will go on and on.
Church groups that get young people together for the summer
should have this right. They should have the right for limited
information to protect not only themselves but the children. They
are putting on functions for children because they love children
and they want to protect them.
The fundamental purpose of this bill, the only purpose, is to
provide protection for Canadian youth.
1420
Finally, let us forget about politics. Let us forget about the
different parties. Let us forget about our personal viewpoints.
Let us work together, whatever it takes. If it means going back
to the committee, fine. But let us come up with a more positive
solution than we have at the present time or Canadians are going
to have less faith in the House for not doing something which is
a national problem. We cannot sit by and simply say, as I heard
this afternoon, 31% is not a bad figure and it is holding. That
is not good enough for us on this side of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired
and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence
on the Order Paper.
It being 2.20 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday,
April 20, 1998 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.21 p.m.)