36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 173
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 3, 1999
1400
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FARMERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TEAM CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE AGA KHAN FOUNDATION
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1405
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AHEPA COMEDY NIGHT
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL HOUSING
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRUG ABUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
1410
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRISPIN BOTTOMLEY
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
1415
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1420
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1430
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YVON DUHAIME
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1435
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PLUTONIUM
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1440
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL HOUSING
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1445
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BOATING
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ian Murray |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1450
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH AND SAFETY
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1455
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEVCO
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1500
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-309
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1505
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-467. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Railway Transportation
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Post
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Indonesia
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Automotive Technicians
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1510
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Veterans
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Senate of Canada
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
1515
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Freshwater Exports
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transferred for debate
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1520
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-63. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1525
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1540
1545
1550
1555
1600
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1615
1620
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1635
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1710
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1715
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1730
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAX ON FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1805
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1830
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1835
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Post
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1840
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1845
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1850
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pratt & Whitney
|
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1855
![V](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 173
![](/web/20061116200350im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 3, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Saint
John.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year the Ontario Agricultural College in my riding
of Guelph—Wellington is celebrating its 125th anniversary. Much
has changed since the OAC opened its doors in 1874, but the one
thing that remains the same is the OAC's well deserved reputation
as a world leader in agriculture.
Many distinguished Canadians have graduated from OAC, including
astronaut Roberta Bondar and our very own Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food.
The OAC has also produced a very well respected university. The
University of Guelph grew out of this agricultural college to
become one of the best universities in Canada.
I would like to congratulate all of the faculty and staff of the
Ontario Agricultural College, both past and present. They have
built a tradition of excellence of which not only
Guelph—Wellington but all of Canada is proud.
* * *
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, January 29 I hosted a public forum to discuss
the Estey report on grain transportation. Over 250 grain
producers attended the meeting from across Saskatchewan and
Manitoba. Farmers not only had an opportunity to listen to a
panel of speakers discuss the merits of the report, but they also
had a chance to get up and voice their opinion.
While producers are not unanimous in their support of this
report, there was a message that was very evident during the
meeting. Farmers are frustrated with the current system.
Producers are losing millions of dollars each year due to
government regulation and inefficiencies in the grain handling
system.
CPAC, the parliamentary television channel, taped the meeting
and it will be replayed on February 6 and 7. The Minister of
Transport and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should
take time to watch the tape of this meeting.
I urge all MPs and Canadians everywhere to hear directly from
food producers. Farmers put high quality food on our tables and
are the economic base in many communities. We need to listen to
them.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today in connection with the Bloc Quebecois'
position, which is surprising to say the least, concerning child
pornography and the role of Parliament in the judiciary process.
The position of the Bloc Quebecois on this matter is
incongruous and hard to explain.
How can this party and its members support such a motion, given
their past positions on various justice issues? I personally
see this as an attempt to hijack this debate in order to justify
recourse to the notwithstanding clause of the charter.
Let them try to defend future recourse to that clause, fine, but
I believe that the public will be able to figure out for itself
that Bloc members are using the debate on child pornography and
the judiciary process for purely political purposes.
* * *
[English]
TEAM CANADA
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Team Canada has scored another major international
hockey victory. Our national team came home on New Year's Day
1999 after winning the Spengler Cup in Switzerland for the fourth
consecutive year.
It was the first time any country has won four times in a row
during the cup's 77 year history. The latest championship by
Team Canada was made possible through the defensive efforts of
not one, but two outstanding players in the great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke: Shawn Heins of Eganville and Allan
Letang of Renfrew. Not only my constituents are proud of their
efforts, but all Canadians are proud of all Team Canada players.
I might add that Team Liberal will be put to the test when
Canada's political champions travel up the valley into my
riding's hockey hot bed to compete next Wednesday night at the
Pembroke winter carnival. We will be facing a much tougher
opposition of sharpshooters compared to the puny, punchless,
prolix popguns who pass themselves off as the opposition in this
House.
* * *
THE AGA KHAN FOUNDATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last weekend I was very pleased to attend the Aga Khan
Foundation's annual Partnership Walk Volunteer Workshop in
Vancouver. The event launched International Development Week,
which is January 31 to February 6.
The Aga Khan Foundation's volunteer workshop brought together
volunteer leaders from 11 cities across Canada. The guest of
honour was the Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie.
Congratulations to the foundation for its excellent work in
supporting over 30 under-developed countries.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
APEC is an issue that is not going to go away for this Prime
Minister or for this government.
Just as Watergate was not about a break-in, the APEC inquiry is
not about pepper spray. It is about freedom of expression. It
is about political interference from the Prime Minister giving
direction to Canada's national police force to suppress
protesters' freedom of expression.
1405
The Prime Minister is muddifying his involvement by using the
public complaints commission process.
Canadians will spend millions and millions of dollars, still
ending up at a blind wall. With over $1.4 million already blown
away and hundreds of witnesses to hear, they have only heard
four.
The bill is already so high because the solicitor general and
justice minister have agreed to protect the Prime Minister at a
rate of $2,000 an hour for lawyers' fees. Commissioner Ted
Hughes is trying to sort out the lawyer funding mess.
As the APEC public complaints commission process lurches
forward, even under the astute guidance of Ted Hughes, I say
again that we have the right driver in the wrong vehicle.
When is this Prime Minister finally going to come clean?
* * *
AHEPA COMEDY NIGHT
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this past weekend I had the pleasure to attend the fifth annual
Comedy Night at the Hellenic Community Centre organized by the
Ottawa chapter of AHEPA.
This year the event raised over $8,000 which will go to the
local Alzheimer's Society. In the past this event has raised and
donated over $50,000 to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation of Ottawa,
the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Youth Centre, the Children's
Hospital of Eastern Ontario and the Kidney Foundation of Ottawa.
I want to congratulate the main organizers, Angelo Tsarouchas,
Tom Varvaresos and Bill Rothery on their great success. The
comedians were first rate and provided many laughs during the
evening.
I highly recommend this event to my colleagues here in Ottawa
and to all who are interested in having a great time while
contributing to a worthwhile cause.
Congratulations to AHEPA and to all those involved with the
AHEPA Comedy Night at the Hellenic Community Centre.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL HOUSING
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I
would like to greet the people of Rosemont and Petite Patrie who
have come to Ottawa today to deliver a clear message.
Under the pretext of returning the responsibility for social
housing to the provinces, the federal government has dissociated
itself completely from this program, by cutting its funding.
The federal government has made an offer to the Government of
Quebec to hand the existing housing stock over to it, an offer
that is totally unacceptable.
The federal government has no trouble finding the millions
necessary for promoting the maple leaf, and the struggle with
the deficit has not prevented it from spending over $40 million
in all manner of propaganda.
The federal government needs to come back to the bargaining
table with a better offer, because in our affluent society it is
unacceptable that the number of families having to spend over
half their income just to put a roof over their heads is
constantly on the rise.
* * *
[English]
DRUG ABUSE
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada is poised to win the ongoing war against illicit drugs
arriving in our country. Drug abuse has damaging repercussions
not only on the user but on Canadian society as a whole. It is
the leading cause of poverty, criminality, urban decay and
related social problems.
Recently our Minister of Foreign Affairs met with the Jamaican
Prime Minister and his senior officials to begin a
hemisphere-wide dialogue and partnership against this rampant
problem.
Forty per cent of illicit drugs come from the Caribbean and
Latin America. This initiative is part of Canada's human
security agenda which we hope to promote during our two year term
as a member of the UN Security Council.
We will endeavour to stem the flow of drugs into Canada while
improving conditions in drug-producing countries. I commend the
minister for this meaningful intervention.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here are the top 10 reasons given by Liberal backbenchers as to
why they flip-flopped on the child pornography vote last night.
No. 10: Vote against my conscience. What conscience?
No. 9: I like to sign on to things I have no intention of
backing up. It makes me feel like a cabinet minister.
No. 8: If I toe the line often enough maybe I will get a canoe
museum in my riding.
No. 7: Let the commission do its work.
No. 6: No comment. The minister has not told me what to say
yet.
No. 5: This from the member from Coquitlam. I am no yes man
and, besides, that is not my signature.
No. 4: The Prime Minister told me I could vote any way I wanted
to, as long as I voted no.
No. 3: You get used to it. Remember the hep C vote?
No. 2: That depends on what your definition of the word “is”
is.
And the No. 1 reason given by Liberal flip-floppers is: Now I
want you to listen to me. My pen did not have relations with
that letter, that Liberal petition, and I have never gone back on
my word, not once, not ever.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the end of the
last session, the Liberal government announced that crabbers in
the estuary and shrimpers in the Gulf of St. Lawrence had
co-management agreements with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
For the crabbers, this five-year agreement, is based on resource
conservation and the financial viability of fishers, among other
things.
1410
In the case of the shrimpers, the agreement is in effect until
2002 and applies to all fishers in eastern Canada. It is based
on the same principles of resource conservation and management.
The Government of Canada has taken a major step. It worked
actively with fishers to resolve the complex and essential issue
of the renewal of fish stocks, and especially of preserving and
improving the quality of life of those whose work is linked to
fishing.
* * *
[English]
THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, as with free trade and the GST, once again the Liberals
are breaking one of their campaign promises.
This time they are breaking the 1993 election promise to
eliminate regional rates of pay, a policy that pays 11,000
federal government workers a different salary depending on where
they work in the country.
This is not a cost of living issue as the government maintains,
it is a discrimination issue. The policy only applies to 5% of
the civil service, the government's lowest paid workers. It does
not apply to 95% of the civil service, such as judges, civil
service managers, the military, the RCMP or members of
parliament.
These 11,000 workers are staging rotating strikes across the
country over this issue and they are asking the government to
come back to the table for meaningful negotiations.
I call upon the Liberals to stop their hypocrisy and end this
unfair and inequitable treatment. Federal workers doing the same
job should be paid the same salary no matter where they live.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to use a word
other than “hypocrisy” the next time.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the UN
has designated 1999 as the International Year of Older Persons
in order to draw attention to their achievements and their
contribution to communities in all countries.
The United Nations believes the proportion of persons aged 60
years and over in the population will change from a ratio of
1/14 to 1/4 in the coming years. Seniors, now representing 12%
of Canada's total population, will represent 23% of it by 2041.
This major democratic change will alter the economic, social and
cultural structures of Quebec and Canada.
Canada's theme for the International Year of Older Persons,
“Canada, a society for all ages”, was developed by
representatives of the federal, provincial and territorial
governments in consultation with seniors. It underscores the
importance of the role—
The Speaker: The member for Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle.
* * *
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the sovereignists want to give the separation option a new look.
Big surprise, after the poor showing in the last election.
At least they got a well-known consultant, former premier Jacques
Parizeau, the same Parizeau that lost the referendum.
But how else can they put it? There are only so many ways the
sovereignists can say they want Quebec to separate from the rest
of Canada.
I think what they want is a new bag of tricks. That is a
favourite Parizeau strategy. But Quebeckers will not fall for
Mr. Parizeau's all-too-familiar sleight-of-hand. They know him
well. They know the option he favours, his objectives and his
views on Quebec.
This is old hat. The separatists are coming up short in the
imagination department these days.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
concerned. I am concerned that the Minister of National Defence
knew about corruption at the IOC but kept it quiet for 10 years.
I am concerned that the President of the Treasury Board was
quoted in the media saying he supported the city of Quebec if it
sought compensation, but when asked in the House he maintains he
said nothing.
[Translation]
If the President of the Treasury Board was misquoted, he has
only to say so. If the reporting was inaccurate, he must
explain why he does not want to recover the money squeezed out
of Canadian taxpayers.
The Quebec City Olympic Games organizing committee wants to know
why it was not informed of corruption at the IOC.
[English]
Taxpayers want to know why this government spent money on an
Olympic bid when it knew that the bidding process was rigged.
This is no time for our ministers to hide behind the narrowness
of their portfolios. It is time for them to stand up and renew
our confidence in the Olympic Games.
Amateur sport, not corruption, is part of our heritage. The
Minister of National Defence and the President of Treasury Board
should never forget that.
* * *
CRISPIN BOTTOMLEY
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Crispin Bottomley, a young constituent of Niagara Falls, was one
of the students of my riding who attended the Forum for Young
Canadians last June.
Later he was honoured by the Niagara-on-the-Lake Chamber of
Commerce as Young Citizen for the Year 1998.
1415
Crispin has now been chosen as one of the Canadian
representatives at the Presidential Classroom: World Future
Leaders Summit to be held in Washington in March. The summit
brings outstanding leaders from around the world to Washington to
study international relations and to debate important issues
facing our planet. This gives brilliant young people like
Crispin the opportunity to expand their Forum for Young Canadians
experience on an international level.
Crispin feels very honoured to be representing Canada and the
Niagara area. Today I would like to salute him and recognize his
achievements and wish him Godspeed.
Young people like Crispin Bottomley are the hope and future for
Canada.
* * *
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Speaker: Today is a special
anniversary for us in the House of Commons.
[Translation]
It has been 83 years since the fire here in the House of Commons
in the Centre Block.
[English]
I would like to draw to your attention that on the Table before
us the symbol of our authority to make laws and to speak for
Canadian people is the Mace. Today we have the wooden Mace which
was used immediately after the fire of 1916. I thought you
should know the reason why it is there today.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last month a 93-year old grandmother in Montreal took
sick. She went to the hospital, was put on a stretcher, left in
a hallway and she died two days later. In her obituary her family
said “Don't send flowers, send a letter to the health minister
asking him why someone who paid taxes for 93 years had to die in
a hospital hallway”.
Will the Prime Minister whose government has cut $16 billion out
of health and social programs explain why someone who paid taxes
for those years had to die in a hospital hallway?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the finances of all the provincial governments and the
federal government were in terrible shape and every sector had to
take some cuts. This is always ongoing in governments. At that
time a letter was sent to Mr. Rochon, the minister of health in
Quebec, concerning this case.
Incidents like that happen from time to time. We do not manage
the daily operations of the hospitals. It is the provincial
governments that do that.
We are in discussions at this time with the provinces and we are
looking at the problem of health. We said it was to be our
priority.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure that is comforting to the family.
The Prime Minister's government knocked $16 billion out of
health care funding and has failed to make other essential health
care reforms. One of the consequences of that has been hospital
closures and waiting lines now up to 200,000 people.
Canadians want to know, after the so-called health care budget
how much shorter are these waiting lines going to be?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. The cuts were $6
billion for health, education and social programs but at the same
time we left the tax points. The tax points have given back $3.2
billion. We have the child tax credit that represents $1.7
billion which is helping the provinces in the area of welfare.
There will be some money for health care in the budget and we
hope that we will soon be back to where we were.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the social union talks are supposed to provide a
solution to the deterioration of health care and other social
programs under this administration.
The premiers have put forward some positive suggestions for
change but the federal government's reaction has been primarily
negative and reactionary.
When the premiers come to town tomorrow with some positive
suggestions, is the Prime Minister going to react positively and
enthusiastically to them or is he going to be a grumpy old man
saying no, no, no?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am meeting the first ministers tomorrow and I hope it
will be a positive meeting. We have always been positive.
The discussions on the social union and medicare were initiated
jointly at the same time by the provinces and by us. We have
been involved all along. Everybody knows that I am always a
positive person. I know that the Reform Party plans—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, hepatitis C
continues to plague this Prime Minister and other countries let
us know why.
In Italy the health ministry has just been found guilty of
distributing contaminated blood. They have to compensate every
individual, not just a few between 1986 and 1990.
What is this Prime Minister waiting for, a subpoena before he
will look after everybody who was infected?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have taken this issue very
seriously. Negotiations are under way and $1.1 billion is on the
table to satisfy the lawsuits that are before the government. We
are assured that those negotiations are under way at the present
time. We hope to see a satisfactory conclusion in the very near
future.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gets
worse. In Switzerland the blood services director has just
received a 12-month jail sentence for doing exactly what happened
in Canada.
I will ask my question again. What is this Prime Minister
waiting for, court action to force him into doing what he should
have done all along?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows and
everyone in this House knows, we have taken our obligations very
seriously. We have implemented all 17 recommendations that Justice
Krever directed toward the federal government. Further, we have
added an additional $125 million to ensure that the blood supply
in Canada is safe for all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
relation to the negotiations on social union, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs told the Toronto Star yesterday “We
will give up nothing”.
The same minister told La Presse that the federal government's
innovative approach would please Quebeckers and might even
please the Government of Quebec.
I would like to know whether the Prime Minister agrees with his
minister, who says one thing in Quebec and another in the rest
of Canada.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
never before has this minister been criticized for not speaking
his mind.
As far as our negotiations with the provinces are concerned,
here in Canada we have a system in place to ensure that the
federal government's responsibilities and obligations are
maintained while at the same time accommodating the provinces.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I
heard the Prime Minister correctly, he is telling us that his
minister did not speak his mind.
That is one way of looking at it, but the minister added insult
to injury by saying that the consent of all the provinces was
not required in order to have an agreement. One thing is for
sure: Quebec considers the right to opt out with full
compensation as essential.
Here is my question to the Prime Minister: If unanimity is not
required and the agreement does not have to be signed by all the
provinces, does this mean that the government might come up with
other initiatives, like the millennium scholarships, in other
areas?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with respect to the right to opt out and to spending powers,
Quebec's traditional position was made clear at the time of the
Charlottetown and Meech Lake agreements. This right to opt out
could only be exercised under certain circumstances.
That is why the leader of the Parti Quebecois and premier of
Quebec left the Progressive Conservative Party. He wanted the
partial right to opt out provided for in the Meech Lake
agreement.
1425
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs said that an agreement on social
union between the federal government and the provinces does not
require the support of the 10 provinces in order to be approved.
Are we to understand from the minister's comments that Quebec's
approval is simply not necessary to reach an agreement?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, ever since I have been in politics, and before, I have
always said the same thing in French and in English. Therefore,
let me repeat that we would not give anything that would
adversely affect the quality of the Canadian social union, which
is one of the best in the world.
The social union agreement which, we hope, will be signed by all
the provinces, will improve things for the federal government,
for the provincial governments, but more importantly for all
Canadians.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister's statement to the effect that unanimity is not a
requirement seems to indicate that Quebec's traditional demands
will once again be ignored.
Does this mean that, should some provinces refuse to sign that
agreement, it would still be imposed on them by the federal
government?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not worried about the hon. member and his party.
Regardless of what happens, they will come up with a new
traditional demand for Quebec.
Quebec's quiet revolution was not achieved through traditional
demands: it was achieved by Quebeckers—with many of them coming
from the federal government—who wanted to modernize and
secularize their society, and they were quite successful in
their efforts.
Therefore, the Canadian social union will not be modernized
through traditional demands.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 800,000
unemployed Canadians are now denied benefits because of this
government's assault on unemployment insurance. What is the
government doing to correct the situation? Well, it is working
hard to deny even more benefits.
Will the human resources minister admit that Canadians are being
cut off UI benefits not because their claims lack merit, but
solely because of arbitrary quotas imposed by Ottawa? Will he
admit that, yes or no?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. There are
no such quotas. Our department obviously wants to protect the
integrity of the system and works at finding out frauds wherever
they are. But there are no such quotas.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that
bluster does not explain the internal departmental document that
shows denying benefits to the unemployed is a priority for the
government. In fact the government has specific quotas, actual
quotas to cut off as many people as needed to net government
coffers $612 million this year alone. To enforce the quotas the
government has given employees a choice: either cut off enough
people to meet your quotas or lose your jobs.
How does the minister justify this brutal attack on unemployed
Canadians?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we
like to manage. We manage things properly. We have some
expectations. There are indeed, as we exercise our
responsibilities in protecting the Canadian public, certain
indicators. We know how much we can expect to recuperate in
certain regions and we have certain numbers against which we
compare how much we get. But there are no such threats of firing
people or any element as the NDP is saying right now in the
House.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the proud tradition of the RCMP, an internationally
respected institution, is being destroyed by the Liberal
government.
Spending this year for our national police force has been cut by
$89 million. As a result the RCMP training academy in Regina has
closed and detachments all over the country are running by
skeleton crews.
The government has consistently pursued wasteful spending
policies to the detriment of all Canadians.
Will the solicitor general sit idly by and watch our national
police force deteriorate beyond repair? What is he going to do?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is like every government agency
and department. It had to look at how it spent its dollars. We
have done some things also to fight organized crime in this
country such as the proceeds from organized crime legislation.
What this does is take the profit out of organized crime. It
gives the RCMP a weapon to take the proceeds out.
1430
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the government's solution to the problems in our
national police force has been to commission a $1 million study
to review the RCMP's mandate.
The problem is not the mandate but the lack of funding provided
by the government to the RCMP for national policing. While the
U.S. state department has deemed Canada a haven for organized
crime, the government has slashed the RCMP budget by $174 million
since 1994.
When will the solicitor general use his power at the cabinet
table and immediately restore funding to the RCMP to ensure
adequate protection for Canadians?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not deal with the
figures my hon. colleague has presented.
All departments had a review of how they spent their money, the
RCMP included. I can assure the House the RCMP is a well
respected organization in this country and around the world and
we will give it the tools to fight crime in this country.
* * *
YVON DUHAIME
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
things are pretty shady in Shawinigan. Yvon Duhaime bought the
Grand-Mère Inn from the Prime Minister in 1993. He did not
reveal his criminal convictions of drunk driving and assault when
he received over $850,000 of taxpayer money in 1997 to expand his
inn.
We now learn that a huge amount of this taxpayer money went
directly into Duhaime's bank account when by law it is required
to go to a notary.
I am sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this.
What is it?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to point out once again that the loans received
by this business were given on the basis of a commercial
arrangement. The interest rates are somewhat higher than
commercial rates through the BDBC.
Private sector lenders were engaged in the same financing
package, including the caisse populaire and an agent of the
Quebec labour union.
What we have is a broad package. The funds were transferred in
the normal course. A cheque was made payable to the notary as
well as to the recipient and the supplier. These are ordinary
business transactions.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
if the Business Development Bank gives grants, what if any other
bank were just to give grants? Any one of us would love to be on
that list. The government keeps saying that this is arm's
length. He received transitional job fund money and received seed
grants as well. A lot of those funds were public funds that came
from human resources. These are public funds that went into a
private bank account. Any Canadian would love that kind of deal.
Who will investigate this? Obviously it needs to be checked.
The ethics commissioner will not investigate it, so who will?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know how many bank transactions in Canada the
hon. member would like to investigate. In this case these loans
from the Business Development Bank of Canada were not grants.
I do not know how much clearer I can put that. Perhaps the
member does not like the answer. But it is repayable on the
basis of an interest rate that is commercially based and there is
no reason for any further investigation.
The debts are there. They are repayable to the Business
Development Bank of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, and again today, the Minister of
Human Resources denied that quotas for employment insurance cuts
had been imposed on employees in the employment centres.
Our information, however, indicates that there are indeed
recovery targets for each employment centre.
Can the minister tell us whether there are quotas in his
department, yes or no? If so, who sets them, and according to
what criteria?
1435
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, we are being
accused of being too aggressive in our employment insurance
investigations; on the other, we are being accused of being too
lax in the way we administer public funds. We have struck a
balance.
There are no quotas. We are responsible for public funds. We
know that we can recover certain amounts in certain areas, and
these are the amounts we are expecting to recover.
I can assure you that our investigators are working diligently
to respect the integrity of the public funds with which we are
entrusted.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have before me a Human Resources Development
document which sets for each Human Resources Development Canada
centre in Quebec a target of $100 million, indicates that the
$145 million level has been attained, and shows the percentage
of success.
If these are not quotas, then what are they?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these are guidelines.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: They contain indicators, according to
which we can know the exact percentage of improper transactions.
This is the usual practice in any system wishing to respect the
integrity of a process, in order to ensure that the system
treats Canadian citizens in a fair and equitable manner.
* * *
[English]
PLUTONIUM
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the
1996 Moscow summit the Prime Minister made an impromptu offer to
accept weapons grade plutonium for destruction in Canada. The
United States says it is ready to start exporting this weapons
grade plutonium to Canada as early as next month. When was the
Prime Minister planning to tell Canadians this plutonium is on
its way?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is important to put this in context. There is a
strong Canadian interest in the reduction of nuclear weapons in
this world. If we are to reduce the number of nuclear weapons we
have to burn the fuel that is part of those weapons. We said that
we would consider looking at tests to determine whether using the
Candu reactor is a proper way to burn this fuel, but no tests
have been done. We said anything that would be done would be
subject to the full safety, regulatory and public consultation
requirements under the atomic energy act. We hold to that. At
this point and in light of the committee report we will examine
those recommendations.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
United States has already completed full environmental impact
studies and full public consultation. Where are our
environmental impact studies? Where are the details of the
agreement? Where are our public consultations?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no MOx fuel in Canada at this point in
time. Nobody has sent us anything. We are still talking about
the possibility of doing the tests. If those tests are
considered, as I have already stated in the House, we will follow
fully the full regulatory environmental requirements. That is a
commitment to count on.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two reports
from the Department of National Defence are recommending a
substantial increase in the number of officers in the university
training program and focusing on education to improve the image
of the Canadian army.
Does the Minister of National Defence plan to act on one of the
major recommendations in these studies and set aside the money
necessary for university training, money that could certainly be
used by the former royal military college in Saint-Jean?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are determined to upgrade the
education and training systems of the Canadian forces.
1440
A year ago I announced that a university education, a degree,
would be required for those entering into the officer ranks.
As the hon. member knows, there is use of the former CMR
facility in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and there will continue to
be use of that facility in helping to prepare our officers for
their educational program.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the studies
also recommended upgrading the Saint-Jean preparatory year.
Accordingly, will the minister increase personnel, recruitment
and the budget of the former royal military college in
Saint-Jean, that was cavalierly closed, I might add, by the
Liberal Party?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the school was closed because we simply
did not need three educational institutions across the country
given the size of our force and given the budget cuts in order to
bring about elimination of the deficit.
We have continued to use that property. There is a renewal
coming up of the contract with respect to the use of it and we
are presently looking over what our future use would be. We
expect and intend to continue to use that facility.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the justice minister supported her position on child
pornography by saying the law in question is still in full force
and effect in nine of the provinces.
In other words, the people of British Columbia were told sorry,
while the appeal process goes on the children who have to live in
that province will not be protected against child pornography.
Yesterday we could have offered that protection but the Liberals
voted no way.
How long is the minister willing to wait before child
pornography is once again made a crime in British Columbia?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member did
not understand what I said.
I said the law is in full force and effect in nine provinces and
two territories. The law is indeed in force and effect in the
province of British Columbia. The decision of Mr. Justice Shaw
merely binds provincial court judges in that province and no
other judge.
Let me reassure the member that the attorney general of British
Columbia, Ujjal Dosanjh, yesterday indicated that the law
continues to be investigated by the police. Charges continue to
be laid and charges will be prosecuted.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps it is understandable why the justice minister did not
want to answer the timeline question. This is the situation.
It could take weeks for the appeal to be heard. It could take
months for the decision to be rendered. If it has to go to the
supreme court, this could take years. In the meantime while the
lawyers have their fun, what is the protection offered to the
people and to children especially in British Columbia?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me quote the attorney
general of British Columbia who has charge of the administration
of the Criminal Code: “We need to let the process work itself
out while assuring Canadians across the country that issues
around investigations and the crown laying charges will continue
as they usually do”.
The attorney general of British Columbia has made it absolutely
plain that the police will continue to investigate. Charges will
continue to be laid and prosecutions will be pursued.
I would ask that the Reform Party stop spreading fear in the
province of British Columbia.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL HOUSING
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government's proposal to transfer the social housing
stock to the Government of Quebec is totally unacceptable.
Indeed, Ottawa is offering $289 million in compensation, or 19%
of federal funding for housing. That is clearly not enough in
light of the legitimate needs of Quebeckers.
Will the minister responsible for housing commit to making a
better offer, so that the compensation reflects Quebec's
financial reality?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to tell
the hon. members of this House and all Canadians that the
Government of Canada invests nearly $2 billion every year in
subsidizing more than 645,000 public housing units.
On the Quebec issue, I have already sent a letter to my new
counterpart in Quebec, Ms. Louise Harel, asking that we meet as
soon as possible. I hope that we will be able to finally put
this issue to rest so that, like all those Canadians whose
provincial government already signed the agreement, the people
of Quebec can benefit from this agreement.
* * *
1445
[English]
BOATING
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Many of my
constituents have expressed concern with the new boating safety
regulations. I personally believe that these changes are long
overdue.
Could the minister explain why he believes these measures will
be effective in reducing the number of tragedies each summer on
our waterways?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are some 200 Canadians killed in
some 6,000 boating accidents annually. The hon. member is quite
correct that this carnage should stop.
We have introduced new measures that follow the consistent
coroners' reports in every province and territory following
individual incidents which call for more training and for more
and better safety equipment onboard boats.
These measures will not be intrusive. They will be easily
complied with and will cut deaths on the water, which are quite
unacceptable to the government.
* * *
JUSTICE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is misleading
Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Just be cautious in your words.
Ms. Val Meredith: Here are the facts. The RCMP can still
investigate. Prosecutors can still lay charges, but criminals
can elect in which court to be heard in this particular instance
and criminals can elect to be heard in the provincial court, not
the supreme court.
What is happening is that these charges will be dismissed. That
is fact. What will the minister do to ensure that does not
happen?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member does
not understand that in fact it would be possible for the Attorney
General of British Columbia to proceed by indictment, which takes
the matter directly into the trial court in the province of
British Columbia.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will be spending a lot of
money this spring to find out why they are so unpopular in
western Canada. Let me save them some money. It is because the
Liberals continually treat western Canadians as second class
citizens.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member may pose her
question.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, 15% of Canada's children
live in British Columbia. Why is the justice minister denying
them the same protection as every other child in Canada?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have outlined, the
children of British Columbia have the same protection as all
children in the country as it relates to being free from child
pornography.
Let us seriously talk about how the Reform Party cares about
children in the country. They were the only people in the
country to speak out opposed to the national child benefit. Every
government, provincial and territorial, agreed, and they were
opposed. It was the only party in the House to oppose the
community action program for children so that children could get
a hot lunch.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in a
leaked document an HRDC official is bragging that the
disqualification rates increased from 14% in 1997 to what he
called a reasonable 33%. He bragged about millions being cut
from the Canadian economy. Acadie—Bathurst has lost $69 million
a year. Marystown, Newfoundland, has lost $81 million a year.
1450
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources. This is an
insurance program. Why are you trying to cut more people off EI
benefits—
The Speaker: Always direct your question through the
Chair.
Mr. Yvon Godin: This is an insurance program. Why is the
government trying to cut more people off EI benefits and treat
them like criminals?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is high time the member
realizes that EI is not an employer. He treats EI as if it were
an industry creating employment in the regions. That is the
wrong way; that is the way of the seventies.
We now have the Canada jobs fund to help business create real
long term sustainable jobs in Atlantic Canada. We have a youth
employment strategy to help the young integrate into the labour
market. Employment insurance is not the answer to all these
problems and it is not an employer or an industry. It is a
support—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Surely you want to hear the answers, my
colleagues.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a mother with
cancer was asked to repay $3,000 in EI benefits. Ever since she
passed away, Revenue Canada has been harassing her young
children, demanding that they pay up. By going after children
who have lost their mother, this government shows it will stop
at nothing to take money away from the unemployed. The
unemployed are not the ones who depend on EI, the government is.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development stop targeting
workers and chasing after money?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in our employment insurance
reform we have included a family income supplement specifically
designed to help those families that qualify for the guaranteed
income supplement under the EI program. This measure is aimed at
financially struggling mothers in particular.
The EI program helps get people back to work by investing a lot
more money in active measures. The members opposite focus only
on passive measures, part I of the act. They keep forgetting to
mention part II of the act, which helps people get back to work
so they can feed their children properly.
* * *
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government is destroying one of the most effective police
forces in the world. The Liberal government has destroyed the
effectiveness and the morale of the RCMP.
Recently Canada's RCMP training academy in Regina had to be
closed until spring or perhaps longer. No longer are RCMP
officers being trained.
When will the solicitor general reopen the RCMP officer training
school in Regina?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that we have trained our
Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the country will continue to
train the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the answers that come from the solicitor general are becoming
more frustrating all along.
Police detachments have been forced to amalgamate at a time when
more police are required on the streets. Rural areas across the
country and in my riding which depend on the RCMP have been
forced to cut back in detachments and manpower.
Is the solicitor general's intention to continue to cut back on
RCMP presence in Canadian communities?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated previously, we have
given the RCMP the tools to do the job with the anti-gang
legislation and the proceeds of crime units which have operated
very well and have recovered $30 million.
We will provide the funding to make sure as we always have that
we have a very effective Royal Canadian Mounted Police presence
in the country.
* * *
HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health.
Last night a TV program highlighted bunk beds, the safety of
their use and potential dangers inherent in their manufacture. I
was surprised to learn that there does not appear to be any
regulations governing their design and construction.
Is the department preparing measures to correct the problems so
that parents can be assured of the safety of the use of this
product for their children?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the TV program to
which the member refers. In fact Health Canada takes its
responsibility for the health and safety of children very
seriously.
A process has been initiated to bring in regulations for bunk
beds.
We are in the process now of consulting with the Canadian
Standards Association and hope that those regulations will be in
place perhaps as soon as the spring.
* * *
1455
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
veterinarians say they will not even give expired anthrax
vaccines to animals. Yesterday the minister admitted he knew
that expired vaccines were given to Canada's soldiers.
Why did the Minister of National Defence knowingly order
Canada's soldiers to take expired vaccines that veterinarians
will not even give to animals?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all vaccines that are given to Canadian
forces personnel are tested regardless of whatever date may be on
the container.
They are all thoroughly tested to make sure they are effective
and to make sure they are safe. That has been the case in all
the vaccines we have used and we will continue to use.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a memo dated
July 31, 1998 and addressed to the PEI regional director for
employment insurance, departmental officials were congratulated
for exceeding the target of $53 million, since this will result
in the saving of 150 jobs that the government had planned on
eliminating.
My question for the minister is this: How do we call a
government that threatens to eliminate 150 jobs if its public
servants do not make sufficient cuts to the employment insurance
benefits for the unemployed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Roberval is
defending fraud and abuse relating to the program.
Let me make it clear that, whether we are dealing with a
specific region or the country as a whole, we are responsible
for the public funds entrusted to us by Canadians and we will
continue to make sure that we recover the funds that were either
overpaid or should not have been paid.
* * *
[English]
DEVCO
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, no wonder the government's compensation package for
Devco miners is so meagre. Devco recently bought new mining
equipment, including $11 million worth of jacks, for a mine about
to be sold.
As we all know, when there is a suspicious death we hold an
autopsy. Cape Bretoners are suspicious as to what has happened.
Will the Liberal government agree today to a forensic audit of
Devco to confirm Devco's financial status?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the measures that the hon. member
from Bras d'Or is speaking about are not meagre at all; $111
million for workforce adjustment is quite substantial.
It is no secret to the hon. member, nor is it any secret to
members of the House, that Devco has been under certain strains
of late. The management has been dealing with them as
effectively as it can. We have now arrived at a solution.
We are in a situation where we are trying to put forward
solutions. I would ask the hon. member from Bras d'Or to
participate, for the sake of her constituents, in solutions and
not just problems.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, it has
come to our attention that our troops that were dispatched to the
gulf over a year ago were inoculated with an outdated anthrax
vaccine. According to experts, this outdated vaccine was not
even fit for animals. It had been expired for a number of years.
Canadians want to know how this happened, who gave the order,
what the Minister of National Defence is prepared to do for these
troops, and who will look after their health in the future.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said in answer to the other question
from the other side, we will only give vaccinations when they are
safe and effective. They are all fully tested. It is our
medical people, the doctors, who determine that it is safe to
give them when they are given.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
BILL C-309
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, at the end of the day, during Private Members'
Business, my private member's bill was debated and our internal
rules prevented me from seeking unanimous consent to make this
bill votable.
I therefore hasten to seek this unanimous consent now.
The Speaker: Is leave granted for the hon. member to make such a
request?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present,
in both official languages, the first report of the Canada-China
Legislative Association.
I would like to thank all members of the association. It is the
very first time Canada has had a formal legislative association
with China. I thank the Chinese ambassador, Mei Ping, and our
ambassador, Mr. Howard Ballach, in Beijing. I particular want to
thank the Prime Minister and the minister of trade for allowing
me the honour of doing this job.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 53rd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of some standing committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 53rd report later this day.
* * *
1505
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-467, an act to amend the
Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act and the Transfer of
Offenders Act (death penalty).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to
impose the death sentence in all cases of aggravated first degree
murder committed by a person 18 years of age or over at the time
of the commission of the murder. Aggravated first degree murder
is first degree murder committed in a heinous manner that defies
human dignity.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, ifthe House gives its consent I
would move that the 53rd report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this
day, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of several of my constituents, including the mayor of
Salaberry-de-Valleyfield and municipal councillors, and in the
presence of two petitioners, Gordon Davis and Gilles
Bourbonnais, I have the pleasure to present a petition asking
Parliament to lift the suspensions preventing Via Rail trains
Nos. 32 and 33 from stopping at the Les Côteaux station. These
suspensions deprive the public of an important rail service and
discriminate against them in relation to residents of Ontario
cities served by the same trains.
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing order 36, I have the
honour to present the following petitions signed by 50 concerned
seniors. The petitioners note that currently there is no street
letter box to cover almost 80 seniors living in two seniors
buildings in my riding. Therefore the petitioners pray and
request that parliament request Canada Post to consider
installing a street letter box in front of the seniors residences
at 7340 and 7350 Goreway Drive.
INDONESIA
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition gathered by a
group called Canadians Concerned About Ethnic Violence in
Indonesia. They note that human rights abuses are rampant in
Indonesia, that last May in three days of looting and riots more
than 1,300 people were killed and hundreds of ethnic Chinese
women were raped along with various other atrocities. They note
that although most of the ethnic Chinese have been living in
Indonesia for several generations they have faced constant
discrimination in all aspects of their lives. They note that
Canada is a leader in human rights implementation and that it
should show leadership on this issue.
Therefore they call on parliament to appeal to President Habibie
of Indonesia to protect the human rights of ethnic Chinese and to
bring to justice those who masterminded and participated in these
very serious racial riots.
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICIANS
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my honour to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to table a
petition signed by the constituents of Simcoe—Grey and concerned
Canadians from across this great country. These individuals are
all automotive technicians employed by car dealerships. As a
condition of their employment they are required to purchase and
maintain several thousand dollars worth of automotive tools.
1510
At the present time their professional tool investments and
expenditures are non-tax deductible. Unlike other professions
which require similar expenditures, they do not generate any tax
credits.
Therefore the petitioners request that parliament redress this
taxation policy, amending the applicable legislation to allow
current and future technicians to deduct their investment in
their automotive tools.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a number of
petitions to the House today.
Nearly 200 petitioners appeal to this House to protect the
institution of marriage by enacting legislation defining marriage
as the voluntary union of a single male and a single female.
BILL C-68
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also
present petitions from 150 concerned citizens who request that
parliament repeal Bill C-68 and redirect funds allotted for the
gun registry toward more cost effective crime fighting
initiatives such as increased police presence, crime prevention
programs and more suicide prevention and women's crisis centres.
TAXATION
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
addition I present today the concerns of a number of my Crowfoot
constituents who petition parliament to reduce all taxation by at
least 20% and abolish the GST.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present a
petition signed by over 250 people in my riding of Sault Ste.
Marie.
The petitioners ask parliament to respect and adhere to their
views that only the union of a single male and a single female
constitutes marriage.
To this end the petitioners request that parliament enact Bill
C-225, an act to amend the Marriage and Prohibitive Degrees Act
and the Interpretation Act.
VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish today to present to the House two petitions signed by many
Canadians.
The petitions call for our government to give fair and equitable
recognition to Canada's merchant navy veterans of World War II.
The concerns of these veterans can be summarized as four points.
They are seeking war veteran status, prisoner of war benefits,
recompense for years of inequality and ceremonial day
recognition. I ask for everyone to listen to their call.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of
Canadians, including from my riding of Mississauga South.
The matter has to do with human rights. The petitioners would
like to point out human rights violations continue to occur in
countries around the world, particularly in areas such as
Indonesia. The petitioners also point out that Canada continues
to be recognized as a champion of the universal declaration of
human rights.
The petitioners call on parliament to continue to condemn human
rights violations around the world and to bring to justice those
responsible for such violations.
SENATE OF CANADA
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to introduce three petitions.
The first is on the abolition of the Senate. The many
petitioners from all over Manitoba feel strongly that they are
not after a triple-E Senate, they are after a triple-A Senate, to
abolish the Senate.
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is with regard to pay equity.
They ask that there be no more delay, just pay. They want the
federal government to make good on its pay equity obligations.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is from Winnipegers regarding the abolition of
nuclear weapons and a non-proliferation treaty. They feel
strongly that there is no place for nuclear weapons in today's
world.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 it gives me great pleasure to
present this petition on behalf of a number of constituents from
the town of Carstairs, Alberta.
They request that parliament impose a moratorium on Canadian
participation in the MAI negotiations until a full public debate
on the proposed treaty has taken place across the country so that
all Canadians may have an opportunity to express their opinions
and decide on the advisability of proceeding with the MAI.
MARRIAGE
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present petitions on behalf of
constituents of the riding of Windsor West.
The petitioners ask that parliament define in statue that
marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a
single female.
1515
FRESHWATER EXPORTS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36.
Residents throughout British Columbia heard rumours that the
government plans to renege on its commitment to introduce
legislation to ban bulk water exports from Canada.
They also point out their concern about the ability of the
various trade agreements to facilitate the export of freshwater
and are calling upon parliament not to proceed with any trade
agreement that would facilitate this and to take action on
legislation immediately.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present another petition from citizens of the
Peterborough area who are concerned about the non-proliferation
of nuclear weapons.
They point out that whereas Canada, although with the capacity
to build nuclear weapons, has rejected that option and in so
doing has recognized the military futility of nuclear weapons;
and whereas respected international generals and admirals have
declared that the dangers of proliferation, terrorism and a new
arms race render the abolition of nuclear weapons necessary, they
pray and request that parliament support the goal of abolition of
nuclear weapons on our earth by Canada advocating the immediate
de-alerting of all nuclear devices and that Canada join the
nations of the New Agenda Coalition.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 163
and 184.
.[Text]
Question No. 163—Mr. Eric Lowther:
In all agencies and departments of the federal government in the
last three fiscal years, (a) how many grants, contributions
and/or contracts have been given or committed to the Canadian
Coalition for the rights of Children and/or its provincial
subsidiaries; (b) what are the amounts given, by department, in
order that a non-governmental organization (NGO) report on
Canada's compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child as part of Canada's five-year report to the UN Committee on
the Rights of the Child might be produced; (c) what is the
amount and purpose of
any other grants, contributions or contracts given to the
coalition by department(s) which contributed funding, and by type
of grant; (d) when were the above grants, contributions or
contracts given; (e) what other organizations were considered to
receive funding to produce an NGO report on Canada's compliance
with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as part of
Canada's five-year report to the UN Committee on the Rights of
the Child; (f) which other organizations actually received
funding; (g) when was such funding given; (h) what were the
amounts of the funding given, by
department; (i) what were the criteria used to distribute funding
to different interested organizations; and (j) what documents
have been produced by the coalition and these other organizations
that may have received funding?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Canada ratified
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991.
It should be noted that 191 state parties have ratified the
convention. Article 43 of the convention provides for the
establishment of a UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to
review reports of states parties which have ratified the
convention. As a party to the convention and pursuant to article
44 of the convention, Canada is required to submit a report to
the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on the measures it
has adopted which give effect to the rights recognized in the
convention and on the progress made on the enjoyment of those
rights. Canada presented its first report in 1994. The Canadian
Coalition for the Rights of Children, the coalition, also made a
presentation at that time. One of the recommendations of the UN
committee was that a permanent monitoring mechanism be
established to assess Canada's compliance with the convention.
In its concluding observation on Canada's first report, the UN
committee stated that it is “concerned that sufficient attention
has not been paid to the establishment of a permanent monitoring
mechanism taht will enable a system of implementation of the
convention in all parts of the country”.
The coalition approached several departments to secure funding
for a separate, independant and impartial report which would
represent non-governmental organizations' view point with respect
to Canada's cpmpliance with the convention. Both Canada's report
and the coalition's report will be submitted to the UN committee
in 1999.
The Coalition for the Rights of Children ensures the collective
voice of over 50 non-governmental organizations in Canada
concerned with the rights of children, such as the Adoption
Council of Canada, UNICEF Canada, Save a Family Plan, Street Kids
International, CARE Canada, Child Find Canada and Child Welfare
League of Canada, is heard. The mandate of this national
organization is to monitor the implementation of the convention.
In order to accomplish this task, it has developed a framework to
measure the status of children's rights in Canada.
This framework will enable the federal and provincial
governments to assess which prgrams and policies are effective
and identify the work that needs to be done to promote the
development and well-being of Canadian children. The coalition
has been working on this project since 1995. Several departments
have made a contribution to the coalition. The Department of
Justice has been co-ordinating the funding since 1997.
(a), (b), (c), and (d): The Coalition for the Rights of Children
received funding in
fiscal year 1995-96 and 1996-97 to develop a framework to monitor
Canada's implementation of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child. The funders for this initiative were:
Canadian Heritage, Human Rights, $24,750 and Health Canada,
Childhood and Youth, $24,750.
The purpose of the project was to devise a monitoring process by
establishing research indicators and identifying sources of
information. The coalition reached out to the broader community
to complete this initiative. The final product was only due
during the course of fiscal year 1996-97 upon receipt of
additional funding to write and produce a publication.
The coalition received funding in fiscal year 1996-97 to write and
produce the monitoring project report and to disseminate the
findings. The funding partners were: Justice Canada, Public Law,
$25,950; Canadian Heritage, Human Rights, $45,950;and Health Canada,
Childhood and Youth, $8,500.
The project resulted in the publication of a 45 page document
entitled: “Canada and the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child: Developing a Monitoring Framework”.
The coalition received funding in fiscal year 1997-98 to develop
Canada-wide information network, including key
provincial-territorial correspondents, through conference
participation and meetings. This will ensure that the monitoring
of the convention is truly effective and accurate. The coalition
is also in the process of conducting a review of convention
articles in order to identify the issues and to determine
methodology for data collection in order to commence the drafting
of the report. The funding partners included:
Justice Canada, Grants and Contributions Fund, $30,000; Canadian Heritage,
Human Rights, $35,000; Status of Women, $30,000; Health Canada,
Childhood and Youth, $40,000; Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, $8,000;
Human Resources Development Canada, Office for Disabilities
Issues, $20,000; and Human Resources Development Canada, Social Development
Partnerships Program, $5,000.
For fiscal year 1998-99, the coalition is expected to receive
the following amounts to collect and analyse data for the
application of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
developed framework to convention articles and to evaluate overall
findings: Justice Canada, Grants and Contributions Fund,
$62,000; Health Canada, Childhood and Youth, $45,000; Canadian Heritage,
Human Rights, $40,000; Human Resources Development Canada, Office for
Disabilities Issues, $25,000;and Human Resources Development Canada,
Social Development Partnerships Program, $25,000.
The report is due in 1999.
(e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j): The Department of Canadian
Heritage has funded the following
projects related to the UN Convention.
In fiscal year 1994-95, the Society for Children and Youth of
B.C. undertook a project entitled “UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child—Promotion and Implementation”. Canadian Heritage
provided a grant in the amount of $18,850. The purpose of the
project was to promote the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
to act as a provincial clearinghouse linking individuals and
organizations interested in the convention and to explore ways of
monitoring compliance to the convention to be carried out in
fiscal year 1995-96. An interim report on the project has been
filed.
In fiscal year 1995-96, Canadian Heritage provided a grant of
$10,000 to the Society for Children and Youth of B.C. for the
second part of the project. It was entitled “UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child—Rights Awareness Project-Year 2”. In
adition to the purpose outlined in the project for fiscal year
1994-95, the year 2 project also focuses on identifying
mechanisms for monitoring compliance with the articles of the
convention. A final report has been received.
In fiscal year 1997-98, the Society for Children and Youth of
B.C. received a grant from Canadian Heritage in the amount of
$20,000 for a project entitled “UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child: Measuring Compliance of Policy and Practice”. The
purpose of the project was to undertake research to develop a
monitoring framework to measure the compliance of policies and
pratices with respect to the implementation of the Convention on
the Rights of the Child in British Columbia.
It should be noted that the society's model enables the
development of an analytical framework and a four star rating
system for assessing the compliance of legislation with the
convention. These were applied to all British Columbia statutes.
The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children's monitoring
framework can be compared to a wide angle lens for assessing
implementation of the convention in Canada, taking into account
all aspects of the convention from legal to a public opinion
perspective. The Society for Children and Youth of B.C.'s
statutory compliance model and the proposed policy and practice
models can perhaps be described as telephoto lenses, which
presents the detailed picture in the areas of legislations and
regulations, policy and practice. Integrating these two vistas
would provide the basis for a comprehensive picture of the level
of implementation of the convention in Canada.
A search of the files of the Department of Justice for the last
three fiscal years reveals that in fiscal year 1997-98 the
Department of Justice provided a grant of $10,000 to the
University of Montreal, Faculty of Law, to write and publish a
book on the rights of the child in Quebec, viewed through the UN
convention on the Rights of the Child. This book will also
contain a in-depth analysis of existing legislation, doctrine and
case law and proposals for reform in light of the convention.
The book will fill a void in the French academic tools presently
available. The book is due out in 1999.
Question No. 184—Mr. Jason Kenney:
How many federal income tax returns have been transferred
between Revenue Canada offices for the years 1990, 1992, 1993,
1996 and 1997 from; (a) Jonquière to Shawinigan; (b)
Shawinigan to Jonquière; (c) Sudbury to Shawinigan; and (d)
Shawinigan to Sudbury?
Hon. Harbance Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
There were no income tax returns transferred between Department
of National Revenue tax centres during the years noted above. The
realignment of transfer of processing workloads from one Revenue
Canada tax centre to another only started in 1998. In early 1998
data processing workloads of some corporate income tax returns
were transferred from one centre to another. Starting in early
1999 data processing workloads of individual income tax returns
will be transferred from one centre to another, including the
centres listed above.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: The questions enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it agreed that
the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you to be so kind as to call Notices of Motions for the
Production of Papers No. P-34 in the name of the hon. member for
Wetaskiwin and No. P-65 in the name of the hon. member for
Madawaska—Restigouche.
That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying
that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of the
three testimonial letters required for the nomination of former
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney as a Companion of the Order of
Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that
Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-34 be deemed
to have been adopted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
That a humble address be presented to His Excellency praying
that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all
correspondence or documents exchanged between the federal
government and the province of New Brunswick on the appointment
of a second judge to the Court of Queen's Bench in the
Restigouche region of New Brunswick.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this Motion for the
Production of Papers be transferred for debate pursuant to
Standing Order 97(1).
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the
Production of Papers No. P-48 in the name of the hon. member for
Lakeland is acceptable to the government, except for those
documents which cannot be released pursuant to the Access to
Information Act, and the papers are tabled immediately.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of
all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos and
correspondence regarding all aspects of the government's ban of
the 2% and 5% solutions of strychnine.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that
Notice of Motion No. P-48 in the name of the hon. member for
Lakeland be deemed to have been adopted subject to the
qualifications expressed by the parliamentary secretary?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that all remaining
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wonder if I could ask for unanimous consent to revert to
motions so that we could consider a report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which, as I explained,
involves only a few changes in the associate membership of
committees.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert
to motions for the purpose requested?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1520
[Translation]
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.) moved that Bill C-63, an act respecting
Canadian citizenship, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise
today to address the new bill on citizenship.
This legislation is not only a framework that defines the
criteria for obtaining Canadian citizenship. It is also, and
above all, a reflection of the value that we want to give to one
of the world's most respected citizenships.
Since the Citizenship Act was last reviewed, back in 1977, our
world has undergone major changes.
Now that we are in the era of globalization, we are seeing
record numbers of people move from one country or continent to
another.
Borders between European countries are gradually disappearing,
and a number of nations are merging some of their most important
institutions. We are witnessing tremendous progress in the
transport and telecommunications sectors. These changes allow us
to establish and maintain contact with people all over the
world.
In this rapidly evolving world, it is appropriate to stop and
reflect on what it means to be a Canadian citizen.
Our citizenship is the very foundation of the Canadian identity.
It is the common denominator that unites us from coast to coast.
It is also one of our most valuable assets.
Our citizenship gives us invaluable rights and freedoms and it
is recognized world-wide.
Citizenship is something we do not give much thought to in our
everyday lives. As a minister of this government, I have had the
privilege of presiding over many citizenship ceremonies and I
have met hundreds of new Canadians for whom this ceremony was a
highlight of their lives.
For many of our new fellow citizens, the certificate of
citizenship represents independence, democracy, freedom from
fear and oppression, a chance to give their children a promising
future.
In my work, I have experienced some highly emotional moments,
watching parents accept the certificate of citizenship for a
child adopted abroad.
For these parents, it meant more than just sharing the same
citizenship, it meant sharing part of their identify and their
roots.
Canadian citizenship is not only a prerequisite for being issued
a passport and for voting. It is first and foremost a milestone
in becoming a full-fledged member of our society with its great
humanitarian tradition of fairness and equity, and it is in
keeping with this tradition that we drafted the new Citizenship
Act.
To this end, we conducted consultations with Canadians that have
enabled us to put forward today a piece of legislation that
addresses their concerns.
I would like to thank all those who were involved in this
process. As many of you may have noticed in December, when I
first introduced the bill, it contains major improvements and
necessary updates.
Since many of my colleagues have already perused the new
Citizenship Act, there is no need to get into an exhaustive
presentation. I will nonetheless take a moment to outline its
key elements.
[English]
This innovative act includes some important changes for the
attribution of citizenship at birth. There are three ways of
obtaining citizenship by birth.
1525
Citizenship is automatically granted to all children born in
Canada, to children born abroad of a Canadian parent and to
children adopted abroad by a Canadian.
Granting Canadian citizenship to all children born in our
country is what we call the jus soli principle. This principle,
honoured by many countries, aims to prevent statelessness. It
also reaffirms our adhesion to the Canadian humanitarian
tradition to which I referred earlier.
Children born abroad to Canadian parents will automatically be
Canadian citizens. However, the second generation of children
born in a foreign country will have to reside in Canada for three
years before age 28 in order to retain their Canadian
citizenship. Then again, it is important for our government to
make sure that our citizenship is based on the attachment we have
to our country and the knowledge we have of its values.
In keeping with our tradition of justice and fairness, we
propose changes to ensure greater equity between natural born and
adopted children. Currently, a foreign child adopted by a
Canadian citizen is treated as an immigrant and must be first
admitted as a permanent resident. With the new act, a foreign
child adopted by a Canadian will be granted citizenship without
having to go through the entire immigration process.
As a signatory to the Hague Convention on Protection of
Children, Canada is committed to ensuring that inter-country
adoption respects the best interests and rights of the child.
The new act represents a strong statement in support of this
commitment.
Of course, the adoption must conform to the laws of the nation
where the adoption takes place and to those of the province of
residency of the adoptive parents since adoption falls under
provincial jurisdiction.
As I said earlier, one can also choose to become Canadian. It
was important that we also modernize the attribution of
citizenship by naturalization.
One of the main features of the new act is the clear and precise
definition of criteria for attaining citizenship by
naturalization.
Our primary goal is to ensure that people who obtain Canadian
citizenship have a deep commitment to the adopted country. We
believe that commitment is possible only if the person is
physically in the country.
Physical presence makes it possible to develop a sense of
belonging and a better understanding of Canadian society, values
and culture. With this in mind, we have redefined the residency
criteria.
As many have noticed, the current legislation does not include
the word “physical”, thus leaving too much room for
interpretation of the meaning of “residence”. The new act
phrases the residency conditions in more precise terms, requiring
such presence in the country. Accordingly, a permanent resident
must reside in Canada for a cumulative three years during the
five years that precedes his or her application for citizenship.
Many people who come to Canada are involved in business and
maintain links with their country of origin. Actually, over half
of business immigrants create their own jobs. They bring in new
capital and contribute to the development of Canada's
international trade. This represents a notable contribution to
our country. Other newcomers seek to maintain close social and
family ties to their countries of origin.
Whatever the reason, it is vital that we provide these permanent
residents with the flexibility to travel outside Canada.
Therefore, we have extended the period during which they need to
meet the physical residency requirement from four years to five.
This offers a sufficiently flexible framework that takes into
account the reality of those who need to travel for business or
personal reasons.
1530
We are also adding a new requirement that calls for adequate
knowledge of our country and of one of our official languages. We
want applicants to be familiar with the values of our society and
to be able to demonstrate it without the help of an interpreter.
Some members might wonder why we have put so much emphasis on
physical presence and knowledge of the country. To answer this
question we have to ask ourselves the meaning we give to our
citizenship. The answer lies in our principles and in the
tradition of democracy, justice and fairness that we all share in
Canada. It is of utmost importance that people who adopt Canada
as their new home be prepared to accept the responsibilities that
accompany the privileges of holding Canadian citizenship.
These criteria provide the necessary balance between two key
principles: protecting the value of Canadian citizenship while
providing flexibility for prospective new Canadians.
The new process will also address concerns expressed by
Canadians across the country. It will protect the value of
Canadian citizenship and promote administrative efficiencies.
[Translation]
With this new legislation on citizenship, we are doing what is
needed to change a complex process to make it more precise, more
effective and better suited to today's reality.
In establishing clear and precise criteria for citizenship, we
are helping to ensure its value. It allows us as well to
simplify a process that is currently long and time consuming.
Most applications for citizenship pose no problems. They can
now be processed by citizenship officers.
Thus, the citizenship judges, as they are currently known, will
have more time to work on other duties given them. To mark the
change in their role, we will now be calling them citizenship
commissioners.
The new citizenship legislation defines some of the selection
criteria of these commissioners. They will be Canadians who
have distinguished themselves through their significant
contribution to their community and Canadian society. They will
be people who have shown, through their commitment to the
community, their ability to fill the role with enthusiasm and
dignity.
In addition to asking them to preside over citizenship
ceremonies, we will ask them to spend a significant portion of
their time promoting related civic values.
[English]
During the public consultations on legislative review I met with
people from every part of the country. Although the main focus
was on immigration, citizenship was also included in the dialogue
I had with Canadians. It became clear to me that one of the best
ways to enhance the meaning of our citizenship was to promote it
widely. As our society changes it seems very relevant to promote
values such as civic responsibility, respect for the law and
understanding among peoples. Indeed these lie at the core of our
Canadian identity.
The best persons to assume this responsibility are our
citizenship commissioners. The improvements to the decision
making process will allow them to use their time, talents and
expertise to actively promote community involvement and Canadian
citizenship. Being a Canadian citizen brings rights and
privileges and the exercise of these rights entails
responsibility. Our citizenship commissioners will now take upon
themselves the mandate of making Canadian citizens well aware of
this.
Before concluding I will take a few moments to discuss the oath
proposed under the new Citizenship of Canada Act. I am proud to
propose to my fellow Canadians a pledge of allegiance adapted to
today's values. The previous oath had remained unchanged for
over half a century. It was high time to review it.
The proposed oath includes a clear commitment to Canada, to the
Queen, to Canadian values and to respect for our rights and
freedoms.
1535
When new Canadians pledge their allegiance to Canada they will
also commit themselves to observing our laws and to fulfilling
their duties and obligations as active members of Canadian
society.
[Translation]
Every year in Canada, some 160,000 people become Canadian
citizens. Their commitment to their country of adoption is
expressed in the oath of allegiance. With the new oath we are
proposing, that commitment will no longer be to symbols but
rather to the concrete definition of Canadian citizenship: our
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a model throughout the world,
defence of the democratic values that unite us, respect for our
laws and for our duties and obligations as Canadians.
In closing, I would like to remind you that the primary mission
of my department is to contribute to building a stronger Canada.
The new Citizenship Act fits into that mission by reinforcing
the value of our most precious asset as Canadians: our
citizenship.
Building a stronger Canada means modernizing our institutions so
that they may reflect contemporary issues and realities while
respecting our traditions of justice, equity and compassion.
Finally, building a stronger Canada means lending an ear to the
concerns of the people of Canada, and responding to those
concerns.
[English]
This new act is the result of considerable consultation and in
depth reflection on what we want our country to be in the next
century. It is part of the government's efforts to modernize
Canadian institutions, to keep them in tune with today's
realities and to foster public confidence in them, and to
preserve and promote our identity, our values and our traditions.
We need to make sure our legislative framework is updated to
reflect our sense of who we are.
This is what I propose today with this forward looking, uniquely
Canadian legislation. Therefore I ask all members of the House
to support the new Citizenship of Canada Act.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I ask for unanimous consent of the House to have the
minister respond to questions.
The Deputy Speaker: Is their unanimous consent to permit
a question and comment period consequent on the minister's speech
as suggested?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
very unfortunate the minister was not willing to entertain
questions at this time. I certainly have a lot of questions for
her.
This piece of legislation, an act to replace the current
Citizenship Act, is dealing with the very important subject
matter of citizenship. It is a very personal issue and an issue
that most of us feel very strongly about.
It is especially important for new immigrants so that they sense
the pride in accepting Canadian citizenship, the feeling of new
opportunity that comes with being a Canadian citizen, and the
commitment that taking citizenship means and demonstrates to our
country, Canada. For new Canadians particularly citizenship is
something that is very personal and very important. For that
reason the subject matter of this piece of legislation is also
very important.
In the time I have been immigration critic for the official
opposition I have heard touching personal stories from new
Canadians about what it means to be a Canadian citizen. All of
us who are not new citizens of the country could be reminded what
it really means by listening to our newest citizens. I know many
of us feel strongly about being a Canadian citizen, but a
reminder from time to time would do none of us any harm.
1540
I will begin by giving a little background material to the bill.
The government's stated purpose has been presented by the
minister. Bill C-63 was tabled by the minister on December 7,
1998. It is intended to replace the current Citizenship Act.
Bill C-63 will be the new Citizenship Act when it passes,
hopefully with many amendments about which I will talk in the
future.
Bill C-63 has been touted by the minister as the first major
reform of citizenship in 20 years. It is an attempt to modernize
the act, as we have just heard the minister express. While some
parts appear to more clearly define parts of the act than they
are defined in the other act, Bill C-63 certainly does not
constitute a major modern reform. Critical areas have been
neglected while others have been changed in a negative way. I
will refer to a few of those in my presentation today.
I congratulate the minister on two points. First, I
congratulate her for finally after three years as minister
presenting some legislation in her area. Clearly the first piece
of legislation should have been major changes to the Immigration
Act because the Citizenship Act refers to the Immigration Act in
several cases. Because the Immigration Act is clearly in a state
of collapse we need new legislation in that area immediately.
That should have been the first area dealt with, but I sincerely
congratulate the minister for finally bringing forth a piece of
legislation.
Second, I congratulate the minister and her department for
making the bill an easy bill to read. I am very sincere about
this point. Some pieces of legislation are very difficult to
work one's way through. This one is not. It is presented in a
very clear way. That allows anyone reading the legislation to
very quickly recognize that there are many things missing from
the legislation. I will talk about some of those.
In way of a general response to the bill, the Standing Committee
on Citizenship and Immigration tabled its report in 1994, four
and half years ago. It was the only committee report that has
dealt in a substantial way with citizenship. Many others have
dealt with various components of the Immigration Act, but it was
the only one that has dealt with citizenship.
Four and a half years later we finally have legislation dealing
with the act, but unfortunately it does not deal with many key
issues proposed by a committee which is a Liberal dominated
committee. With a majority of Liberal members we would think the
minister would listen and pay some attention to what the
committee put forth.
This unwillingness to change integral parts of the act will
result in several things, and there are some very negative
things. The court system will ultimately make law in several
areas which should be made by the House of Commons and by
parliament.
What is left out of the act will in effect neutralize some of
the good proposals that are put forth in a very general way by
the legislation. In other words, it has been put forth in such a
general way and so much has been left to regulation that it is
virtually meaningless in many cases. The regulations that will
be put forth by departmental officials will determine the impact
of the act.
An increase in power is given to the minister in many areas of
the legislation. To be fair, I recognize that authority is
necessary in some places. I will talk a bit later about one of
those areas. Too much power is being given to the minister
without the checks and balances required to make sure that no
individual will be discriminated against in an unfair way. I am
very concerned about that.
Along the same line and by way of general comment, the
legislation contains clauses which were incorporated not as the
result of an initiative on the part of the minister but due to
court cases.
1545
The old legislation was so loose, the court in effect made law,
and the minister decided she should at this time incorporate the
court decisions in law which she is required to do. An example of
a case which is worth talking about shows the extreme unfairness
of parts of the old act which led to one of the changes in this
bill.
Until recently there remained within the Citizenship Act a
discrimination between men and women. Before 1977 certain
children would not have qualified for citizenship and under the
current act, such children are required by the act to make an
application for citizenship and undergo a criminal security
check. Children born abroad before 1977 to a Canadian mother
would not automatically obtain citizenship but children born
abroad before 1977 to a Canadian father need only register their
births.
Clearly this was an unbelievable discriminatory aspect of the
old bill. Unfortunately, rather than government changing that
before 1977 it was changed by the courts and incorporated here by
the minister.
For these general reasons and some very specific reasons, the
official opposition must oppose this bill unless there is
substantial willingness on the part of this minister and this
government to accept some substantial and broad amendments. I
would hope that kind of co-operation is there between the
official opposition and the government and that the government
will look at some very substantial amendments that we will be
proposing in committee and at report stage.
If those amendments are accepted, then we would only be too
happy to support this legislation. However, at this time we
clearly cannot accept this legislation in the way it has been
presented to us.
I would like to get into the specifics of the act. One of the
very serious flaws of Bill C-63 deals with citizenship at birth.
Bill C-63 states that all children born in Canada, except those
born to diplomats, are automatically citizens at birth regardless
of whether either of their parents has citizenship status as a
landed immigrant or as a permanent resident.
Recommendation No. 12 of the 1994 committee report states
“Children born in Canada should be Canadian citizens only if one
or both parents is a permanent resident of Canada”. This
statement was made in a House of Commons committee report, a
committee dominated by Liberal members of this House, yet the
minister refused to accept that recommendation.
It was not only the House of Commons committee that recommended
change in this area. In 1997 the LRAG report, the legislated
review advisory committee report, outlined the government's
awareness of the problems that this clause was causing. It said
“In our consultations across the country we heard concerns about
the abuse of the provision of the Citizenship Act granting
automatic citizenship to children born on Canadian soil”. It
was recognized by that committee as well.
Finally, this is the position of the official opposition, and I
am going to quote directly from Reform policy. “Reform supports
an immigration and citizenship policy that requires children born
in Canada to take the citizenship of their parents. Children
born in Canada to landed immigrants would assume Canadian
citizenship”.
Clearly, there is support from several groups and from many
Canadians to not automatically grant citizenship to children born
in this country.
During her press conference tabling this bill in December, the
minister stated that she made no changes to this clause because
there was no research done on how big a problem citizenship at
birth really is. She stated that because hospital records do not
request the nationality of parents and that changing this would
require provincial co-operation, her hands were basically tied in
terms of collecting data.
This minister has been the minister for immigration for three
years now.
Why has the necessary background work not been done so that the
minister could have presented in this bill those changes that
Canadians are asking for. Her story is that she cannot do
anything about it because the research has not been done. It has
been four and a half years since the committee reported. Why on
earth has the research not been done? I hope the minister will
answer that somewhere along the way.
1550
On several occasions the minister has made it clear that she
really does understand the abuses that result because of this
automatic granting of citizenship. She knows of the case of
Mavis Baker which is before the supreme court now. In this case
Mavis Baker who came to this country legally and has three
children was ordered to be deported by the minister's department.
Because the legislation is so loose and based on the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child among other things, her
lawyer stepped in and said that Mrs. Baker could not be deported.
Her deportation order by the department is being overturned by
the court. We have not heard the results of this case yet.
I would not be the least bit surprised that because this law has
been left as it is, the minister's neglect in this case, that the
courts could well determine based on the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child that these children be automatically granted
Canadian citizenship due to the law the minister chose to leave
the way it is. Because the UN Convention on the Rights of a
Child does not allow separation of a mother from her children,
the court could determine that this woman cannot be deported.
That kind of law in effect being made by a court is completely
unacceptable. Let us have laws in this country made in the
Parliament of Canada. It is only loose legislation, improper
legislation that allows the courts to make laws the way they have
been doing for so long.
The second issue that has been dealt with in this bill and which
I want to talk about concerns the requirements for granting
citizenship. There are some recommendations in this bill that
look good on the surface.
Clause 6(1)(b) of Bill C-63 defines the terms of permanent
residence more concisely than does the current act. This was
incorporated in response to recommendation 6 of the committee
report. The existing legislation may be loosely interpreted.
Some individuals have been found to be residing in Canada due to
a court case. The courts determined that they were residing in
Canada because they had a bank account in this country or because
they own property here. Either one of these things would indicate
that they were residing in Canada.
The minister said the right words in the bill. She said that we
were going to plug that hole. What will be required is 1,095
days or three years of physical presence in this country within a
five year period to meet the conditions for applying for
citizenship. That change was made. Sadly this change is
rendered virtually useless because the minister did not implement
recommendation 7 of the House of Commons report.
Recommendation 7 said that measures should be introduced to
enable accurate monitoring of periods of time that permanent
residents are absent from Canada. There is nothing that provides
any mechanism or any rules that would allow for the tabulation
that would be necessary under this law.
In effect this piece of legislation is rendered completely
useless because the follow-up step has not been done. What will
follow will be done behind closed doors by the minister's
officials. The minister will approve as she sees fit without any
requirement that it be passed by this House. In effect, even a
change that sounds good and looks good is rendered virtually
useless because it is so loose it is meaningless.
I also want to talk about the blatant patronage. It goes another
step that we have not seen for some time. Let us look at the
blatant patronage which has been promoted in regard to
citizenship judges.
Probably one of the most contentious issues of this bill is the
continued trend of patronage which has now been put at a new
level.
1555
Under clauses 31 and 32 the duties of the current citizenship
judges will be handed over to departmental officials at
Citizenship and Immigration Canada. We have called for that for
some time. That is a good move.
The citizenship judges who are patronage appointees will no
longer determine citizenship. That will be done within the
department. We have supported that because it should reduce
costs, allow some streamlining and lead to some consistency in
the rulings among the people who are determining citizenship.
That is good.
Instead of just ending the patronage appointments entirely, the
minister has created the new position of commissioner. What is
the role of these commissioners? They will continue to get paid
at the same rate until their terms are up and then they will be
reappointed at the minister's will, or some new friends will be
appointed. What is their role? Listen carefully because it is
unbelievable that this kind of patronage appointment would be put
in place. Their role is to promote active citizenship in the
community.
Talk to the member from Hamilton, to the Canadian heritage
minister about that because that is one of the stated purposes of
her department. They had better get it straightened out between
the immigration minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage
and decide which department will do this.
Most Canadians would say it is not necessary for any department
to do this. It is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. Let us
stop wasting money in the citizenship and immigration department.
Let us stop wasting money in the Canadian heritage department
and let the local residents and local community groups promote
good citizenship. I know of so many groups that do such a good
job of that.
Let us cut this spending entirely. I can sure see the Speaker
is agreeing with this completely. That encourages me.
I was going to make several more points about citizenship judges
but I think I have made the point. I will go on to the next
section which is the granting of citizenship, clause 6(1)(b)(i).
The current legislation allows individuals whose application for
permanent residence is approved to count each full day of
residency in Canada from the date of application as a half day
toward the total needed for citizenship application. That is the
way the current act reads.
Bill C-63 removes that provision. As a result applicants will be
penalized for bureaucratic delays in the department. Even if
these delays are caused through no fault of their own, because of
the removal of the provision they will be given no credit
whatsoever toward their three year requirement for residency in
the country before they are eligible to apply for citizenship.
It is disgusting. Few things disgust me more than when a
department acting inefficiently can put that kind of burden on
someone who wants to apply for citizenship in this country.
Clearly people who want to become Canadian citizens should not
be denied the opportunity to do so in a timely fashion just
because of bureaucratic holdups. It is a very sad commentary on
this part of the bill.
There were some changes made regarding adoption outside Canada.
Some of these changes seem to be a move in the right direction
but they are so loosely defined and the regulation will really
determine whether they are effective or not.
Bill C-63 will reduce the distinction between a foreign child
adopted by a Canadian citizen and a child born in Canada.
Currently a foreign child adopted by a Canadian citizen must
first be admitted to Canada as a permanent resident before
citizenship can be granted. That is the way it is under the
current act. It is currently ensured that the child is sponsored
and undergoes medical, criminal and security checks. That is the
way the act is now.
This bill will remove those requirements as long as the adoption
occurs outside Canada. That causes me great concern. I just
cannot wait to get the minister's explanation as to why that has
been put in the bill.
1600
The new legislation will make it easier for adopting parents to
gain Canadian citizenship for the child, which is good, but Bill
C-63 stipulates that in order to allow citizenship to be granted
to the minor, the adoption must create a genuine parent-child
relationship. This is in response to some abuse we have seen
across the country. It is not general abuse but specific people
abusing the system by claiming they are adopting while they have
other reasons for wanting the young person to come into the
country.
Section 43 puts the regulation in place. The concern is that
section 43(f) leaves defining the terms of this relationship to
the minister's discretion. This legislation fails to provide
more specific guidelines and terms with regard to exactly how
this will be determined. The legislation is so loose that
regulation could make some changes that appear to be positive
have no positive impact whatsoever.
There is another area of great concern in this bill. Should
this bill pass as is, authority will be given to the immigration
minister to redefine the Canadian family if she so chooses. I am
referring to clause 43 which grants the minister quite far
reaching powers including the right to “specify who may make
application under this act on behalf of a minor”. This is not
defined in the legislation. It is left to the bureaucrats and
the minister.
Clause 43(c) refers to fixed fees. The level of the fees could
have a great impact on how this act works. Clause 43(i) defines
a spouse for the purposes of this act. It is left to the
minister's to define what a spouse is. Should this legislation
pass the minister could choose to define a spouse in any way she
wants. If the minister feels a change should be made, that
change must be made by parliament. It should be made neither by
the minister nor by the courts. This legislation opens it up so
the minister can freely define what a spouse is.
It is of concern to me that the minister is free to define what
constitutes the relationship between a parent and child for the
purposes of determining entitlement to citizenship under the
provisions of this act. Allowing these issues to be determined by
the minister behind closed doors without the oversight of
parliament is clearly a very arrogant and insulting thing to do
to the Canadian population. I call for the minister to quickly
reject this part of the act. I hope it is something she missed
as she was reviewing the legislation put together by her
department. If changes are needed in these areas and the minister
wishes to make them, those changes should be done in parliament
and not behind closed doors.
Reform Party policy supports restricting sponsorship privileges
to the immediate family members, including spouses, minor
dependent children and aged dependent parents. All others should
apply for entry through the normal selective process. That is
what we and I think many Canadians are calling for.
I will read both citizenship oaths. This is the oath under the
current act:
I swear [or affirm] that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of
Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully
observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian
citizen.
This is the proposed oath contained in this legislation:
From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to
Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I
promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to defend
our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil
my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.
1605
Am I objecting to the new oath? No. I do not think the new
oath is probably all that bad. What I am objecting to is the way
this oath was arrived at. This minister is so arrogant that she
puts forth her oath and thinks her oath is what the Canadian
population should accept. That is arrogance that Canadians will
not accept. I believe the minister will be chastised by the
Canadian public for doing that.
Clearly the minister has missed an opportunity here. She has
missed a tremendous opportunity to have a patriotic debate across
this country such as presents itself rarely. She could have
called for a debate across the country in this House where
Canadians would have the input on the oath and the oath then
would truly be the oath of Canadian citizens. It would be an oath
supported by citizens across the country.
But no, the minister in her infinite wisdom has determined that
she can change that oath unilaterally and to heck with what
Canadians want. I am concerned about that.
There will be now a debate on the process of entering this oath
and on the oath itself, but it will not be as a result of what
the minister has done.
On the language requirement in clause 6(1)(c), the minister
stated in her presentation that she has put in place language
requirements for those who wish to become Canadian citizens. The
clause in question states: “The minister shall on application
grant citizenship to a person who has an adequate knowledge of
one of the official languages of Canada”. Further clause
31(7)(3) states that the new commissioners “will be responsible
for providing advice and recommendations to the minister on
appropriate methods to evaluate citizenship applicants about
their knowledge of an official language of Canada and of the
rights and responsibilities of citizenship”.
At least the minister will let these citizenship judges who will
no longer be judges have their say on what they think the
language requirement should be, but clearly the legislation
should contain a definition of what the minister believes are
reasonable language requirements. The minister has once again
ignored her responsibility to make a decision on this issue. She
is going to have that made behind closed doors by her
departmental officials. Parliament will have absolutely no say
in what adequate language requirements are.
While the move sounds like it may be a good move, I have heard
from some new Canadians that they do not support the new language
requirements or any new language requirements. But probably a
majority do.
While this change could have been so positive because nothing
has been defined, because everything is left up to regulation, we
have not a clue what the minister really means about that. I
think that is too bad.
This is the second reading of this bill and we are looking at
very general comments. I have kept my comments quite general.
There are several other issues I will talk about as we get to
report stage. Other members of the official opposition will talk
at third reading and in committee as well.
I sincerely hope this minister will pay attention to what she
hears at committee, to what she hears from Canadians from across
this country. Because the minister did not listen before she
presented the legislation, she should now listen to what
Canadians really want in this area of citizenship. It is an area
that is extremely important to Canadians, a very personal issue
and an issue which should be dealt with by Canadians and not by
the minister behind closed doors.
I look forward to future debate on this issue from all political
parties and hopefully we can make the changes necessary to make
something out of this bill, something that Canadians will be able
to identify with.
1610
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I seek
the unanimous consent of the House to divide my time with the
member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, with each of us taking 20
minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent from the House
for the hon. member to share his time as requested?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Réal Ménard: First of all, I would like to say that we
generally understand citizenship to be part and parcel of
national sovereignty. It is the government's prerogative to
introduce a bill such as this.
We will support it, bearing in mind of course that the day is
not far off when a sovereign Quebec will introduce its own such
bill.
That having been said, with the contagious laughter of an
enthusiastic minister in the background, I wish to draw to the
House's attention six questions we have about the bill.
I would like to begin by congratulating the minister on one
aspect of the bill, a courageous aspect that makes me think I
was not mistaken in describing the minister as a dove, while
other aspects of the bill are indicative of a few hawks in this
cabinet. There have even been some uncharitable remarks about
nighthawks, but that is another story.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister for having
included recognition of same-sex couples in her bill.
This is ground-breaking, for such recognition is long in coming.
I am pleased that the minister has shown leadership and I hope
that she is seated right beside the Minister of Justice in
cabinet, if that is not privy information.
We therefore congratulate the minister on this aspect of the
bill.
My first question has to do with the decision to introduce a
citizenship bill first when all signs were that an immigration
bill was coming down the pipe. The minister wanted to take us a
bit off guard and introduced a citizenship bill first.
This is the government's prerogative, but I know that deep
inside she will agree, in the light of the Trempe report, tabled
by the task force brilliantly led by the former deputy minister
to the current minister responsible for income security. This
task force made 172 recommendations, some being admittedly more
valuable than others, but I think that overall it did a good
job. I would have liked to see the minister heed the wishes of
the auditor general, who had asked that she review the
legislation.
The inefficiency of the Immigration Act and the highest
administrative tribunal, namely the IRB, currently costs the
provinces of Ontario and Quebec $100 million a year. This is
something that could have been addressed if the minister had
been willing to, but we were all left unsatisfied.
The auditor general also arrived at a fascinating diagnostic.
He told the IRB that there were two hierarchies pitted against
one another: officials and commissioners. Such confrontation
obviously makes it very difficult to exercise any real
administrative control. The hon. minister knows that what I am
saying can easily be found in the documents from the auditor
general, and I ask her in all friendship to table a bill in the
next few weeks. She can count on the kind and gentle co-operation
of the opposition in ensuring vigilance.
I would now like to share a few good memories with the minister
about the 1995 referendum campaign. I think this was a high
point in her public life, she had incredible visibility and the
full confidence of the Prime Minister.
We will recall that the agreement signed in June by the three
party leaders—the current Quebec premier, Mr. Bouchard, Mr.
Parizeau and Mr. Dumont—contained a proposal, which will be
back on the table in a foreseeable future, and I am sure the
minister remembers it, for dual citizenship.
1615
This is reassuring. Behind every minister, there is probably a
closet sovereignist. The minister is surely very pleased to tell
us that, since the provisions remain the same, the status quo is
maintained as regards dual citizenship.
Once Quebeckers decide to become a sovereign people, we will
certainly be able to agree, as two sovereign states should do,
on the issue of dual citizenship.
This is a very positive aspect of the bill. Again, we hope the
minister's influence will be felt among Privy Council members,
but that is far from certain.
The other issue is that of linguistic ability.
That issue was also raised in the Trempe report. I agree that it
is not easy to draw the line. However, I hope the parliamentary
committee—before which, I am sure, the minister will as usual
be pleased to appear—will obtain guarantees that, with regard
to the linguistic skills that will be required and evaluated by
using standardized tests, particular attention will be given to
the knowledge of French which, as you know, is Quebec's official
language.
I know that the Quebec government has made representations to
the minister. We will reiterate them and I hope the minister
will be in a position to provide the guarantees that are
necessary, given the precarious situation of the French language
in Quebec.
You, Mr. Speaker, are a bilingual citizen and this is to your
credit. Quebec's precarious situation is easily understood when
we read the Beaudoin report. The authors of that document, which
was released two years ago and which is named after the minister
responsible for the charter of the French language, estimated
that 40 rulings—imagine the context in which we find
ourselves—were made under the provisions of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms and invalidated entire sections of Bill
101.
I am sure the minister is aware of this. It is important to be
vigilant and to make sure that those who choose to settle in
Quebec will comply with an inescapable requirement, which is to
have a knowledge of the French language.
Again, I am counting on you, Mr. Speaker, to remind the minister
that we must have very solid guarantees. It will of course be
our duty to raise these issues in committee.
There is also the oath of citizenship. The minister is a woman
of honour. She knows the importance of an oath in everyday life.
An oath is a binding commitment with a strong symbolic value.
But there is a small paradox. There is something of an
inconsistency. First, we should question why we are maintaining
this allegiance to the Queen of England. Some may argue that
Canada has been a sovereign country since the Statute of
Westminster. We know that.
We wonder why a minister, who seems to represent the progressive
wing of the cabinet, stubbornly and, I must say, somewhat
awkwardly maintains an allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth
II, who has had her share of problems, as we know.
I do not want to speak against the royal family—it would be
against our rules—but let me say that there have been many more
divorces in that family than in mine.
Why should we keep in an oath of allegiance such an explicit
reference to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who fulfils a
symbolic role?
1620
Would it not have been wiser to take advantage of the
opportunity to eliminate this reference to Her Majesty Elizabeth
II in “modernizing the oath” as they are calling it? The
minister has said in a press conference that these are two
separate debates. I imagine this government will have the
opportunity to discuss the matter as things develop.
There is something I do not understand, and I am sure the
following question will be of interest: How can it be that the
opportunity is not being taken, in revising this element, to
respect what this government has adopted, namely a motion
recognizing Quebec's distinct society, its distinct character?
Ought there not to be some consistency here? If we want to
speak of the reality of Canada, and if we believe that we must
do so truthfully and accurately, ought the minister not to agree
with me that it would have been the most basic of courtesies to
refer to the existence of two nations in this country or at
least to Quebec's distinct society?
Quebec's characteristics are well known. The minister, who has
a strong background in social sciences, is aware of this. I am
not asking the minister to become a member of the Bloc Quebecois
or the Parti Quebecois but, as a Quebec MP just like me who
shares my passion for Montreal, when talking about Quebec, she
should speak with a bit more finesse, a bit more accuracy, a bit
more refinement, all qualities which she certainly does not lack.
Mention should have been made that Canada comprises two nations.
Any treatise of constitutional law, which the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry has taught over many years, would have
helped the minister understand that a nation is made up by
people with a sense of community. This is the definition given
in the 19th century. A nation is made up of people that control
a territory. The minister cannot deny that Quebec controls a
territory, that its population has a real sense of community,
that it has a vernacular language, French.
The fourth element that defines a nation is, of course, its
history. This is important, because this is to be found in
every constitutional law treatise.
The minister's oath is incomplete, her work is incomplete. I
think we should expect amendments.
I could make the same remarks with respect to native Canadians.
Why did the minister not refer to them? At the 1982
constitutional conference, the minister was already very
interested in things federal. She knows very well that this
conference was the native peoples' conference. It even appears
in the Constitution Act, 1982. There are very specific rights.
When we speak of Canada, we really must do so in the knowledge
that it will soon be facing major change, based on two states
that will form an association respecting their mutual
sovereignty. In the meantime, it would have been simple
courtesy for the minister to mention Canada's binational reality
and the existence of the first nations, in her reference to
Canada. This must not be forgotten, when an oath is taken on
this reality. This did not happen, and should be rectified.
I want to raise another point that will require the minister to
provide explanations to the committee. This is the notion of
redefining the role of the citizenship judges in depth. They
will be called citizenship commissioners. However, the
description of the responsibilities of these commissioners
remains rather vague. It would not take much for this appear as
a desire for rather lyrical propaganda.
The bill mentions promoting civic values. That is certainly
interesting, because there is no social unity without civic
values.
1625
But would this not be a slippery road to propaganda? I do hope
the minister will make it extremely clear what role these
commissioners will be expected to play.
The strongest criticism I have to make to her—and I urge her
to listen, as her undivided attention is required on this very
serious concern of ours—has to do with the process for
appointing the commissioners. Why not go through the Public
Service Employment Act and have a competition? How will they be
appointed?
At the press conference, I was left with the impression that we
are dealing with partisan appointments, something I have always
stayed away from, as the whole sovereignist movement has done.
So, does the minister not feel that the appointment process
could be used to benefit friends of the government? I am
concerned about that.
If I were sure that those selected were all as qualified as the
hon. member for Laval-Ouest, I would not be concerned, because I
know that immigration is an area she knows very well, having
herself been involved in those circles. But we have been given
no such assurances.
I think that the minister will have to be extremely careful and
that these appointments should be free from partisanship. I want
to really stress this point. I do not want to turn into a
Reformer, but still the minister should beware and she will have
account for her actions to the parliamentary committee.
Another important point is the whole issue of international
adoption. I myself had occasion, in a slightly more informal
context, to make representations to the minister. She knows how
important this issue is for the Government of Quebec.
In fact, I wonder whether I would have unanimous consent to
table a letter addressed to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, in which Quebec's minister Jean Rochon, an
honourable man if ever there was one, and André Boisclair,
express certain concerns.
I cannot resist sharing this letter with its rather—
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: The reply as well.
Mr. Réal Ménard: The reply as well, if a page brings it, because
I do not have it with me.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Table them both at the same time.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I will read the letter, then:
During a meeting with the minister of relations with citizens
and immigration, on October 26, you confirmed—
The reference here is to the minister.
Everyone will recall that that was around the last day of the
session.
I wish to mention in passing that the opposition parties were
put in a rather difficult situation from a parliamentary point
of view, because I learned on the train one Friday that I had to
be back Monday to reply to the Minister. It would have been
nicer to have a few extra days to prepare, but I know that the
minister has her plate full and that this will not happen again
in future.
The letter said:
During a meeting with the minister of relations with citizens
and immigration, on October 26, you confirmed your intention to
table, in mid-December, a bill to amend the Citizenship Act.
This bill proposes, among other things, to grant citizenship
without delay, in cases of recognized international adoption, to
the child adopted by a Canadian citizen, before that child
arrives in Canada.
This bill raises various issues in Quebec. One of them has to do
with how we can reconcile the legislation and our civil code.
I will stop here, but let me tell the House this: under Quebec
law—and the minister, who at one time sat in the National
Assembly, knows Quebec law—the adoption process must be
confirmed and finalized by an order from a Quebec court.
There is an incompatibility and this is why the Quebec
government made representations regarding the fact that the
status of adopted child would be granted when the child is still
abroad, before the process is finalized in Quebec.
On the other hand, I fully realize that parents who go through
the international adoption process expect things to be done
diligently. We hope it will be the case. However, I am asking
the minister to respect the provisions of the Quebec civil code,
and in particular the prerogatives of the National Assembly.
1630
In conclusion, we will support this bill, since citizenship is
an attribute of national sovereignty. In the not too distant
future, when we have achieved sovereignty, we Quebeckers will
have an opportunity to introduce a similar bill. I know that we
can count on the minister to promote good relations and to
ensure successful negotiations on dual citizenship.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): I am always very
pleased to see the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve display
his sense of humour and irony to the House, involving our
colleagues on the other side of the floor and reminding us that
they sometimes do listen to the opposition and its proposals.
I will be pleased to associate with my colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, as I have in other circumstances,
moreover, in offering some views, some enlightenment arising out
of my training as a professor of international and
constitutional law, as someone who has spent a number of years
in a university teaching about legislation such as this
Citizenship Act. Someone who wants to take a constructive look
at improving this legislation, clarifying some of its
provisions, making that contribution for the most part within a
parliamentary committee, which will examine it clause by clause.
It might be worthwhile raising a few questions here in the
House, in order to provide the minister and her staff with the
opportunity to reflect upon some of the clauses which strike me
as needing more reflection and perhaps upon the changes which we
can examine together within the parliamentary committee.
It seems to be that the general nature of the act has not been
changed, overall. Of course it has retained the two major
concepts for assigning nationality, the concepts of the law of
the blood and the law of the soil, jus sanguinis and jus soli,
adding to them naturalization and attribution of citizenship
under a certain number of other criteria, such as the
exceptional criteria by which the minister may, on occasion, on
recommendation of the governor in council, award citizenship.
These items are in many ways a repeat of the old act.
There is no doubt one thing the minister should look at, and
that is the notion in part I of the right to citizenship. It
seems to me that clauses 3 to 12 of the bill do not really
concern the right to citizenship, a right that could have been
acknowledged and guaranteed in the Canadian charter of rights
and which was not. We could have, had we wanted, for example,
incorporated in Canadian law the prescriptions of international
instruments such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights or
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
I submit the following thought to the minister for her
consideration: does part I not indeed concern the granting of
citizenship and should we not use that expression rather than
the right to citizenship. Although the quality of citizen is
involved, clauses 3 and following are not drafted in a way as to
concern a right really, but the government's ability to grant
citizenship, especially when it is granted through the process
of naturalization.
Compared with the part following, which concerns the loss of
citizenship, part I should be entitled: “Granting citizenship”,
with the corollary of the various reasons and grounds for
granting citizenship provided in the various provisions in this
part.
I would point out to the minister that in this part there is
some doubt about the relevance of clause 11(e), which could pose
a problem in the case of dual citizenship, as the government
does not seem to want to grant or agree to grant Canadian
citizenship when an individual is a citizen of another country
or is entitled to citizenship in another country.
1635
There seems to be a restriction to dual citizenship in paragraph
11(e). I therefore submit to the minister that this may be an
exception to the rule, which calls for further investigation.
There is also a need to ensure—this has not been done and, in
any case, it deserves careful consideration—that the
legislation will not allow the two conventions signed by Canada,
that is the Convention on the nationality of married women and
the Convention on the reduction of statelessness, to be
violated. By signing the latter, Canada and the other
signatories agreed to pass legislation that does not cause
statelessness.
I look forward to finding out at committee whether the act has
been examined in terms of compliance with this international
convention of which Canada is a signatory. This is one of the
issues I think a parliamentary committee should look into.
There is another thing in this act that struck me; it is in part
4 on prohibitions. The concept of public interest may be too
vague. In the context of paragraph 21(1), this concept is the
basis for making an order prohibiting the granting of
citizenship. This may be too vague a concept and the vagueness
of the criteria set out in paragraph 21(1) of this citizenship
bill could cause problems in terms of constitutional validity.
I also submit to the minister that it might be a good idea to
consider adding, at section 23, which deals with national
security, a provision to ensure that, in paragraph 2, reference
is made not only to crimes provided for in federal legislation,
but also international crimes now codified in several
international conventions as well as in the statute of Rome
establishing the international criminal tribunal.
It might be appropriate to add a reference to the criminal acts
under international law referred to in section 11(g) of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This might be one way of
ensuring that international criminal acts, being increasingly
codified, could be used to justify refusal of citizenship, since
it would represent a threat to national security to award it to
people who have committed criminal acts not only under federal
law but under international law as well.
I have always found this act to contain a curious concept—and I
found it so in my university teaching days as well—that of
Commonwealth citizenship.
In this act, as in the one it is intended to replace, there is
the concept of Commonwealth citizenship, that any Canadian
citizen or any citizen of another Commonwealth country holds the
status of citizen of the Commonwealth in Canada.
This is therefore a nationality or citizenship which is
superimposed on nationalities attributed by other countries, but
it is one about which we know nothing. What point is there to
Commonwealth citizenship? Does it confer any real rights, or is
a highly symbolic assignment to citizens of other Commonwealth
countries of a status in Canada?
I would like to be properly enlightened on the real significance
of this concept of Commonwealth citizenship and its corollaries
in Canadian law.
1640
Perhaps there is one point here which ought to be of concern to
the minister, which is that other concepts of citizenship or
nationality appear to be being created here in Canada itself.
It might be worthwhile checking whether the Nisga'a treaty, just
signed between the authorities of British Columbia and the
Nisga'a band, contains a concept of citizenship which is
compatible with Canadian citizenship, or is complementary to it.
Then there would have to be an examination of, not only the
concept of Commonwealth citizenship, but also other domestic
citizenships which seem to have been created, or will be created
in future, by treaties with aboriginal nations.
So I suggest the minister examine this new idea of a domestic
citizen and look at how it would work with the notion of
Canadian citizenship.
Finally, on a more technical level, on the content of the bill,
I sometimes have a hard time understanding why, in a bill on
citizenship, there are provisions that have nothing to do with
citizenship. All of part VI concerns what non-Canadians cannot
or can do. There are provisions on their right to acquire
property, for example, in this bill, and a number of provisions
on the power of the lieutenant governor in council, by
regulation, to alter bans on property ownership by non-Canadians.
This whole part should not be included in a bill on
citizenship.
The general organization of this bill, therefore, does not lend
itself to the idea of including provisions that do not concern
Canadian citizens and the rights they enjoy.
Therefore, in my opinion, we could readily contemplate the
inclusion of clauses 49 and 54 in legislation other than on
citizenship, because it seems to me they have no place in this
legislation, except a place history has reserved for them, but
that history does not justify now as it used to, especially
since the existence of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and other instruments enshrining property rights.
So, these in my opinion are the things that warrant debate and
verification in certain cases.
I was also interested in the matter of citizenship from the
standpoint, as my colleague mentioned, of what would happen in
the case of a sovereign Quebec, in the matter of dual
citizenship, the opportunity for dual citizenship. I am one of
those who consider the minister very wise to—
Mr. Réal Ménard: Visionary.
Mr. Daniel Turp: —visionary, even—my colleague, the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has such a way with words—in that I think
that, internationally, the trend now is no longer just to
tolerate, but to accept and even encourage multiple
nationalities and not just dual citizenship. The trend is to
even add the category of supranationals as Europe has done, with
the Maastricht treaty that was recently passed to recognize
citizenship in the European Union, which is entirely consistent
with French or British nationality.
This is something sovereignists will continue to ponder. Would
it be a good idea for a sovereign Quebec to share supranational
citizenship with a sovereign Canada, in other words citizenship
in one Canadian union for two sovereign states? These are
debates we will also be having.
In the present legislative setting, amendments are certainly
important. My colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
and I will be making constructive suggestions during the
committee debate.
I conclude by recalling the fundamental
distinction established by the French when they passed the
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789.
1645
The French understood “man” in the generic sense, including
“woman” of course, as a universal being with a certain number of
fundamental rights to which he was entitled as a member of a
universe where borders were of no importance. But citizens are
no longer universal beings. Citizens inhabit territories and,
when it comes to the status of Canadian citizens within such
territories, they must be provided with citizenship legislation
that provides them with the best guarantees.
It is in this perspective that the Bloc Quebecois intends to
make a positive contribution to the study of this bill. I hope
that I will be able to make a contribution that will be helpful
to the minister and her officials.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, employment insurance; the hon.
member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, Canada Post; the hon. member
for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, employment
insurance; the hon. member for Mercier, Pratt & Whitney.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am happy to represent our caucus in the debate at second reading
of Bill C-63. I will be splitting my time with the member from
Kamloops. I am relatively new to the critic area of citizenship
and immigration, but I am getting well versed.
The issue is certainly not new to me given the area of Winnipeg
in which I live. Citizenship is probably one of the key issues
and concerns that we have in the community.
I am pleased to see that the minister has chosen to remain in
the House to listen to the input of the opposition. I have not
seen that in the past from any minister during second reading.
Ministers usually read their piece and then carry on out the
door. It is a very nice gesture and I am glad the minister is
interested in what we have to say.
In my riding of Winnipeg Centre citizenship is a critical issue.
We recently took a survey to get an idea of how many new
Canadians are living within our borders. I knew there were high
numbers of certain groups, but I was very surprised that there
were 7,800 people of Filipino background just within Winnipeg
Centre, and certainly my riding does not represent the majority
of Filipinos in Manitoba or Winnipeg.
The only group that came close in numbers in terms of minority
groups was the aboriginal population, with 6,500. There are over
2,000 Portuguese, over 1,800 Vietnamese, over 2,000 Chinese,
Laotian, Cambodian, Eritrean, Chilean and Guatemalan people. I
was overwhelmed by all the various subgroups. It was a real eye
opener to see the number of new Canadians that have settled in
the riding of Winnipeg Centre.
I would like to add that we would like to see many more. We
would hope that any amendments to the Citizenship Act or
Immigration Act would send a very welcoming message to the world
that we recognize immigration as an engine of economic growth.
In our riding it is critical in revitalizing an inner city that
has more than its share of problems as a core area of a major
Canadian city.
As a case in point, during the election campaign, going door to
door in the worst part of my riding, it was revealing to see the
housing stock. We would go past shack after shack with boarded
windows or a house used by gangs, and then there would be a
lovely little cottage, just recently renovated, with a painted
fence, a new roof, curtains in the window and flowers planted
along the sidewalk.
Without even knocking on the door I knew that was the home of a
new Canadian. I knew that would be a Filipino family or a
Vietnamese family so proud of their home. The selling price of
these houses is $15,000 to $17,000. A person can buy a good home
in the inner city of Winnipeg for under $20,000. By anybody
else's standards this would not be the kind of property that we
would go to a great length to beautify, but the new Canadians who
come to Winnipeg do just that. It is a real pleasure to see.
1650
It is also a pleasure that the area is being repopulated. There
has been a mass exodus out of the inner city. As people manage
to get some means together they seem to move out to the suburbs,
leaving this donut-shaped city and vacant houses. There have
been 65 arsons since October in a 12 block area. It is almost
like the Watts riots in the southern states at the height of the
civil rights movement. It is burn baby burn. They are trying to
level the inner city in many ways just out of sheer frustration
at all things that poverty brings.
However, new Canadians are turning that around by buying these
houses. They are also keeping the schools viable because there
are more children in the neighbourhood.
Having said that, I am disappointed because I do not believe
that this piece of legislation is going to move us any closer to
the goal of welcoming new Canadians to the country or sending
the message internationally that the door is open to Canada.
Without getting too technical I would like to go through some of
the points that we have reservations about and what leads us to
say that at this point, without amendment, our caucus will not be
voting for Bill C-63.
First I would like to speak about the physical presence
requirement in clauses 6(1)(b) and 2(2)(c). While I understand
the concern over what many people feel was a loophole in the law,
I feel that the proposed requirement for a full three years of
physical presence in Canada is extreme. I also object to the
loss of the current provision whereby one-half of the time spent
in Canada prior to becoming a landed immigrant would be counted
toward residency for citizenship.
The issue that we find the most fault with would be the language
requirement, that the test has to be done in one of the two
official languages. The minister in her introduction said that
Bill C-63 was the result of extensive consultation around the
country. I agree. I went to the consultations in Winnipeg.
However, overwhelming I believe what the minister heard during
those consultations was that Canadians did not want this
rigidity. The language issue was a real sore point, a real hot
button for a lot of the groups who made representations. Even
the Filipino Association of Manitoba, the largest ethnic group in
my riding, made a very spirited representation to that committee.
It was very capably argued by the son of the chair of the
committee on citizenship and immigration, who is a very bright
and well respected lawyer in the city of Winnipeg. He spoke
passionately against this particular clause. I am sure it was
not the only group. I heard many groups making that
representation.
I will quote the organization that deals with English as a
second language in downtown Toronto, COSTI. Mr. Mario Calla felt
very strongly about it. He said “A lot of people will forfeit
the opportunity to gain Canadian citizenship as a result of this
change and that is very unfortunate”.
There is great nervousness and unrest in the advocacy groups and
in the social agencies that deal with English as a second
language.
When we break it down to its barest core, how can we judge the
value or the merits of an individual by virtue of what language
they speak? Why must they be proficient enough to take a test in
one of those two languages?
I do not see how that has anything to do with whether they will
be useful to us as productive Canadian citizens.
1655
Many people who live here for three to five years, as Mr. Calla
pointed out, are too busy to get good enough in one of the
official languages to take a written test. When a person comes
here and works at a minimum wage job, or maybe two or three
minimum wage jobs, and maybe juggling child care, they might
learn enough English or French to get by, like many people do.
We do not want more barriers. This really does send the message
that Canada is not welcoming people with open arms because we are
going to put all these roadblocks in the way.
There are many other obvious roadblocks. The hated head tax, of
course, we are not going to talk about under the citizenship
rules. I hope we get a chance to debate the head tax again under
immigration.
Things like landing fees really set the tone to people in other
countries who might be looking to Canada. They feel that it is
not an open door; it is a door that has a series of hurdles in
front of it meant to trip people up and keep them out.
My first wish would be for 5,000 new Canadians in downtown
Winnipeg tomorrow. However, I do not see anything in these rules
that will help us achieve that goal or even help with the message
that Canada welcomes new Canadians to help rebuild this country.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I appreciate having an opportunity today
to make a few comments on Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian
citizenship.
For those of us who have been fortunate enough to be elected to
represent our constituents here in parliament, one of the most
pleasurable expectations of our time is to participate in
citizenship ceremonies in our constituencies. I am sure I speak
for everyone here in saying that it is one of the highlights to
see the joy in the faces and to see the tears in the eyes of
people becoming Canadian citizens by choice.
Most of us became Canadian citizens because we happened to be
born here, but these people are different. As I say, it is a
highlight in my life. When I am not able to be there
my staff enjoy it equally. Everyone wants to take our picture,
we are invited to teas and there are all sorts of dinner
invitations. It is a great moment.
I appreciated the minister saying that it is a moving ceremony.
One cannot help but be made proud again to be a citizen of
Canada.
One of the things during the ceremony that I always feel a bit
uneasy about is when I have to affirm my citizenship. We stand
to talk about the Queen, her heirs and so on. I cannot help but
think that this does not fit that well in modern day Canada. I
do not want to get into a debate on the Queen and the monarchy
and who we should be swearing allegiance to, but I do find it
somewhat uncomfortable.
When I talk to new citizens they are curious about this Queen,
where she lives and who she is. When I tell them she does not
even live here, that she lives in another country, they think it
is odd, but when one becomes a citizen of a new country a lot of
things are strange. But having a Queen who does not even live
here seems to be peculiar in modern day society. Our friends in
Australia are looking at this. I look forward to the debate that
we will have in our country one day, hopefully sooner rather than
later, on the question of the validity of having a foreign queen
as our own queen.
My colleague from Winnipeg noted that section 6(1)(c) of the
legislation requires that an applicant for citizenship must have
an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada.
At first blush this seems like a reasonable requirement. If a
person wants to become a citizen, to have knowledge of English or
French is not an unusual expectation.
However, I think back to my own parents.
They came from Norway and like most new Canadians sought out
people of similar backgrounds and culture for the first year or
two to become used to the new country. Obviously they spoke
Norwegian. I do not think my father or mother spoke a single
word in English. They arrived in this new country and some years
later became proficient in English. My Dad in his late nineties
still speaks with a real heavy Norwegian accent, so I suspect it
was probably some time before he became proficient in English.
1700
When the legislation gets to committee I want to encourage the
minister to be open to this section to ensure that when we say
that it has adequate knowledge that adequate does not mean we are
going to prohibit people from becoming citizens who are having
difficulty with the language and have lived presumably in their
cultural community for the first two or three years and are
simply in a very early learning stage. We will examine this in
committee and I ask the minister to be sensitive to this section
and open to some very clear clarification.
Perhaps I would ask her at this early stage that when she
appears before the committee to define what we mean by adequate
knowledge in a very explicit way. I know she will be concerned
that we do it in such a way that this will not prohibit the kind
of citizens we would welcome into Canada simply because they are
a little weak in learning languages. I know the feeling when it
comes to being a little weak in learning foreign languages. I am
one of those people.
The section that requires residency in Canada for three of five
years is again something else we want to look at because as
Canada is one of the world's great trading nations which attracts
people from other countries to take up residency and become
contributing citizens, it is really one of the key aspects we
have as a country in terms of facilitating new overseas trade
arrangements.
When a person comes from Vietnam and takes up citizenship in
Canada it is only natural for them to think if they are going to
be doing foreign trade either importing material or exporting
Canadian goods to Vietnam that heir friends there would be an
obvious contact. So as we develop more trade and more overseas
connection in terms of the whole globalization forces that are in
place we should be sensitive to whether this three year permanent
residency make sense recognizing modern commerce, trade and
communications. I am not saying it does not but I simply want to
say that we have some concerns about this and it should be
considered carefully in committee.
I turn to section 28 which identifies a number of prohibitions:
Despite anything in this act, other than section 8, no person
shall be granted citizenship or take the oath of citizenship, if
the person
(a) is, under any enactment in force in Canada, subject to a
probation order, on parole, or confined in any penitentiary,
jail, reformatory or prison;
(b) is charge with, on trial for, subject to or a party to an
appeal of a review relating to an offence under this act or an
indictable offence under any other act of parliament.
One of the concerns I hear regularly, and I am not certain how
accurate it is, is people often have a perception that a lot of
people who have come to Canada and are not yet citizens and get
in trouble with the law remain here. Consequently we pick up the
costs and we welcome a criminal element into our country. I know
that is not the intent of any legislation and not the intent of
any government policy. It would seem that when we consider
section 28 this might be an opportunity to consider that section
and ensure that Canadians know clearly that if a person wishes to
become a citizen of Canada and he or she gets into serious
trouble with the law, that person is not welcome any longer in
Canada. We do not want a person who participates in illegal acts
to become a Canadian citizen. Again I ask the minister if she
would clarify that section when we get to committee.
I applaud most of the initiatives the minister referred to in
her opening comments in terms of the need to promote citizenship,
the need to promote an understanding of what being a citizen of
Canada entails, the responsibilities that go with that
citizenship.
1705
I feel that at a time when we have all these forces tugging at
us as a result of globalization and we as Canadians are part of
such a multicultural, multiethnic and multiracial country we have
to emphasize what it means to be Canadian. It is not clear and I
suspect we are one of the few countries in the world where people
actually ask what it means to be a Canadian.
I cannot imagine someone in Greece asking what it means to be a
Greek or somebody from Italy asking what it means to be Italian.
They know these things but it is not as clear here because of the
kind of country we are. We are an amalgamation of folks from
every country of the world.
I ask the minister to give some thought to the consul we have in
Chandigarh, Punjab. It was set up as a consul office. We
understood the office would facilitate issuing visas and so forth
but in my judgment there have been some problems with that
consulate office.
In talking with people they seem frustrated because a goodly
portion who come to Canada from the subcontinent of India are
from the Punjab state. We should have that office operating in a
more efficient and perhaps more elaborate fashion than it is at
present.
I ask the minister to give that some thought, to expand the
ability to facilitate those visas and other immigration and
consular work from that office in the future.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened to the member's presentation with interest but I have
some questions as a result of his presentation.
He expressed a concern that he cannot really tell what the
minister means in the legislation about the language requirement.
He is concerned that the requirement might be a little too
difficult and may set up a requirement that is unreasonable for
some people who are new immigrants wishing to become citizens.
I have heard from people of new immigrant communities who have
made that point to me. They are concerned from that point of
view. I have also heard from others who say they think it is
only a reasonable commitment on the part of somebody who wants to
become a Canadian citizen to speak with a fair degree of
capability in one of the official languages.
Does it not concern the member that when he reads the
legislation he really cannot tell what the minister has in mind?
The legislation is so vague that it is impossible to tell what
the minister has in mind. If I were a new immigrant concerned
that the requirements might be set at too high a level I would be
concerned that it is not in legislation. The member said he
would ask the minister at committee and find out what she has in
mind. That is not good enough for me. That is not good enough
for new Canadians who want to know what the requirement will be.
It should be in the legislation.
I see that problem with almost every proposal made in the
legislation. There is not enough information to determine what
the minister has in mind. Is the member not concerned about that
issue? Is it good enough for him just to hear the minister's
answer and then assume that is what will happen?
The second issue concerns the need to promote citizenship. He
is supporting that concept, that there is a need for government
to promote citizenship. The heritage department already does
what it claims is promoting good citizenship with several
different programs. I wonder why that is going on. The member
had expressed his support for that concept.
Does he believe that local community groups somehow are not
capable of promoting good citizenship, that service and cultural
groups in the community somehow are not capable of promoting good
citizenship? Does he feel there actually has to be a government
bureaucracy whose job it is to promote citizenship? Does he have
that little faith in the local community to do that?
1710
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I am puzzled by what I
sense as an attitude on behalf of my friend. When I say I
welcome the opportunity for these officers to go into the
community and promote citizenship, I do not imply that is the
only thing that takes place when they promote citizenship.
I know the citizenship judges who operate in my constituency.
They are excellent individuals who are recognized in their
communities as outstanding Canadians. They make it a habit of
promoting citizenship. They go into schools, college classes,
immigrant centres and so on to talk about the responsibility of
Canadian citizenship. My friend might think this is a bad idea
but I do not. That is not saying that other people are not doing
it in all sorts of other ways. Of course they all do.
I am very happy to say that many immigrant societies in my
constituency promote Canadian citizenship. They promote the
concept and educate new citizens about what Canadian citizenship
means. What it means to be a citizen in some countries is quite
different from what it means to be a citizen in Canada. Examples
are the attitude toward police forces and authority in general
and the attitude toward members of parliament. The fact that you
can actually walk into an MP's office is rather unique in the
world, unheard of.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the time
has run out.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, could I seek unanimous
consent for another 90 seconds?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, thank you. This is after
all legislation and from this legislation will flow regulations.
Regulations will be the place to be specific in terms of what is
meant by a term as vague as adequate knowledge. My friend is
absolutely right when he asks what this means.
I hope the minister will explain what it means and that we will
see in regulations specifically what that means. Does it mean a
test, as my friend from Winnipeg indicated? Is it a competency
level? Is it an ability to communicate in some simple way
through a written letter or through oral communication? What
does it mean? My friend is right that we have to be specific
about this. It has instilled virtual fear in the hearts of many
in the immigrant community because they see it as a potential
barrier. I do not believe it is an intentional barrier. As
long as the definition is adequate his concern and the other
concerns can be adequately met.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to be here this evening and to speak on the proposed
changes to the Immigration Act. Before I venture too far into
the matter I would like to revisit a bit of the history of
Canadian immigration.
On January 1, 1947 the first Canadian citizenship act took
effect. It was from this point on in our history that we were
considered Canadian citizens. This led to an unprecedented
population increase of over 40,000 as people from around the
world wanted to become Canadian. The concept of citizenship
evolved as Canada advanced over the years. In 1977 parliament
initiated a new citizenship act. Today, some 22 years later, we
have proposals before us to change the act once again.
I heard the hon. member from the NDP say how sorry he was that
we were referring to the monarchy. I am so pleased and proud
that the monarchy is still part of our citizenship oath. I
represent Canada's first city to be incorporated by royal
charter. We and our people played a major role in building all
of this country. We date back to 1783. There are those who say
they want to eliminate our ties to the monarchy. I cannot
believe that the people who say that sit in the House of Commons.
I recall when the rumour was flying around here.
I asked the Prime Minister in the House if we were going to break
our ties with the monarchy. After he talked to the minister of
heritage he stood and said “I am not going to break the ties
with the monarchy. If the hon. member for Saint John would like
to represent us in London, England we will fly her out
tomorrow”.
1715
Well, I did not take that job but let me say that I have had an
opportunity to be with Her Majesty. I have had the opportunity
to be with Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and also with Princess
Diana before her life was taken away. I want to say to everyone
here and back home that if they want to divide this country like
never before, that would happen if the monarchy was removed from
the oath.
I say to everyone how important this truly is. I was very
pleased when I saw the new oath and when the hon. minister read
it because the oath still refers to the monarchy.
The minister knows that my office has worked very closely with
her office on a number of immigration cases. We put in over 250
hours in regard to one case. There was a problem concerning a
family with one child who had been born in the United States and
another child who had been born in Canada. My staff and her
staff worked together. There were rules and regulations that had
to be met.
After many months we were able to bring that family back to
Canada. They arrived just a few days before Christmas. The
whole community came together. The little children got off the
plane. People had come from all over to give them gifts. Both
the wife and husband work. They have contributed to society.
They donate their time to those who are living in poverty. The
husband is a baker. He goes to Romero House which is a little
drop-in centre. People who have no money go there to get their
meals. He bakes for them at night. He makes sure that they get
the best of food. This has been a very beautiful success story
but it took a long time.
I remember when the auditor general came to the public accounts
committee. He talked about the immigration program and the
process. He also talked about the fact that some 20,000 people
are still here in Canada illegally because our process is so slow
in the manner in which it is presently laid out. He recommended
major changes to streamline it. I understand the minister has
stated that with the new changes they are hoping to have all
those cases completed within the year. I must say that is a very
strong statement because of the numbers that we have.
When it comes to the system, as the auditor general stated, it
must be changed with the commissioners. I have heard here
tonight about taking patronage out of it. All I can say is that
whoever is there, let them be competent, let them know the
process, let them apply the process. Let them do whatever they
have to do but do it in a manner in which politics does not play
a role in it.
I know this is difficult. We hear about the little families in
church basements. Usually when they go into a church basement it
is because if they go back to the country from which they left,
their lives are at stake. Usually they would not be in the church
basement if the minister or priest did not believe in helping the
little families.
I have seen it, I have worked with it and I know what it is all
about. I hope we are able to work out a far better system than it
has been in the past.
1720
They talk about the two official languages, whether they should
be able to speak English and French. I come from Canada's only
official bilingual province, New Brunswick. Our door is open for
immigrants. In fact, a motion was passed recently by the mayor
and council in Saint John, New Brunswick asking for more
immigrants, to work to bring more into Saint John, New Brunswick.
If they are not absolutely fluent, there are all kinds of
opportunities with our Samuel D. Champlain Centre. If they are
not fluent in French, we will teach them. It will not cost them
anything. If they are not absolutely fluent in English, we can
do the same.
Our doors are open in Saint John, New Brunswick and our people
want more. They do not all have to be in Vancouver or Toronto.
They can be in the maritime provinces as well. I hope in the
future people will look at that in Ottawa. They have a role to
play. They have a lot to share with us.
It talks about having to be a skilled worker. I mentioned the
man who is a baker. Bakers are considered to be in short supply
in Canada. However a refugee who can bake but who has no formal
degree may fall short of receiving adequate points at the
interview.
We have to find a way to keep an open-minded approach to judging
those who apply. At the same time I agree that people must have
the skills that show they can perform the task they say they are
able to perform. The test should be flexible, changing in its
application but not in its content.
Other proposals contained in the most recent report are things
that will have to be debated.
There is reference to same sex families. There are those who
will believe that that constitutes a family. I am one who
believes in the traditional family. I am one who will always
speak for the traditional family. I think the traditional family
has been forgotten and it is time for many of us to speak out for
them. I really do. I have some concerns about that section which
is being recommended.
Other proposals contained in the most recent report are things
that need to be debated.
On the issue of maintaining Canadian safety, I agree that we
need to go as far as possible. The safety that Canadians now
enjoy should never be compromised for any reason. We have one of
the highest standards of living in the world. Although
everything is not perfect, we are fortunate to live in this
nation.
Some of the more serious concerns I have with the proposals lie
in the fact that there are no concrete measures proposed. There
are no details for us to study and comment on.
What some of these proposals mean to one person may not mean the
same to some of my colleagues. This puts a great deal of work in
front of the committee members as they will ultimately be the
people who decide what is brought forth for concrete measures.
The PC Party has long valued the contributions of newcomers to
Canada. For the most part the immigrants we have received into
Canada have been very resourceful, vibrant people. Our party
believes that we must have a balanced approach to immigration,
one that would not punish legitimate applicants but one which
would prevent abuse of our social programs.
If we had a system that would see the end of patronage
appointments, and I do not care who is in government, just make
sure that we have responsible people there, then we would have a
much better system.
Another suggestion would be to streamline the procedure to help
expedite the process for legitimate applicants. As I have
stated, it takes a long time. This could also serve to quickly
turn around those applications that will not be accepted.
In closing, this process will be long. It will need to be
thoroughly developed to best serve the needs of those wishing to
come to Canada. I hope all opinions will be listened to and
respected.
I want to thank the hon. minister and her department for the
help and co-operation she has given to me and my office on
refugee cases in the past year. I want that on the record.
1725
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
listening to the speech by the hon. member brought to mind the
fact that I am an immigrant and had to go through the immigration
process in 1979 to get into Canada. It took about two years. We
first applied and we were automatically turned down. We asked
why we were turned down. We applied a second time. It took
three applications to come here.
My wife and I had money to buy a home. We had jobs guaranteed.
We felt we had earned the right to come here. We had earned it.
We truly felt like Canadians and that is the way we have behaved
since, as Canadians.
I personally see nothing wrong with having a high standard. That
is the same message I get in my riding from all of the immigrants
who have come in through the legitimate process.
I have two questions for the member. She does not object to
requiring reasonably high standards. The second point has to do
with criminal refugees.
The real problem in the major centres has nothing to do with
immigration as such. But it is the problem which the minister is
not addressing which is the one of criminal refugees.
In a TV interview last week with BCTV, a reporter basically
demolished the minister over the issue of not deporting criminal
refugees and allowing them to enter our borders holus-bolus. She
has done absolutely nothing.
In the last three to four months in Vancouver there have been
multiple arrests of up to 80 criminal Honduran drug dealers who
are all illegal entries. Up to half of the arrests every night in
Vancouver are criminal non-residents, aliens who have crossed the
border as criminal refugees.
Has the member thought about that problem in the big cities?
Like most of the people of Vancouver, does she agree that there
should be a better way of getting rid of those bad people quickly
instead of having them hang around for 10 or 12 years?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, what one has to ask is
were they like that before they came in or did they become
criminals after they came to Canada, to Vancouver?
When it comes to the drug situation the member knows it is not
just the immigrants. That drug situation is across the nation.
When it comes to a criminal coming to Canada and becoming a
Canadian citizen, then there is something wrong with the system.
There are not enough strict rules to protect and to have the
checks and balances.
A little man who had come from Guatemala to Saint John was shot
in the stomach. He was lying in the street dying. A fireman
found him, picked him up, took him to his home and saved his
life. That little man lives in Saint John right now. He
contributes to our society. He was not a criminal. He spoke out
against a communist way of life. That is the only thing he did.
When it comes to drugs we have to take stronger stands. We have
to do more to clean up the drug situation across the nation. If
there are immigrants who are into that and have come in with a
criminal record then they should be deported. We have to
strengthen the system. We have to have a stronger system. There
is no question about that.
Mr. Ted White: Madam Speaker, to make sure that my
question is clear, I hope the hon. member has seen the news
reports in the Vancouver area where up to 80 Honduran drug
traffickers are being arrested at one time. Eighty of them.
They are taken to the court in Vancouver, charged and then they
are immediately released. They all live on welfare. They all
have free medical care. They acknowledge that they are illegal
refugees.
I am not talking about the genuine refugees who come from
genuine refugee screening camps around the world. People as
young as 12 years old are using the system to come here to abuse
our laws and deal in drugs. They know they can be here for 10 to
12 years before they are deported and it is all because of the
minister over there who will do nothing about the problem.
1730
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, if they are here
illegally, if they are breaking the law, then they should be
deported immediately. That is what the auditor general would
say. I think we all agree to that.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to get clarification regarding a comment the member
made. She said she and her party certainly would not support
redefining a spouse as a same sex spouse. The member was
referring to the leeway the minister has for her to change that
definition on her own if this legislation passes.
On CBC radio this morning a report was that all parties except
Reform supported the changing of the definition. That comment
was with regard to the bill of last night of the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, I am so pleased the
member brought that up so we can clarify it. No, it was not the
party. The hon. member from my party who attended and spoke was
speaking on behalf of herself and her feelings and not on behalf
of the PC party. I am speaking on my behalf. I am not for same
sex benefits. I am not for redefining the family. I am for the
traditional family and everybody knows that across Canada.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
TAX ON FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
The House resumed from October 28, 1998, consideration of the
motion and of the amendment.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am certainly pleased to speak today with regard to Motion No.
239. I infrequently speak in this place primarily because most of
the time when I do want to speak it is not always possible and
also because I speak only when I have something to say.
I know my hon. colleague has the best interests of our country
in mind when he indicates that financial speculators apparently
do have some play in some of the problems that occur in a lot of
countries where there is not a lot of good control over finances.
I ask this question with regard to the financial transaction
tax, the Tobin tax. Economists will tell us anything we want to
hear or there are ways to build models to indicate what is good
and what is bad.
As I understand it, the best way of avoiding a financial
disaster is to have good management, good fiscal policy, good
regimes and legislation to make sure that financial institutions
and people who deal in financial transactions are managed
properly.
The second thing which apparently is a myth is that foreigners
are responsible for creating speculation in countries. There are
a lot of greedy people in the world. Machiavelli said the strong
will do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
There are people like that in this world. It does not matter
what kind of situation they are in. If we were to give everybody
in our country, all 30 million people, $1 million each some would
have goodwill. They would want to help their neighbours and do
not really care about money. After 10 or 15 years a lot of them
would end up with zero cash and some would end up very rich,
saying “We are all right, thank you very much. We do not care
about all of these other people. Let them suffer because they
did not do X and they did not do Y”.
1735
That kind of world is not a good world to live in. It is a
world where the law of the jungle prevails. Sometimes people say
to me Liberals are soft. I can be as strong and as vicious as
any of my colleagues around the table.
But if one really gets out in the jungle, as I did one time, and
looks at the real wild animals they are not well dressed, they do
not have three piece suits. They are ugly. They roll around in
a lot of stuff, they smell like the jungle and they are vicious.
Some of the people who wear tuxedos, drive the big limos, live
in places that are fenced in with servants and slaves and what
have you think this is great. It is not a good environment to
live in. In that kind of environment even the people who are
working for them do not like them.
I will get back to the second point I want to make. Speculation
starts in their own country for some people. They understand the
rules. They understand the regulations. It is the stock brokers
or the local banker who gives these tip-offs. They trigger these
things. It is kind of like a BRE-X. The next thing we know all
kinds of things happen. Then in come the speculators. The
speculators become involved. If we could only get a buck every
time somebody makes a transaction it would be good for the common
good of all Canadians and this would not happen.
The third point which is probably the most important reason why
this Tobin tax would be problematic is in this world there are
many countries where trading occurs. The capital will flee to
the country that does not have a regime in place where moneys are
taken during transactions.
Although I know what we do in this House is very important, our
discussions about how we regulate things and we are here as
legislators, I am not here just to make laws. An old farmer told
me when I was first elected “Go to Ottawa but don't make a lot
of rules and regulations that you are going to place in a stand
somewhere. Remember some times things like the ten commandments.
That can get you very far”.
Sometimes notwithstanding that our colleagues come up with good
legislation and there are a lot of good private members' bills
that have been passed in the House, the best thing about private
members' bills is that we discuss them. We look at all the
angles and we pry and we probe. Sometimes the good ideas are
stolen by ministers or by colleagues or by some group and used.
We have to be mindful that we are just not here to make rules and
regulations, put them in some kind of document, place them on a
shelf somewhere or try them and they do not work or they make the
system worse.
I understand the finance minister has looked at it and the
department has looked at it. We hear the concern of the hon.
member, but Canada is already exercising international
leadership. We have a broad strategy to attack the underlying
causes of financial market volatility. Big financial markets are
not perfect institutions.
As well, I am told, the challenge we face is to find the best
way of dealing with these problems, which economists call market
imperfection. In other words, no market is perfect.
Proponents of the Tobin tax then argue that such a law would put
sand in the wheels of international financial markets by imposing
a very small percentage tax on a foreign exchange trader. And so
the argument goes.
This would discourage speculation. It would stabilize the
financial markets without interfering unduly with longer term
trade or investment.
1740
Others are attracted by the tax revenue. There are a lot of
people looking for these big slush funds, tax moneys. Politicians
would love it so we could spend it and so that we could raise
some funds which they believe would finance and enhance
worthwhile programs.
We do have regimes for raising taxes. Those regimes are well
thought out. This discussion is very good but as far as I am
concerned this is not the way the government should go because of
those reasons I mentioned.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I was delighted to hear my colleague from Bruce—Grey. I
have not heard him speak often, as he mentioned, but I wish he
would do so more often. He certainly provides an excellent view
on this subject. I also enjoyed his member's statement
yesterday. He was on all the national networks mourning the loss
of the rodent in his riding.
I am here this evening to talk about the motion of my hon.
colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle on the financial transactions
tax, that in the opinion of this House the government should show
leadership and enact a tax on financial transactions in concert
with all OECD countries.
Like many ideas that come from my colleagues in the aging New
Democratic Party this is a noble one I think with a good purpose
and a thoughtful objective in mind, to find some way of
governments imposing some discipline on the increasingly unwieldy
currency and financial exchange markets which really seem to many
of us to be out of control at times. I think we, like all
Canadians, share at times a feeling of helplessness as we are
adrift on the sea of trillions of dollars being exchanged daily
across the world electronically, affecting our standard of
living, affecting the value of our currency, affecting our
international purchasing power and yet to a very large extent
beyond the control of us as individuals or as communities or as
government. So I recognize the frustration which gives way to
the kind of impetus we see behind this motion.
It would be wonderful if we could find a fiscal policy lever, a
tax if you will, to slow down the sometimes destructive and
irrational nature of these speculative currency markets. That I
admit. It would also be marvellous if we could live in a world
where everybody had a marvellous standard of living where there
was no poverty, no unemployment and no economic inequities. But
unfortunately that is not a world we live in and it never will
be. That is a Utopian world. There are some things which
government simply cannot do. One of the iron laws of economics
is that people will generally act in their own self-interest and
maximize their own returns. This is an irrefutable fact of
economic history.
Essentially what I am saying is that the imposition of a
financial transaction tax proposed by this motion would be
unworkable, impractical and would create unintended consequences
that would be far more devastating on developed countries like
Canada than are the current vagaries of the currency exchange
markets.
One example springs to mind about the kind of perverse
unintended consequences that result from governments when they
choose to establish certain outcomes through tax policy. In the
16th century in England the crown was looking for an efficient
way to tax people based on their wealth.
1745
The tax collectors then noticed that wealthier people tended to
have homes with a relatively new luxury of windows. Lovely Tudor
homes with windows were being built throughout the land. The tax
collectors decided to advise the crown that they should impose a
window tax. It was a brilliant idea to soak the rich. The 16th
century version of the NDP said “Let's soak the rich and
redistribute that income. Let's have some Robin Hood economics
here in jolly old England”.
They imposed this punitive tax on windows. The tax collectors
went around from town to town and county to county and counted
how many windows people had in their homes and assessed a levy
based on how many windows they had. Inevitably we can imagine
the consequences which tax collectors could not possibly imagine
in their linear minds. What happened was that everybody
throughout the land boarded up their windows and darkened their
homes to avoid the taxes they would otherwise have to pay.
This marvellous new innovation of Renaissance architecture, the
window, became blackened and covered up because of a punitive tax
which was designed to achieve some kind of equity. To this day
in some small villages in England we can see what were once
framed as windows covered up by plaster. To this day we still
see the unintended consequences. That is the kind of natural,
inevitable, historical, human reaction to the effort by the state
to impose taxes on people to penalize them for certain
activities.
We have seen this in more recent history where other developed
economies have tried to impose financial transaction taxes such
as the one contemplated in this motion. We have seen that
jurisdictions such as Brazil, Sweden, Japan, Germany and
Switzerland, all in the past five years or so, have removed or
eliminated financial transaction taxes which they had at one
point levied principally on the trading of equities and other
financial instruments. The United Kingdom, while not yet having
eliminated the FTT which it imposed on the registration of
securities, cut it in half back in 1986.
Why did all these countries that were theoretically generating
revenue from this painless small levy on financial transactions
end up eliminating it? What they found was much like the window
tax, that these financial transaction taxes were
counterproductive.
By imposing a levy on securities and equities and the trading of
those instruments there was less activity in their equities
market, less securities were being registered. Why? It was
because investors acting rationally in their own self-interest
moved their financial investments, their equity tradings and so
forth into other jurisdictions.
The tax base which these governments had sought to derive
revenue from began to diminish. By imposing a tax not only did
the revenues from that source decline year after year as
investors moved more capital trading out of the country, but it
became completely counterproductive because all the FTTs in
various jurisdictions had a dampening effect on economic growth.
There is absolutely no doubt that we would see a similar
unintended consequence were Canada and other OECD countries to
impose an international tax along the lines proposed by economist
James Tobin in his now notorious Tobin tax. There is no doubt
that it would be impossible to compel every national jurisdiction
in the world to comply with such a tax. It would also be
impossible to impose sanctions on those sovereign jurisdictions
that refuse to do so.
Even if we could persuade all 26 OECD countries and all G-7
countries to impose a 1% or .5% levy on financial transactions,
of which I am highly skeptical, we would still have some 130
international sovereign jurisdictions to persuade to participate
in this kind of tax.
1750
Inevitably some would do what banking havens like the Grand
Caymans, Bermuda, Switzerland and the Channel Islands do today,
that is act as havens for investment. We would find that capital
would flow to the point of least resistance. We would end up
with an enormous distortion in international financial markets
which would be devastating to equity markets and the prosperity
and economic prospects of countries like Canada.
With respect to my colleague from Regina, it is a nice idea but
it is impractical. It would not work. It could not work. Let
us not hamper Canada's economy by imposing such an unworkable
international tax regime.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased to take part in this debate, which I feel is an
important one, in light of my personal values.
First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle for tabling Motion M-239, which reads as
follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show
leadership and enact a tax on financial transactions in concert
with the international community.
An amendment to this motion has already been proposed by the
hon. member for Repentigny and reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by removing the words “enact a tax on
financial transactions” and replacing them with the following:
I hope the majority of our colleagues in this House will support
the amendment as well as the main motion. The hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle is to be commended for putting forward this
motion, which parallels the current debate surrounding the issue
of globalization.
This is a good example of globalization and how the world has
shrunk, given that, with the extremely sophisticated technology
available today, financial transactions can be performed 24
hours a day, seven days a week, and have a major impact on
economies worldwide.
This has been done extensively, and it makes this motion today,
the Tobin tax, all the more interesting in light of recent
developments.
In a word, as we know, the purpose of this tax would be to levy
a very small amount—one tenth of one percent—on
international currency transactions around the world. It is
estimated that such transactions total, and that is where it
becomes interesting, between $1,500 and $2,000 billion a day. It
is hard to imagine what $1,000 billion a day represents.
That is order of magnitude we are talking about here. At the end
of a year, given a rate of one tenth of one percent, $150 or
$175 billion would have been raised and managed, as a world
fund, by the UN or another organization designated by the
international community for this purpose. As a result, and this
is very important, wealth would be better distributed.
It would act as a mechanism to curb rash exchange speculation on
the currencies of countries, sometimes the most vulnerable
countries. We would kill two birds with one stone with this
world fund, which could be used effectively to fight poverty
worldwide.
And better distribution of wealth would be achieved.
This would have the effect of counteracting the negative effects
of globalization and slowing down the progress of the unbridled
neo-liberalism which has reigned for far too many years already.
We have seen the way these faceless speculators, with no sense
of social responsibility, no accounting to anyone, whose job it
is to type away on computer keyboards everywhere on this planet,
checking out interests rates that are too low, fostering their
own clients' interests, thumb their noses at community or
national interests.
1755
When we refer to national interests, we are not referring to
some vague concept. We are referring to what has happened in
recent years, first of all in Asia, in Japan, Malaysia, Korea,
Indonesia. All of Russia has been through it since the wall
came down, and now has become a haven for all manner of crooks
and criminals. Things seem to be out of control. A few years
ago Mexico too was experiencing some very hard times, as Brazil
recently did.
A full-scale attack is launched on certain economies—often
developed ones such as Japan but sometimes still fragile, such
as Indonesia perhaps—so that these economies must suddenly face
some devastating times.
This may be seen in the document I am going to read. This has
devastating effects on economies and on the individuals in them.
Fortunately, an awareness is developing internationally. I
would like to take the opportunity to thank Charles F. Johnston
of 5th Avenue North in Saskatoon for alerting me to the debate
and inviting me to take part. He summarizes very well the
problem with the Tobin tax: “A tax like this not only would
impose a number of constraints on short term speculation, but it
would generate a fund destined to support economic growth and
restore social programs throughout the world”.
Mr. Johnston is one example of the awareness that is developing,
especially in France. That is not new.
We all know about the acuity of the French on social issues.
They have always been in the forefront. They are there thanks
to a publication you are no doubt familiar with, Madam Speaker,
Le Monde Diplomatique, which, in January of this year, published
a ground-breaking article on the question, entitled “For the
reconstruction of the international financial system: at the
root of the evil”. The root of the evil for Le Monde
Diplomatique is the processing of financial transactions,
including those involving currency and rates of exchange.
I will quickly read several quotes: “So, since the crash in the
winter of 1994-95, half of the population of Mexico has fallen
below the poverty line. Malnutrition and famine are again
raging in Indonesia. In Russia, ten years of economic
liberalism have done more to tarnish the reputation of
capitalism than 70 years of propaganda on the “real” socialism.
Average life expectancy for men has dropped by seven years,
unprecedented in the 20th century. In Korea and Thailand, IMF
suicides continue. Workers who have been laid off and are
without resources kill their wives and children because they are
unable to provide for them.”
I will read another excerpt from this excellent article: “The
top 20% of humanity consumes 86% of the wealth, while the bottom
20% is left with 1.3%. The fact is, and we hear it often
enough, that the gap is widening yearly at the same time as
official development assistance is declining. It is the debt
that is the worst threat to the future of the south,
particularly the future of less developed countries that are in
the process of almost disappearing off the face of the earth
because of debt that they are unable to repay now and will never
be able to repay in the future.
The less developed countries are spending an average of over 20%
of their export revenues on servicing this debt.
If this were lowered to 1% or 2%, as it was for Germany after
the war, these countries could invest the money saved in health,
education, and the environment, thus generating a virtuous
circle. The more a country could invest in human capital and
sustainable development, the more it could reduce its debt, to
the point of eliminating it entirely.”
This is what would be done with the international fund resulting
from the Tobin tax on international currency transactions.
1800
Still in France, I would like to mention the Association pour la
taxation des transactions financières pour l'aide aux citoyens.
The purpose of this association is to denounce financial
globalization, which adds to economic insecurity and social
inequality by circumventing and limiting the choices open to
nations, democratic institutions and sovereign states
responsible for the general good. The association wishes to show
that it is necessary and possible, contrary to popular opinion,
for people to put the public interest ahead of the interests of
financial markets and transnational corporations. This
Paris-based association also has a Web site. I urge everyone to
contact it.
[English]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion of the hon.
member for Regina—Qu'Appelle on whether we should enact a new
tax on financial transactions.
During the Christmas break I had the opportunity to travel
throughout my riding and talk to many of my constituents, as I
like to do whenever the House is not sitting. I also held a
number of town hall meetings and many private meetings where my
constituents voiced their concerns on a number of issues. They
told me that they need more money for better health care. They
said they need more jobs and better opportunities in rural
Canada. Many people also told me that politicians need to get to
work to solve our national unity problem.
In all of my travels in the last six weeks and in all of my
discussions with constituents not one single person said that
what this country needs is a new tax. Since I was elected in
June 1997 I cannot think of one single time when any voter asked
me to raise their taxes.
I read several newspapers every day. I also look through many
press clippings. This may be hard to believe, but I cannot
recall ever seeing an article or an editorial calling on the
government to raise taxes or to bring in another tax. Yet we are
discussing how we can take even more money out of the pockets of
hard working Canadians.
I have heard other members talk ad nauseam about James Tobin,
the International Monetary Fund and the Asian financial crisis.
I will talk about why introducing a new tax is a bad idea.
It is important for members on all sides of the House to
remember that when taxes go up there are very real consequences
on the lives of every Canadian. Whenever I hear a politician
suggest that we should increase taxes I think of a gentleman from
my riding by the name of John Minard. John Minard did not come
from a wealthy family. He did not always have an easy life, but
he made the most of his life and shared his successes with
others.
John built a successful building supply business that employs
his family and many members of his community. He and his family
worked very hard at making this business successful and at making
sure that the family's needs were always looked after.
John was usually the first one at work in the morning and the
last one out at night. He worked six days every week to make
sure that his family and his employees had a job to go to and
that their bills were paid. However, John Minard did not stop at
providing for his very large family. John always felt that he
should give something back to his community. Mr. Minard gave
time and money to minor hockey, to baseball and softball for
children. He was involved in the local Rotary Club and he always
had money for the Christmas Miracle for Kids.
Unfortunately, John Minard is no longer with us. He passed away
just over a year ago. I bring up his name not just to pay
tribute to this good man, but to make a point to my hon. friend
from the NDP. There are many John Minards in every community
around this country.
All across Canada there are people who work days, nights and
weekends to make sure their families have enough to eat. These
same people are the ones who always have a few dollars for the
scouts, for the hospital drive or for many other worthy causes in
their communities.
1805
What I want us to consider before we forge ahead and raise taxes
is this. Whatever project we would spend this new money on, we
are taking money away from the John Minards of this country. Is
this project important enough that people like John Minard should
have less money to feed their families? Is getting money for
whatever whim happens to strike members of parliament this week
so important that we should deny that money for all the kids in
John Minard's community who benefited from his generosity? I do
not think so.
Yes, I understand that the hon. member thinks it would be a neat
idea if we could get all of the countries and all of the
principalities of the world to agree to do something about the
nasty currency trader, but that tax fails the John Minard test.
Lots of Canadians buy Canada Savings Bonds and lots of Canadians
save for their retirement. Those are the people who would have
to pay this new tax. Is it more important to bring in this
trendy new tax just so we can say “We showed those money traders
in Singapore who is boss”? Or is it more important that the
kids who play minor hockey in Woodstock, New Brunswick still have
people like John Minard and those who have come after him who
they can count on to help support their communities? In my
opinion, I say let us support the hard working generous people
like John Minard in our communities and take a pass on this tax.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to say at the outset what a joy
it is to be participating in the debate today which has been made
possible by my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle. I had the
pleasure to second this bill. In a sense, I am a co-sponsor with
my colleague.
It is interesting to listen to the debate and the commonality.
Every speaker on this topic speaks against the currency
speculators. Everybody is against those who make their living by
speculating on currency. I have not heard anybody yet say that
they are in love with the currency speculators, that currency
speculators are somehow helpful, that currency speculators have
done anything good for the economy, or that they are doing
anything good for society generally.
We are in complete agreement that currency speculators who sit
up 24 hours a day in some parts of the world are causing
problems, causing havoc to the attempts of sovereign nations to
develop their economies.
While listening to the previous speaker, I could not help but
think of our debate around gun control. Some people say that gun
control will not stop all murder. Therefore, why do we have gun
control?
No one said that it would stop all murder and that it was either
one or the other. We have gun control in our country to attempt
to reduce the rate of murder. I think we have been successful.
On balance, we can argue about whether this gun control
initiative is appropriate or another control is appropriate, but
the fact that we are not all packing sidearms like they are in
Texas makes this place a better place to live, a safer place to
live. The fact that everyone packs sidearms in Texas makes it a
terrible place to live.
When we talk about currency speculators, let us agree that it is
worth the effort to try to control these characters. No one can
make a convincing case that this is good for anybody other than
currency speculators and some of their bosses.
When we look at the media and listen to some of our colleagues
we hear a financial elite who just do not want any kind of
meddling in their marketplace. They want to have carte blanche
freedom to do whatever they want. If that results in countries
being devastated, like we have seen as a result of currency
speculators, so be it. We even came close in our own country
just a few months ago when we watched our dollar collapse day
after day. In August last year our currency collapsed day after
day, hour after hour, simply because speculators were speculating
on our currency.
It had nothing to do with the state of our economy. But it
caused problems. It caused uncertainty in the marketplace. A
lot of investors and consumers were concerned about making
important investments or consuming the items or services they
wished.
1810
A long comes an idea. Is it a perfect idea? My friend from
Regina—Qu'Appelle says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show
leadership and enact a tax on financial transactions in concert
with the international community...
In other words, if the international community is in support of
this, then this will proceed. We cannot do it unilaterally. We
do not want to do it unilaterally. We want to show leadership.
The world is calling out for leadership.
I am pleased to say that our Minister of Finance a few months
ago was completely against this idea. Now the Minister of
Finance says that he is open to these ideas. The Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance says that he thinks there is
merit in this. That is why I am puzzled by some of my friends in
the Liberal Party who are against this initiative. If the
Minister of Finance thinks it is a good idea and if the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance thinks it is
a good idea, why are those Liberals across the way bad-mouthing
this concept?
That is what they are doing. But it is a free country and I
appreciate that they have a right to say unusual and perhaps
uninformed things.
Let us look at what we are talking about. We are talking about
a form of the Tobin tax. In 1972 James Tobin, Nobel Prize
economist, first proposed the idea of a tax on foreign exchange
transactions. This has now been updated. The most recent
suggestion is that this would be a tax as low as .1% of
transactions in order not to swamp the normal commission charges
and so on. It is fair to say that the first $10,000 would be
exempt.
We are not talking about the person buying a Canada Savings
Bond. We are not talking about a person buying a car. We are
talking about people who are currency speculators.
There would be another charge, but the reality is that it would
only be with the support of the international community.
If the international community was in support of some form of a
Tobin tax, why would Canada not be in support of it? I listened
to the leader of Germany the other day. He is in favour of some
form of a Tobin tax.
I returned not long ago from the Asia-Pacific parliamentary
forum. Twenty-two nations from around the Pacific came together.
This was a major item. Unanimously they agreed that some form of
a Tobin tax was appropriate for their countries. Yet some of my
friends in the Liberal Party bad-mouth this concept. They are
bad-mouthing the leadership of Asia-Pacific. What are these
people thinking?
I know that some of my friends are here as voices of the
financial elite of the country. I can understand why they would
not support this legislation. However, most people representing
constituents in the House of Commons would say “Show me a
constituent in this country who would vote against the idea of a
Tobin tax”. If I went to Calgary today and said “Do you folks
in Calgary like the idea of some form of control on international
currency speculators?”, I bet there would not be a single
Calgarian who would stand and say they would not want this kind
of tax.
An hon. member: Oh, yes there would be.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Oh, no there would not be. The
financial elite spokespersons would say that. However, I know
the average Calgarian well. My previous home was on the
outskirts of Calgary. A Calgarian will not say “Give free rein
to the international currency speculators. Let them destroy
economies around the world. Let them smash the Canadian
dollar”.
We are a major trading nation. The value of our currency is
crucial in our ability to work in the international marketplace.
The stability of our currency is crucial. That is why I cannot
understand my friends in the Reform Party who do not want to
bring some meaningful rationale to this process. As I say, it is
a free country. If they want to be on the side of the
international currency speculators, who I am to say they ought
not to be there.
1815
We are quite enthusiastic about this initiative for two major
reasons. First, it would have the ability to control
international currency speculation. There is no question about
that. Some have said we have to talk every country in the world
into this. My goodness. Eighty per cent of global foreign
exchange trade takes place in only seven cities in the world,
Tokyo, New York, London, Singapore, Hong Kong, Frankfurt and
Bern. It would not be bad if if we could control 80% of foreign
currency speculators.
There is another way. If the international community buys into
this why could it not be a provision of membership, as my friend
from Regina—Qu'Appelle suggested, in the IMF? If you are going
to participate then you buy into this concept. The leading
nations of the world have bought into it. Why would you not if
you were a small country that wanted to join this organization?
Another very significant benefit of the Tobin tax is the money
it would raise for international development. The suggestion is
it is probably in the range of $150 billion that it would raise
to solve the problems of poverty and environmental degradation
around the world. That is why I asked my Liberal friends across
the way why they would be against such a massive initiative which
could really solve the significant global problems we have today.
My friend should be ashamed of himself.
For extremely good reasons we support this concept of the Tobin
tax. We support enthusiastically the suggestion by the hon.
member for Regina—Qu'Appelle that in the opinion of this House
the government should show leadership and enact a tax on
financial transactions in concert with the international
community.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate today on the motion put
forward by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, a very thoughtful
and considered individual. I had the opportunity to participate
in a debate with him not too long ago on our caucus task force
report on financial institutions. We dealt with the bank merger.
It was supposed to be a debate but it turned out to be more like
a love-in. I was a little concerned given our different
political stripe but most political parties were in favour of the
recommendations we made, although we never did hear much from the
Reform Party on bank mergers. I guess it was in a difficult spot
on that issue.
The motion by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle calls on our
government to show leadership and enact a tax on financial
transactions in concert with the OECD countries. The Bloc
Quebecois has proposed an amendment that enlarges it to the
international community in lieu of the OECD. This is one of
those rare occasions where I find myself in agreement with the
Bloc Quebecois. I would support enlarging it to the
international financial community if we are to consider it as a
motion.
In principle I support the motion in general terms but we need
to clarify a number of issues. Given the events over the past
year or so, I do not think many Canadians would argue with the
fact that global financial markets are interconnected. There
does not seem to be any doubt about that. The financial meltdown
in Asia started in Thailand over a year ago. It was followed by
the financial crisis in Russia and more recently the events in
Brazil. They have had an enormous ripple effect throughout all
the economies and financial markets of world.
Although our Canadian dollar has shown some improvement
recently, it has been taking a beating. This is for reasons I
believe are largely unrelated to the underlying factors of the
Canadian economy. While some might argue that the markets are
always right, in some circumstances they are somewhat irrational.
In this case they seem to be acting irrationally. One has to
wonder what is going on behind this apparent irrationality.
1820
Our finance minister is pushing for an international agency that
would monitor financial institutions worldwide. I gather its
purpose would be to identify emerging problems and develop more
time sensitive and co-ordinated solutions. The proposal is a good
one and one that I support.
Other solutions have been proposed to address the destabilizing
effect of currency traders and speculators like the Tobin tax
which has been much mentioned here today. The Tobin tax would be
a tax on individual financial transactions. However, unless all
countries agree to such a tax it would not be workable.
Imagine 27, 28 or 40 countries around the world enacting a Tobin
tax and a number of countries not. It would not be a surprise if
suddenly the financial transactions migrated to those
jurisdictions where they did not incur the Tobin tax or financial
transactions tax. Unless all countries are in harmony with such a
tax it is just not workable.
The member opposite talked about the finance minister saying he
thought it was a good idea. The finance minister realizes that
there are a lot of good ideas out there. The question is which
ones are feasible and which ones would he implement. I think his
approach in pushing for an international agency to monitor
financial institutions worldwide is a more workable solution.
It is important to acknowledge that the issue of global
financial market speculation and its impacts on global and
domestic economies is one that deserves the attention of world
leaders and deserves the attention of the House.
Our government is showing leadership on this issue in the G-7
and other international fora. There are solutions to the
downward pressure on the Canadian dollar that can be found right
here at home. Statistics Canada recently reported that Canadians
are investing abroad in stocks, bonds and bank accounts at record
levels. This is a result in part of changes the previous
Conservative government made in 1990 to the foreign content rule
of RRSPs. The limit at that time was increased from 10% to 20%.
Perhaps that should be revisited given the effect it is having on
the Canadian dollar.
I am sure there are people in this Chamber who would disagree
and perhaps argue that the limit should go the other way.
However, I am of the view that we should be very cautious in that
area and perhaps consider moving it back. If Canadians want to
have foreign investments in their RRSPs no one would debate or
argue that but why should the Canadian taxpayer support that,
particularly when it could be having a detrimental effect on the
Canadian dollar?
I am offended as I am sure all Canadians are when the
international financial markets are disturbed profoundly by
speculators.
Let us examine a tax on financial transactions. Presumably such
a tax would be targeted on foreign currency transactions. The
targets hopefully would be short term capital movements because
investors should really not be penalized or inhibited from moving
capital from one currency to another based on long term decision
making or structural decision making.
I throw out a word of caution. We often hear Thailand cited
where huge capital outflows caused a crisis. Was the movement of
capital a symptom of some deeper underlying problems? In other
words, where was the chicken and where was the egg? The answer
to that in the case of Thailand is a categorical yes, there were
some underlying fundamental problems.
Some good Canadian friends of mine who have lived in Thailand
for many years described to me recently the financial devastation
in that country. Did the migration of capital from Thailand
precipitate the financial crisis there or vice versa? This is an
important question.
I am told by my colleagues in Thailand that the banking system
collapsed as a result of three major issues.
There were some very bad investments by the banks, a lot of
cronyism in the banking system and a lot of corruption in the
banking system. So foreign investors in Thailand perhaps could
see this coming and decided to relocate their capital. I think
the causal chain of events is important here and we should not be
just looking at speculative movements. There are often some
underlying reasons for the movement of capital.
1825
I do applaud the Minister of Finance in pursuing the
establishment of an international agency, perhaps created from
within the resources of the existing international agencies, that
would track the fundamental financial stability issues in
countries around the world and proactively develop strategies and
actions required to prevent problems, not respond to events after
the fact.
Coming back to Canada and the downward pressure on the Canadian
dollar vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar that we have experienced over
the last year, we are told we experienced a flight of capital to
so-called safe havens. I find this curious when the economic
fundamentals in Canada are so strong, if not the best among the
developed countries.
In Canada we still suffer with the prospect of another
referendum in Quebec. This creates uncertainty in financial
markets. I am sure this had some bearing on the fate of our
Canadian dollar. Our colleagues opposite in the Bloc Quebecois
and the Parti Quebecois in Quebec should be held accountable for
this.
I applaud the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his interest in
this important topic. I think it is very worthy of debate and
discussion in the House and indeed around the world in the
various international fora. I think it is a very important issue.
I support the motion in principle and the concept, but we do need
more discussion and debate. The main thrust of the motion is that
our government should show leadership. We are showing
leadership.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to enter into this debate.
The motion is that the government should show leadership and
enact a tax on financial transaction in concert with the
international community. I certainly applaud the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle on that motion and I very strongly support it.
Of course we need an international agreement and we know that
will certainly not happen unless somebody takes leadership. It
only makes sense to me in the kind of government we have. We show
leadership in a lot of areas. We certainly could show leadership
in the international community in this area.
I am told that Canada has explored the idea during the Halifax
summit, at which time it became apparent that a number of G-7
countries were very strongly opposed to the idea. I recognize
their positions have not changed. But they will never change
unless we provide the evidence to them on why it should change.
We have to enter into that debate at a global level and go out
there and make the arguments for putting in place a Tobin tax.
I realize that even if we had all the industrial on side it
would not be sufficient for the proposal to work. But we have to
start somewhere. I suggest we can start here, that we need
strong political will on the part of the Government of Canada and
on the few allies that we can achieve in the beginning and
exercise that political will so that we can institute a Tobin tax
some time down the road.
We are not talking about a big percentage tax here. It would be
a very small percentage tax. But imagine on the amount of
speculation of money in this world what that small percentage tax
would do in terms of benefiting and improving the lives of people
around the world, in Canada, in Nicaragua, in Honduras, in
Central America. All around the world it would improve the lives
of people and those are the kinds of things that we should be
doing.
1830
I heard the member from the Conservative Party speak earlier. He
used the example of someone in the community who did a lot of
volunteer work. I respect what that individual did. I applaud
what that individual did. But the member tried to leave the
impression that this was a tax that would hurt that individual.
It would not. I doubt that individual was a money speculator. He
was not a financial money speculator. Who are these people?
I am a primary producer and I know about speculation in terms of
the hog market, the grain industry and the beef industry. I know
very well that those people that play those markets make huge
profits many times by shuffling a little paper around and playing
with the futures market and so on. The primary producer who does
all the work, who takes all the risks, who creates the investment
and puts his family to work and works himself, ends up many times
loosing money. The speculators make money.
It is even worse when we get to the financial speculators, the
money speculators. They play games, not only with countries, and
with the new technology that is available today millions even
billions of dollars can be moved in the flash of a second.
There was a rumour in New York where someone said that Canada
was a basket case. Of course when we became the government we
changed that and the government is no longer a basket case.
Remember what happened? One trade, a supposedly respected
trader, said internationally that Canada was a basket case.
Suddenly our dollar started to go down. That was the financial
money speculators playing games and they are not playing games
only with countries, they are playing games with people's lives.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.
[English]
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.
I can assure the hon. parliamentary secretary that he will have
five minutes remaining in his remarks the next time this item is
called for debate.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on September
29, 1998, I asked a question in the House on employment
insurance.
I asked the Prime Minister the following question:
—and I quote: “By lowering premiums and increasing the penalties
for those who voluntarily leave their job, it is obvious that
the government is not very concerned about the victims of the
economic crisis. Instead of getting at the root of the problem,
it targets the unemployed”.
This is from a letter written by the then leader of the
opposition and now Prime Minister.
Today in the House we talked about a letter that was sent to the
Department of Human Resources Development. Let me now quote this
letter from the government of this former leader of the
opposition who is now the head of this government, whose praises
the Liberal member from P.E.I. was singing. This letter is
addressed to the director of an HRDC employment centre in P.E.I.
and reads as follows:
[English]
“The P.E.I. region has shown some improvement in performance
this year but it still appears likely that the regional savings
objective will not be met. In order for the target to be met,
considerable improvement will have to be made in clerical and ICO
performance as they are both significantly below national
averages”.
[Translation]
The federal government imposes quotas on HRDC offices and forces
people to do an inhuman job.
1835
The employees themselves phone to tell me that the job they have
to do is awful. Even the UN has condemned Canada because of its
changes to the employment insurance program. It went to the
trouble of condemning our wonderful country, while the
government brags about doing a good job from a human point of
view, at a time when 800,000 Canadian workers cannot qualify for
EI benefits because of the cuts. In the riding of the Minister
of Human Resources Development, lost benefits amount to $38
million per year. I wonder what his constituents think of him.
In my own riding, these lost benefits total $69 million.
It is ordinary people who have been deprived of that money,
people who have lost their jobs.
What about the number of children who leave for school in the
morning without having had breakfast, this because of the
government? These same Liberals were opposed to the changes made
to the EI program by the Conservatives in 1993, on the grounds
that those changes were inhuman.
I personally toured the country and I heard horror stories. Some
people, including women, related how they were treated by the
Department of Human Resources Development, and how their
families are suffering as a result.
I hope the federal government will soon make changes to
employment insurance, so as to help Canadian families.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the previous
speaker is always talking about fewer people being on
unemployment insurance. He always interprets this as being bad
news because in his riding there seems to be fewer people on it
and therefore fewer benefits. He interprets that to mean there
are fewer dollars being spent in the economy of his constituency.
Take a piece of news and the NDP will make it bad news. As a
Liberal, I prefer to make it good news.
There are fewer people on employment insurance, that is true.
However, does anyone think that maybe that has something to do
with the fact that there is a lower unemployment rate in the
country and more people are working? I think that is good news.
It is good news that more people are working and have actual
salaries and wages to spend in the constituencies and they are
not dependent on employment insurance.
The member speaks as if employment insurance is the only
industry in his riding and that the benefits are the salaries his
people are making. Nothing could be further from the truth.
He also accuses the government and the administration of this
department as having quotas to try to catch people. Nothing
could be further from the truth in that case as well.
It is obvious he does not know a great deal about the skills of
management. Every manager has to make a prediction about the
coming year. He has to predict how many workers he is going to
need, what kind of production they are going to have, et cetera.
That is good management. This government is trying to follow
that model.
The officials within the HRDC department who are charged with
the very serious responsibility of identifying fraud are also
asked to predict. That does not mean they are trying to reach
that number. It simply means that they are managing and taking
care of the assets of Canadians as best they can and catching
people who are fraudulently using the system.
CANADA POST
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I must say what an honour it is to be in your humble
presence again.
The rural route mail contractors are not considered to be
employees according to the provisions of the Canada Labour Code
because they are specifically prohibited those rights under the
Canada Post Corporation Act, section 13.5. This means that RRMCs
do not enjoy the rights and protections that the vast majority of
workers take for granted.
This includes things like minimum wages, health and safety
protections, workers compensation, employee insurance benefits,
vacation leave, maternity leave, severance pay and so on. RRMCs
are also denied the right to negotiate improvements to their
wages and working conditions.
1840
Why does the government continue to allow these conditions to
exist? The RRMCs have now formed an association called the
Organization of Rural Route Mail Couriers in a serious attempt to
get the government to change their working conditions. There are
now over 3,400 signed members who are dedicated to improving
their lifestyles. These members deliver mail to several million
householders across rural Canada. They virtually do the same work
as their urban counterparts. How can this government deny these
dedicated workers the opportunity to receive the same wages and
benefit as their urban counterparts?
This is very similar to what the regional rates of pay do to the
lowest paid workers in the public service. They get a different
salary depending on what part of the country they live in and
that is straight discrimination.
The solution to both these is to remove section 13.5 from the
Canada Post Act, which this government could do, and replace it
with section 1 of the Canada Labour Code, a very simple and easy
thing that can be done to improve the lives of thousands of
people in this country.
It is important to point out that people who do similar work
have these rights, private sector workers who deliver mail in
rural areas, public service workers who deliver mail for Canada
Post in urban areas, rural route mail carriers who work for the
United States postal office. Even rural postal workers in Mexico
have a collective agreement.
The RRMCs strongly believe that it is wrong to deny them rights
accorded to so many workers. They are determined to change their
conditions but they need the government's help. Will the
government remove section 13.5 of the Canada Post Act and replace
it with section 1 of the Canada Labour Code now?
In the 1998 budget the federal government promised people that
it would look at new ways to deliver information and programs so
that rural Canadians are full participants in Canada's future
prosperity. Was the government's promise to look at new ways of
delivering information programs just another way of saying it
will find cheaper ways of exploiting rural Canadians who deliver
information and programs? Rural Canadians would like assurances
that this is definitely not the case. Recently it introduced
restructuring the stamp sales which will definitely hurt
thousands of rural route post offices.
Speaking on behalf of the riding of Sackville—Eastern Shore I
find this government's approach to rural route mail carriers
absolutely despicable, as with the way it treats the bottom lower
salaried people who work for the public service in terms of
11,000 workers across this country, different regional rates of
pay which this government has said it would eliminate in its 1993
promises in the red book.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this will indeed be an interesting experience for both the member
for Sackville—Eastern Shore and me because the question I was
given is entirely different from the question he just asked.
As far as labour negotiations, Canada Post is an arm's length
corporation functioning quite separately from the government and
has very little government regulation at this time. It operates
within our framework.
I must apologize to the member and agree to meet with him again
and respond more fully to his question.
As far as the small franchisees he alluded to, the difficulty we
had over the last couple of months in negotiating with many of
these small postal service outlets is Canada Post is charged with
providing Canadians access to postal service. The changes have
been fought through committee. Multiple changes have been put in
place. The small postal outlets are being given a fee to operate
with much assistance. The rural postal services or franchisees
have had absolutely no changes to their revenue. That has been
guaranteed at the 1997-98 levels. As far as the large services
are concerned they are being given a flat rate of $25,000 a year
to operate.
What we have tried to do is get rid of the gentlemen who go
around with large suitcases full of stamps and sell in the small
areas. I think we have done that well with this change to the
postal services.
Again I come back to my abject apology of not having a prepared
answer for the first part which is the most extensive part of the
hon. member's question. We will meet again here sometime as
dictated by the hon. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Speaker would not presume to
dictate.
1845
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the adjournment
proceedings on a question I asked on September 30, 1998,
stressing that the government has two things to do with respect
to the employment insurance: significantly lower premiums and
improve the program.
In December, after the EI surplus scandal was exposed and the
Minister of Finance was forced to backtrack on his plans for a
bill to make the misappropriation of funds legal, EI premiums
were cut by 15 cents for every $100 of income. While we were
asking for a more substantial reduction, it nevertheless
represents a major victory. Even more ground was won on the
other, more important priority, that is reasonable eligibility
requirements for the unemployed.
Today, another scandal was unveiled. The human resources
development minister was caught red handed. He claimed that no
quotas were imposed on his officials to achieve reduction
targets in his department.
Well, we in the Bloc tabled a document showing that there are
indeed quotas at employment centres, which have a disastrous
impact.
The New Democratic Party tabled a document providing further
evidence of the fact that there are indeed individuals at Human
Resources Development Canada who are put in front of a harsh
reality: them must fill the required quotas or there will be no
jobs left. There were 150 jobs at stake.
I hope that the unveiling of this scandal will help produce the
kind of results achieved with respect to the lowering of EI
premiums, that similar results can be achieved in this case and
that the government will finally see the light, eliminate the
intensity rule and change eligibility requirements to make them
acceptable again to women and young people entering the labour
force.
It is terribly discriminatory to expect a woman or young person
re-entering the labour market to have worked 910 hours to
qualify, when the rules are much less stringent for someone who
goes on EI only occasionally. There is no reason for this sort
of discrimination.
Seasonal workers are the worst off. Every time they use up 20
weeks of EI, their benefits go down 1%. Instead of getting 55%
of their average earnings, they get 54% after 20 weeks of
benefits, 53% after 40 weeks, and so on up to 50%. The result
will be that, in two years' time, all regions with seasonal
industries will have people who get 50% of their average
earnings rather than 55%. This is treating people like economic
guinea pigs.
It is clear that everyone wants to work.
When a company advertises a job, several people apply.
Faced with all these facts, will the Minister of Human Resources
Development, or the Minister of Finance, who is really in
charge, do what is necessary in the coming weeks to put the EI
scheme back on its rightful track, with sensible premiums and
benefits that go on for a reasonable period, rather than
building up surpluses to bring down the deficit at the expense
of individuals and regions who have paid too high a price?
The federal government's policy, at a time when the impact of
globalization is being felt, has weakened rather than stabilized
regional economies.
I await an answer from the government.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in essence the hon. member was
talking about the employment insurance fund. He often makes
reference to the fact that the moneys in the employment insurance
fund are being used for other purposes and how the government
must take measures to stop that.
Again I remind the member that the auditor general in 1986
advised the government that any revenue which comes in from
employment insurance premiums must flow into the consolidated
revenue fund because the government stands behind the program.
In 10 of the last 17 years where the fund was in deficit it was
the taxes of taxpayers who may not have paid any employment
insurance premiums that went to prop up that account so that
those individuals who were on benefits could receive those
benefits. It is not just about the fact that those individuals
who pay receive benefits. It is also about the fact that those
premiums flow into consolidated revenues.
In fact it is government that stands behind the program.
1850
While the hon. member talks about the employment insurance
program and how it is very necessary, we as a government believe
that employment insurance provides a very effective and useful
role for Canadians who find themselves temporarily out of work.
The actions taken by the government are directed toward ensuring
that our economy performs in a way that small business and large
business are able to create employment opportunities for
Canadians.
Let us look at the record. Since October 1993 private sector
jobs are up almost 1.6 million. Full time jobs are up over 1.2
million. During 1998 alone roughly 450,000 jobs were created and
almost all of those were in the private sector.
Along with the employment insurance program, there are other
measures that the government has taken to ensure the economy
performs to its fullest. We will continue to do that so that
Canadians who want to work have the opportunity to be employed.
[Translation]
PRATT & WHITNEY
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to have the opportunity to remind the House that, on October 1,
1998, I asked a question of the Minister of Industry concerning
the dramatic layoff of 900 workers at Pratt & Whitney, 500 of
them engineers in its R&D; units. The other employees involved
were also high-ranking employees.
Why was this? Because of federal government underfunding of its
Technology Partnerships Canada program.
I asked the minister whether he understood that this situation
affects not only high-ranking employees, but also the lead role
of Quebec and Canada in the aerospace industry.
Speaking after colleagues who showed just how drastic the
unemployment situation is, I know that when I say that the
government must fund the Technology Partnerships Canada
program—as I said in another question—at least to the $100 million
level, this is because high-level jobs are a guarantee for the
future, for the economy. These are jobs which will get the
economy moving.
The government is getting criticism from both sides. Its
strategy is the opposite of what it should be.
It makes no sense to penalize the unemployed and make workers
earning up to $39,000 and especially the SMBs employing them
pay, as it does, through excessive contributions. The big
companies pay less.
On the other hand, however, it makes no sense not to give big
business, including the aerospace industry, the instruments they
need to be competitive, if there are to be high level jobs.
Technology Partnerships Canada is not a funding program. It
funds itself from the return. When research and development has
become a cost effective product, it funds itself out of
royalties. That is why we support it. It is not a funding
program.
This program provides for the financing of research and
development in strategic areas like aerospace, where Quebec has
a small lead, followed by Ontario. This is an area that creates
many jobs, one which is growing three times faster than this
country's GDP, and where the industry, Pratt & Whitney in
particular, goes significantly further than many businesses, not
only in this area but also in others, investing 20% of its
turnover. This cannot last.
But the competition is heavily subsidized, directly or
indirectly, through DND contracts among other things. The same
is true of the United States, which has resulted in engineering
positions moving south of the border. This is to say that we are
very concerned with the drop in the share of added income in
sales.
Canada is facing a productivity crisis.
This is not the way to go about resolving it. Let us not forget
the unemployed in all this.
1855
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say that the government
has made a substantial commitment to aerospace and other high
tech, high growth sectors especially in the Montreal area and
across the country. An example of this commitment is Technology
Partners of Canada whose budget was increased from $150 million
two years ago to $250 million this year.
The Montreal area, where much of Canada's aerospace industry is
located, and all of Canada stand to benefit greatly from TPC.
There have already been investments in several world class
aerospace projects. There have been other investments in the
biotechnology, environmental technology and telecommunications
sector.
The success of the federal government strategy for promoting
partnership for innovation, economic growth and job creation is
evident across Canada.
With respect to Pratt & Whitney Canada our commitment has been
substantial. Today TPC has invested in two Pratt & Whitney
Canada projects totalling $147 million. We are continuing to
work closely with Pratt & Whitney Canada to explore all
reasonable options that can be pursued to support the company's
future development.
The minister recently met with Pratt & Whitney Canada executives
to this end. We believe Pratt & Whitney Canada is committed to
its Montreal operation and elsewhere in Canada. The Government
of Canada is committed to continuing partnership with Pratt &
Whitney.
With respect to employment, the impacts are not as immediate or
as dramatic as one might be led to believe. Not until the end of
1999 would there be a significant reduction of jobs. This is a
normal phenomenon for a cyclical industry like aerospace and
largely the result of the completion of earlier research and
development projects. As well the company has indicated this
will mostly be implemented through early retirement and normal
attrition.
Let me say that the aerospace industry is growing at a very
favourable 14% rate annually. Although some jobs will be lost at
Pratt & Whitney, other local aerospace firms such as Bombardier
and Bell Helicopter are still expanding.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.57 p.m.)