36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 218
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 29, 1999
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1400
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH VIOLENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GASOLINE PRICES
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH ENTREPRENEURSHIP
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BROCK EMPLOYMENT CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
1405
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VÁCLAV HAVEL
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AQUATOX 2000
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL DANCE DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1410
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH VIOLENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALLIANCE CONSEIL EN MARCHÉS FINANCIERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH VIOLENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AMATEUR SPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1415
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH VIOLENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1430
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1435
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1440
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLIC WORKS
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1445
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEVCO
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1450
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NAV CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEWBRIDGE NETWORKS CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1455
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEVCO
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1500
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AMATEUR SPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1505
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1510
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-504. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1515
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-505. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1520
1525
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1540
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1545
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
1550
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-66. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1605
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-66. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1620
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 2 deferred
|
1635
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 4 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 5 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 6 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
1645
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1650
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-66. Report Stage
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 24
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 17 and 35
|
1655
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1720
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1725
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VOISEY'S BAY NICKEL PROJECT
|
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1730
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1755
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1800
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1805
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
1035
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Gilbert Parent |
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Václav Havel |
1050
1055
1100
1105
1110
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Gildas Molgat |
1125
1130
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 218
![](/web/20061116185509im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 29, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1400
[English]
YOUTH VIOLENCE
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
were all shocked and saddened to hear about the senseless tragedy
that occurred yesterday afternoon in Taber, Alberta.
Our condolences go out to the family and friends of Jason Lang
who was killed yesterday during the shootings. Our prayers are
with the family and friends of Shane Christmas who remains in
serious condition in hospital.
As a parent I can only imagine the terror that is felt at
hearing there has been a shooting at your child's school. I can
understand the pain the people of Taber are feeling today.
As a parent I insist that our schools be what we intend them to
be: places of learning, places where we can send our children
knowing they will be safe.
As a member of this House I am reminded that we must all work
together to ensure conditions that produce such horrific violence
are eliminated from our communities. As Jason Lang's father said
today, “Lots of things need to be changed and lots of things
need to be healed”. Over the coming days and months I know that
all members will work to ensure that what can be done will be
done.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, gas
prices are getting a lot of attention these days.
The truth is Canadians enjoy some of the lowest gas prices in
the world. Without government taxes, gas is as cheap as it was 20
years ago. The only thing that has changed dramatically is the
amount Canadians are being taxed at the pumps. The government is
the real villain in gas pricing with over 50% of the price of a
litre of gasoline going to government taxes, yet virtually none
of that money is returned to my province for road infrastructure
programs.
When I go into a grocery store or a restaurant I see the before
tax price of the product. Why can gas retailers not do the same
for their customers? Why do retailers not advertise their
gasoline prices on a before tax basis so Canadians can plainly
see how much of their gas dollar is going into the government's
tax tank? Why are gas retailers willing to take the heat for
government taxation?
Canadians need tax cuts now so they can get more distance for
their dollar.
* * *
YOUTH ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I recently hosted the Prime Minister's caucus task force on youth
entrepreneurship along with my colleagues from the
Kitchener-Waterloo region.
The task force spent its time in Kitchener speaking with young
entrepreneurs, their mentors, service providers and members of
the private sector. Topics such as education, finances,
resources and government support were all discussed.
Task force members visited a number of companies run by young
entrepreneurs from the Kitchener-Waterloo area. We visited Joe
Merlihan of the Woolwich Observer, Jen Herzog of
Distinctive Stamp Design and John Rochetta of The Beat Goes On.
In addition, some members dropped by the Business Enterprise
Centre and Kor Gallery and Studios.
The young entrepreneurs we met were dynamic, intelligent
individuals who have used their talents in creative and unique
ways.
I commend the many young entrepreneurs from across the country
who are working hard to make their dreams come true.
* * *
BROCK EMPLOYMENT CENTRE
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that the residents of
the township of Brock located within my riding of
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock received a big boost with a $168,000
federal grant from the Department of Human Resources Development.
This grant created the funding to establish the new community
employment resource centre located in the Beaverton town hall.
The centre officially opens its doors to the public tomorrow,
Friday, April 30, 1999.
1405
The task of locating a job can be very difficult. This centre
will assist residents looking for employment through a number of
services. These services include employment counselling, job
listings, free photocopying, faxing, computer use and the listing
of college and university courses offered to upgrade their
skills.
The centre was created through a partnership involving the
federal government, the township of Brock, Durham College and
other agencies. I would like to congratulate the individuals who
made this project work. This centre will be a benefit not only
to the residents but also to the whole community of Brock
township.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week we
celebrated the National Volunteer Week, to recognize the
efforts of the 7.5 million Canadians who give generously of
their time all through the year in order to help the less
advantaged members of our community.
[English]
I take this opportunity to highlight an individual, a Canadian
of Hellenic origin, who was honoured by the Quebec National
Assembly with a volunteer award for her efforts and contribution
over the years.
This person is Ms. Vicky Nicolakakos, a friend whom I consider
to be a most deserving individual. All those who know Vicky know
her commitment and her tireless efforts in responding to the
needs of the underprivileged, the ailing, and the troubled of our
society. She is an outstanding Canadian and a great role model
for us all.
Sinharitiria, Vicky.
* * *
VÁCLAV HAVEL
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the House
has heard many great and eloquent speeches in its time. Few have
been delivered with the moral authority we heard this morning.
Václav Havel is a very special individual. His conscience
called on him to suffer the trials of being a dissident. A sense
of duty demanded that he assume the highest political office in
his country. However, the greatest contribution he has made is
to warn us that evil can only triumph when good people look away.
Winston Churchill once said that the greatest virtue was
courage. The life of the man who spoke to us today is a model of
courage and is a great legacy to his country.
As a member of parliament, I was also pleased to hear an echo of
many values that the Reform Party stands for and why I am here. I
was especially moved by his demands that we recognize that the
individual, regardless of status or wealth, is more important
than the state.
I know the House will join me in expressing our profound
admiration to Havel the man, and our respect to the President of
the Czech Republic.
* * *
AQUATOX 2000
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
clean and safe drinking water is a precious resource which many
of us take for granted.
In my riding of Nunavut, students at Netsilik school in
Taloyoak, Qiqirtaq Ilihavik in Gjoa Haven and both Takijulauk and
Ulaajuk schools in Pond Inlet are participating in the Aquatox
2000 program launched by Canada's International Development
Research Centre. Students in a worldwide network of over 100
schools test the quality of water using very simple yet effective
methods and post the results on an interactive web site.
The participants gain valuable scientific knowledge and an
appreciation of the importance of water while engaging in a
positive dialogue with youth from other nations committed to a
sustainable future. Keep up the good work.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again this
government has unabashedly given us evidence of its lack of
judgment and compassion. The Liberal members do not like to be
told that, one year ago, all of them, without exception, turned
their backs on the thousands of people infected with hepatitis C.
Joey Haché and a group of Quebec victims were here yesterday, a
year to the day after the Liberals' rejection of a motion, which
had the support of all the opposition parties, calling for
compensation of all hepatitis C victims. They reminded us that
nothing has changed in the past year, except that several
hundred victims have died, without receiving any support from
this government, which continues to wash its hands of them.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Health refused to meet
with them and to listen to them. The Minister of Health even
refused to accept a letter one of the victims wanted to hand
him. So much for Liberal attention and compassion.
The Prime Minister wonders how he will go down in history. He
need have no illusions. The arrogance and cynicism of his
government and himself have given proof in this instance—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DANCE DAY
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Thursday, April 29, is International Dance Day. This event
invites us to understand the universality of this art form.
1410
The language of dance knows no borders. It embraces all
nationalities and is used for many purposes, including to
express the artistic, the spiritual and the mundane.
To the first nations, dance is a vital component of their
ancestral heritage. Canadian dance artists are our country's
cultural ambassadors, applauded in all the cultural capitals of
the world.
International Dance Day affords Canadians an opportunity to take
part in activities focusing on various styles of dance and to
honour our dance artists.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH VIOLENCE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the official opposition, I express our great sorrow for
the tragic shooting yesterday in Taber, Alberta.
We extend our deepest condolences to the families and friends of
the two boys who were shot, to the community of Taber, and to
Glenn McMurray, executive director of the Reform Party, whose
nephew Jason Lang died as a result of that shooting.
I worked for many years as a high school teacher and this
tragedy has affected me deeply. Next to being at home or in
church, where else should young people feel more secure than when
they are in school?
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, if we could legislate
against these kinds of grievous acts, we would all do so
tomorrow. But laws will not prevent random violence. We must
look at the root problem. If we strengthen families, improve the
support provided by social services and make it easier for police
to do their job, perhaps troubled youth will feel that they have
a place to turn before they turn to violence.
To the Langs, the Christmases and all of Taber, our thoughts and
prayers are with you.
* * *
[Translation]
ALLIANCE CONSEIL EN MARCHÉS FINANCIERS
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning in Montreal, the Government of Canada expressed pride in
its involvement in the creation of the Alliance conseil en
marché financier.
This organization is the only one in Canada working to promote
Canadian know-how in infrastructure development and capital
market regulation abroad.
The main goal of the alliance is to connect the financial world
with the expertise in Montreal, a marvelous opportunity for our
financial community to further expand its operations
internationally.
This is another example of the Government of Canada's
co-operation with Quebec's economic stakeholders.
Co-operation is always the best approach to carrying out our
projects.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH VIOLENCE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the NDP, our thoughts and prayers today are with the
family and friends of Jason Lang and Shane Christmas of Taber,
Alberta. We share their grief over Jason and their anxiety and
hopes for Shane and the shock that a fine Canadian community like
Taber must feel at having this happen in their midst.
This event challenges us all. It should challenge the media to
ask themselves whether the way in which they report such events
is part of the problem. It challenges people of all ages and not
just young people to treat our fellow human beings in such a way
that no one feels excluded or like an estranged loser. It
challenges all of us, politicians and citizens, to ask how we can
free our collective psyche from the growing fascination with
nihilistic violence and death that permeates elements of our mass
culture from video games to music and movies.
The victims in Alberta and Colorado are like canaries in the
mine. The cultural environment is toxic. Let us clean it up
before it is too late.
* * *
[Translation]
AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage stated that everyone supported the decision to
let go women's hockey coach Danièle Sauvageau, which is patently
false. Once again, the Liberal member's response was a
shameless denial of the facts.
As for the hon. member for Bourassa, that staunch defender of
professional sport, and feigned defender of amateur sport, his
problems are far from over.
While the Minister of Canadian Heritage is confirming that the
recommendations in the report on the funding of amateur sport
have been pigeonholed, how can he expect Hockey Canada to act on
his suggestion that Danièle Sauvageau be appointed immediately
as the coach for the 2002 Olympics?
According to the hon. member for Bourassa, Danièle Sauvageau was
apparently let go because she was too pushy. In fact, all she
was doing was claiming what was rightfully hers, and the
Quebeckers in the Liberal caucus would do well to follow suit.
At present they are not asserting themselves enough and not
assuming their responsibilities when the time comes to defend
Quebeckers.
* * *
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Jacques Parizeau, the new Bloc Quebecois researcher,
announced this morning the holding of a Bloc forum on
globalization.
1415
By still toeing the line of promoting Quebec separation, the
Bloc Quebecois has not in any way grasped the advantages for
Quebec of belonging to the Canadian federation.
As far as the globalization of modern economies is concerned, it
is in the best interests of Canada to be united in order to
retain its margin of action and economic strength on the
international scene.
What the new Bloc Quebecois researcher is recommending is
nothing more and nothing less than the weakening of Quebec in
the face of the new realities which are reducing economic
barriers.
Globalization places great importance on Canadian identity and
strength, for joint and co-operative efforts by all governments
protect—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH VIOLENCE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to extend my condolences and deepest sympathies on behalf of
the Progressive Conservative Party to the people of Taber and the
victims families of yesterday's tragedy at W. R. Myers High
School.
The families of Jason Lang and Shane Christmas are in our
thoughts today. We pray that Shane will soon experience a full
recovery at the Lethbridge Regional Hospital.
The small agricultural community of Taber has suffered a
tremendous shock, which has resonated across the country.
Yesterday Canada lost some of its innocence. Coming so shortly
after the tragic shootings in Colorado shows that our borders are
not immune to random acts of violence.
The actions of this 14 year old boy should be a reflection on
what more we must do as a society to prevent such a senseless act
from occurring ever again. We need to come to terms with how and
why this happened. For now our focus must be on those who are
suffering as a consequence of this tragedy.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the phrase reduce, reuse and recycle should not apply to Canada's
military. Yet that is exactly what has happened after 30 years
of neglect.
Things are so bad that even the defence minister is admitting
that our forces are stretched to the limit. His military
emergency fund is almost dry and we are only one month into the
war in Yugoslavia.
If war is not a good enough reason to increase the defence
budget then what is?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has in fact increased the
defence budget. This is the first time in over a dozen years
that budget has been increased.
We have increased it because we want to make sure that we look
after the fine dedicated men and women who serve in our Canadian
forces. We have given them pay raises. We are improving their
housing conditions. We are doing a number of things that improve
their quality of life.
Also, the government has been purchasing the equipment and the
tools they need to do the job. The people who will now be
deployed to Macedonia will be taking some of our latest and best
equipment, all new and all fully compatible with our allies. That
will help them to do the job of peacekeeping.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
our fine dedicated men and women in the military have had $7.8
billion cut out of the defence department since the government
took power in 1993.
Now that a war is on the defence minister is surprised. He
tosses back a few dollars, but he is surprised to find out we are
extremely limited in the support we could give to our allies. Our
troops need money and more equipment and they need it now. We
have invested $1 billion in this budget.
Will he commit today to an immediate 10% increase in the defence
budget?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are providing a very significant
contribution to this allied effort.
When I talked with General Short, head of the NATO air
operation, he said our pilots were first teamers. He said they
were among the best who serve there. They have CF-18s that are
well equipped to do the job. The equipment we are giving to our
people who are going to Macedonia will be state of the art
equipment.
This kind of criticism coming from the Reform Party has to be
borne in mind in light of the fact that in the last election it
said let us cut defence by another $1 billion.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): No, Mr.
Speaker. In the last election we said put $1 billion extra in. In
1994 we were operating a huge deficit. That was when we said
maybe some cuts would be made. Our military is doing—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1420
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton
North.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, our military is doing a
tremendous job in spite of the government, not because of the
government, and we thank it for that.
Troops are ready to leave for Macedonia as we speak. These men
and women deserve to know that their government will give them
the money and equipment they need to do the job over there.
The finance minister may want to answer this question because
his hands are on the purse strings. Will he commit today to an
immediate 10% increase in our defence budget? Yes or no.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party are very
inconsistent in this matter. They try to say that they want
additional money to go into the budget. I read three of their
documents and I do not know what part of the word reduce they do
not understand. That is certainly in fact what they were
advocating.
We value what our troops are doing over there. Canadians value
what our troops are doing. It is a just cause that they are
involved with. We want to make sure they have the proper
equipment. They do and they will continue to have it.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister is wrong. Our troops are the best in the world, but
there is just not enough of them. The minister knows full well
that there is not enough of them because the government has cut
$500 million a year since it took office in 1993. Our Canadian
armed forces are underfunded, underresourced and undermanned, and
the minister knows it full well.
Will the Minister of National Defence stand in the House today
and tell Canadians that he will go to cabinet and request a 10%
increase in the defence budget? Will the minister do that now?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remember over the last five years,
while the Minister of Finance was bringing the fiscal House in
order and we were getting the deficit under control, hearing from
them constantly. They said “You can't go fast enough. Take it
out of defence. Take it out of social services. Take it out of
the pensioners”. That is what they were saying over there.
We have been able to manage the situation fairly well, to the
point where we will send troops over there that are well equipped
and will do a good job for Canada.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister is wrong again. He knows that he cut defence
spending and other programs. At the same time they have
increased spending and added $12.5 billion to program spending
that is questionable in the first place in the latest budget.
The defence minister, the foreign affairs minister and the Prime
Minister have positioned our troops for war. The PM has
committed our troops. Is he as committed to giving them the
resources they need to do the job?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am committed and the government is
committed to giving them the resources they need to do the job.
That is exactly what we are doing.
If hon. members opposite or any hon. member in the House would
like to see what this equipment looks like, to see that it is the
best possible equipment, it is just down the street at the
Cartier Drill Hall.
We will have buses after question period that will take members
down there. They could kick the tires and walk all over it and
see that we have state of the art equipment which we are sending
with our troops.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
situation in Kosovo is intolerable. At least 650,000 Kosovars
have taken refuge in neighbouring countries and 800,000 others
have been driven out of their homes. Infectious diseases are
beginning to make their appearance and malnutrition is turning
into starvation. Time is of the essence.
With U.S., German, Greek and UN diplomats trekking to Moscow,
may we know whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be
taking a specific proposal to the Russians in an attempt to get
them to be part of a rapid end to the conflict?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs is taking part in very important
discussions with the Russian foreign minister, his Greek
counterpart, and UN secretary general Kofi Annan. The
discussions are a critical part of the attempt to work out a
suitable peace accord in Kosovo, and the Minister of Foreign
Affairs will continue his discussions in person with the Russian
foreign minister tomorrow.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could
the minister tell us whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs'
proposal will have as its core involvement by the UN, with NATO
continuing its present action, naturally, but under the
co-ordination and leadership of the UN, so that the Russians
could agree to such a peace plan?
1425
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
Minister of Foreign Affairs is there not just as a
representative of NATO, but also as a representative of a
country with a seat on the security council.
We believe that the UN is a very important participant in these
discussions. Obviously UN participation, which would include
Russia, is vital to any future solution.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were
entitled to a clear response by the Prime Minister of Canada to
the call from the Deputy Prime Minister of Montenegro, who has
said he is prepared to take up arms against the Milosevic regime
to protect his oil reserves. The response was “so much the
better”.
How does the Prime Minister reconcile this very offhand remark
with the statement on Kosovo he signed in Washington on the
weekend, and which provides, at article 5, that any action by
Belgrade against the government of Montenegro would have serious
consequences?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member has raised important questions. I would respond by
saying we are well aware of the tensions in Montenegro due to
the activities of the Serb forces. We are, however, looking for
a solution that does not necessarily entail a military response
in this situation.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government of
Montenegro wants to protect its citizens from civil war and
economic collapse. It has indicated its readiness to receive
foreign observers to ensure that oil delivered to it is not
passed on to the Milosevic regime.
So, instead of responding in any old which way, in the “so much
the better” style, should the Prime Minister not convince his
allies to try every possible way to get the Serb government to
concede, while minimizing the impact on Montenegro?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are looking for the solutions needed in the context of the five
conditions. This is why our Minister of Foreign Affairs is in
Moscow today. We are looking for appropriate solutions in order
to avoid problems for Montenegro and to ensure the Kosovars a
safe return to Kosovo.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for either the Minister of National Defence or the
Deputy Prime Minister.
Both will know that there has been a number of votes in the U.S.
House of Representatives. One of those votes has created a
situation in which it is clear that the American president would
need to have a vote and the approval of Congress in order to send
ground troops into Kosovo in a non-permissive way.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of National
Defence if a similar commitment could be made here so that
Canadians can know that their democracy is not inferior to
American democracy, so that before ground troops would be sent
into Kosovo in a non-permissive way there would be a—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know exactly what happened in the U.S. House of
Representatives. I think we should be taking our own decisions
in this House based on Canadian practice. That is what we have
been doing.
The Prime Minister has said that if there is a matter arising
involving combat activities in Kosovo the House will be
consulted, and the Prime Minister will stick with his word.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the American Congress is not only to be consulted. It
will have the opportunity to actually express itself by way of a
vote. That is all that the opposition has been asking here for
weeks.
I repeat, is our democratic culture inferior to that of the
Americans? Are we a banana republic or what is going on here?
All we are asking for is that should a significant decision be
made we want to have the opportunity to vote on it. If the
Americans can do this, why can't we?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the NDP's cousins, their examples, the labour government
of Britain, not only did not have a vote. They did not even have
a debate. We are doing a lot better than that.
We said we will have further debate if the situation changes,
and if the situation changes the Prime Minister said the matter
of a vote is something that can be given further consideration.
* * *
1430
[Translation]
TAXATION
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
Can the minister tell us if it is possible for the governments
of Quebec and Canada to systematically gouge their own taxpayers
with sneaky and incomprehensible tax measures?
Let us take a single parent family with two children and a total
income of about $31,000 for example. If the parent earns $1,000
more, he or she will have to pay an additional $1,056 in taxes.
Does the minister find this acceptable, and will he wait until
the next budget to improve the situation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member must realize, I am not in a position to speak
for the Government of Quebec.
As for the Government of Canada, I can tell him that not only
have we reduced taxes, but in the example the hon. member has
given, as a result of the last budget, a young family with two
children and an income of $30,000 will have no federal tax to
pay.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Finance is aware that at present the Quebec and federal tax
systems are demotivating; they encourage people to work under
the table and, more importantly, encourage the brain drain.
Statistics prove this.
Can the minister guarantee us a partial tax reform before the
next budget, and will he also encourage the Quebec Minister of
Finance to undertake a similar process?
We must not lose sight of the fact that, in the last provincial
election, 58% of Quebeckers did not vote for referendum crises
and existential definitions, they voted for lower taxes.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that one of the ways of attaining winning
conditions for the betterment of our economy and our society is
most certainly to have a working economy, job creation, and
lower taxes.
It is our intention to continue to reduce taxes, as we did in
the last budget and in the previous one.
As for encouraging my counterpart, the PQ Minister of Finance, I
will try, but he does not always listen to me.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when we asked
the minister of Indian affairs in this House why there is no
protection for Nisga'a women's rights in the Nisga'a treaty, the
minister responded by saying that provincial laws will apply.
I would like to read to the House a quote from Dale Lovick, the
NDP MLA, who stated in the April 15 debate in the legislature of
British Columbia: “The Nisga'a treaty, to all intents and
purposes, is silent on the issue of discrimination against women.
It is effectively silent”.
Why did the government negotiate an agreement that is
effectively silent on the rights of Nisga'a women?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is incorrect. I would suggest that the member is wrong in
that interpretation of the agreement. I have a copy of the
agreement here. Chapter 2, on the conflict between federal and
provincial laws, it is expressly clear. I believe if the member
reads it he will clearly see that the laws of general application
apply, and those include the rights of women and matrimonial
property.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
suggest that the hon. member read the entire treaty because he is
not correct. The minister of British Columbia who was
responsible for putting this agreement together, Dale Lovick, has
said that this treaty is effectively silent when it comes to
women's rights and women's issues. Why is this government
effectively silent? Why has it not stood to defend the rights of
Nisga'a women when it comes to matrimonial property?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I repeat again that chapter 2, section 13, expressly states that
where there is a contradiction between those laws, the general
laws of application will apply. We have made that very, very
clear. We are very firm on that position. We will act to
protect the rights of women. They are protected in this treaty.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
rather than try to understand where Quebec is coming from on the
young offenders legislation, the Minister of Justice has stuck
to the same old script from the beginning.
Today, I urge the minister to listen carefully to my question,
to give it some thought, and to come up with an answer.
How can she say that Quebec's model is not threatened, when
Quebec's judges will be bound by her bill's principle of
uniformity in sentencing? I would like an answer, this time.
1435
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only have we listened to
the views and concerns of Quebec, we have learned from the model
of Quebec. The new youth justice legislation acknowledges
diverse approaches to the challenges of youth crime. In fact, I
think if the hon. member carefully reads the youth justice act he
will find that there is no attempt to impose uniformity of
sentencing across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the minister talk about flexibility, her refrain from the
beginning, and uniformity of sentencing, as provided for in
clause 37.2(b) of her bill, in the same breath? It is one or
the other.
She cannot talk about flexibility and coast to coast uniformity
at the same time.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member
knows, being a former advocate himself, that a similar provision
has existed in the Criminal Code for some time. I am sure he
also knows that the provision of that section in the Criminal
Code has not prevented regional variation in sentencing.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in Quebec
hepatitis C victims get Interferon and the new drug Ribavirin
without any problem. Now the Government of Quebec has decided
that it wants to give direct aid to every single victim.
Why is this government standing in the way of those victims in
Quebec?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the minister stated in the
House, an offer of $300 million has been made to all of the
provinces to ensure that people infected with hepatitis C have
access to the services which they require, those services which
are not presently insured services, throughout the course of
their lives. An offer has been made to the minister of Quebec
and the Minister of Health is hopeful that Quebec will respond to
the offer that has been made.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think the
member missed the point. People in Quebec already have those
services.
We remember the excuses. There was the precedent, there were
too many victims, it was going to break medicare. Now that
Ontario and Quebec have both shown that those were just that,
lame excuses, will this government put aside ego and stubbornness
and say yes to the victims in Quebec?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just does not
get it. The Minister of Health has repeated on numerous
occasions that our approach has been to attempt to resolve the
law suits and to do so through negotiations for those infected
between 1986 and 1990. An agreement was reached in December. We
are hoping that through those negotiations it will be before the
courts this June and the courts will then ensure Canadians that
this settlement is fair.
When it comes to those infected through the blood supply, an
offer of $300 million for services, needed medical—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the opinion on
the millennium scholarships remains unanimous in Quebec.
Yesterday, the leaders of the three parties in the National
Assembly proposed a political solution by asking the federal
government to appoint a government negotiator not involved with
the foundation to permit the resumption of government to
government negotiations with Quebec.
If the Minister of Human Resources Development really has the
welfare of young people at heart, will he assume his political
responsibilities and give this reasonable proposal a favourable
response?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rosemont
for his interest in Quebec students. I can assure him that I do
share his interest in our students in Quebec.
We received a letter yesterday afternoon, at the same time as
the media. We will take time to consider the proposal it
contains. I note that, in this letter, the Government of Quebec
returns to the Gautrin motion, which was unanimously approved in
the National Assembly and which recognizes that the Government
of Canada has a role to play.
So, I must tell you that I am pleased—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the president
of the millennium scholarship foundation set the minister
straight, when he stated:
In this matter, there is management responsibility and there is
political responsibility. I am looking after the management
responsibility.
1440
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development, who spends his
time coming unstrung and hiding behind the foundation, beginning
to understand that the political responsibility Mr. Monty is
referring to is his own?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, what I see is that the
Government of Quebec is coming back to the Gautrin motion. I
think this is much more encouraging than the right to opt out
with full compensation minister Legault was still talking about
last week.
What I can say is that the member for Rosemont has said “the
letter talks of appointing political negotiators”. In fact the
letter talks of not wanting political negotiators but rather non
elected government representatives, which, obviously, takes me
off the file. That is what the letter says. It must be
understood, before—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
* * *
[English]
PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
is it any wonder our taxes are so high in this country. Four
big-time drug dealers were caught with six tonnes of hashish in
Vancouver. Their million dollar house, bought with the drug
money, was seized and is now the property of the public works
department.
Why has the public works minister allowed one of the dealers to
rent back the house and why has he entered into discussions with
the dealer to buy the house back at a discounted price?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of
the specific case that the hon. member is citing. However, there
is a policy that whenever we are authorized by the courts to
dispose of property, it is disposed of by public tender. That is
the policy.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I think if he looks more carefully he will realize that
he is aware of it.
What is so bizarre about this is that the drug dealer has never
paid his $35,000 fine for peddling six tonnes of hashish and now
the public works minister has agreed to give him $200,000 for
renovations which he says he made to the house during the time he
was laundering the drug money.
Why on earth is this government giving a major drug dealer
$200,000 of tax—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I do
not know the specifics of the case. Therefore, I cannot accept
the premise of the member of parliament. If his question was
really serious, he could have given us notice and I would have
looked at the details. I will look at the details and I hope I
can provide an answer as soon as possible.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Tuesday, April 27, Immigration Canada cavalierly returned Mrs.
Isabelle Yoro to the Ivory Coast. Mrs. Yoro is in the eighth
month of a high risk pregnancy.
The Sunday before, the deportation failed—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
Mr. Réal Menard: Mr. Speaker, the Sunday before, the deportation
failed because KLM refused to carry her, deeming her condition
to be too precarious.
How can the Minister of Immigration, with all the compassion for
refugees she puts on when the cameras are rolling, show so
little compassion toward a woman who did not represent a
security threat, and who was experiencing a high risk pregnancy.
The minister's actions were both cavalier and uncivilized.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what an accusation. The hon.
member is making accusations without being able to verify the
facts. I am greatly surprised by the attitude of the hon.
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. He knows very well that I
cannot comment in detail on a specific case.
It is very clear that, when a person has made use of all the
processes available in Canada, the refugee determination
process, the federal court, and appeal for humanitarian reasons,
then at some point the person must leave the country. If there
are health considerations, a medical opinion is always sought in
order to be sure the person can travel safely.
* * *
1445
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health.
Recently a documentary on television indicated that soft drink
companies are beginning to lace citrus-based soft food drinks
with caffeine in order to enhance consumption by young people.
I ask the parliamentary secretary whether the Department of
Health, first, is aware of this; second, whether it has conducted
studies on the health implications for young people and Canadians
in general; and, third, what it is going to do about ensuring
that the health of Canadians is not put in jeopardy?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member and
inform the House that the use of caffeine in non-cola beverages
has not been approved in Canada. There has been a proposal
gazetted. That is a normal part of the consultation process.
As a result of concerns that have been raised, Health Canada is
conducting an extensive review of the physiological and
toxicological effects of this food additive.
I want to assure the House that a decision will not be made
until the results are in and the consultation process has been
completed.
* * *
PENSIONS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
President of the Treasury Board keeps telling us that seizing $30
billion from the public service pension plan is good for the
taxpayers.
Will it really be so good for the taxpayers if 10 or 15 years
from now the taxpayers have to dip into their pockets to cover a
deficit in the plan?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I keep wondering what the representatives of the Reform Party do
with the rights of taxpayers. It was elected, it tells us, to
defend the rights of taxpayers.
In this case, the surplus belongs to taxpayers because they bore
all the risk. Why do members of the Reform Party, against the
lawyers, the accountants, the auditor general and the
editorialist of the Edmonton Journal, keep denying the
rights of taxpayers?
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
stand up for taxpayers because the government broke its promise
to cancel the GST. It dipped into the EI fund to the tune of $26
billion. It is now going to take $30 billion out of the civil
service pension plan. What has the taxpayer got so far? At
best, they have a couple of crumbs.
How can the minister justify taking another $30 billion without
giving a tax break to Canadians?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think the proof that members of the Reform Party know they are
denying and disregarding the rights of taxpayers is that they
find they have to defend themselves in their questions.
If we were not right, why would they have to defend themselves
like this? They defend themselves because they have been caught
red-handed denying the rights of taxpayers.
* * *
DEVCO
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister met with representatives of
the United Families about the shutdown and privatization of
Devco.
I am very pleased he met with them and was delighted to hear he
will be discussing with the Minister of Natural Resources how the
miners are being treated.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources take a small step today
to reassure these women and the House, and let us know whether or
not his discussions with the Prime Minister will be favourable to
Cape Breton miners and their families?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our whole effort with respect to Devco is intended to be
favourable to the people of Cape Breton and, in particular, the
miners at Devco.
We have, through the various agencies of the Government of
Canada, put together not only the Devco package but also the
programming of Human Resources Development Canada and ACOA. The
package amounts to $550 million which we hope will ease the
transition in what we all agree is a very difficult problem.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The minister is aware that a community partnership is being put
together to try to prevent the complete devastation of our
island's economy. This initiative seeks to ensure miners and
their families are simply not tossed on the scrap heap.
Will the government look at allowing miners to obtain
pensionable credits through this community partnership?
1450
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at this very early stage of development, in terms of the
concept that the hon. member has referred to, it is difficult to
provide any definitive answers because the idea is so novel and
really in its infancy.
With respect to the economic development package in Cape Breton
and the privatization proposals for the Prince mine, we have said
that we would be more than happy to consider every alternative.
* * *
NAV CANADA
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
When Transport Canada sold the control tower in Kelowna to Nav
Canada in 1996, Transport Canada revealed that it had effectively
condemned the structure in a September 1989 report that said:
Did Nav Canada know that it had to replace the tower when it
bought it?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Nav Canada is aware of the
potential for sightline obstructions at the Kelowna airport.
The parking of large aircraft at the Kelowna aircraft apron
occasionally obscures the tower's visibility of aircraft
movements in the holding area for runway 15.
Nav Canada has successful implemented sight specific procedures
at the airport. For instance, an expansion of the apron area is
to be completed later this year. The expansion will help
alleviate the problem. Furthermore, Nav Canada is currently
examining a proposal to use a series of video camera systems to
ensure visibility of all manoeuvring aircraft.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, that does not address the problem that Transport Canada
itself found, and I quote:
Due to the location and the height of the control tower, portions
of the runway and taxiways are not visible.
The control tower is actually 22 feet lower than the end of the
runway. Nothing is going to fix this except a new tower and not
band-aid solutions.
Will the minister now make safety priority number one in
Kelowna, like he does everywhere else, and instruct that a new
tower be built in Kelowna?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester is quite aware of the fact that we have
been very sensitive and have been monitoring the situation very
closely.
If Nav Canada, which is responsible for the implementation of
these regulations at that airport, deems it necessary after the
interim measures I have already mentioned are implemented, and if
they are not successful and Transport Canada monitors the
situation, then I am sure further action will take place.
* * *
NEWBRIDGE NETWORKS CORPORATION
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Newbridge Networks chairman, Terry Matthews, gave a speech
recently proposing a tax break on stock options for employees of
research and development intensive companies.
Can the Minister of Finance advise the House as to whether or
not Mr. Matthews' suggestion is receiving consideration within
his department?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Terry Matthews is a very constructive analyst and
commentator on the problems and opportunities of his industry.
Indeed, as the member for Nepean has pointed out, his goals in
terms of growth for his industry are similar to the governments.
However, the proposal does raise certain questions. First,
should we provide tax breaks for stock options for one segment of
industry and not for another? Second, are tax breaks for stock
options more important than personal income tax reductions?
I look forward to meeting with Mr. Matthews in the very near
future in order to discuss these questions.
* * *
PENSIONS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has some gall in saying its $30 billion
C-78 pension raid is in the best interest of Canadians. Its idea
of protecting the taxpayer is to spend the money now and have
future generations pick up the tab.
If we spend the entire $30 billion pension surplus today, who
will cover any shortfall in the future? How can we deny that
taxpayers will be paying the price for government mistakes again,
again and again?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am glad the hon. member is bringing up a point that is so
important. However, he misunderstands the issue. What we are
doing with the $30 billion is giving it back to taxpayers.
I will repeat this because it seems hard for the other side to
understand. It is really reducing the debt by giving the money
back to taxpayers. That is what it is doing. We are giving it
back to the taxpayers because it belongs to taxpayers.
1455
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
at noon today, unions harshly criticized the dictatorial
attitude of the government, which is rushing through legislation
to empty out its employees' pension fund. Yet Treasury Board
figures show that employees have contributed more than 52% of
premiums since 1924.
Why is the government refusing to sit down with its employees
and pensioners and negotiate how the surplus, which belongs to
them too, should be used so that everyone is happy, as was
recently done in Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again,
the government has pension plans that provide benefits to
employees. These benefits are set out in law. The government is
giving employees their benefits under the law. Employees have
never absorbed any deficits, and therefore the surpluses do not
belong to them.
One of the primary indications of the supreme court's thinking
is a case involving the Province of Quebec, which availed itself
of the surpluses in an insurance fund. The supreme court
indicated the surpluses belonged to the province.
* * *
[English]
TOBACCO
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
As the minister knows, billions of dollars in the new CPP
investment fund is now being invested to reflect the TSE 300
index and that includes investment in Imperial Tobacco through
its parent company Imasco. As members know, Imperial Tobacco is
targeting young people, trying to addict them to cigarettes.
Does the minister agree that it is morally and ethically wrong
to link, at least in part, the quality of seniors' pension plans
in the future to addicting young people to cigarettes today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health has set out a very extensive
program in terms of education in order to convince young people
not to smoke. That is, indeed, the proper course of action.
As far as the CPP is concerned, the government has made it very
clear that there will not be government interference in the
administration or, in fact, the investment. That is what all
Canadians want to ensure happens.
* * *
DEVCO
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
pension plan for Devco miners is based on years of service plus
the miner's age, totalling 75. Miners who have as many as 27
years of working in the mines but who started young will not
qualify for a pension. Yet someone who is older and has only
worked for 16 or 17 years will get a full pension.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources commit to providing a
pension to all miners with 20 years experience in the Devco
mines?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the terms that we have put forward in the human
resources package with respect to Devco fully meets all of the
requirements of the collective agreements that are in place with
Devco's unions.
Recognizing that there are some anomalies whenever we have to
draw a line in terms of pension or other benefits, we have also
added to our package a severance package which is $30 million
larger than the bare requirements the collective agreement would
require.
Accordingly, we believe we have a package that meets—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Perth—Middlesex.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The opposition has been questioning the quality of our military
equipment that is being sent to the area of former Yugoslavia.
The auditor general also commented on this in his annual report.
Would the minister tell the members of the House of Commons
about this equipment.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question
because the opposition does not seem to have it right.
We do have the best possible equipment. It is all recent
vintage and all purchased within the last nine years. People are
being authorized to use it for peacekeeping. We have the Coyote,
the Griffon helicopter, the Eryx system and the Bison vehicles.
All of them are down at the Cartier Drill Hall right now.
I invite all hon. members to go from this House after question
period, board the buses and go down and have a look at the
equipment we are giving to our fine, dedicated men and women to
use on this peacekeeping mission.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary to the minister of Indian affairs
continues to try and persuade us that provincial laws will apply
when it comes to the rights of Nisga'a women.
I want to read to him chapter 2, section 13(a) which states:
in the event of an inconsistency or conflict between this
Agreement and the provisions of any federal or provincial law,
this Agreement will prevail—
1500
I ask the parliamentary secretary again, why has the government
abandoned the rights of Nisga'a women when it negotiated this
historic treaty?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Family Relations Act of British Columbia continues to apply
and will apply to those relations in British Columbia.
The member is correct when he suggests for example that the real
property division as a question of matrimonial rights is not
expressly written in this act. We tried to deal with that in
Bill C-49, protecting those women's rights in this case in
British Columbia, and he voted against them.
* * *
[Translation]
AMATEUR SPORT
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, an article in La Presse, whose heading I cannot repeat
in the House, explained that the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Canadian Heritage erred—and that is putting it
mildly—on the issue of the shocking dismissal of Danièle
Sauvageau.
How can the parliamentary secretary explain that, according to
him, the government cannot and must not get involved, out of
respect for the autonomy of the Canadian Hockey Association,
when his colleague from Bourassa, the former future minister
responsible for sports, would like the government to take
vigorous action?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, some
team members disagree with the hon. member.
I would like to quote Thérèse Brison, who was team captain in
1998-99, and chairs the high level committee on women's sports.
She supported the approach by the Canadian Hockey Association,
pointing out that it was part of a master plan for the
development of some of our high level trainers.
Nathalie Drolet, another member of the team, voiced a similar
opinion. While recognizing Ms. Sauvageau's strengths, she added
“She must give up her position for the advancement of our
sport”.
The government has no business selecting trainers.
* * *
[English]
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
colleagues and I have always been lukewarm in the support of Bill
C-55, believing it did not go far enough in providing sufficient
protection for the Canadian magazine industry. We now know that
it has been on the negotiating table with the American trade
representatives, a very precarious place to protect Canadian
culture.
The government says it is respecting the spirit of the bill, but
we are afraid that there is nothing left but the ghost.
Can the minister explain how relaxing Canadian content
requirements and encouraging foreign ownership protects Canadian
culture?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the government
certainly supports the bill that is currently in the other place.
The meeting that concluded yesterday was the eighth meeting
among American and Canadian officials to try to look at a number
of the concerns. I would have to say there is good faith on both
sides and there has been progress. Now the work of these
officials will go to individual ministers and individual
governments. At the end of the day, I think there is every
possibility of doing the right thing for the magazine industry as
well as protecting all of our important sectors.
* * *
1505
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to ask the government House leader about the
nature of the business for the remainder of this week and the
business for next week, and whether or not that business will
include some legislation or some change in the standing orders
relating to televised committees.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the last item, about an hour
ago I offered to the hon. member to have a meeting on this
subject. House leaders will be getting together. Our staff are
already working to arrange that.
Getting back to the actual government business, this afternoon
we shall continue with report stage of Bill C-66, the housing
legislation. We hope we will be able to complete that bill.
Tomorrow the business of the House will be Bill S-22, respecting
preclearance. In order to do that, there will have to be a
consent motion which I intend to propose to the House immediately
after this statement.
On Monday we will have an allotted day.
On Tuesday we hope to begin report stage of Bill C-71, the
budget bill.
The items that we will deal with after that would include the
following: Bill C-66, which again is the housing legislation and
we hope by then it will be at third reading; Bill C-56, Manitoba
land claims; and Bill C-68, the youth justice legislation. The
exact timing is to be determined as events unfold, that is, how
quickly we can pass the bills in question.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual
consultations with all the parties and I believe that you would
find unanimous consent for the following, that Bill S-22—
The Deputy Speaker: If the government House leader could
wait until I have read the message from the Senate bringing the
bill to the House, which has not yet happened.
Are we concluded with the questions? The hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to House
business and the conduct of House business, I just want to say
that I was in Toronto with the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade on WTO hearings. I was very
disappointed to notice that in my absence the government moved
closure on the public service pensions bill after only four hours
of debate. That is a shameless way to conduct House business as
far as I am concerned.
The Deputy Speaker: I thought the hon. member had a
question but perhaps not. The hon. House leader for the official
opposition on a point of order.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, why not? If my colleague
from the NDP wishes to take House time on this issue, we too
would like to say that the government is yet again calling time
allocation on such an important bill. In particular—
The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order.
The hon. member rose on a question which turned out not to be a
question. Frankly it was out of order. I think we ought to
move on. This is business question time and it was not a
business question so we will move on.
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the
House that a message has been received from the Senate informing
this House that the Senate has passed certain bills to
which the concurrence of this House is desired.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I will have to explain what I am rising on. Apparently some
people I consulted with may not have transmitted the message.
The bill that you just reported from the Senate was to have been
reported yesterday. Apparently there was an error at some point
and the message from the Senate only arrived at this House now.
This means that we could not deal with Bill S-22 tomorrow and it
would be delayed until Monday. This would force us to have the
allotted day tomorrow, which I do not imagine many members would
want.
1510
Therefore I seek unanimous consent for the following:
That Bill S-22, an act authorizing the United States to preclear
travellers and goods in Canada for entry into the United States
for the purposes of customs, immigration, public health, food
inspection and plant and animal health, as reported earlier this
day from the Senate, be deemed read a first time and placed on
the Order Paper for consideration at the next sitting of the
House.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table
in both official languages a number of order in council
appointments made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to 11 petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 73rd report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
leaks of committee reports prior to their presentation in the
House. This report results from a series of questions of
privilege and points of order raised in the House in December
1998.
[Translation]
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present in both official languages the
sixteenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Pursuant to its order of reference dated April 20, 1999, the
committee has adopted Bill C-71, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 16,
1999, and has agreed to report it with amendments.
* * *
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-504, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(prohibited sexual acts).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this
private member's bill which proposes to amend the section of the
Criminal Code dealing with prohibited sexual acts committed with
children or in the presence of children, and would prohibit such
acts where they are committed with children under the age of 16.
It would essentially raise the age of consent for sexual activity
from 14 to 16 years. It would also provide for a minimum
sentence of five years imprisonment for anyone convicted of an
offence under sections 151 and 152 of the Criminal Code.
Given the recent ruling about child pornography in B.C. and the
presentation of a petition of over 100,000 signatures calling for
the protection of the most vulnerable members of our society from
sexual abuse, I think this House will find this bill very timely.
I look forward to receiving the full support of all parties. I
thank the member for Kelowna for seconding this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1515
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-505, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child
adoption expenses).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very please to present this bill to
the House. It proposes to allow a taxpayer a deduction for
expenses related to the adoption of a child.
Adoption is a gentle option to ensure that a child can be placed
with loving parents. Adoptive parents often face significant
costs when they embark on adoption, but out of pocket adoption
expenses are not tax deductible even though adoption is a
significant social contribution.
An environment where there is a mom and a dad is an environment
where children thrive. Adoption is also very cost effective at a
time when we are seeing so many single parents and teen
pregnancies.
The bill is in appreciation for the social contribution that
adoptive parents make and recognizes the inequities that adoptive
parents face.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) Mr. Speaker, I
move that the 70th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs presented on Tuesday, April 20, 1999, be
concurred in.
It is a pleasure to rise and debate the 70th report of the
procedure and House affairs committee. Those who have been
watching regularly on television and our regular attenders in the
House realize what is happening. They realize we are debating a
report from committee for quite a few reasons.
I would like to go through some of the reasons committee work,
the important work of committees, needs to be highlighted during
motions under Routine Proceedings. The Reform Party has been
highlighting the issue for several days to point out to the
government some of the failings in the democratic system and in
the parliamentary system.
Why do we need to debate this committee report? I would argue
that committees demand a great deal of time, money and energy
from both members of parliament and from parliament itself. Yet
the reports are largely ignored.
If we just take its number, it is the 70th report of the
procedure and House affairs committee. It has been tabled in the
House, expecting a response from the government. As is often the
case, it will be ignored. There will be no earth shattering
changes made to the system. There will not be a response from
the government.
By and large, especially on reports from committees, the
government seems to take them as something tabled at the clerk's
table which goes into never-never land, never to be seen again.
A couple of examples come to mind right off the bat. I remember
a unanimous report that was brought forward by the natural
resources committee back in the days when I was on that
committee. It was called Keep Mining Off the Rocks. All
parties agreed to it. They came forward and made about a dozen
recommendations to the government. We brought it forward to the
House and tabled it. Guess what? Not one of those
recommendations was followed up on.
Members of all parties on that committee did all that work. They
heard all the witnesses. There were all the expenses and all the
time spent, the give and take. It was the best of democracy, we
would think. The voice of Canadians was represented in the
committee. They did detailed work and brought forward a report.
It was given to the government with a plea from all parties,
Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Reform and so on. It was laid before the
House and not one of the recommendations made it into government
policy or even, it seems, got a response from the government.
Another example is the recent 48th report—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am reluctant to
interrupt the hon. member for Fraser Valley, but I am sure he
recognizes the report he has moved concurrence in has to do with
the selection of votable items in Private Members' Business.
I have to admit that in all the time of his speech so far I have
not heard Private Members' Business mentioned once or votable
items or any criteria.
1520
I know he wants to address the report he has moved concurrence
in. I would invite him perhaps to direct his attention to the
words of the report and tell us a little about that.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I started by mentioning
that the 70th report deals with Private Members' Business. I am
building the foundation of why this report is an important one. I
am talking about the importance of the work of committees.
This committee's 70th report is no less important than any other
committee's work. A subcommittee of the procedure and House
affairs committee diligently goes about its work. It sacrifices
its time and energy. It calls witnesses. There is give and take
in committee and again it is brought forward. I am just building
the argument. The trouble is that all that work is for naught.
The work of that committee on the 70th report talks about
criteria for Private Members' Business. It talks about bills
being drafted in clear, complete and effective terms. They must
be constitutional. They must concern matters of significant
public interest and so on.
I do not have any quibble with that report. The report is fine.
The problem we are talking about is that in general reports come
into the House and go into a dark hole, never to be seen again.
I will continue to build the case, the background, the
underpinnings of this argument. Another report dealt with was
the televising of committee work. It was the 48th report of the
same committee. It was a unanimous report brought forward to the
House of Commons. It talked about how we got together.
I was on that committee and spent more than a month there. We
listened to procedural experts. We listened to constitutional
experts. The press gallery made presentations. We listened to
people from the print media. We talked on and on.
The conclusions we came to were unanimous. The government whip
was on that committee. The chief opposition whip was on that
committee. There were 15 or 17 members from all parties of the
House on the committee which brought forward this case.
As I mentioned earlier, the unanimous report, the 48th report,
talked about televised committees. What has happened to it? What
has happened to the televised committee report? Absolutely
nothing.
Recommendations were brought forward that all of us had agreed
to. They talked about the need to show democracy at work. MPs
spent all this time in committee. There are committees, right
now as we speak, that are diligently doing their work, the give
and take in committee. Who knows about it? We cannot even get a
Hansard from committees any more.
The televised committee alternative that all parties agreed to
has gone nowhere. It has been ignored by the government. It has
been sitting in its hands for weeks. There has been no response.
The silence is deafening.
We are talking about the 70th report on Private Members'
Business today. These types of reports are abused by the
government. Often they involve busy work, work given by the
government to members of parliament to keep them occupied while
the government does what it darn well pleases.
Nothing comes of a committee report on a good subject matter. A
good mandate has been given by the House or by the committee. A
study sometimes involves hundreds of thousands of dollars and
hundreds of hours. It involves the testimony of witnesses,
written reports, give and take, and all that I mentioned earlier.
What comes of it? Nothing. It is something that keeps people
busy, but it does not have an impact on this place because it is
ignored by the government.
When decisions are made in committee no one even knows what
happens to the recommendations. I was in a committee the other
day and a parliamentary secretary, who should know better, stood
and asked how we could make sure something happened to the
recommendations.
I had to break the news to the poor fellow. I told him it would
be tabled in the House and that nothing would happen to it. It
would be tabled in the House with our unanimous support. The
government would take a look at it and probably one person in one
office would say “I do not like it”. Then it would go into
that big round filing cabinet, never to be seen again. That is
what would happen to it. That is the sadness of the committee
report system.
That is why the 70th report, another piece of good work, is
largely ignored.
1525
An hon. member: You educated the parliamentary secretary?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: I do not know if we can educate the
parliamentary secretary, although he was shocked to hear the news
that his report would never be seen again.
This report deals specifically with Private Members' Business.
Even Private Members' Business is no longer dealt with fairly in
committees. This particular committee, the subcommittee, is not
the problem. The problem is what happens to the Private Members'
Business that is generated by this process.
The 70th report talks about the guidelines and the types of
bills it will consider. It chooses which ones are votable. They
come into the House. We often pass that same bill. We send it
off to committee, and then what happens to that bill in
committee?
I have seen it happen before. People bring in a bill. It
passes at second reading. All of us give a standing ovation. We
do not even care what it is about, hardly, because we are so
thrilled that one actually got passed in this place and that the
government whip did not hammer to stop it. We finally send it
off to committee, thrilled that the subject matter will actually
be discussed and a private member will actually see some fruition
to all labour he or she put into an idea and into a bill.
What happens to it? Let me give the House a couple of examples.
The hon. member for Mississauga East had exactly that success
with Bill C-251, a justice bill concerning consecutive
sentencing. I was here when the bill was passed. I saw the
standing ovation for the hon. member for Mississauga East. I was
one of those standing. I was thrilled.
It was a great bill. I supported the bill. I thought the
essence of it captured the Canadian desire to have the justice
system reflect more accurately our desire that people who commit
consecutive serious crimes again and again should be given
consecutive sentences. I thought it was a good bill.
It was sent off to the justice committee and what happened? The
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs met on March 24,
one month ago, and in three minutes eliminated every clause of
her bill and voted to report it back to the House as a blank
piece of paper.
Let us imagine that. Three years of work by the hon. member for
Mississauga East and it was all for naught. Private Members'
Business is the root of how business came to the original mother
of parliaments. The hon. member brought it into the House and
got a glowing standing ovation. It was sent off to committee and
the committee destroyed it in three minutes.
One of the reasons they got away with that is that the
proceedings of committees are not televised. Let us imagine the
change in attitude, the smirks on the faces of those who
eliminated the clauses of her bill, if they had to smirk in front
of the television cameras for all Canadians to see. Let us
imagine their attitude when someone stood and asked if they
realized that three years of work by this member of parliament is
being destroyed in three minutes. They should smirk then on CTV
news. They should smirk then while The National on CBC has
them covered. They should go ahead and gloat over their ability
to destroy this person's bill when the television cameras are
present.
They have not adopted the 48th report about televising
committees. They know they can act almost with impunity because
no one is there to report on them. We cannot see all this
happening. Members of the public and members of parliament read
about it in a paper a few days later, saddened by what went on,
but no one is there under the watchful eye of the television
camera to make sure they are acting democratically and properly.
Another example is that the hon. member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge brought forth Bill C-235. This was a
little different. I was as thrilled as all members and gave him
a standing ovation when it passed and was sent off to committee.
I did not happen to support the bill but that was not the issue.
The issue was that the House should have to deal with that bill.
That was the point. I do not agree with every bill in this place
but the House should have to deal with them.
Instead the bill got sent to committee. On April 15, about two
weeks ago, that hon. member was subjected to the humiliation of
answering the question of how many years had he worked on the
bill. In five minutes committee members made a blank page out of
the whole thing and destroyed the bill. They nuked every clause
out of that bill and will report it back to the House as a blank
piece of paper and let the House deal with it.
Of course, when it comes back here, there is nothing to deal
with.
It has all been eliminated in committee. There is nothing we can
do. It is a complete waste of Private Members' Business time.
It is a complete waste of the committee's time. It is a complete
waste of the democratic process when a mockery is made of it by
handling important Private Members' Business in this manner.
1530
I again refer to the 70th report, which is what we are debating
at this moment. The 70th report lays out the criteria for
important Private Members' Business. It tells members how to get
a bill approved, how to move it through the system and what kind
of bill will be approved. When the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge brought that forward, jumped through
all the hoops, made the case, got the approval of the House and
did everything that the report demanded, what happened? It was
sent off to committee, only to be seen again as a blank piece of
paper. That is unbelievable.
The 70th report, as good as it might be, is no good to anyone
because that is what happens to Private Members' Business.
The fourth point I would like to make as to why we need to
debate this report from the committee is that we need to report
this in the House at this time because no one else will ever see
what the report is about. Reports are tabled routinely during
Routine Proceedings day after day: the 50th report, the 60th
report, the 70th report. I do not know what number we are up to
today. The report is simply tabled, and that is the end of it.
It is gone. It is worse than cyberspace. We cannot even press
the undo button. It is gone, never to be seen again.
Most Canadians have no idea of the important work of committees.
They are not televised. For some reason the Liberals will not
allow them to be televised. They are not reported. We have to
choose this type of venue to debate it because there is no other
way of bringing this important committee work to the attention of
the Canadian people. The House is televised and that is why we
have to do it here.
Would it not be better to televise the committee hearings and
let Canadians make their own judgment about what goes on in
committees? They can watch their MPs at work. I am not simply
talking about a big committee like finance, which will spend
$600,000 or $700,000 touring the country on a prebudget
propaganda tour. What about the other committees, the good
committees which deal with agriculture, transport, public works,
scrutiny of regulations and all of the things that go on behind
the scenes? All of that is ignored because there is not a
television camera allowed. That is bad.
This morning we had the privilege of listening to Mr. Václav
Havel address parliament. He talked quite a bit about democracy.
I sat in my seat to listen to his speech. One of the senators
who was sitting in the middle aisle came over to the Reform House
leader and I and said “Over in the Senate, over in the other
place, we televise all of our committee hearings. You are the
great bastion of democracy here, so why do you not televise your
own committees?” He laughed and said “You guys give us the
gears about the Senate, but we are more open and more public with
our committee hearings than in the Commons”.
I hung my head low and I thought to myself “What do I say to an
unelected senator, who is not accountable to anyone, who is there
by the grace of the Prime Minister's blessing, who tells me about
televised and democratic committee hearings that the public can
catch any time they like?” They can turn on the television set
and it is right there. Here we are, hanging our heads, saying
“Unless it is in one particular room it will not be televised.
I guess the Senate does it better than we do”. What a shameful
comment.
I slunk back to my seat and listened to a pillar of democracy
talk about openness, transparency and all of the things that we
should have in our committee system, which we do not.
My fifth point is that at times when democracy reigns, when
television cameras come into committee, it is a nice, refreshing
breath of fresh air. Yesterday the major networks in the country
fought for most of the day to have the defence hearing televised
so they could attend, bring in their cameras and so on.
They spent the day struggling with government authorities, asking
why they could not televise the defence hearing.
1535
We are in the middle of a war in Kosovo. Does the government
not think the defence committee hearings might be of interest,
not only to the media, but probably to several million Canadians
who are worried about the future of our defence corps, our
Canadian forces?
They fought for a day until they finally got in. What happened?
Both the government and the opposition got a clip on the news. I
thought it made the whole thing. It did not paint anybody in a
bad light. It brought some light to the situation. It was a
fine example of how it could be in years to come.
I will close by quoting Robert Hutchins, a former president of
the University of Chicago, who edited the great books of western
civilization. He said:
The death of democracy is not likely to be as assassination from
ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference,
and undernourishment.
In our attempts to make our committee work more democratic and
more open, I urge the House to adopt both the 70th and 48th
reports which deal with the televising of committees so that we
can nourish those committees, make them more democratic, more
open, more available to the Canadian people, and I ask that we do
that without any delay.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was very pleased to listen to my colleague who spoke
about the issues surrounding what happens in committees. Having
been one of three people from the Reform Party who sat on the
procedure and House affairs committee which dealt with televised
committees, I can only say that the frustration is growing more
and more every day.
The problem is, when members from all parties in a committee
agree on a concept, it comes into the House and it dies. I note
that the government whip was there and he agreed to it. I
presume that these folks are just as knowledgeable as we are as
far as what has to take place. Now the question in the House and
in committees as well is: Should we even be here? If we
develop a report, put all of our ideas together and come to a
unanimous consensus, only to have it die because someone in
cabinet kills it, should we even bother?
I note that the recommendations coming from the report on
televised committees were very good. This was to be a pilot
project for the coverage of committees, with 24 hours' notice.
There was a sunset clause that it would end this June. There
were constraint criteria, such as those televising the committees
would obey the rules. It would be gavel to gavel coverage of the
whole committee meeting. It would be objective coverage.
The only recommendation which was made that put some negative
light on it was that the committee did not want to renovate one
particular room because of the cost and the fact that the House
of Commons will soon be under renovation.
What happens? The government House leader says “I do not like
this report. What we will do is renovate a room”. That was the
very recommendation to which the committee said no. Not having
been at any of the meetings, I suppose he could have read the
report, but I doubt that he did.
Is this just an issue of televised committees, or is there
something bigger at stake? I will leave it at that because that
is the important question.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform House leader
has cut right to the nub of the question, which is: What is the
big issue about committees? Is it just that we need more
television cameras? Is it an ego thing for parliamentarians?
What is the issue?
1540
It is not about televising committees, although that is
critically important. It is very important that we at least keep
up with the Senate in our ability to communicate with Canadians
about the work of this place. That is important, but it is not
just about televising committees, it is about the work of all
committees.
Perhaps 10% of members of parliament are present now in the
House. Why is that? Are they off having tea and crumpets at the
Empress Hotel? No, they are off at committee, doing important
work. They are having clause by clause discussions on bills.
They are proposing amendments to legislation. Members are
bringing forward proposals on policy initiatives. They are
investigating the role of Canada in Kosovo. They are asking the
defence minister to explain where the money is being spent and
how we are protecting our soldiers. Members are doing all of
this important work.
We will not know about most of it. Even if we had a television
camera in front of us we could not watch the hearings. We cannot
see the work, the hours, the money, the expertise and the
witnesses that we fly here at great public expense, and the
devotion to the subject matter which is shown by members from all
parties in the House. Members bring different perspectives and
often come to a unanimous conclusion after hearing witnesses and
having a clause by clause debate. A lot of work is involved in
coming to a unanimous conclusion.
Then what happens? The report is tabled in the House with much
fanfare. Maybe there is a press conference downstairs. We all
say that it was a satisfying bit of work. We came to parliament
to help change the system and propose things to make Canada
better. What happens? Nothing. The fact that nothing happens
is the big issue.
Reports are prepared, work is done, effort is expended, dollars
are expended and hours are wasted because the reports gather
dust. That is a shame. What we should have is a vibrant
discussion, under the full light of television cameras, so that
members of parliament can be seen by their constituents back
home.
Our constituents could see us deliberating, for example, an
important agricultural issue. The member for Portage—Lisgar
might be debating the future of the wheat board, the future of a
farm subsidy program, the railway and so on. The member could
say to his constituents “Watch tomorrow morning at noon because
I will be going to work for you. You will be seeing me in
action. Tomorrow I will represent our constituency on that
important issue”.
The big issue is that no one knows about it. No one can see it.
When a report is finally drafted, nothing happens. That is the
big issue. That is why reports should be dealt with. They
should at least merit a response from the government in a timely
fashion.
There is a list, which is too long to go into, of dozens of
reports that have been tabled in this place. The response from
the government, at best, was: “We had a look at it and we are
not going to do it”. That brings the work of parliamentarians
into question. That is unfortunate. As I mentioned earlier,
democracy does not die usually a violent death; it dies by
apathy, neglect and undernourishment.
I say that the light of television cameras would do something to
reverse that. It would nourish democracy. It would give
strength and importance to the work of all members of parliament,
so that it would not appear that we simply gather here for
question period. The work we do would be noticed and would make
a difference in the Government of Canada.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
I go to schools and talk to children about the workings of
parliament I tell them that very important work takes place in
committees. I would like to be able to continue to tell them
that. However, from what I have been hearing from my colleagues,
committees are not always relevant. I believe the discussion
today is about relevance.
Standing Order 109 states:
Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing
or special committee, the government shall, upon the request of
the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto.
1545
All too often what is deemed to be a comprehensive report turns
out to be totally ignored or, as has been so eloquently expressed
here, it is tossed in the dustbin. It speaks volumes to the
relevance or irrelevance of the work of committees. I would like
my colleague's comments on that.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, that standing order, one
of the rules we work under here in the House, is exactly as the
member described. There is a requirement for the government to
respond but often that response is “We are going to take a
little more time to look at it” or “We appreciate the work you
have done thank you very much, we are sure looking this over”. I
would bet they are just sweating late at night over there in the
Langevin building going over it clause by clause.
It reminds me of Standing Order 108, another rule that committee
members can use to bring subject matters to the committee. We
gather signatures from the opposition parties. We get a subject
matter or a witness to come before the committee. That is
supposed to give us some influence on this side but often what
happens is the government will say “Thank you for that request.
We know you have the right to do it”, but guess what? The
committee goes in camera.
When a committee goes in camera that means not only are there no
television cameras, there are no witnesses, there is no
Hansard, there is nothing. At that time the committee
makes a decision on whether we get to hear our witness or not,
and guess what? There is always a majority of government members
on a committee and guess what? They always turn it down. I
should not say always, but 90% of the time.
Standing Orders 108 and 109 are examples of a government that
says it wants to keep us busy, but when it comes to the nub of
the issue or if we get too close to home and it looks like we are
about to strike a political point, there is a dust gathering area
that is sifting down as we speak on a layer of books as high as
an elephant's eye.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I know my hon.
colleague is most anxious to take part in the debate once more.
On the matter of the debate on the 70th report raised by my
colleague the hon. whip of the official opposition, the 70th
report of the procedure and House affairs committee is an
excellent report, one that we collectively worked on very
closely. There was some give and some take but ultimately I
believe we have contributed to a report that enhances private
members' business.
The chair of that subcommittee, the member for
Waterloo—Wellington who is with us today, and other colleagues
from all parties who work on that committee I think will find
this contributes to the process in a very positive way.
While I wholeheartedly support the strong and sincere view of
the member who spoke previously about the worthiness and
importance of committee work—
An hon. member: What about report 48?
Mr. Bob Kilger: I am being asked to comment on another
report. I know the Chair wants me to remain relevant to the
report at hand, but I know he will allow me some flexibility in
presenting my case and also to expand it to some other reports
that in the end will ultimately contribute to this discussion.
The 70th report is an excellent report. I remain optimistic that
this report will meet everyone's expectations and in fact will be
concurred in. I have no doubt. I am quite optimistic. Having
said that, I do not want to take up any more House time without
diminishing the significance and importance of the 70th report.
I do believe the government will respond within the 150 days in a
favourable way.
Briefly on the 48th report, I am a member of that committee. I
concurred and was part of that unanimous report. I can share
some of the frustrations that my colleagues opposite have about
that. We did not quite make it all the way that day.
1550
Notwithstanding that we did not quite get it all done through
that report, I think we have made a substantive contribution to
ultimately in the end arrive at the objective. The ultimate
objective is to have more televising of committees. We will get
there. The fact that we did not get there right now does not
discourage me one iota. Does it frustrate me a little bit? Oh
yes, I wish we had it done, wrapped up and delivered, but we are
not quite there. There is a little adversity.
The Deputy Speaker: The chief government whip is getting
carried away with his rhetoric, but I remind him that the report
we are debating is not on televising of committees, it is on
private members' business and I know he will want to return to
that. Perhaps he is building a foundation, but we are all
looking forward to the superstructure.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I said everything that I
could about the importance and the quality of the 70th report. I
know that the House also anxiously wants to get back to the
business of the House, Bill C-66, the very important National
Housing Act. Therefore, I move:
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I have had discussions with the government House leader who
indicated that he is now prepared to negotiate even further and
help this along on Monday. In view of that, we will not be
standing for a vote this time, but we do expect some action on
Monday.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House resumed from April 28, 1999 consideration of Bill
C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential
amendment to another act, as reported (without amendment) from
the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in
the debate on Bill C-66 and specifically the proposed amendments
to the bill as outlined in Group No. 1.
I would like to begin by raising the broad issue of housing in
this country today. I do not think there is anyone in this House
who will deny that there is a housing crisis in Canada. In fact,
many would go beyond simply calling it a crisis. The mayors of
capital cities right across the country have called it a national
disaster and the facts bear that out.
More than 100,000 Canadians are homeless. We know the situation
facing our aboriginal community both off reserve and on reserve.
The backlog of houses in first nations communities in the north
exceeds 4,500.
Communities right across the country especially in our inner
cities and older neighbourhoods, have a major problem in terms of
the housing stock.
In my constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, we are faced with
what can only be described as such a deplorable situation that a
state of emergency should be declared. This is not unique to
Winnipeg North Centre. My community represents the same kind of
concerns we see from one end of the country to the other.
There are vacant and boarded up houses. Houses and buildings
have become targets just waiting for arsonists. I do not need to
tell the House that there is a very high incidence of arson in my
community and in other communities across the country with the
deplorable situation in terms of housing stock and the many
boarded up vacant houses.
1555
We are talking about absentee landlords. We are talking about
lack of dollars being provided either by government or from an
individual's own disposable income for renovations and upkeep.
We are talking about drastically dropping market values for
housing in some of our inner cities and older neighbourhoods. We
are talking about red circling by insurance companies which makes
it very difficult to purchase the necessary protection for one's
house. We are talking about insurmountable barriers to home
ownership.
All of those factors have to be noted in this debate because
they are taking a devastating toll. It is so apparent through
the bill before us today that this government pays no heed. At
the precise moment when the need is the greatest our federal
government is pursuing a policy of abandonment.
Let us not forget it is federal withdrawal from the areas of
public housing, social housing, co-operative housing and
non-profit housing that in very large measure has caused this
crisis in the first place. Why then would the government do more
of the same? Why at a time of crisis would the government do the
opposite of what is required?
Why would this government retreat even further from its
responsibilities as it is doing in Bill C-66? Why at precisely
the moment when this country needs a national housing strategy
and national housing standards would this government introduce
measures to complete its policy of abandonment?
In my community, as I am sure is the case in other centres
across the country, citizens and community organizations are
trying to fight back. In the true spirit of Winnipeg's north
end, citizens are banding together to find co-operative,
collective, community based solutions.
Neighbourhood patrols are springing up. There are economic
development initiatives. Housing renewal projects are developing
in response to this critical situation. But the federal
government is not participating, supporting, encouraging and
ensuring that we can come up with realistic solutions to this
very grave problem. Why will this government not support this
spirit of community and pride of neighbourhood?
We are focusing in this debate on a government that refuses to
see what is happening around it and refuses to recognize that it
must be part of the solution. Bill C-66 is going in the wrong
direction. It is absolutely the wrong remedy for the critical
situation we are facing. The amendments being proposed by the
Reform Party in this grouping do not make the situation any
better. They will undoubtedly make the situation worse and will
contribute even more to a government policy that is bound and
determined to put everything in the context of the marketplace in
terms of efficiency and competitiveness.
The government has a moral obligation, a political
responsibility and a constitutional obligation to ensure that
Canadians everywhere in the country have the right to adequate
shelter. This bill and these amendments do not satisfy those
requirements.
We are here to try to convince the government, although I know
it seems far-fetched, to withdraw Bill C-66. The measure of good
government and great leadership is in the government's ability to
respond to needs. It is in the ability of a government to
reverse its policies when it can see that the needs are growing,
spreading and becoming critical right across the country.
1600
It is not too much to ask the minister to reverse his policies,
put this bill on ice and go back to the drawing board and start
to look at some of the promises that were actually made to the
people back in 1993.
It is useful to remind the Liberals about their policies in 1993
when they were still in opposition. I want to specifically
mention a letter dated September 22, 1993 signed by the present
Minister of Finance in which he said “Our platform document
provides a framework for government in the 1990s. We believe the
federal government has a positive, proactive role in national
housing policy and the responsibility of accessibility and
affordability to over one million Canadian households living in
need of adequate shelter”.
What happened to that promise? What happened to that election
platform? Why do we have Bill C-66 before us today? Instead of
the amendments that we have before us today, which make the CMHC
more of a competitive force in the marketplace, we should be
seeing amendments to a bill today that reflect the needs in our
communities and make mortgages more accessible to those who are
having a hard time.
I specifically want to implore the government to look at the
whole question of changing the rules and regulations to make it
possible for people on low incomes or on social assistance to be
eligible for home ownership and to be able to benefit from public
policy.
I remind the government that it had promised earlier to consider
changing the arrangements under the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation to address concerns about eligibility of social
assistance recipients for CMHC underwriting. It had promised to
look at the question of sweat equity as a means of satisfying
down payment requirements. We have heard nothing on that front.
What we hear is CMHC becoming more competitive and putting
housing out for export. While the government talks about
exporting housing, people in this country are living in squalid
and deplorable housing conditions.
We want to tell the government to stop and look at its
priorities, look at the needs in the country and recognize that
we absolutely must have leadership from our national government.
We have to have a national housing policy. We are the only OECD
country that does not have a national housing policy. It is
deplorable, it is negligent and it must be addressed.
We urge the government to reconsider this bill and come back
with a progressive, innovative policy to deal with the serious
crisis in our country today.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to various motions presented by my hon.
colleagues.
What we have before us are three visions of the relationship
between the Government of Canada and the CMHC. At one extreme, we
have the amendments being proposed by my colleague from Kelowna
which in my view would seriously undermine the government's
ability to carry out its public policy role in housing which it
fulfils through the renewed mandate of Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation.
Allow me to explain. The Government of Canada is committed to
playing a leadership role in housing. That is why the government
renewed the mandate of its housing agency CMHC and has strengthened
CMHC's ability to fulfill its mandate through amendments to Bill
C-66.
The government understands the importance of helping Canadians
meet their housing needs. We understand the importance of
building a strong, competitive housing industry. We know that
good housing creates sound communities and a strong country. We
know that housing has a major impact on the economy of Canada.
[Translation]
Bill C-66 clearly sets out the public policy objectives of the
CMHC. Permit me to read this extract from the bill:
The purpose of this Act, in relation to financing for housing,
is to promote housing affordability and choice, to facilitate
access to, and competition and efficiency in the provision of,
housing finance, to protect the availability of adequate funding
for housing at low cost, and generally to contribute to the
well-being of the housing sector in the national economy.
I know we have already talked about this, but it is important to
repeat it.
1605
[English]
Surely nobody would dispute the importance of these objectives.
Yet the hon. member proposes changes that would eliminate the
government's ability to regulate CMHC should it be necessary to
do so.
If we were to remove this section of the National Housing Act,
as proposed, we would effectively be reducing the government's
control, in other words the public's control, of CMHC.
I am certain that if my hon. friend thought for a minute about
what he was proposing, he would realize how ridiculous it is to
imply that the public should not have the right to ensure that
CMHC is accountable to them. CMHC is a public institution with a
public policy role, a role that has served Canadians so very well
for over 50 years. To suggest that government control of a
public institution should be reduced is somewhat bewildering.
Bill C-66 will give CMHC the means to carry out its public
policy role more effectively and in a financially prudent manner.
This is what the Government of Canada expects. This is what the
people of Canada deserve. This is what Bill C-66 is all about.
At the other extreme, we have the member from Cape Breton who
would have every decision made by CMHC approved by the governor
in council. Perhaps the hon. member does not realize that to do
so would involve great expense, both in terms of administrative
costs and in the quality of services that the Government of
Canada can offer to Canadians. Indeed, the hon. member would
have the government return to the old days of red tape and heavy
bureaucratic processes at the expense of efficient delivery of
important government services for needy Canadians.
[Translation]
Finally, we have another member of the opposition presenting a
scenario where every service provided by CMHC to individuals and
communities would first have to be approved by the province
concerned. This would limit the Government of Canada to such an
extent that it could not provide Indian reserves with the
services they require without provincial approval.
It could also prevent other Canadians from having access to
federal government measures in areas that were not of interest
to a province.
Let us be clear about it. The benefits arising out of programs
administered by CMHC are, and will remain, subject to the
decisions of this House.
Bill C-66 will modernize the relationship between CMHC and the
Government of Canada. In fact, Bill C-66 requires yearly
approval of the CMHC business plan. This will ensure that CMHC's
actions are in keeping with the wishes and priorities of the
government.
[English]
Moreover, every year the House is involved in approving the
resources given to CMHC to reach out to needy Canadians to
implement those programs that one member would rather see not
regulated at all and that another member would regulate to the
point of administrative paralysis.
Further, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and
the Financial Administration Act clearly confer to the government
oversight in all aspects of the corporation's activities. What
more could the hon. member want? Why, for instance, would we go
so far as to endorse a proposal from the member from Cape Breton
to have potentially every project approved by the governor in
council?
The vision that we are proposing in Bill C-66 is a modern
vision, a vision which will result in government services that
are more responsive to the needs of Canadians and the needs of
their regions, a vision which will better equip CMHC to work
co-operatively with provinces, a vision that at the end of the
day will lead to a more efficient and effective government. That
is a vision that I think every Canadian would support.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, again we rise up in the House to
debate another bill that came from the Liberal government. This
is a piece of legislation that came from the south end of a
north-bound cow. That is exactly where it came from.
1610
The previous member spoke about the hon. member for Bras
d'Or—Cape Breton. The hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton
sees through the government's plans and that is why it is so
upset and is trying to discredit her in any way it can.
The government is again trying to download federal
responsibility for the citizens of this country and load it onto
the provinces. That is absolutely unbelievable.
In Nova Scotia, for example, the government downloaded the
responsibility for social housing onto the backs of the provinces
by saying, “No problem. We are done. We have done a good
deed”. That is exactly what it is trying to do now, only in this
particular case it is making it worse.
The government wants to merge with a company called General
Electric Capital Corporation, a large, foreign-owned
multinational company, so it can do the mortgage insurance part
of it. Not only is the government downloading its responsibility
to the provinces, it is also giving the financial responsibility
away to a foreign multinational corporation. Where is the heart
in the government? It is absolutely unbelievable that it can
continue to do this.
The destruction of the federal role in housing began in the 1991
budget when the then federal Conservatives announced the end of
federal funding for new social housing. As usual, the Liberals
have reformed the Tory policies and have made them even worse.
The Liberal government continued the abandonment of social
housing in 1996 when it began to download social housing back to
the provinces. It concluded downloading agreements with seven
out of the ten provinces. B.C., Alberta and Ontario are
currently the holdouts.
This is just another disguise, another masquerade by the
government to download its responsibility for housing onto the
backs of the provinces and tell the citizens of the country
“Don't worry about it. The provinces will look after you”.
That is absolutely unacceptable and shameful.
Let me put some personal perspectives on this. I come from the
beautiful riding of Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore
in beautiful Nova Scotia. Many people in my riding, as well as
in all of Atlantic Canada, have been hurt by the downturn of the
fishery. These people have lost their homes. There is probably
nothing worse to a family than losing their home, the shelter,
the peace, the security and the ability to bring up their
children in their own home.
What happens when they look for assistance and help from the
government? They go to the federal government and get slapped in
the face one more time. The federal government, with its
Ottawa-central attitude, is saying “Too bad, so sad, make it out
on your own”.
I wonder where the heart is in the government. Whatever
happened to the Pearson days? Whatever happened to those caring
Liberals who cared about Canadian citizens, not just about the
bottom line of foreign national corporations?
We hear the rhetoric from the government time and time again
that it is on the right track; it knows what it is doing. It
tells us not to worry, it can be trusted. It is absolutely
despicable.
Allow me to reread what the current finance minister said while
in opposition; “Dear friends”—I love that term—“Our
platform documents provide a framework for government in the
1990s”. Let me make it abundantly clear that a Liberal
government should be absolutely committed to stable and secure
funding for the non-profit and co-operative housing sector, but
it is not. It has completely abandoned its responsibility.
It gets to the point where we wonder why we even bother coming
here. Are we relevant any more to the Canadian people, except
the government's friends and the party? It goes on and on and
on. Even the UN has discredited our policies when it came to
that.
We have many reports we could speak about, but the abandonment
of housing by the federal government comes at a time when the
need for federal support is even greater. We need support from
the federal government in resources and manpower more than ever.
The Golden report on homelessness stresses that all levels of
government, federal, provincial and municipal, have to co-operate
to put an end to homelessness. What the federal government wants
to do is just abandon its responsibility and say to the provinces
and municipalities “It is your problem, you look after it. We
are just the federal government. We absolutely have no heart. We
do not really care about you anymore”.
1615
The government has proven that in many other industries. It has
proven that in our defence capabilities, in the fishing industry,
in agriculture with the farmers across the country, and small
business. And when it comes to the most basic need of Canadian
citizens from coast to coast to coast, affordable social housing,
the government is abandoning that as well.
The Liberals talk about CMHC, that great corporation, and what
they are going to do. In actuality the government is going to
eliminate any power or control that we as members of parliament
may have. The government is going to stack the CMHC board of
directors full of its Liberal friends. Patronage. The pigs are
at the trough again. They are going to feed at taxpayers'
expense with absolutely no concern for Canadian citizens,
especially those who are most vulnerable.
When I came to Ottawa, and I assume I speak for all 301 of us,
in both official languages I might add, our goal and role in life
was to help those who cannot help themselves. We certainly did
not come here to abuse labour rights. We did not come here to
abuse the environment. We certainly did not come here to neglect
those who cannot help themselves.
Federal social housing is a policy that should be upgraded and
maintained. There should be resources and manpower available in
order to maintain that.
Other than that, what are we going to be telling our children?
What in God's name are we doing here if we cannot help those who
cannot help themselves?
The hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and the hon. member
for Vancouver East are two women who have fought harder for
social housing than anybody else in the country. I am very proud
to be their colleague.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. I
have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been
received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
April 29, 1999
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Peter deC.
Cory, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his
capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate
chamber today, the 29th day April, 1999, at 4.30 p.m., for the
purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-66, an act to amend
the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another
act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of
the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Group No. 1
motions concerning Bill C-66. I should say right from the start
that we are opposed to these amendments.
These amendments attempt to deal with limiting the powers of
CMHC in the commercial insurance market. It is interesting to
note that of these six amendments, several were suggested by GE
Capital in material that was sent out to MPs.
We are concerned about the effect of multinational companies
taking over and influencing the direction in which housing should
go. We notice that the federal government has already stepped
back from the area of social housing. That has certainly given
rise to the problem we see in our society today with respect to
so many homeless people and the conditions that exist in so many
of our communities.
There are a lot of communities throughout Canada where people do
not have adequate shelter over their heads. We know how very
important housing is to every aspect of a child's life.
Children growing up without proper shelter, squeezed into
bedrooms that house more than they should, or perhaps children
not even having an adequate bedroom, all of these things impact
upon the child's ability to pursue their education at school and
to interact socially with others. These things come together to
create some of the social conditions we see today, the many
tragic incidents that are taking place across our country. We
wonder how these things can take place and many times it comes
right back to the root cause that those very basic necessities of
life are not being provided.
1620
We are very much opposed to things which would limit the
potential for social housing and for the government to play a
role. The question here is whose side are we on? Are we on the
side of the large foreign owned multinational companies, or are
we on the side of Canadian families who are looking for
affordable decent housing?
If some of these amendments were to go through, it would
certainly create a climate that would push CMHC to move away from
that kind of risk market and into areas where it felt more
secure. It would back even further away from helping with social
housing.
We cannot say enough about how important it is that the federal
government get back into the area of social housing to provide
much needed accommodation right across our country. Lots of
times when backing away from something people look at the
budgetary reasons and say, “We have to get this deficit down.
We have to cut back so we can bring the finances in line”. They
forget that by cutting so deep, quite often they make the
situation worse.
It is similar to a doctor who performs an operation and in
cutting away a cancer cuts too deep into the bone and creates
another problem. We know if we cut back on the programs to such
an extent that we do not have adequate housing, then those other
problems I mentioned earlier follow, people not being able to
pursue their education, people becoming discouraged about looking
for work. The social problems of people living on the streets,
problems of drugs, needles and getting diseases because of
unsanitary conditions, all of these things will develop. It
escalates.
It is very important that the government assume its
responsibility and role and makes sure there is adequate housing
for all.
All through this bill there are provisions which would remove
any direct government involvement in providing housing for those
in need. Instead of parliament or even the cabinet making
decisions about how best to provide affordable housing, that
authority has been delegated to an appointed board of directors
at the CMHC. Again we are into this whole area of privatizing
everything which is something that disturbs me quite a bit.
In too many areas of public or social responsibility the
government is cutting back and privatizing, putting it out into
the private sector. Consequently government is losing control of
the things that are really within its responsibility to make sure
they are preserved in the best interests of society at large.
We have to look very closely at this whole process where
everything is put out into the private sector as if it could be
done better there than being maintained in the public sector.
When that is done, we are actually putting a vote of
non-confidence in our public service and in the people who work
within that service. We are saying they cannot do things as well
as private business or private industry.
The group of amendments that we are looking at and the kind of
changes in this legislation are all geared in the direction of
giving favour to the private industry as opposed to building up
and enhancing our public service and getting the programs that
are required so that all people can have adequate and affordable
housing.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say a few words in this debate on the housing
bill.
I ask publicly of the senior minister in the House today, the
Minister of National Revenue, why has the Liberal Party strayed
so far from its progressive roots of Lester Pearson and Paul
Martin, Sr. when it comes to social policy and social housing?
1625
I remember years ago when the ministry of urban affairs was
created. I was a member of the House when the first policy steps
were taken in the Trudeau years toward more social housing in
Canada. In the last few years it seems to me that the Liberals
have forgotten where they stood in those days when they were more
progressive.
It seems to me that the Reform Party has had a tremendous impact
in setting the agenda, in being the rudder in terms of the new
Liberal policies. The Minister of National Revenue is shaking his
head, I can hear it from here. I think he would probably agree
with what I am saying if we had the kind of parliamentary system
that would allow a bit more freedom and independence for
expressing ourselves in the House.
The Liberal Party at one time was socially progressive, starting
with the great thinkers conference in Kingston many years ago
with Tom Kent. Lester Pearson was leader of the opposition. I
remember people like Eric Kierans in the party and the three
wise men coming out of Quebec, Trudeau, Pelletier and Jean
Marchand. They talked about a new and just society, about
participatory democracy. They swept a young man, the member for
Vancouver South—Burnaby, the Minister of National Revenue, off
his feet and into what he found was a great social democratic
revolution. All of a sudden it went poof and the whole thing
disappeared.
This is an open debate. We have 10 minutes on each of these
amendments. I would like the Minister of National Revenue to
explain why the party has lost its way. This minister is very
ambitious. He wants to take on the Minister of Finance as a
leadership candidate. He wants to challenge Brian Tobin and the
Minister of Health as the left-wing progressive Liberal in terms
of challenging the Minister of Finance for the leadership of the
Liberal Party of Canada.
I think we ought to hear from the Minister of National Revenue
and have him explain what his vision is for social housing and
what his vision is on what we do about homeless Canadians. I am
sure the Reform Party is sitting here with great anticipation to
hear where this Liberal stands.
Just last night I was coming back from a function at the Cuban
Embassy, and I did not see the minister there by the way. I saw
homeless people sleeping under a bridge not too far from
Parliament Hill. They were not Cubans, they were Canadians. These
were homeless people. A number of years ago there were not many
homeless people around the streets of Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal,
Regina or Vancouver. Now there is homelessness.
The government has established a ministry responsible for
homelessness and the minister is from New Brunswick. I want to
know what the vision of that ministry would be. Will there be
funding for that ministry? A New Brunswick member is here in the
House. Perhaps he knows whether or not there will be funding for
that ministry of homelessness. What is the vision? How do we
find homes for people?
We have a government bill before the House today that is going
to be regressive in terms of the amendments. It seems to be
tilted toward the marketplace and commercialization of CMHC in
terms of its lending policies, and the influence of the Minister
of Finance and his conservative bent.
I would like the Minister of National Revenue to tell us what
the vision should be in terms of social housing, homelessness and
what we should do about the number of Canadians who are suffering
from falling incomes. The gap between the rich and the poor has
widened radically in the last five to ten or twelve years. Yet
the government across the way is the government that has made the
most drastic cutbacks in the history of our country in terms of
social programs, particularly health care.
Of course the taxes go up. They go up very unfairly and
indiscriminately. It is an unfair tax system in Canada. Most
taxes are placed on the backs of the people who are least able to
pay them, low income and middle income people.
In any event, we have a lot of time this afternoon. I would
like to sit down now and give the Minister of National Revenue an
opportunity to tell us what his vision is of social housing, what
his vision is in terms of homelessness, what his vision is in
terms of where we should go to narrow the gap between the rich
and the poor. After all, as we all know, he wants to be a
leadership candidate on the left of the Liberal Party. He wants
to challenge the Minister of Finance to the mantle of the
leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. I want to know where
he stands.
1630
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Yesterday I asked a question about whether the votes
would be deferred for each of these groups until the end and that
the vote would be taken at the end of Group No. 3. Is that
correct?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No. Each one will
be done as they come up on a voice vote.
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I asked a question yesterday as to whether all of Group
No. 1 would be deferred until the end of all of the groups, and
the Speaker at that point indicated that would be the case.
I am somewhat confused now that we are taking a vote on each one
of these motions in turn. Yesterday they were grouped and the
understanding given to the House by the Speaker was that they
would all be deferred until after the last motion in Group No. 3.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will deal with the
point of order of the member for Kelowna. All we are doing is
putting the question on the motions in the group that has already
been debated and then the votes will be deferred.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, pardon
the interruption, but there is some problem with simultaneous
interpretation. Would you be so kind as to have this seen to?
1635
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Translation]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to His Excellency the
Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this
honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
1645
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the honour to
inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate
chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her
Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency and to amend and repeal other acts as a
consequence—Chapter 17.
Bill S-25, an act respecting the Certified General Accountants
Association of Canada.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1650
[Translation]
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-66, an act to amend the
National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another
Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Ms. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-66, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 13 on
page 9 with the following:
“(3) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the
Governor in Council, determine the”
That Bill C-66, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 17 on
page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-66, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 28 on
page 10 with the following:
“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the
Governor in Council, determine the”
That Bill C-66, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 44
on page 10 the following:
“(3) The Corporation may only make a loan, contribution or
forgive an amount under subsection (1) for rental housing
projects being built or owned by a non-profit corporation or
cooperative association or for housing projects on reserves, as
defined in the Indian Act.”
That Bill C-66, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 5 on
page 13 with the following:
“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the
Governor in Council, determine the”
That Bill C-66, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 31
to 36 on page 13 with the following:
“(2) Paragraph 75(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the
following:
That Bill C-66, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 20 on
page 14 with the following:
“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the
Governor in Council, determine the”
That Bill C-66, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 3 to
7 on page 15 with the following:
That Bill C-66, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 35 on
page 15 with the following:
“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the
Governor in Council, determine the”
That Bill C-66, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 28 on
page 16 with the following:
“(4) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the
Governor in Council, determine the”
That Bill C-66, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 13 on
page 17 with the following:
“projects owned by public housing agencies, as defined in section
78, non-profit corporations or cooperative associations, and may
forgive amounts owing on”
That Bill C-66, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 15 on
page 17 with the following:
“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the
Governor in Council, determine the”
That Bill C-66, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 5 on
page 18 with the following:
“99.2 The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the
Governor in Council, determine the”
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-66, in Clause 24, be amended by deleting lines 16 to
18 on page 19.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-66, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 13
to 15 on page 15 with the following:
“79. The Corporation may, pursuant to agreements made
between the Government of Canada and the government of any
province, undertake jointly with the government of the province
or any agency thereof or with any public housing”
That Bill C-66, in Clause 34, be amended by adding after line 37
on page 21 the following:
“(3) The Corporation may not exercise any of its powers or
functions under this section within the territorial limits of a
province without having first obtained the agreement of the
government of the province.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-66 is an important bill.
It is intended to give new powers to the Canada Housing
and Mortgage Corporation.
1655
It is paradoxical, to say the least, that we are having to deal
with a bill such as this. I think everyone understands that the
federal government has absolutely no interest in housing.
Before introducing our amendments, I want to remind the House
that the government made a commitment in the 1996 speech from
the throne to withdraw completely from the housing sector.
Government members with us today will remember that, at least I
hope they do.
However, we find a paradox on reading the bill. We discover the
government wants more space and more powers in the housing
sector. It is totally incomprehensible.
It is contradictory to say the least, and completely
inconsistent.
If the bill were passed—and I certainly hope not, but we are
sometimes at the mercy of majorities—it has all the potential to
allow the federal government to establish a national housing
allowance.
I asked the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for the
CMHC, whether it was not somewhat inconsistent that, in the
throne speech, which is a commitment after all, the government
said it wanted to withdraw from this sector, and that
negotiations were even under way to transfer $1.9 billion to the
provinces. The minister replied that, while that was so, there
were some provinces where logic did not apply.
This attitude is a bit hard to understand.
Our amendments, which I hope will be favourably received by the
government, provide that, if the federal government takes action
in the low cost, co-operative or non-profit housing sector in
municipalities in Quebec, we hope that permission will first be
required from the Government of Quebec and the National
Assembly.
The bill contains certain provisions flowing from a clause such
as this, particularly where aboriginals and student loans are
concerned. We hope, through our amendments, to broaden the
scope of what exists already on a smaller scale.
I wish to take this opportunity to ask the federal government,
particular the government members here today—I am thinking of the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration—to bring pressure to bear
so that the negotiations that have been going on with the
Government of Quebec for over two years reach a successful
conclusion.
There is something positively indecent about the federal
government's proposal, and I will explain why.
As we speak, the federal government is spending $362 million
annually in the housing sector, through various CMHC programs.
But this is to completely ignore Quebec's demographic weight.
If the federal government had to adjust its spending to reflect
Quebec's demographic weight, it would be just over 24%, as
everyone knows. It would then have to spend $480 million. The
difference is $117 million.
Nor is it respectful of what used to be termed households with
core housing needs. I would remind members that all the
governments in Quebec, the one the Minister of Immigration
belonged to, as did her friend Mr. Johnson, the government of
Mr. Parizeau and the government of Mr. Bouchard, all these have
made the same demands on the federal government as far as
housing is concerned, namely that they receive a fair share,
taking core housing needs into consideration. Although Quebec
accounts for 24.60% of the population of Canada, it contains 29%
of households in need of core housing.
1700
This has been acknowledged by Mr. Ryan, Mr. Trudel, and all the
housing ministers, one after another, in the National Assembly.
If Quebec had its fair share, taking into account the households
in need of core housing, that would mean it would receive $567
million. I repeat, however, that as we speak what is being
spent is $362 million. This makes no sense at all.
More ridiculous still, the Minister responsible for CMHC and
member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, makes an offer to Quebec,
offering it less than the CMHC spends annually.
This makes little sense. He offers Quebec $289 million, while
at this very moment $362 million is what is being spent.
I hope the voice of Quebec will be able to make itself heard in
this cabinet, that the ministers will get some hold on
themselves and loosen the purse strings a little. Housing is an
important issue. The main cause of poverty is certainly the
amount that our most disadvantaged fellow citizens have to pay
in rent.
Even if there is no official indicator of poverty in Canada, the
National Council of Welfare, along with Statistics Canada,
considers a person poor, and below the poverty line if he or she
is devoting 55% of income to basic necessities, i.e.
accommodation and food.
We live in a society where there have never been so many poor,
and in many cases, of such poverty. We should recall the slogan
of the Liberal government in 1968, which called for a just
society. This is how Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberals made
their entry into government.
These people, who claimed to have a sense of fairness and to
want to live in a fairer society, are becoming dramatically
accustomed to living with a level of poverty that has never been
so high. It is important the federal government give the
provincial governments the money it will transfer so they have
additional resources in the housing sector.
I cannot stress enough with the Liberal ministers that the voice
of Quebec must be heard and negotiations must continue. There
is no need for a bill like this.
If the federal government wants to talk of housing, it will have
the support of the opposition parties. I am sure it will have
the support of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Reform
Party and the New Democratic Party if it wants to make more
money available to the provinces, which should be the real
agents in the area of housing.
There is a major shortage of resources. However the federal
government has a lot of money. After dumping responsibilities,
it has a huge amount of money. In the fight against poverty,
the least it could do is let the provincial governments, with
Quebec in the lead, have some of it.
In all of Canada, as we speak, two provinces are working on
housing development, that is, permitting public housing to be
built.
There is Quebec, with one of the best governments ever assembled
in the National Assembly. Quebec has set aside $42 million for
housing development. Another province has also done so: British
Columbia.
I would ask the Liberal members to vote in support of our
amendments, because it is in the interest of Quebec.
1705
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege to enter the debate on Group No. 2. These amendments
from various members of the opposition parties all essentially
deal with one subject: the governance, the administration and the
devolution of powers with regard to the housing situation in
Canada.
I want to address my remarks primarily to the efficiency, the
accountability and the effectiveness of the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation and the operation of the Government of Canada
with regard to housing.
I notice a number of members of the Liberal Party are here. It
is to their advantage to listen carefully. It would be very good
if all of them were here to listen to some of the comments that
are about to be made.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: I must have hit some kind of chord.
They all agree that they should be here listening to this point.
The government does not have a national housing policy. There
is a little bit here and a little bit there. There is a little
bit in CMHC and a little bit in some other kind of program. There
is no consistent national housing policy.
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been set up
under the National Housing Act to implement the government's
housing policy when in fact there is not one. There is a whole
bunch of hodgepodge itsy-bitsy pieces coming together. Sometimes
they work and sometimes they do not. It is essential that we
have one.
I would like to ask whether the government believes that a
hodgepodge is the best way to meet the housing problem in Canada
today. I submit that it is not. The way to look after housing
and to develop a solution to the housing problem in Canada would
be to give the jurisdiction of this matter to those people who
are closest to the situation and to the problem. That would be
the provinces and the municipal governments.
There is no doubt that is precisely what was addressed by my
hon. colleague who just spoke. It is also a question that has
been raised by the other opposition parties. Huge sums of money
are involved in the business of providing housing. There is also
a huge social problem which needs to be addressed. We need to
ask ourselves what is the best way to resolve this problem.
I commend the city of Toronto that commissioned a major study,
the Golden report which was published in January of this year. It
comes to grips with many of the issues we are dealing with today.
It is not only the city of Toronto that has done good work. The
magazine put out by the Canadian Housing Corporation made some
very interesting points. It indicated that the municipal
governments throughout Canada that are closest to this problem
have probably done a better job of coming to grips with it than
any other level of government.
Surprise, surprise. Of course they have because the problem is
before them virtually every day. It deals with Vancouver and Van
City Place, a 50 unit development for street involved youth.
There is a new development of 40 singles in Toronto in addition
to the Golden report. The city of Montreal is an equal partner
with the province of Quebec on a 50% cost sharing program
designed to improve the quality of housing in central areas.
On a small scale, the city of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, was a
key player in establishing a new affordable home ownership
initiative. The city of Kamloops provides another example.
Working in partnership with the Canadian Legion and a local
developer, the city has provided land on a lease basis for a
seniors condominium.
The city of Edmonton is an active partner in the Edmonton
coalition of the homeless initiative to establish a housing trust
fund. The city of Saskatoon is similarly assisting the
development of a trust fund. The city of Toronto just
established an $11 million capital revolving fund, using money
collected from private developers in return for density bonuses
over the past dozen years.
A variety of cities large and small have shown not only that
they can deal with the issue but that they actually are dealing
with the issue. It is significant that we can demonstrate the
housing issue can be dealt with at the local level and that these
governments are competent, able and willing to deal with the
issue.
1710
The government through Canada Mortgage and Housing has vacated a
large number of these areas. It is confusing. On the one hand
it devolved the problems to the provinces but not with all
provinces. There is another confusion and that is the federal
co-op development that has been happening in Canada. In Ontario
there is a real division. Roughly 50% of the housing
co-operatives are owned by the provincial government, or under
the jurisdiction of the provincial government, and about 50% are
under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
On the one hand the government says it wants to divest itself
and give it all to the provinces. Lo and behold a lobby group is
formed and is successful in saying that the federal co-ops should
stay with the federal government. That is exactly what happened.
The concept of housing co-operatives is a good one. I like it a
lot because it comes to grips with one of the fundamental
principles of housing, the pride of ownership that goes along
with owning a home.
The National Housing Act has given many people the right,
privilege and opportunity to own their own homes. It has been a
benefit to all of them. They have expressed their own
individualism through housing. People who are not as capable or
not as able financially to do that have joined together with
others and have formed a co-operative venture so that they can
own their domicile co-operatively.
There are different kinds of co-operatives. We have mentioned
federal and provincial co-operatives, but there is also those
that are equity co-operatives and those that are non-equity
sharing. People who do not have the resources can get into a
co-op, develop their equity and actually feel they are part of a
co-operative, have an ownership and a direct interest, an equity
interest in the particular place where they live. It makes them
accountable. It makes them responsible. It gives them a sense
of pride as individuals to be able to express themselves in this
way, which is highly desirable.
A better solution to the whole business of social housing might
be to allow these people to own some of it themselves and be able
to share in the management and operation of a particular unit on
a co-operative basis, rather than on a handout basis where it is
given to them virtually without any strings attached and without
any responsibility connected to it.
My colleague was commenting on my speech. I am so happy that he
was impressed with it. I just wish hon. members opposite would
be as impressed as he was. It is good to hear that common sense
is recognized by both sides of the House.
I want to come back to the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation. We need to have accountability. We need to
recognize that accountability is best found if the decisions are
transparent and if the powers of the corporation are somewhat
restricted. The provisions of the bill give almost carte blanche
to the management of Canada Mortgage and Housing to do whatever
it wishes to do, whether it is to get involved as a intermediary
in the financial marketplace or whether it is to have agents and
branches in other countries.
One of the amendments concerns the ability of Canada Mortgage
and Housing to establish branches and agents. It is not
restricted to Canada. They could be established anywhere in the
world. That is not what Canada Mortgage and Housing should be
doing. If the purpose is to establish Canada's national housing
policy, it should not be allowed to establish agents and branches
in a foreign nation somewhere.
The loophole is not closed in this legislation. It is important
for the members opposite to recognize that this is Canada's
mortgage and housing corporation, to implement Canada's national
housing policy, and not some other national policy.
1715
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I will make some brief comments on the amendments in the second
group. I will deal first with the amendments submitted by the
member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Motions Nos. 8, 10 and 20.
If my understanding of the amendments is correct, the intention
is to restrict financial assistance to non-profit and co-op
associations when it comes to encouraging the building of rental
housing projects on reserves.
I firmly support and encourage the involvement of housing co-ops
and other not for profit associations in the provision of rental
housing, such as the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada.
It has been helping to supply Canadians of mixed income with
affordable housing for over 30 years. The government should
continue its commitment to co-op housing as a social policy
instrument.
I should also mention that non-profit and co-ops are not the
only forms of social housing. There are many innovative and
successful private sector solutions for the provision of
affordable housing; everything from large apartment buildings all
the way down to single duplexes owned by small builders. These
small business people should not be excluded from the bill. They
are also important in supplying affordable housing to all
Canadians.
I will now move on to Motions Nos. 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21 and
23. My comments are relatively straightforward on these items.
These motions would create a legislative requirement that cabinet
advise Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on how to
implement certain aspects of its mandate.
I have two thoughts on this. First, I am concerned that these
amendments would place unnecessary restrictions on the CMHC that
would require it to seek cabinet approval every single time the
corporation wanted to assist an individual, group or company in
setting up affordable housing projects.
Second, cabinet already provides policy direction to the CMHC on
many issues. In some cases, cabinet will want to direct the
corporation on how to proceed in certain instances. However,
when and how cabinet should intervene should be at the discretion
of cabinet and not be written inflexibly into the legislation.
On Motion No. 17, the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton has
suggested that we specify the type of housing projects in section
78 to be low rental housing projects. I have no trouble with
this amendment as it spells out in clearer language the intent of
the act with respect to the development and financing of public
housing. I certainly see no great demand among Canadians that
the government should be involved in financing upscale housing,
so I would be pleased to support this amendment.
The next two motions I would like to speak to are Motions Nos.
17 and 35 put forward by the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I understand the intention of the member
with respect to the intrusion of the federal government into
areas of provincial jurisdiction.
It was just last year that we had to deal with a senseless and
unprecedented program called the millennium scholarship fund.
This was a unilateral and unwarranted invasion of Canada's
provincially-run education system. First, the government slashed
educational transfers to the provinces by 40%, and then, to add
insult to injury, it kept most of the money for itself and
started a new program to solve the lack of money in education, a
problem it created in the first place. However, the program was
not universal for all students as were the educational transfers
it replaced.
Much of the budget for the program will be eaten up in new
administrative costs. This program has set federal-provincial
relations back several years. This is certainly not a nightmare
that my party and I would like to see repeated. I think my hon.
friend and I are in agreement on this.
1720
Where I differ from him is whether or not a real threat exists
in this bill that would allow the government to create another
millennium scholarship fund but this time in housing, an area of
provincial jurisdiction. I think the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is trying to kill a mosquito with a
nuclear bomb when only a fly swatter is necessary.
In my reading of the bill, in both sections that the member
would like to amend, there is a requirement that CMHC create a
program working jointly with the provincial governments. That
means that CMHC cannot proceed alone but must have the approval
of the provincial government concerned and must work bilaterally
with that province to produce a joint result.
This goes beyond consultation, beyond co-operation or
collaboration. It requires CMHC to create a program that is the
child of both the federal and the provincial governments. Just
as it takes two hands to make a handshake, there is no way the
federal government can create a new program on its own according
to the bill. I am satisfied that the provisions in this bill
provide sufficient protection against that happening.
Lack of decent affordable housing and the proliferation of
homelessness in the country is reaching dramatic proportions.
Just last month, the Prime Minister appointed the new Minister of
Labour from Moncton, New Brunswick as the new minister for
homelessness. Last Friday, during question period, a member of
the Reform Party asked the new minister for homelessness a
question and she denied being the new minister for homelessness.
It is a shame that she has had the title for over a month now and
does not even know what her job is.
That is why I am saying that CMHC must have the flexibility to
act jointly with provinces to solve these problems in different
areas and under different circumstances.
These two amendments, if passed, would prevent the provinces and
CMHC from being able to implement solutions to housing problems,
even if there is agreement between the provinces and CMHC, until
a universal agreement on housing is signed covering all aspects
of housing policy between the provinces and CMHC. In other
words, the provinces and CMHC could not solve any problem until
they solved all of their problems. This is too restrictive.
Bill C-66, as it stands now, will allow the provinces and CMHC
to take action incrementally in areas where there is joint
agreement without the requirement that they must agree on
everything before moving forward.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise to speak to various motions presented by my
hon. colleague. The government does not support these motions
and I will explain why.
I cannot repeat it often enough. What we have before us today
are three visions of the relationship between the Government of
Canada and CMHC. The amendments being proposed by my colleague
from Kelowna would, in my view, seriously undermine the
government's ability to carry out its public policy role in
housing which it fulfils through the renewed mandate of Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Allow me to explain.
The Government of Canada is committed to playing a leadership
role in housing. That is why the government renewed the mandate
of its housing agency, CMHC, and has strengthened CMHC's ability
to fulfil its mandate through amendments to Bill C-66.
The government understands the importance of helping Canadians
meet their housing needs. We understand the importance of
building a strong competitive housing industry. We know that
good housing creates sound communities and a strong country. We
know that housing has a major impact on the economy of Canada.
Bill C-66 clearly states the public policy role of CMHC. I will
quote from the bill itself. It states:
The purpose of this Act, in relation to financing for housing, is
to promote housing affordability and choice, to facilitate access
to, and competition and efficiency in the provision of, housing
finance, to protect the availability of adequate funding for
housing at low cost, and generally to contribute to the
well-being of the housing sector in the national economy.
1725
Surely nobody could dispute the importance of these objectives.
Yet the member proposes changes that would eliminate the
government's ability to regulate CMHC should it be necessary to
do so.
If we were to remove this section of the NHA as proposed. We
would effectively be reducing the government's control, in other
words, the public's control of CMHC.
I am certain that if my hon. friend thought for a minute about
what he was proposing, he would realize how ridiculous it is to
imply that the public should not have the right to ensure that
CMHC is accountable to them. CMHC is a public institution with a
public policy role, a role that has served Canadians so well for
over 50 years. To suggest that government control of a public
institution should be reduced is somewhat bewildering.
Bill C-66 will give CMHC the means to carry out its public
policy role more effectively and in a financially prudent manner.
That is what the Government of Canada expects. That is what the
people of Canada deserve. That is what Bill C-66 is all about.
At the other extreme, we have the member from Cape Breton who
would have every decision made by CMHC approved by the governor
in council. Perhaps the member does not realize that to do so
would involve great expense, both in terms of administrative
costs and in the quality of services that the Government of
Canada can offer Canadians. Indeed, the member would have the
government return to the old days of red tape and heavy
bureaucratic processes at the expense of the efficient delivery
of important government services for needy Canadians.
Another member has presented a vision which would require that
every service CMHC offers to individuals and communities be
approved by the government of the particular province. We know
this vision would have the Government of Canada so hamstrung that
we would not be able to serve the housing needs on reserves
without provincial approvals. This vision would also deny other
needy Canadians access to important federal assistance should any
of the provinces not consider the particular measure important or
necessary.
Let me be clear: The benefits conferred by the programs
administered by CMHC are and will remain governed by the House.
Bill C-66 introduces a modern relationship between the
Government of Canada and CMHC. Bill C-66 calls for the approval
of CMHC's corporate plan every year to ensure that the directions
taken by CMHC meet the will and priorities of the government.
Moreover, every year the House is involved in approving the
resources given to CMHC to reach out to needy Canadians; to
implement those programs that one member would rather not see
regulated at all and that another member would regulate to the
point of administrative paralysis.
Furthermore, the CMHC Act and the Financial Administration Act
clearly confer to the government oversight in all aspects of the
corporation's activities. What more could the member want? Why,
for instance, would we go so far as to endorse the proposal from
the member from Cape Breton to have potentially every project
approved by the governor in council?
The vision that we are proposing in Bill C-66 is a modern
vision, a vision which will result in government services that
are more responsive to the needs of Canadians and the needs of
their regions, a vision which will better equip CMHC to work
co-operatively with provinces, and a vision that at the end of
the day will lead to a more efficient government. That is a
vision I think every Canadian would support.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed with the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
VOISEY'S BAY NICKEL PROJECT
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should become
actively involved in the Voisey's Bay nickel project, specifically
to speed up the settling of native land claims and to expedite
the completion of all environmental studies.
1730
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the member for
Compton—Stanstead for seconding my motion. Obviously the
Voisey's Bay nickel find in Labrador of major importance. We
have taken this time today to bring it to the attention of the
House to see if we can exert some influence on the Government of
Canada in particular and the Government of Newfoundland as well
to expedite this process.
I am pleased to introduce discussion today on this proposed
development of the rich nickel deposits at Voisey's Bay in my
home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Members will note
that my motion was originally filed exactly 19 months ago today.
During this period a series of developments have taken place
which we hope can bring us closer to the approvals required for
this project to proceed and for the maximum benefits to be
realized for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and of
course for Canada. But it is symptomatic of our sometimes
cumbersome system and the red tape that we create that even now
questions remain about whether positive economic activity will be
allowed to proceed.
Despite the fact that my Motion No. 194 was submitted over a
year and a half ago, the questions it addresses remain pertinent
and topical. Developments on this file are ongoing and include
the presentation of the environmental assessment panel's report
to government on the first day of this month, the associated
commentary from Inco representatives at the company's annual
general meeting held yesterday, and ongoing consultations with
aboriginal groups.
I fully understand that there are important questions which must
be answered before a mining operation of this magnitude can be
undertaken. In this case the most important questions include
the project's impact on the environment, the status of aboriginal
land claims and the revenue sharing arrangements with the
provincial government in particular.
At the same time I feel it must be pointed out that those who
propose to develop this rich natural resource, thereby creating
employment and generating a new revenue source for our
government, have to date lived up to their environmental
responsibilities. Inco has acted in good faith on the
environmental assessment process and invested considerable time
and resources to co-operate fully with the panel set up to review
the various aspects of this project.
There are still some outstanding issues on the questions of
processing and refining. I am in full agreement with the
province's position with regard to the requirement for a smelter
and refinery in Argentia, Newfoundland. Every Newfoundlander agrees
that the export of these raw materials from our province would be
absolutely devastating to our economy. We are sticking to our
guns. We are, all of us together in Newfoundland and Labrador,
saying to Incoand its shareholders that there must be a refinery and
smelter in Newfoundland if there is to be a mine site.
The spirit of my motion is to call on the Government of Canada
to play a lead co-ordinating role in ensuring that while the
important environmental and land claims issues are addressed,
government itself does not become an impediment to progress.
I would like to share with my colleagues the fact that new
discoveries of nickel have been found in Australia and other
places in the world. Despite the fact that these deposits were
found after the discovery in Voisey's Bay, the Australian
projects in particular have in that time been designed, duly
approved, developed, fully constructed and are now producing
nickel.
The message is not complicated. The message is simply let us
not allow the machinery of government itself to constitute a
barrier to economic activity. Let us examine the advice
carefully prepared through the work of the environmental
assessment panel. Let us consult with the aboriginal people who
hold land claims in the area. But let us do so in an expeditious
manner so that when we know these valid considerations have been
satisfied, we do not stand in the way or indeed cause even
further delays.
The proposed Voisey's Bay development has, since its inception,
been faced with a series of obstacles to overcome. I do not want
to leave any member of the House with the impression that the
concerns that lie behind some of these delays are not valid or
important. Nobody that I know of is suggesting that such a
project would ever be undertaken without due regard for the
environment and without close consultation with the aboriginal
groups in the area. But we must adopt a reasonable approach. We
must not be blind to the fact that our people suffer when the
wheels of government turn so slowly that the viability of a
significant development project is put in jeopardy.
There are some obvious practical matters to be taken into
consideration with regard to the timing of the government
decision and its impact on the Voisey's Bay development
potential. One of these is the very short construction season
available in Labrador.
1735
Because of the length and severity of the winter in the Labrador
climate, construction can only be carried out during a relatively
brief window of time every year. As a consequence of this, a
delay of, let us say, three months in the government's decision
making does not mean a delay of only three months in the start of
construction. If the government were to wait until the end of
this summer before giving its approval for the Voisey's Bay
project to go ahead, the whole development would remain dormant,
on ice, pardon the turn of phrase, until the weather warmed up
some time in the year 2000 so the project could begin.
A three month delay in decision makingmeans more than a full
year's delay in construction.
I know that all members of the House are familiar with the
difficulties experienced by the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in adjusting from the collapse of the northern cod
fishery that drove our economy for centuries. I and my colleagues
in the Progressive Conservative caucus have identified the
problems created by the fisheries crisis, emphasized the need for
new avenues of economic growth and made constructive proposals to
that end.
The problems are real and they have a human face. I see it
firsthand on a regular basis. Many of the people affected are my
constituents and still others have been forced from a lack of
economic opportunity to leave our province. Can members present
in the Chamber
imagine that 30,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been forced
to leave Newfoundland in the last three years alone?
The area of Placentia and Argentia for example is in my federal
riding of St. John's West. The closure of the former American
military base in Argentia dealt a significant blow to the economy
of that whole area of Placentia Bay. Since the Americans'
departure, the Canadian government has invested in the
neighbourhood of $100 million in environmental remediation,
cleaning up the toxic waste and making the area suitable for new
industrial and commercial development.
One of those new industrial commercial developments is the
Voisey's Bay smelter and refinery. Much of the land has been put
on reserve for this project and indeed, we have probably lost
some other business activity in the area because we are waiting
for this smelter and refinery to happen.
The proponents of the Voisey's Bay project have proposed a
smelting and refining facility for the Argentia area that will
provide the much needed economic boost to the local economy. I
take my responsibility to the people of this area very seriously.
I am here as their elected representative to fight to make sure
that the smelting and refining facility does become a reality in
Argentia. We have a responsibility to seize every opportunity
that will generate new activity in the economy.
I would like to share with hon. members some information that
illustrates the importance of new economic development in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
According to the most recent labour force survey figures from
Statistics Canada, unemployment in the province of Newfoundland
stands at an intolerable 17.6%, more than twice the national
average of 7.8%. The rate is three times that of Alberta with
5.8%, or Manitoba with 5.4% unemployed. That is good news for the
people of those provinces and I congratulate the governments of
Alberta, Manitoba and certainly Ontario for creating an
environment in which economic activity is encouraged.
Former U.S. President John F. Kennedy once said that a rising
tide floats all boats. I say to members that whatever positive
signs may be evident in some parts of the country, Newfoundland
and Labrador cannot afford to have a lethargic government act as
an economic anchor.
Third party analysts agree that Newfoundland and Labrador will
experience slower growth in 1999-2000 than it did last year. Even
with developments in new industries outside the province's
traditional economic backbone, the fishery, estimates are that
growth in Newfoundland and Labrador next year will be only
one-half of what it was last year. Surely it must be obvious that
the last thing we would want to do is delay unnecessarily the
start-up of a new development that will benefit the country, the
province and its people.
Another point I would like to make, lest I be accused by some of
overstating the impact of the Voisey's Bay project, is that I
realize this development in itself is not a panacea for all of
our problems. We all know that the days of seeking the magic
megaproject solution that can stand alone and satisfy all of our
economic needs are long past. This has much more to do with
getting the fundamentals right.
In getting the fundamentals right, Newfoundland and Labrador
exports more raw material per capita than any other province in
Canada. Ontario as an example exports the least raw material per
capita. There is an obvious correlation between the amount of
raw materials we export and the unemployment rate. If rawmaterials
are used wisely, we will get a much lower unemployment rate.
1740
We have an opportunity for an important new addition to the
economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. Moving forward with the
project will be helpful. Failure to do so, failure to take full
advantage of our natural resources when the opportunity to
develop them presents itself, would be a clear indication that we
are a long way from being able to effectively build a new economy
in the absence of a viable commercial cod fishery.
I ask my colleagues in this House to join with me in making a
strong statement calling on the federal government to assume a
leadership role not only in seeing that the necessary criteria
are satisfied but also in co-ordinating negotiations among all
the stakeholders. Let us work to ensure that this project,
including the Mill/mine in Labrador and the smelting and refining
facilities in Argentia, can proceed without further delays for
the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and indeed for all Canadians.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member for St. John's West and I can understand
the passion with which he speaks. One might wonder why the
member for Etobicoke North would enter the debate on the project
in Voisey's Bay. I will give the House some background to that.
I had the good fortune to visit Voisey's Bay with my colleague
from Labrador in 1996. It was quite impressive and we could see
the potential for this particular site for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed the people of Canada.
The member for St. John's West said that this would be an
important new addition to the economy of Newfoundland and
Labrador. He asked for the federal government to assist in
facilitating some resolution to this impasse. I certainly would
support that. This project is important to that region and to all
Canadians.
The problem as I understand it is that the Newfoundland
government has attached preconditions. These preconditions are
aligned, I suspect, with what the member opposite said, that the
refinery would need to be located in Argentia.
Unfortunately I think we need to ground some of the debate in
business economics and logic. Going back to the original
purchase, in 1994 Inco paid $4 billion for the Voisey's Bay
discovery. The price of nickel at that time was about $3.50 U.S.
a pound. It is now about half that price.
To have this important new addition to the economy of
Newfoundland and Labrador given current economic conditions,
which are really projected to last for some time regrettably,
this project will not really be implemented. That would be a sad
day for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador and it would be a
sad day for Canada.
Inco, as I understand it being a business, has to look at other
options. It is looking at a project in New Caledonia, a French
colony near Australia. Inco has to decide which one of these
deposit sites is going to be developed next. Is it going to be
Voisey's Bay or New Caledonia? Being a very strong Canadian
company with a lot of roots in Canada, Inco would much prefer to
develop the site at Voisey's Bay, but how can it when business
economics argue totally against it?
One might ask why the member for Etobicoke North would be
concerned. I am concerned as a Canadian. Having visited
Labrador I would like to see the economy of Newfoundland benefit.
I can understand why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and
their government are anxious to realize the full potential for
their treasury and for their people, but we have to come back to
basic business economics.
The fact is that if Inco decides to go to New Caledonia,
Labrador will lose about 500 permanent direct jobs plus about
1,200 spin-off jobs.
It will also lose about $1.1 billion in investment for the mine,
the mill and the concentrator facilities.
1745
As a member from Ontario let me say that Ontario is affected as
well. The way that Inco has proposed it, the only way the
project can proceed is if the mining, the milling and the
concentrating are done in Labrador. At that point the
concentrate would have to be sent to Quebec City or Sept-Îles and
then moved to Sudbury, Ontario, or to Thompson, Manitoba.
That is the only way that Inco seems to feel it can proceed. It
has its business people who understand business economics. They
are accountable to their shareholders. That is the only way it
sees the project working.
If the project does not go ahead, northern Ontario and northern
Manitoba will lose smelting and refining jobs. Most of the
smelting and refining of the New Caledonia concentrate will be
done, for logistical and other reasons, in Japan and not in
Canada.
Newfoundland insists on the smelting capacity being located in
Argentia. Newfoundland and Canada are at risk of losing about
$1.7 billion in taxes and other revenues over eight years. Now
that the election in Newfoundland is behind us, it is time for
the Government of Newfoundland to look seriously at some business
economics and get on with this project.
To add some insult, I am afraid that in November 1998 the
Newfoundland government announced amendments to the mineral act
which gave the provincial cabinet the power to decide what was
economically viable. The cabinet in Newfoundland, while we
respect that it has good analysts and other people for advice,
has the power to tell Inco, which is a business with
shareholders, employees and other stakeholders groups to whom it
is accountable and spends its whole life running businesses, that
Newfoundland will decide what is economically feasible and what
is not.
That is quite tragic. We are depriving Canada, Newfoundland,
Labrador, Ontario and Manitoba of jobs, revenue and economic
activity because of an understandable passion by the Newfoundland
government not to repeat mistakes it has made in the past. We
can understand that sensitivity, but when the price of nickel is
half what it was when the project was conceived, it is a matter
of economics. Sometimes we cannot have the full cake and have to
accept half the cake.
I believe strongly that Inco is quite prepared to sit down with
the Government of Newfoundland. Perhaps the Government of Canada
could play a facilitative role in bringing the parties together,
cutting through the rhetoric, getting down to the basics of
creating jobs and economic activity in Canada. If that could
happen I know it would be very positive.
The project at Voisey's Bay is a staggeringly attractive
proposition. As I said, I had the pleasure of visiting it and
seeing the area oozing with hope and the dreams of the people who
will be involved. However, they will not be involved if the
people of Newfoundland and Inco cannot get together to make the
project a reality.
I support what the hon. member is saying. The Government of
Canada should play a facilitative role, but I do not see how it
can do that if the Government of Newfoundland is saying there are
preconditions, that the smelting capacity must be in Argentia.
That is a huge stumbling block.
I support the member opposite in the sense of moving the project
forward. I would argue that our government should be involved in
helping to get the project rolling.
1750
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion put forward by the
hon. member for St. John's West. For those Canadians watching
these proceedings on television, I would like to read the motion
that is currently before us:
That in the opinion of this House the government should become
actively involved in the Voisey's Bay nickel project, specifically
to speed up the settling of native land claims and to expedite
the completion of all environmental studies.
The hon. member certainly has more faith in the federal
government than I have. I understand his frustration at the
seemingly endless process of study and negotiations and more
study and negotiations. However, I would never have thought I
would hear anyone on the opposition side of the House looking to
the federal government to expedite anything.
The victims of tainted blood have been waiting for over a year
for compensation. We could ask them what they think of the
government's ability to be expeditious. Newfoundlanders in
particular have not been served well by the Liberal government.
The TAGS program has been a disaster for Newfoundlanders and was
a band-aid solution in place of real reforms of the cod
fisheries.
The Hibernia project has been another Liberal failure. Not one
oil manufacturing job will be created in Newfoundland as a result
of the project.
Churchill Falls is another example. Newfoundland lost $1
billion a year as a result of a do-nothing Liberal government
that refuses to give Newfoundlanders a fair deal.
The seal hunt has also been systematically destroyed by the
Liberal bureaucratic red tape that has prevented the export of
seal projects around the globe.
These are four good reasons why we should not invite the Liberal
government to get involved in this project. Newfoundlanders are
better served by negotiating on their own terms.
Furthermore, the Voisey's Bay project has been stalled and
delayed, not because there has not been enough government
interest in the matter but because there has been too much. This
is no longer a business venture. It is a three ring political
circus.
Let us look at the players already involved in this project.
Inco Limited is involved. As it is the private sector company
ready to take on the risk of the project it will be the one
creating the wealth and the jobs. It will be the one jumping
through the political hoops trying to please the various
stakeholders involved in the project, many of whom have very
legitimate concerns that must be addressed.
I applaud the patience of Inco's president, Scott Hand. It
seems that Canadian entrepreneurs have unfortunately had to
become politicians and spin doctors. That is the new cost of
doing business in the Canadian economy and more federal
intervention, as is proposed in the motion, is not the solution.
I take this opportunity to encourage Mr. Hand to continue to
negotiate with the province. The Newfoundland people want this
project, need this project, and are ready and able to make this
project a success.
The Labrador Inuit Association and Innu nation are also involved
in the negotiations, representing the interests of the first
nations people in the area. They have been active participants
in the creation of a 200 page study of the project that contained
over 100 recommendations. On the basis of this report, it looks
as if the Voisey's Bay negotiations may have been given a second
life and a second chance.
The land claim concerns and benefit agreements brought forward
by these groups are currently being considered by Inco. The
environmental study has given the company a conditional green
light to proceed.
The premier of Newfoundland is also involved in this matter.
While Brian Tobin is working for the people of Newfoundland, I
believe he can learn a lesson from Alberta about creating
economic growth. In Alberta we are working to remove the
barriers impeding economic progress and development. In
Newfoundland they are erecting new ones.
If my hon. colleague from St. John's wants to be of some
assistance to his constituents, and I know he does, he should ask
Mr. Tobin a simple question: Is Newfoundland open for business?
Nobody questions where Mr. Tobin's loyalties lie. I would
however question his commitment to liberalizing the Newfoundland
economy to encourage domestic and foreign investment.
The answer to the Voisey's Bay project and economic development
in general is not further political meddling. We need to see the
development of sensible and workable environmental policies that
allow for sustainable economic growth.
Environmental regulations are another tax on Canadian
businesses. While many of them are necessary, others are not.
There is a balance that must be struck.
1755
We also need to address the first nations land claim issues
according to fair and equitable guidelines, but this must be done
on a comprehensive basis so that it does not continue to be a
never ending barrier to economic development in the country.
Politicians and lawyers have hijacked land claim issues and it
is the grassroots Inuit or other aboriginals who have suffered. I
once again applaud the author of the motion for allowing debate
in the House on the Voisey's Bay project. However I do not
believe he will find a solution through this arrogant and out of
touch Liberal government.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
encouraged to hear members say that the Voisey's Bay project
could find minerals in my riding of Manicouagan. I am referring
to Sept-Îles.
I am pleased to speak to this motion regarding the problems of
the nickel project in Voisey's Bay, Labrador.
The motion recommends that the government become actively
involved in this project; on the one hand, to speed up the
settling of land claims from aboriginal communities present in
the area and, on the other hand, to ensure that all
environmental studies necessary for implementation of the
project are duly completed.
The Bloc Quebecois supports this motion. In order to explain
our position, I will give some essential background and history.
Inco Ltd., the main backer of the Voisey's Bay nickel project,
has its eye on lands in the far northeast corner of Labrador.
But the Inuit and Innu in this region have lived on these lands
for thousands of years. Clearly, these are their traditional
hunting and fishing grounds.
They also grow certain medicinal plants there.
What is important is that these northern communities have, from
time immemorial, maintained a close relationship with the land
and its resources. Their traditional economy is based on the
bounty of nature and the land, for instance boots made of skins,
bone and ivory needles, food-gathering, trapping, and so forth.
In addition to providing for the material needs of the Labrador
Inuit and Innu, the land is at the heart of their relationship
with other works of the Creator, and their spirituality.
In fact, in its 1996 report, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples identified the land as one of the four fundamental
themes of the northern first nations' culture. In other words,
the land is extremely important for the culture and the soul of
a northern aboriginal.
But let us get back to the issue before us. The Innu and the
Inuit have important land claims in the Voisey's Bay region. These
claims obviously concern traditional lands that are filled with
memories and that have been used by generations of Innu and
Inuit. These claims are still not settled and now there is this
nickel mining project.
It goes without saying that the federal government and the
Newfoundland government must sit down with the Innu and Inuit
communities to settle their claims, this before allowing Inco to
begin mining operations in Voisey's Bay.
This is, in my view, a basic issue of respect for the aboriginal
community that lives there and for which these lands are
literally their living environment, one that also reflects their
cultures. In short, these lands are their universe.
This mining project is a good development opportunity for
Labrador. It could even, based on my information, benefit
communities as far as Sept-Îles. For the moment, I cannot say any
more on the subject. However, we must not forget that it will
also, in all likelihood, have a negative environmental impact on
that region.
1800
It is therefore imperative that the federal government try to
settle the claims of the Innu and Inuit, so that Inco's arrival
in Labrador can take place in a climate of mutual co-operation
between those involved, and in the respect of the aboriginal
community living on that territory.
Therefore, the Voisey's Bay mining operation must necessarily
include guarantees and a significant compensation package for
the first nations directly affected by this mining project. The
motion before us generally goes in that direction.
Incidentally, a few years ago, the federal government, the
Newfoundland government and the Innu and Inuit communities in
Labrador appointed a group to examine the impact of the Voisey's
Bay mining project. The group tabled its report on April 1.
It recommended, among other things, to settle the issue of land
claims and to arrive at an agreement between the company, the
governments and the aboriginals on the sharing of benefits—we are
talking billions of dollars—from the mining project. Indeed, this
is the way we will have to go, it would seem.
While the land claims issue is still not resolved, particularly
in the case of the Innu, there is also another basic issue that
remains unresolved, namely the environmental impact of the
mining project.
In fact, at this time, the Inuit and the Innu of Labrador still
do not know where the smelter will be located and what will
happen to the slag it will produce.
There are a number of contaminants contained in this residue,
and the wind may carry them to adjacent soil and water. These
vital problems are still on the back burner. The Bloc Quebecois
is therefore calling upon the federal government, as the motion
proposes, to become actively involved so that all of the
environmental studies will be completed in order for the
aboriginal population, and all other individuals or groups
affected, to have the proper information on environmental
impact.
To summarize, if this development project, which is of
importance for Labrador, is to be given the green light to
proceed, first the native land claims by the inhabitants of this
area, the Innu and the Inuit, must be settled.
It must also be ensured that the environmental consequences of
mining operations are analyzed in depth and that the information
relating to this, which is of such vital importance, must be
made publicly available. In other words, the project is a good
thing, but not at any price.
What is required first of all is to sit down, put all the pieces
of the puzzle together, scrutinize all the implications of the
project, while maintaining harmony, good faith and respect among
all partners associated in the project.
It is certain, indispensable even, that the federal government
must get actively involved in resolving the major problems I
have raised here. There is much still to be done, so it is very
much in the federal government's interests to roll up its
sleeves and get cracking.
Since Motion M-194 is along the same lines as my own
observations, I support it.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have the opportunity to discuss this motion, which was put
forward by the member for St. John's West, regarding the proposed
Voisey's Bay project.
1805
This debate is timely in that a significant step was recently
taken with the release on April 1 of the environmental assessment
panel's report.
Before getting into the issue, there are a couple of points I
want to make with respect to the remarks made by the Reform
member for Edmonton—Strathcona. He spoke disparagingly about
some of the programs which the Government of Canada has in place
in the province of Newfoundland. He spoke about the TAGS
program, for instance. The TAGS program, the Atlantic groundfish
strategy, was put in place to help people in their time of need.
We were there for the people of Newfoundland as a result of the
downturn in the cod fishery.
He also spoke about the seal hunt. I really do not know what
his point was on that, other than he was flopping around like a
seal on the ice and he would not know the difference between a
codfish and a seal if he saw one.
I believe it is important to review the historical context of
this project so that we can more fully appreciate the present
situation and some of the complexities that still lie ahead.
However, before I begin I would like to preface my remarks with a
couple of points.
First, the Government of Canada's position regarding the
Voisey's Bay project is that this is a matter to be resolved
between the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the
manager of the mineral resource, and the Voisey's Bay Nickel
Company, which is the firm proposing to develop the project.
However, I would like to emphasize that while it is up to the
province and the company to negotiate a mutually beneficial
outcome, the federal government strongly supports all positive
endeavours to this end and looks forward to its successful
completion.
The second point I would like to make is that the Government of
Canada is heavily involved in native land claim negotiations
across the country and is doing everything in its power to
resolve all such claims as expeditiously as possible. The
Government of Canada is committed to the land claims negotiations
in Labrador and to a fair and equitable process and outcome.
These talks have their own pace and the government does not want
to jeopardize them by attempting to advance them beyond that
pace.
The project we are addressing today concerns a mine and a mill
near Voisey's Bay on the northern coast of Labrador. This is a
rugged area, with rough terrain and a sub-Arctic climate of short
summers and long winters, which was a point made by the member
for St. John's West earlier. It is located between the Inuit
community of Nain and the Innu community known as Davis Inlet.
The area is the subject of overlapping land claims on the part of
the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu Nation. The land
holds an estimated 150 million tonnes of ore containing nickel,
copper and cobalt.
Minerals were first discovered in this vicinity in 1993 by a
company called Archean, which was under contract to Diamond
Fields Resources Incorporated. Two years later, in 1995 and
1996, Inco Limited purchased the area in two stages for $4.3
billion.
The Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, an Inco subsidiary, has
proposed to develop a nickel, copper and cobalt mine and mill in
the area. The nickel concentrate from the mill would be sent
elsewhere for processing.
In November 1996 the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company announced that
it had chosen Argentia, Newfoundland as the site for a smelter
and refinery complex. The company estimated that the two sites
together would create 3,500 direct and indirect jobs in the
province, and that we all certainly would welcome.
On January 31, 1997 the four principal parties involved in the
Voisey's Bay project, that is, the Government of Canada, the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Labrador Inuit
Association and the Innu Nation, signed a memorandum of
understanding to establish the environmental review process.
Under the MOU a five person environmental assessment panel was
appointed.
The panel held two rounds of public consultations over the next
year and a half. The first round began that spring. The second
round of consultations took place in the fall of 1998, from
September 9 to November 6. The company was also at those
hearings to explain the project and to respond to any concerns
and questions raised by participants.
1810
During the period between the two rounds of consultations
several events took place that had a significant impact on the
project's negotiations and progress.
In August 1997 the Newfoundland court of appeal issued a
temporary injunction blocking the company from building a
temporary road and airstrip that would allow it to begin
underground exploration. The next month the company announced
that it was delaying the Voisey's Bay start-up date, which had
originally been scheduled for late 1999, by at least one year.
Three days later, on September 22, the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland stipulated that the road and airstrip were an
integral part of the mine and that the company must refrain from
any underground exploration until it had received environmental
clearance.
In the spring of 1998 the Federal Court of Canada heard
arguments put forward by the Citizens Mining Council of
Newfoundland and Labrador that the project's environmental
assessment should include both Voisey's Bay and Argentia sites.
On March 8 of this year the court ruled that the law did not
impose a duty in the circumstances of this case to include the
two projects in one environmental assessment. This decision
served to remove any uncertainty over the environmental
assessment process for the two sites.
As well, Newfoundland rejected the new proposal of Inco on the
ground that it was not of sufficient benefit to the province.
It took the position that the project would not proceed unless
all of the ore was processed within provincial boundaries and
that the company's investment must include a smelter at Argentia
in order to maximize the number of jobs for Newfoundland and
Labrador citizens.
On July 23, 1998 Newfoundland suspended negotiations. A few
days later the company halted its engineering and procurement
activities relating to construction.
While these events were going on, parallel talks were also
taking place with the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu
Nation. The negotiations were being conducted separately with
each of the two native groups. I would like to emphasize that
these organizations, as well as other aboriginal groups, have
been an integral part of the environmental assessment process.
Negotiations with the two aboriginal groups are continuing. The
federal government is strongly committed to forging new
partnerships with native peoples. It is through the successful
negotiation of major projects such as Voisey's Bay that the
government will build and maintain such partnerships.
I repeat, therefore, that the Government of Canada is strongly
committed to a fair and equitable process and outcome. It is
making every effort in its power to achieve such a result as soon
as possible.
Despite the sometimes rocky road behind us, I am happy to report
that events have in the past few months taken a much more
positive turn. On February 10, 1999 the Premier of Newfoundland
and Labrador indicated his willingness to renew talks with
Voisey's Bay Nickel Company after the company said that it too
hoped to resume negotiations. The four MOU parties have since
held discussions and have reached a preliminary agreement on a
broad framework for future consultations. I understand that
formal consultations are expected to begin on May 3, 1999.
Also, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the
environmental assessment panel released its report on April 1,
1999. This represents a significant milestone. The Government
of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as
well as native groups, are now in the process of reviewing the
report.
I conclude by stating the government's view that a positive
spirit of co-operation on the part of all parties will ensure
that everyone concerned achieves mutually beneficial results from
this impressive project.
1815
The Deputy Speaker: I should advise the House that if the
hon. member for St. John's West speaks now he will terminate the
debate.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. members who have spoken. Some were in support of
the motion and I am not so sure others were supporting it or not.
However I thank all hon. members for their contributions to this
important debate.
The member for Malpeque just outlined a decent history of what
has happened and how government will proceed with supporting this
major development. In the case of the Government of Canada the
major role it can play is in the lands claim area. I hope the
motion will encourage the government to speed up and to make a
priority of land claims.
Land claims for Newfoundland and Labrador relating to Voisey's
Bay are a little more important and urgent than they may be in
other parts of the country because of what I said about the
economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to have priorities
as a House of Commons and as a Government of Canada.
If there is a priority for land claims settlement in Canada, it
should be in Labrador to make sure this development can go ahead.
I also thank my friend from Quebec who talked about the
settlement for aboriginal peoples which comes from the land
claims issue and his concern for the environment.
Not in a confrontational way I want to say in particular to the
member from Etobicoke why this project is so important to
Newfoundland and Labrador and why it is different from the norm.
We just celebrated 50 years of Confederation a few days ago.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Charlie Power: Our union with Canada has been an
amazingly good stroke of luck for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. It has helped us in many ways. It has given us a
social safety net. It has allowed us to access the Canadian
economy in many ways. It has served in many ways to benefit
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Unfortunately it has not always worked as well as it could have or
should have. Certain things have happened to Newfoundland and
Labrador because of our union with Canada that really should not
have happened.
We still have an unemployment rate that is twice the national
average. Why is that so? Why does Newfoundland and Labrador
have twice asmany people unemployed every single day of every
single week of every single month of every single year for 50 years?
There has to be something wrong. There has to be some way that can be
rectified.
Let us look at some of the problems we have. Our unemployment
situation is obvious. Some 30,000 people left Newfoundland in
the last three years alone. That would be comparable to 7,500
people leaving Prince Edward Island. It is unbelievable to think
that can happen consistently and still have a viable entity as a
province with health and education systems.
I want to give the member from Etobicoke a little history of
what happens in Newfoundland and Labrador. One thing that happened in
Newfoundland that should never have happened was that the
Government of Canada forced the tiny unimportant province of
Newfoundland to sign a deal on the Upper Churchill agreement,
which has cost Newfoundland citizens anywhere between $700
million and $800 million every year since 1969. We could be a
have province. We could contribute positively in a revenue sense
to Canada. That is one example.
Everything we do in Newfoundland and Labrador is because of the
nature of where we are and of industry in Canada. Maybe we should
send all our fish to be processed in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia
because there is excess capacity there. Maybe we should take all the
nickel we have and send it to Sudbury for smelting. It would be
logical to ask what Newfoundland and Labrador can supply to Canada.
We can supply raw materials and labourers, I suppose.
That is not the nature of Confederation as we want it to be.
There is a difference. There is an opportunity for the
Government of Canada and the province. There is a problem with
the provinces in some of its stances in negotiating with Inco. If
we were to work this arrangement through it would show to all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all other people of Canada
we can be allowed in Newfoundland and Labrador to earn our own keep.
We can be allowed to make our living, pay taxes and contribute
revenue to the country of Canada. We can do it just using our own
resources. We are not asking for a whole lot.
There is the Inco deal, the Voisey's Bay deal, and 48 million
barrels of oil off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland this year, but
we are not allowed to refine any of it in Newfoundland and
Labrador. What should we do, just basically supply raw
materials?
There is a tremendous correlation between Newfoundland having
the highest per ratio export of raw materials and the highest
unemployment rate, and Ontario having just the opposite. It does
not export raw materials to the same degree per capita
and has a high employment rate.
That is what we have to do in Newfoundland and Labrador and that
is why Voisey's Bay is not just a mine. It is an opportunity for
Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada to put our partnership right,
to allow those of us in Newfoundland and Labrador to contribute.
I hope this debate highlights the issue so that some of the people
in the House can have a full understanding of the history
of what has happened in Newfoundland and Labrador and why Voisey's Bay
is so important to us.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion not being designated as a
votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private
Member's Business has now expired and the order is dropped from
the order paper.
[Translation]
It being 6.20 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.)
APPENDIX
Address
of
His Excellency Václav Havel
President of the Czech Republic
to
both Houses of Parliament
in the
House of Commons Chamber, Ottawa
on
Thursday, April 29, 1999
1035
ADDRESS
of
His Excellency Václav Havel
President of the Czech Republic
to
both Houses of Parliament
in the
House of Commons Chamber, Ottawa
on
Thursday, April 29, 1999
Mr. Václav Havel and Mrs. Havlovà were welcomed by the Right
Honourable Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada, by the
Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker of the Senate and by the
Honourable Gilbert Parent, Speaker of the House of Commons.
Hon. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons):
Mr. President, Madam Havlovà, Senators, distinguished guests and
colleagues, I call upon the Prime Minister to introduce our
guests: the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Speakers of
the House of Commons and Senate, honourable members, ladies and
gentlemen.
Once in a great while, members of the two Houses of the Canadian
Parliament put aside partisan differences, silence our debates
and come together on our very, very best behaviour.
For anyone who has ever watched our daily proceedings, such
occasions are nothing short of a miracle. And I must admit, they
are right, especially today, for we have in our presence a
leader, a truly remarkable leader, whose perseverance in the face
of tyranny, whose dignity in the face of persecution, helped to
make possible the democratic transformation of his people, his
country and his continent ten years ago; a transformation which,
by any standard, was a miracle.
I speak of course of the President of the Czech Republic,
Václav Havel.
[Translation]
The great Victor Hugo once wrote that not even the strongest
army in the world can defeat an idea whose time has come. But
it is also true that, for any idea to triumph in its time, there
must first be a champion, a leader, a symbol.
Mr. President, in your long crusade for freedom and justice, you
led a mighty struggle against some of the strongest enemies
known to human progress: fear and oppression.
Armed only with the courage of your convictions and the
rightness of your cause, you triumphed.
Your childhood was spent, first, under foreign occupation, and
then under the consolidation of a brutal totalitarian regime. A
regime that chose to block your aspirations in life.
In most of us, wounds like these might have created bitterness
and a sense of personal futility. But in you, they fuelled the
writing and acts of conscience which captured the longing of
your countrymen and the admiration of the entire world.
You revealed the hollowness of an imposed political system, and
your words and deeds helped secure its doom.
1040
When the time came, after so many years of privation, you were
the only real choice to lead a country that was new again, to
define its new politics, its economic transformation and its new
relationships within Europe and beyond.
[English]
Mr. President, I would like to quote from your first New Year's
address to your people:
You may ask what kind of republic I dream of. Let me reply:
I dream of a republic independent, free and democratic; of a
republic economically prosperous and yet socially just; in short,
of a humane republic that serves the individual and that,
therefore, holds the hope that the individual will serve it in
turn.
When you visited Canada for the first time in early 1990 that
vision was still to be made real. Today the Czech Republic is
one of the leading democracies of central and eastern Europe.
Your economic transformation, despite certain challenges today,
will lead toward membership in the European Union.
You are a partner of Canada in NATO, the OECD, and you are
active in the WTO. Our soldiers are keeping the peace in Bosnia
and we make common cause in the OSCE.
You have sent some of your finest sons and daughters to Canada
over the past century, who have become some of our most
distinguished business leaders, academics, writers and, of
course, hockey players. I have to tell you, Mr. President, that
one of your fellow citizens, Dominik Hasek, is not very popular
in Ottawa these days, but it is very nice of you to come here to
compensate for that humiliation.
In return, over the past decade Canada has done its best to
support your country in re-establishing democracy and recreating
a market economy. Together we are also seeking to build new
trade and investment links of mutual benefit.
Mr. President, your personal journey and that of the Czech
Republic speak to how far the cause of freedom and human rights
have come in Europe, but the crisis in Kosovo is a stark reminder
of how much further there is to go. And if I might be so bold,
if that journey is to have lasting meaning in the Europe of the
new millennium, then its simple and powerful lessons must be
applied without hesitation in that complex and troubled land.
The people of Kosovo, and everywhere in Europe, must one day
feel the same security and attachment to their homelands that you
described in your dream of a humane republic; ideals that you
have done so much to make a reality in the Czech Republic of
today.
I am fortified by the knowledge that someone of your unshakeable
faith in the forces of justice and right has taken up this cause
without hesitation.
Together with our NATO allies we are doing the right thing in
Kosovo. Together we will prevail.
We live in an age of overstatement, Mr. President, where the
meaning and value of words are often made cheap by excess
rhetoric, but for you there can be no overstatement.
It is my great pleasure and honour to introduce to this
honourable House a beacon of freedom, a man whose achievements
repudiate the idea that poets and dreamers have no place among
statesmen.
Ladies and gentlemen, a poet, a dreamer and a great statesman,
Václav Havel.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1045
Mr. Václav Havel (President of the Czech Republic): Prime
Minister, Speaker of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Commons,
members of the Senate and the House of Commons, distinguished
guests, I certainly do not need to emphasize how honoured I am to
address you. With your permission, I shall use this opportunity
for a few remarks concerning the state and its probable position
in the future.
There is every indication that the glory of the nation state, as
a climax of the history of every national community and the
highest earthly value, in fact the only one in whose name it is
permissible to kill or which is worth dying for, is already past
its culminating point.
It seems that the enlightened endeavours of generations of
democrats, the horrible experience of two world wars, which
contributed so substantially to the adoption of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the overall development
of our civilization, are gradually bringing the human race to the
realization that a human being is more important than a state.
The idol of state sovereignty must inevitably dissolve in a
world that connects people, regardless of borders, through
millions of links of integration ranging from trade, finance and
property, up to information; links that impart a variety of
universal notions and cultural patterns. Furthermore, it is a
world in which danger to some has an immediate bearing on all; in
which, for many reasons, especially because of the massive
advancement of science and technology, our fates are merged
together into one single destiny; and in which we all, whether we
like it or not, suffer responsibility for everything that occurs.
It is obvious that in such a world, blind love for one's own
state, a love that does not recognize anything above itself,
finds excuses for any action of the own state simply because it
is one's own state, and rejects anything else simply because it
is different, inevitably turns into a dangerous anachronism, a
hotbed of conflicts and, eventually, a source of immeasurable
human suffering.
1050
I believe that in the coming century most states will begin to
transform from cult-like objects, which are charged with
emotional contents, into much simpler and more civil
administrative units, which will be less powerful and,
especially, more rational and will constitute merely one of the
levels in a complex and stratified planetary societal
self-organization. This change, among other things, should
gradually antiquate the idea of non-intervention, that is, the
concept of saying that what happens in another state, or the
measure of respect for human rights there, is none of our
business.
Who will take over the various functions that are now performed
by the state?
Let us first speak about the emotional functions. These, I
believe, will begin to be distributed more equally amongst all
the various spheres that make up human identity, or in which
human beings exercise their existence. By this I mean the
various layers of that which we perceive as our home or our
natural world; our family, our company, our village or town, our
region, our profession, our church or our association, as well as
our continent and, finally, our earth, the planet which we
inhabit. All this constitutes the various environments of our
self-identification; and, if the bond to one's own state,
hypertrophied until now, is to be weakened it must necessarily be
to the benefit of all these other environments.
As for the practical responsibilities and the jurisdictions of
the state, these can go in only two directions: downward or
upward.
Downwards applies to the various organs and structures of civil
society to which the state should gradually transfer many of the
tasks it now performs itself. Upwards applies to various
regional, transnational or global communities or organizations.
This transfer of functions has already begun. In some areas, it
has progressed quite far; in others, less so. However, it is
obvious that the trend of development must, for many different
reasons, go along this path.
If modern democratic states are usually defined by such
characteristics as respect for human rights and liberties,
equality of citizens, the rule of law and civil society, then the
manner of existence toward which humankind will move from here,
or toward which humankind should move in the interest of its own
preservation, will probably be characterized as an existence
founded on a universal or global respect for human rights, a
universal equality of citizens, a universal rule of law and a
global civil society.
1055
One of the greatest problems that accompanied the formation of
nation-states was their geographical delimitation, that is, the
definition of their boundaries. Innumerable factors, ethnic,
historical and cultural considerations, geological elements,
power interests, as well as the overall state of civilization,
have played a role here.
The creation of larger regional or transnational communities
will sometimes be afflicted with the same problem; to some
extent, this burden will possibly be inherited from the very
nation-states that enter into such entities. We should do
everything in our power to ensure that this self-definition
process will not be as painful as was the case when nation-states
were formed.
Allow me to give you one example. Canada and the Czech Republic
are now allies as members of the same defence association, the
North Atlantic Alliance. This is a result of a process of
historic importance; NATO's enlargement with states of Central
and Eastern Europe. The significance of this process stems from
the fact that this is the first truly serious and historically
irreversible step to break down the Iron Curtain and to abolish,
in real terms and not just verbally, that which was called the
Yalta arrangement.
This enlargement, as we all know, was far from easy and has
become a reality only ten years after the bipolar division of the
world came to an end. One of the reasons why progress was so
difficult was the opposition on the part of the Russian
Federation; they asked, uncomprehendingly and worriedly, why the
West was enlarging and moving closer to Russia without taking
Russia itself in its embrace. This attitude, if I disregard all
other motives for the moment, reveals one very interesting
element: an uncertainty about where the beginning is, and where
the end is, of that which might be called the world of Russia, or
the East. When NATO offers Russia its hand in partnership, it
does so on the assumption that there are two large and equal
entities: the Euro-Atlantic world and a vast Euro-Asian power.
These two entities can, and must, extend their hands to each
other and co-operate; this is in the interest of the whole world.
But they can do this only when they are conscious of their own
identities; in other words, when they know where each of them
begins and ends. Russia has had some difficulty with that in its
entire history, and it is obviously carrying this problem with it
into the present world in which the question of delimitation is
no longer about nation-states but about regions or spheres of
culture and civilization.
Yes, Russia has a thousand things that link it with the
Euro-Atlantic world or the so-called West; but, it also has a
thousand things which differ from the West, just like Latin
America, Africa, the Far East or other regions or continents of
today's world.
1100
The fact that these worlds, or parts of the world, differ from
one another does not mean that some are more worthy than others.
They are all equal. They are only different in certain ways, but
being different is not a disgrace. Russia, on the one hand,
deems it very important to be seen as an entity of moment, an
entity which deserves special treatment, that is, as a global
power; but at the same time it is uncomfortable with being
perceived as an independent entity that can hardly be part of
another entity.
Russia is becoming accustomed to the enlargement of the
Alliance; one day it will become acclimated to it completely. Let
us just hope that this will not be merely an expression of
Engels' “recognized necessity” but an expression of a new, more
profound self-understanding. Just as others must learn to
redefine themselves in the new multicultural and multipolar
environment, Russia must learn it also.
This means not only that it cannot forever substitute
megalomania or simply self-love for natural self-confidence but
also that it must recognize where it begins and where it ends.
For example, the huge Siberia with its vast natural resources is
Russia but the tiny Estonia is not Russia and never will be. If
Estonia feels that it belongs to the world represented by the
North Atlantic Alliance or the European Union, this must be
understood and respected and it should not be seen as an
expression of enmity.
With this example I would to illustrate the following. The
world of the 21st century, provided that humankind withstands all
the dangers that it is preparing for itself, will be a world of
an ever closer co-operation on a footing of equality among larger
and mostly transnational bodies that will sometimes cover whole
continents.
In order that the world can be like this, individual entities,
cultures or spheres of civilization must clearly recognize their
own identities, understand what makes them different from others
and accept the fact that such otherness is not a handicap but a
singular contribution to the global wealth of the human race. Of
course, the same must be recognized also by those who, on the
contrary, have the inclination to regard their otherness as a
reason for feeling superior.
One of the most important organizations, in which all states as
well as major transnational entities meet as equals for debate
and make many important decisions which affect the whole world,
is the United Nations. I believe that if the United Nations is
to successfully perform the tasks to be imposed on it by the next
century it must undergo a substantial reform.
1105
The Security Council, the most important organ of the United
Nations, can no longer maintain conditions from the time when the
organization first came into being. Instead it must equitably
mirror the multipolar world of today. We must reflect on whether
it is indispensable that one state, even if only theoretically,
could outvote the rest of the world. We must consider the
question of which great, strong and numerous nations do not have
permanent representation in that body. We must think out the
pattern of rotation of the non-permanent members and a number of
other things.
We must make the entire vast structure of the United Nations
less bureaucratic and more effective.
We must deliberate on how to achieve real flexibility in the
decision making of UN bodies, particularly of its plenary.
Most important, I believe we should ensure that all the
inhabitants of our earth regard the United Nations as an
organization that is truly theirs, not just as a club of
governments.
The crucial point is what the UN can accomplish for the people
of this planet, not what it does for individual states as states.
Therefore, changes should probably be made also in the procedures
for the financing of the organization, for the application of its
documents and for the scrutiny of their applications.
This is not a matter of abolishing the powers of states and
establishing some kind of a giant global state instead. The
matter is that everything should not always flow, forever, solely
through the hands of states or their governments. It is in the
interest of humanity, of human rights and liberties as well as of
life in general, that there is more than one channel through
which the decisions of planetary leadership flow to the citizens
and the citizens' will reaches the planetary leaders. More
channels mean more balance and a wider mutual scrutiny.
I hope it is evident that I am not fighting here against the
institution of the state as such. It would, for that matter, be
rather absurd if the head of a state addressing the
representative bodies of another state pleaded that states should
be abolished.
I am talking about something else. I am talking about the fact
that there is a value which ranks higher than the state. This
value is humanity. The state, as is well known, is here to serve
the people, not the other way around. If a person serves his or
her state, such service should go only as far as is necessary for
the state to do a good service to all its citizens.
Human rights rank above the rights of states. Human liberties
constitute a higher value than state sovereignty. In terms of
international law, the provisions that protect the unique human
being should take precedence over the provisions that protect the
state.
1110
If, in the world of today, our fates are merged into one single
destiny, and if every one of us is responsible for the future of
all, nobody, not even the state, should be allowed to restrict
the rights of the people to exercise this responsibility. I
think that the foreign policies of individual states should
gradually sever the category that has until now most often
constituted their axis, that is the category of “interests”,
“our national interests” or “the foreign policy interests of
our state”.
The category of “interests” tends to divide rather than to
bring us together. It is true that each of us has some specific
interests. This is entirely natural and there is no reason why
we should abandon our legitimate concerns; but there is something
that ranks higher than our interests: it is the principles that
we espouse.
Principles unite us rather than divide us. Moreover, they are
the yardstick for measuring the legitimacy or illegitimacy of our
interests. I do not think it is valid when various state
doctrines say that it is in the interest of the state to uphold
such and such a principle. Principles must be respected and
upheld for their own sake, so to speak, as a matter of principle,
and interests should be derived from them.
For example, it would not be right if I said that it is in the
interest of the Czech Republic that there is an equitable peace
in the world. I have to say something else. There must be an
equitable peace in the world and the interests of the Czech
Republic must be subordinated to that.
The Alliance of which both Canada and the Czech Republic are now
members is waging a struggle against the genocidal regime of
Slobodan Milosevic. It is neither an easy struggle nor a popular
one, and there can be different opinions on its strategy and
tactics; but no person of sound judgment can deny one thing: This
is probably the first war ever fought that is not being fought in
the name of interests but in the name of certain principles and
values.
If it is possible to say about the war that it is ethical, or
that it is fought for ethical reasons, it is true of this war.
Kosovo has no oil fields whose output might perhaps attract
somebody's interest. No member country of the Alliance has any
territorial claims there, and Milosevic is not threatening either
the territorial integrity or any other integrity of any NATO
member.
Nevertheless, the Alliance is fighting. It is fighting in the
name of human interest for the fate of other human beings. It is
fighting because decent people cannot sit back and watch
systematic, state directed massacres of other people. Decent
people simply cannot tolerate this and cannot fail to come to the
rescue if a rescue action is within their power.
This war gives human rights precedence over the rights of
states. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been attacked
without a direct UN mandate for the Alliance's action.
But the Alliance has not acted out of licence, aggressiveness or
disrespect for international law. On the contrary, it has acted
out of respect for the law, for the law that ranks higher than
the protection of the sovereignty of states. It has acted out of
respect for the rights of humanity, as they are articulated by
our conscience as well as by other instruments of international
law.
1115
I see this as an important precedent for the future. It has now
been clearly stated that it is not permissible to slaughter
people, to evict them from their homes, to maltreat them and to
deprive them of their property. It has been demonstrated that
human rights are indivisible and that if injustice is done to
some, it is done to all.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware that Canadian politics has
long and systematically advanced the principle of security of the
human being, which you deem equally important as that of security
of the State, if not even more important. Let me assure you that
this Canadian ethic enjoys a profound respect in my country. I
would wish that we are not merely allies in a formal or
institutional sense as members of the same defence alliance, but
also as partners in promoting this worthy principle.
Dear friends, many times in the past I have pondered on the
question of why humanity has the prerogative to any rights at
all. Inevitably, I have always come to the conclusion that human
rights, human liberties and human dignity have their deepest
roots outside of this earthly world. They become what they are
only because, under certain circumstances, they can mean to
humanity a value that people place, without being forced to,
higher than even their own lives. Thus, these notions have
meaning only against the background of the infinite and of
eternity. It is my profound conviction that the true worth of
all our actions, whether or not they are in harmony with our
conscience, the ambassador of eternity in our soul, is finally
tested somewhere beyond our sight. If we did not sense this, or
subconsciously surmise it, certain things could never get done.
Let me conclude my remarks on the State and on the role it will
probably play in the future with the following statement: While
the state is a human creation, humanity is a creation of God.
L'Etat est l'oeuvre de l'homme, et l'homme est l'oeuvre de Dieu.
Thank you.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1120
[Translation]
Hon. Gildas Molgat (Speaker of the Senate): Your Excellency,
President Havel, Mrs. Havlovà, Prime Minister and Mrs. Chrétien,
parliamentary colleagues, distinguished members of the
diplomatic corps, and friends.
[English]
Your Excellency, the applause that you have just heard is the
best thanks that we give to you for the vision for the future
which you have given us this morning, what I might call the Havel
Highway for Humanity.
Your Excellency, we are delighted to welcome you here, both as a
friend and as a NATO Head of State.
[Translation]
Your address to our Parliament this morning, together with the
new status of the Czech Republic as an ally, symbolize the
growing closeness of the relations between the Czech Republic
and Canada.
[English]
On a personal note, Your Excellency, I was pleased indeed that
my Alma Mater, the University of Manitoba, awarded you one of its
rarely given Special Honorary Degrees last night in Winnipeg. The
university wanted to recognize your intelligence, your courage,
your devotion to principle and your literary achievement. I only
regret that I could not be there myself last evening.
Just eight months ago, the Parliament of Canada convened to hear
President Nelson Mandela of South Africa. I cannot help but be
struck by some of the parallels in your separate careers. Both
of you overcame what seemed to be insurmountable barriers, some
life threatening, to promote your principles of freedom and the
advancement of the human spirit.
You faced discrimination. You faced a totalitarian social
structure. You were harassed and imprisoned for your beliefs and
activities. You were denied the opportunity to complete the
formal education of your choice. But never, never did you
weaken.
Through your words and through your courageous leadership you
became a key voice for freedom in Eastern Europe and through the
world. The free world admires you.
[Translation]
During the decade of the sixties, when the cold war was at its
deepest, you fought with a forceful weapon: words. In your
writings, in your dramatic presentations The Garden Party, The
Memorandum and The Increased Difficulty of Concentration, you
made statements of principle and morality that struck a firm
note for freedom.
1125
It is an historic fact that your literary works helped to
inspire the revival of democratic and national sentiments that
led to the Prague Spring of 1968. And when Warsaw Pact
intervention withered the Prague Spring, you played a leading
role in organizing peaceful opposition to the totalitarian
regime of the time.
[English]
Over the next decade, your continuing refusal to compromise your
personal beliefs and political principles gave you a unique moral
authority. And when passive Czechoslovak resistance turned
revolutionary in November 1989, the Prague Drama Club gave birth
to the Civic Forum. This organization spoke out on behalf of the
growing number of groups and individuals demanding fundamental
changes to the political system.
Given your past as a playwright and dissident, it was natural
that you should play a leading role in the Civic Forum. Your
strength of leadership seemed to make it inevitable that, like
Nelson Mandela, you should be chosen President of your country
and that in the summer of 1990 you should preside over the first
free elections in more than 40 years.
[Translation]
Your Excellency, over the past six years, as the first President
of the Czech Republic, you have assumed the role of
international statesman and educator, leading to greater focus
on the future of Europe. Your training as a dramatist has given
you the philosophical and moral confidence to address the
challenges facing Europe in a most profound way.
[English]
For example, your speeches have dwelt on the need for the
European Union to stand for more than just a common currency and
a common market; they have dwelt on the need for Europe to
reinvent itself spiritually and to rediscover its basic classical
civilization.
As a broad extension of that, you have often spoken of the
common roots of human spirituality, as you have this morning.
You have spoken of the need to find the universal moral
imperatives that should focus on accepted rules of human
co-existence, so badly needed right now.
Your Excellency, your ability and willingness to address the
profoundly moral issues of a spiritual regeneration of western
societies makes you unique among politicians and statesmen. We
thank you for your address.
When you leave Canada, you will take with you our affection, our
respect and our universal good wishes.
Merci.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker Parent: Mr. President and Mrs. Havlovà, the
Prime Minister and Madam Chrétien, Senators, my colleagues of the
House of Commons, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. President, thank you for honouring the Chamber and us with
your presence and your eloquence.
[Translation]
As the Prime Minister said, it is a rare occasion for our two
Houses to convene here as we have today. It is, Mr. President,
a mark of the strong ties between the Czech Republic and Canada
and of the deep friendship between our two countries.
And if there is any person for whom we should, as the Prime
Minister said, set aside our daily skirmishes, it is you,
Excellency. Because your life is a truly inspiring story of
courage in the face of oppression.
It is one of stubborn adherence to the highest political
principles.
1130
[English]
Our country, our dear Canada, is fortunate to have had a
democracy since its beginning. Yet sometimes we may take our
democracy for granted.
On the other hand, Mr. President, you had to fight to secure
political rights for your people, and at great personal risk.
You acted on your belief, and you underlined it today, that
every individual is entitled to freedom and dignity. And we, the
parliamentarians of Canada, know how hard you worked in your
country to rebuild the parliamentary institutions that gave
expression to those rights.
Your presence in this Chamber is a very strong symbol for us,
one that tells us we should always cherish, cultivate and renew
the basic democratic ideas that are embodied here in this place.
You have given us a broader perspective of the challenges we
face as a country that wants to play a positive role in a
turbulent world. We agree, all of us here, that some values are
so fundamental that they are worth defending, sometimes at great
cost.
Ultimately, these values are not just Czech or Canadian, or even
western, but values that belong to the human race as a whole.
[Translation]
You have championed a vision of Europe that strikes a chord
among Canadians. You have called Europe “a single political
entity, though immensely diverse and multi-faceted”, where
diverse peoples can work in common cause. The same can be said
of Canada. We take pride in our diversity and have always sought
to thrive on our differences.
[English]
Mr. President, you have shown us how one individual can
influence the course of history in the face of great adversity.
The world is fortunate to have such an eloquent spokesman for
its greatest dreams.
Some years ago, Mr. President, I and many, if not all, Canadians
rejoiced in the Prague Spring, and then we wept with you because
it did not continue.
Now, in the last few years when you, sir, have been president of
your great country, there is a renewal of the Prague Spring.
You spoke about not only individual rights, but you spoke, sir,
about humanity.
I said once in this House to a gathering like this that if you
would know about the strength of a nation, you should look to her
laws and to her soldiers. But if you would know about the soul
of a nation, you should turn to her poets, to her writers and to
her artists.
Today, sir, you have become for us and all those who have heard
you, the poet, the writer and the spokesman who tells us about
the soul of humanity. Thank you for being with us on this day.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.