36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 56
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 24, 2000
1005
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1010
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1015
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1020
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1025
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1030
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1035
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1040
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1045
1125
(Division 747)
| Motion agreed to
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
|
| Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1130
1210
(Division 748)
| Motion agreed to
|
1215
| CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
|
| Bill C-13. Report Stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1220
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion Nos. 1, 5 to 7, 9, 11 to 14, 18 and 20
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Motion No. 21
|
1225
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion Nos. 23 and 24
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Motions Nos. 48, 49 and 50
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1230
1235
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1240
1245
| Motion
|
1335
(Division 749)
| Motion negatived
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1340
1345
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| ESTONIA
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1400
| BLACK HISTORY MONTH
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| DEPLETED URANIUM
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| BLACK HISTORY MONTH
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1405
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| BLACK HISTORY MONTH
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| FLANGERS ROCK GROUP
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
1410
| CHECHNYA
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| REFUGEE IDENTIFICATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1425
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CIDA
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1430
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1435
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1445
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION PROGRAM
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
1450
| COMMEMORATIVE STAMP
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| SCOTIA RAINBOW
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1455
| CIDA
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| IRAN
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| HOCKEY
|
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1500
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1505
| CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-229. Second reading
|
1525
1535
(Division 750)
| Amendment agreed to
|
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
|
| Bill C-13. Report stage
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1540
1545
1550
| Mr. David Price |
1555
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1600
1605
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1610
1615
| Motion
|
1700
(Division 751)
| Motion negatived
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1705
1710
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1715
1720
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1725
1730
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| SENATE
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1750
1755
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1800
1805
| Mr. John Solomon |
1810
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
1815
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1820
1825
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1830
1835
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1840
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| The Environment
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1845
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| Visible Minorities
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1850
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 56
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, February 24, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order.
Faced with the insensitivity and arrogance of this government,
which is preparing to table a third gag order on the infamous
Bill C-20 that will deny Quebecers their fundamental democratic
rights, I have no choice but to appeal to the openmindedness of
this House and ask it to permit me to table a document that will
surely enlighten it in this dark period of Canadian history.
It is an article from the paper the Le Nouvelliste dated
February 22, 2000 and entitled “The FTQ and the CSN Oppose Bill
C-20”.
With your permission, I will read a short passage, just to show
our colleagues how closed-minded they are, at present.
1010
The article reads:
The powerful in Quebec society rose up against the federal bill
on the referendum conditions as the Liberals tried once again to
limit debate on the matter.
The Liberals had already obliged the committee examining the
bill to sit from morning to night several days a week.
Yesterday, in a marathon session, they tried to pass a motion to
put an end to the deliberations of the committee as of midnight
Thursday, after seven days of hearings, denying—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent
for the tabling of this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. The hon. member indicated that he had
no choice but to ask for consent to table. I suggest to him that
he does have other options.
I want to refer Your Honour to Standing Order 47 which states
clearly that points of order should be raised in this instance
following the daily routine of business. I know of no reasons
which would allow a member to rise on a point of order and
pre-empt the daily routine of business when the standing orders
clearly state that points of order are to be raised at the
conclusion of routine proceedings.
I invite Your Honour to look at this now and determine the
question.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I am surprised by what the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons had to say.
He himself rises on a point of order to say that we cannot rise
on a point of order at this point in the proceedings. There is
something of a paradox in what he is doing.
Also, based on my understanding of the rules, members are
authorized to rise on a point of order at any time during the
proceedings, except during oral question period.
Madam Speaker, you will enlighten me on this issue, but I
believe that those who have sat in the Chair since December have
authorized Bloc Quebecois members, and any other member
interested, to rise on such points of order before routine
proceedings.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The point of order
from the parliamentary secretary is indeed an interesting point.
[Translation]
That being said, it is true that, for some time now, the Chair
has entertained requests for unanimous consent for the tabling
of such documents. For this morning, we will therefore carry on
in the same fashion.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, you
understood correctly that this is not a point of order, but a
request for the tabling of a document.
I hope to get the unanimous consent of all the members of this
House, primarily Liberal members, to properly enlighten them on
Bill C-20, which seeks to infringe upon the fundamental rights of
the people of Quebec.
The document I want to table is a study published by the Library
of Parliament, here in Ottawa, which deals with the fundamental
rights of Canadians and, of course, of Quebecers. This study,
done in 1992, is entitled “Human Rights Legislation and the
Charter: a Comparative Guide”.
I see in this House the former president of my union, the member
for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, with whom I had the pleasure of
working—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must remind the hon.
member that we do not comment on the presence or absence of a
member in the House.
Is there is unanimous consent of the House to allow the hon.
member to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1015
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am asking
for unanimous consent to table a document.
It is an article from the Quebec City newspaper Le Soleil on
Claude Ryan's evidence before the legislative committee. It
says:
Claude Ryan condemned the bill introduced by the Minister for
Intergovernmental Affairs...and soundly criticized the bill on
referendum conditions, becoming the first well-known federalist
to openly express his dissent.
In particular, Mr. Ryan said that by judging the clarity of any
referendum question, parliament and the federal government “were
directly interfering with the wording of the question”, an
attitude that the former politician described as “not real
federalism, but rather as a system whereby a government was
being put under trusteeship”.
It is obvious that this bill denies the fundamental rights of
the people of Quebec and I ask for the unanimous consent of the
House—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker,
following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, a sorry fellow as everyone knows, of a bill denying
Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous
consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten it.
It is an article published in the February 18, 2000 issue of Le
Soleil entitled “Bill C-20”.
If I may, Madam Speaker, I would like to read a few excerpts
from it—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Speaker, I hope you
will let me finish my remarks before asking what you think you
will ask.
Following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs of a bill denying Quebecers their basic rights—that
surely must be news to you—I ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to table a document that might enlighten it. It is an
article published in the February 22 edition of
Le Devoir—therefore not an old issue of that newspaper—entitled—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, three of
my colleagues and I went to Sept-îles to inform people there, who
told us to table this document in the House.
There were a great many people in Sept-Îles, including the hon.
member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the
hon. member of Charlevoix, the hon. member for Manicouagan and
myself. We made a special trip, and were back here the following
day to take part in the House proceedings. Here, nobody listens
to us. We have to go to Sept-Îles.
I am asking the House very nicely for permission to table a
document setting out what people in Sept-Îles and in large areas
of the north and the south have to say. They asked us to table
this document and I hope the House will not insult them by
refusing permission to do so.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am sure you will allow me to table the
draft resolution of the government majority on the legislative
committee which would put a gag on the committee and which we
have been debating since the beginning of the week.
The Liberal majority has failed to convince a single member of
the opposition parties that this gag is necessary. Now we have
a motion that the House gag the committee's deliberations.
Do I have the consent of the House to table the Liberal
majority's draft resolution, which reads as follows:
The committee may, if necessary, for the purpose of better
accommodating the list of witnesses, continue to hear witnesses
until 5.30 p.m., Thursday, February 24, 2000, provided that the
Chair puts all questions necessary to dispose of Bill C-20 at the
latest by Thursday, February 24, 2000 at midnight.
That is a gag order, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, as you know,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has tabled a bill that
will deny the fundamental rights of Quebecers.
1020
I therefore think it would be useful to suggest that an article
entitled “Clarity Committee Debate Turning into Family Feud”
that appeared in La Presse on February 17 be read in the House.
The journalist who wrote this article mentions that the
legislative committee responsible for examining the clarity bill
has not shed light on much of anything, except the deep
antipathy between federalists and sovereignists.
I seek the House's consent to table this document.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, following
the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of
a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, in the days
to come, the public will see everywhere a picture of a parking
meter with the slogan “Yes, time is up” above it. A theatre tour
is being organized for college students and seven mobilization
meetings are planned for women.
“Our time is one of extreme federalism”. During a recent press
conference, former minister Yves Michaud, the one we know as the
Robin des banques, said that federalism “has never been so
invasive and destructive in all of its history”.
“We think Ottawa does not intend to give anything to Quebec”,
added the president of the Mouvement national des Québécois,
Louise Paquet.
“We must explain not only why we wanted independence 20 years
ago, but why we want it now. Federalism has changed. The
government is taking over the country by spending money. It has
taken—”
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sure the hon. member
has a precise goal in mind, and I would like to know it right
away.
Mr. Maurice Godin: Madam Speaker, I ask for the unanimous
consent of the House to table this document.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have here
an editorial from the Thursday, January 27, 2000 issue of Le
Devoir. I ask for unanimous consent to table it.
I believe it could be of interest for members of the government
party since this article is entitled “Ontario After a Yes Vote”.
Since the government's majority is from Ontario, it might
enlighten it on the future of the rest of Canada after a winning
referendum.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
Twice already, for my colleague from Laurentides as for my
colleague from Châteauguay, probably because we were stunned by
the forceful arguments they were making, we did not hear any
noes. We did see some heads shake, but is it the same for the
Chair to see heads shake as to hear an audible no?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Absolutely not. I clearly
heard government members say no. Perhaps I should ask them to
speak louder. They do not all have voices as strong as that of
the hon. member.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, to allow the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to come out of his
constitutional obsession and see that, outside Parliament Hill,
there are realities our citizens are asking us to confront, I
ask for the unanimous consent to table a document that will
greatly inspire him about the real problems. It is the most
recent book of Michel Chartrand and Michel Bernard on the
concept of guaranteed minimum wage for all citizens.
I challenge him to deal with this issue, and then we will have
the opportunity to co-operate together.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, this past
weekend, at the young liberals seminar, the leader of the
Liberal Party of Quebec had an idea.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: He had an idea.
1025
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: It was the only one he had and it got
lonely. So he decided to write it up in Le Nouvelliste, where he
discussed a co-managed federalism.
I am sure that this article from Le Nouvelliste would inspire my
friends across the way if they allowed me to table it. As the
hon. member for Chicoutimi said, they would realize that their
constitutional obsession prevents them from seeing what it is
like in the field and, most of all, from realizing that for once
the provincial Liberal leader had an idea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I have here an article entitled “Referendum Clarity”,
published in Le Soleil on February 20, 2000.
The article reads:
The Minister for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Joseph
Facal, announced on Friday that he would be appearing as a
witness, this Thursday morning, before federal members who have
begun the study of Bill C-20 this week.
In fact, it states further:
The Bloc Quebecois has denounced this legislative committee, one
of its reasons for doing so being that the member for
Saint-Maurice refused to allow the committee to travel across
Quebec. The other opposition parties have also denounced the
fact that the Liberal government is putting a limit on the
length of the debate in the House.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this
document, which will enlighten my friends across the way.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
great Corneille wrote “This obscure clarity falling from the
stars”. This has now become “This obscure clarity falling from
Bill C-20”.
I wish to enlighten the members opposite who intend to support
Bill C-20, thus displaying a blatant lack of information.
So I wish to help them by seeking unanimous consent to table an
article written by a Liberal, on another Liberal's statement,
which reads as follows:
Claude Ryan did not beat around the bush yesterday when he
criticized the bill on the referendum conditions, thus becoming
one of the first well-known federalists to overtly voice dissent.
Mr. Ryan noted in particular that Parliament and the federal
government, by expressing an opinion on the clarity of a future
referendum question, would at the very least directly interfere
in the drafting of the question, an attitude that the previous—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Madam Speaker, the bill
denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers to decide their own
future has recently been tabled by the much unloved Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
On February 19, 2000, La Presse newspaper carried Mr. Larose's
testimony before the legislative committee, saying:
The bill is a straitjacket, an exercise in obstruction, a lack
of democracy; as a matter of fact, this bill is a lie. It is a
new trick the federal government came up with to avoid
compliance with the supreme court opinion.
Bill C-20 being an attempt by the federal government to take
control, it subjugates the Quebec people, who form a perfectly
autonomous entity in these matters.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, as we know,
we are in the midst of debating Bill C-20, a very antidemocratic
bill. I think the government should not persist in its
antidemocratic ways for too long; after all, there is a process
governing the consideration of bills.
As I have already said, in considering a bill, one has to
consult all sources. I have here a study by Jacques Frémont
concerning social union.
1030
About the signatories, Mr. Frémont wrote the following:
It was decided instead to adopt a clause imposing obligations
and serious constraints on the signatory government. However,
the study reminds us that these obligations affect the
provincial governments much more than they do the federal
government, which are essentially the ones exercising
jurisdiction over the fields of government activity in relation
to mobility.
I urge my colleagues to show open-mindedness, ask them to accept
this study and seek unanimous consent to—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, during
this debate on Bill C-20 introduced by the conceited Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, I would like to table a document on
an article from the February 21, 2000 edition of La Presse,
which is entitled “Yes, Time Has Run Out”.
This article summarizes the press conference called by the
Mouvement national des Québécois where its president, Louise
Paquet, said:
We think that Ottawa has no intention of giving anything to
Quebec. We must explain not only what our reasons were for
wanting to achieve independence 20 years ago, but also what they
are now. Federalism has changed. The government is giving money
to buy the support of Canadians. We find ourselves caught in a
stranglehold that is tightening.
Yves Michaud, the bank basher, added this:
We must cope with extreme federalism. Throughout its history, it
has never been so invading and destructive.
I hope this document will enlighten the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, following
the introduction in this House of this terrible Bill C-20, in an
attempt to deny the Quebec people the right to decide their
future, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table an
article from the February 21, 2000 edition of Le Devoir,
entitled “Mouvement National des Québécois Launches Campaign to
Promote Sovereignty”.
As everyone knows, the MNQ is a neutral association of patriots
looking to advance the collective well-being of Quebecers.
The article reads “The Mouvement national des Québécoises et des
Québécois is launching a campaign to promote sovereignty. This
campaign, which—”
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I think that the hon. member
has made his point. Is there unanimous consent of the House to
table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
You are aware of our willingness to co-operate and ensure that
the proceedings of the House are conducted with a certain
decorum. You are the Speaker. You can decide for yourself when
it is time to intervene and we believe that there should not be
any interference by the government House leader.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I have been very patient up
until now. I have allowed members to speak maybe longer than I
should have. If the hon. member is asking to table a document,
in my opinion, he should read the title and name the author.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, following
the introduction of Bill C-20 by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, since you are yourself a Quebecer
and, therefore, have an open mind, I hope you will listen
carefully to what I have to say and hopefully grant my request.
I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the debate we are
trying to have is made impossible by the totalitarian tactics
conceived and planned by the accomplice from the riding of
Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, a lackey of—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member rose to seek
unanimous consent to table a document. I would ask him to do so
now.
1035
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Madam Speaker, I had not finished. May I
table my document, since I read it slowly and calmly, so that
they could clearly understand? Is there unanimous consent?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate your impartiality and your patience.
This morning, I read an article on Bill C-20 from the Canadian
Press, dated February 21, 2000 and entitled “Ottawa to
Neutralize Quebec on International Scene”.
It is a summary of a speech made by anthropologist Claude
Baribeau, of Laval University. The document will certainly
enlighten the members opposite.
I ask for unanimous consent to table the document.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, further to
the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of
a bill denying fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for
unanimous consent to table a document which, I hope, will
enlighten this House.
It is an article published in La Presse on
February 22, 2000, and entitled “A Damage Control Motion”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
here an article from the Canadian Press in which we read that
“Mr. Ryan felt that, by making a decision on the clarity of a
referendum question, the federal government would, to say the
least, interfere directly with the drafting of the question. He
added that this attitude was not real federalism but a
trusteeship system. Such a system, he said, if not contrary to
the federal government's responsibility should—”
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have here an
article published in the February 20, 2000 issue of Le Soleil.
Its title is “Referendum Clarity”.
It says that Joseph Facal, the minister for Canadian
intergovernmental affairs, will testify Thursday morning before
the members of parliament who have been examining Bill C-20 this
week. Incidentally, I want to point out that Mr. Facal is
testifying at this very moment before the legislative committee—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is not the time to
debate the issue, but to ask for the unanimous consent of the
House. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Madam Speaker,
following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs of Bill C-20, which denies the Quebec people their
fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House
to table a document that will enlighten it.
I would like to table—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. We
heard the leader of the government in the House yelling from his
seat that the Chair did not need to know the details of
everything we want to table with the unanimous consent of the
House. Let me refer him to the book of Montpetit and Marleau, on
page 501:
The mechanics of requesting and granting unanimous consent must
be carefully observed. A Member wishing to waive the usual
notice requirement before moving a substantive motion would ask
the unanimous consent of the House “for the following motion”,
which is then read in extenso.
The member should be authorized by the Chair to read out what he
has to say before asking for unanimous consent. This is what is
said on page 501 of Montpetit and Marleau.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I do not see this type of
intervention as a motion. I repeat that I would like to hear the
title of the articles, the author and then the request for
unanimous consent.
1040
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I always said that the
Chair had a gift as far as guessing is concerned, but there is a
limit.
Obviously, you cannot consider right away what will be asked as
a substantive motion, but you must at least listen to what the
hon. member has to say in order to be able to establish whether
or not it is a substantive motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I think that if an hon.
member wants to introduce a motion, it would be a good thing if
he said so right away. Then, I would be prepared to listen
through to the end.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, following
the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of
a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to table a document published in
the February 17 issue of Le Devoir, which says “Appearing before
the committee studying the federal bill—”
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Madam Speaker, following
the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of
Bill C-20, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table
a document.
It is the brief submitted by the Regroupement des gens
résolument souverainistes to the parliamentary committee of the
Quebec National Assembly on Bill 99.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Madam Speaker,
complying with your suggestion, I would like to inform you how
that I wish to make a motion.
The Prime Minister finds it normal, and in keeping with Canada
political custom, for Liberal MPs—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, the members across the way
are interrupting me. They should wait until I have introduced
my motion.
An hon. member: Let her speak.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne: The Prime Minister finds it normal, and in
keeping with Canada political custom, for Liberal MPs to take
the credit, for partisan political purposes, for billions of
dollars worth of grants being paid—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have
unanimous consent to table such a document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions,
and I move:
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am trying to understand the logic by which the
parliamentary secretary to the government House leader could
present a motion, whereas he himself—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is not a point of
order but a point of debate.
I am in the process of reading the motion presented to the
House. We are therefore going to proceed with that motion.
1045
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays. have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1125
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 132
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
|
Reynolds
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 86
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE QUEBEC
SECESSION REFERENCE
BILL C-20—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-20, an act to give effect to the
requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme
Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, not more than
ten further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the
committee stage of the bill and, at the expiry of the time
provided for in this order, any proceedings before the
legislative committee on the said bill shall be interrupted, if
required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every
question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the
said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without
further debate or amendment.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
1130
[English]
The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1210
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 136
|
NAYS
Members
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Epp
| Hoeppner
| Nunziata – 4
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
1215
[Translation]
CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-13, an act to
establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to repeal
the Medical Research Council Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now ready to give a ruling on the report
stage of Bill C-13. There are 55 motions in amendment standing
on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-13.
[English]
Motions Nos. 39, 40, 43, 44, 53 and 54 cannot be proposed to the
House because they are not accompanied by the recommendation of
the Governor General. Standing Order 76(3) requires that notice
of such a recommendation be given no later than the sitting day
before the beginning of the report stage consideration of a bill.
[Translation]
The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
[English]
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 5 to 7, 9, 11 to 14, 18, 20, 21,
23, 24, 48 to 50.
[Translation]
Group No. 2: Motions numbered 2 to 4, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22,
25 to 38, 41, 42, 45 to 47, 51, 52, 55 and 56.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
[Translation]
I shall now propose motions numbered 1, 5 to 7, 9, 11 to 14, 18,
20, 21, 23, 24, 48 to 50 to the House.
1220
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-13, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines
12 and 13 on page 1 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines
18 and 19 on page 1 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 3
on page 2 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 19
on page 2 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 19
and 20 on page 3 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 27 on
page 3 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 3 on
page 4 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 9 and
10 on page 4 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 11
and 12 on page 4 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 31 on
page 4 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 46 on
page 4 with the following:
[English]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC) moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended
(a) by replacing, in the English version, line 13 on
page 5 with the following:
“partnerships in health research;”
(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 16 on page 5
with the following:
“Government of Canada in health research; and”
(c) by adding after line 16 on page 5 the following:
“(m) demonstrating a commitment and respect for the principle of
public accountability by establishing and maintaining public
access to research materials and reports pertaining to public
health issues.”
1225
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 5, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 6 with the following:
“have an interest in health research;”
(b) by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 6 with the following:
“(d) monitor and analyze health research, including ethical
issues;”
(c) by replacing line 16 on page 6 with the following:
“pertaining to health research; and”
That Bill C-13, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 10
and 11 on page 6 with the following:
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)
moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended by adding after line 7
on page 11 the following:
“(5) The members of the Advisory Boards shall not, directly
or indirectly, as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner
or otherwise, have any pecuniary or proprietary interest in any
business which operates in the pharmaceutical or medical devices
industries.”
That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended by adding after line 7
on page 11 the following:
“(5) The Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for
Public Office Holders apply with such modifications as the
circumstances require to the members of the Advisory Boards. For
the purposes of the Code, “Public Office Holder” includes a
member of an Advisory Board.”
That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended by adding after line 7
on page 11 the following:
“20.1 (1) Within three months after the coming into force of
this Act, the Governing Council shall make a by-law establishing
a code of ethics for the members of the Advisory Boards.
(2) The by-law referred to in subsection (1) shall apply to
the members of the Advisory Boards thirty days after it is made.”
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak to Bill C-13, an act to establish the
Canadian institutes of health research. While I am in favour of
the bill overall, I will take this opportunity to speak on a few
aspects of it and the process that has been involved to date.
While it is true that the objectives of the bill should be
attainable—and I have personally received numerous letters and
e-mails from the medical and research community to support
it—there are several aspects of the bill that I feel could have
been better and stronger. I mention this because all these
things were brought before the Standing Committee on Health, and
in the usual Liberal manner, they were given little true
consideration.
1230
What we have just witnessed in the House is that when the
government decides that it does not want to hear any more
legitimate democratic debate on an issue, it simply decides that
we have all had enough time and it brings in either time
allocation or closure, to the shame of the government, to cut off
legitimate debate. It is all part of the frustration that
Canadians in general and opposition members in particular feel in
giving any kind of real input into the decision making process of
the House, especially when the opposition represents some 62% of
the population of the country.
This is the same kind of thing that went on in the making of
this bill and in the way in which it was brought through
committee.
I am pleased that some variations of these proposals were
recognized and given support by some members of the other
opposition parties.
The purpose of Bill C-13 is to excel, according to
internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence, in
the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved
health for Canadians. It is to provide more effective health
services and products of a strengthened Canadian health care
system. Finally, it is to replace the Medical Research Council
of Canada to provide a more direct and systematic approach to
research in Canada.
These are all noble and just objectives and ones with which I
agree. Who would not agree with the provision of better health
care, improved research capabilities, more effective health care
services and a strengthened health care system? All of us in the
House would agree with those objectives today.
One of the problems lies in how we get there. How do we achieve
these goals? The Liberals have clearly shown us how not to
achieve them. They have shown us how to disrupt and break up the
Canadian health care system. Because of the current Liberal
government's inaction and reduced funding for our health care
system it has, in effect, already created a multi-tiered system
of service in the country. It is shameful. Canadians know it
and they now say that health care is their number one concern.
The process that the Standing Committee on Health worked through
for this bill was no different from the process used by most
other committees of the House of Commons. The subcommittee
reviews what topics and subjects are pertinent. We have our
discussion. We decide what we believe are the most important
things to discuss. However, we find out then that the health
minister has already written his letter to tell us what to do and
we simply have to go along with the government majority, which is
completely different from the overwhelming desire of Canadians in
terms of the issue at hand.
Never mind that these issues greatly affect Canadians. The
Liberal majority on the committee simply bends the knee and
follows the minister's wishes. Then, of course, the committee
goes through the charade of calling witnesses, reviewing
pertinent research, amply supplied by the Library of Parliament,
and debating parts of the issue.
I do this for the benefit of those who are watching on
television and wondering how we get to this point.
After that the committee goes through its paces, whether to
interview witnesses, amend the bill or report recommendations to
the House of Commons.
Unfortunately, most committees again favour the party line and
do not truly listen to the recommendations of opposition members
of parliament. Regardless of their validity, it is rare that
committee members will adopt amendments put forward by anyone
other than a government member.
Such was the case with Bill C-13. Although most members around
the table agreed in principle with the bill, numerous amendments
were put forward to legitimately improve it. Unfortunately, the
vast majority of these were turned down at committee.
The Standing Committee on Health is not unique in these aspects.
We have seen the same scenario over and over again. We have
watched as the government did not even listen or pretend to
listen to the people of British Columbia over the debate on the
Nisga'a treaty. It was not until the Reform Party denied the
finance committee the opportunity to travel in its prebudget
deliberations that the go-ahead was finally given for the
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
to do likewise and meet with the people of B.C.
Surely it is our job as members of parliament to hear what the
people have to say. Even then, the committee blatantly stacked
the witness list. Imagine going to the city of Prince George on
an issue like this and not hearing from anyone who lives there.
1235
There is a saying: not only must justice be done; justice must
appear to be done. The appearance of justice is not apparent in
the many dealings that go on in this Chamber. I will refer to
yet another example.
We currently have Bill C-2, the elections bill, before the
House. As my colleagues and I, and in particular the hon. member
for North Vancouver, spoke this week and in the past about the
inadequacies of the draft legislation contained within Bill C-2,
I was reminded of how many times the government has missed
opportunities to improve something. It has failed to grab hold
of those opportunities. Bill C-2 could be a vastly improved bill
if the government chose to listen and act on the recommendations
put forward by opposition parties.
The government fails to recognize that each member represents
thousands of people. When the Prime Minister dictates to
government members how to vote and what actions to accept and not
accept, the wishes of millions of people are blatantly ignored.
To paraphrase, the people of Canada must not only see that we
are a democracy, they must see that we are a democracy enacted
and fulfilled. On this issue I believe that the government has
failed the people of Canada miserably.
Bill C-13 could indeed have had many improvements made to it.
The majority of the amendments before us are worthy of true
debate and consideration and I hope that members of the House
will give them due deliberation. Among these I would include the
following.
There is the recognition of provincial jurisdiction in the role
of the provision of health care. In far too many instances the
government has attempted to manipulate or manage a program or
service that has not any legal or constitutional jurisdiction.
I believe that the administrative bureaucracy should be limited
to a maximum of 5% of the total budget and use definitions which
are normally applied to departments by the Treasury Board.
We need to be certain that the main thrust of this bill ensures
that support for health research is based upon scientific merit.
Funding should be based upon the validity of the project, not on
the basis of employment equity groups or political connections.
We must be certain that research funding methods are
accurate and clear.
We must be sure that the clause dealing with ethical issues in
this bill is strengthened. Those issues include such topics as
biomedical research, reproductive technology, gene therapy and
other ethical issues of the future.
We must ensure that there will be a subcommittee for the CIHR
which can act as an ombudsman for complaints by researchers and
private sector partners.
I believe that there are problems with this bill. In the main,
however, I support the bill. I believe that we need to
strengthen research in the medical community in Canada. Canada
has been a world leader in many areas of medical research, but it
needs to take its place in other areas. We need to do what has
been suggested through this bill to put together both the
framework and the financial resources to bring together medical
researchers to work on specific areas.
This bill is a step in the right direction. It will indeed
divert the flow of good medical brains that are going to the U.S.
The Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that he does not
think there is any serious problem in terms of brain drain. Let
me say that in the medical profession it is a real problem. I am
glad to see that there are some people in the government who have
the intestinal fortitude to recognize that brain drain and to do
something about it in a bill such as this, which will create the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Because of that I will
be supporting this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
although we worked very hard in committee and I was diligent in
my efforts there to improve Bill C-13, I cannot resist
mentioning as an aside that we are sad today.
The people watching us must realize that once again the Liberal
government has been barbaric with the opposition by imposing
time allocation in a most inconsiderate and cavalier manner.
That said, I would like to speak to Bill C-13. I would add,
incidentally, that the doormat Liberal members from Quebec have
once again not risen to defend the interests of Quebec.
1240
Bill C-13 concerns an important issue, that is, the efforts we
have to make in research and especially in the biomedical
sector.
It is interesting, because in the early 1990s, the Medical
Research Council of Canada asked parliamentarians to do, in the
biomedical research sector, what had been done in the
communications sector in the 1960s, that is make it a leading
edge sector.
We can understand that, historically, Canada has invested in the
communications sector because this is obviously a big country,
and necessitates several communications networks working
together.
There are three problems with Bill C-13, and they are the focus
of our amendments. We do not oppose it. I want to be very very
clear and I am all the happier to be clear, with the member for
Jonquière by my side here. She has always been interested in
such questions because of what goes on in the riding she
represents here in the House and will have the opportunity to
introduce later on today.
We believe that we must invest massively in biomedical research.
We are pleased to see that, next year, $485 million will be
allocated for biomedical research.
However, we cannot understand why the provinces were not more
closely involved in the drafting of the bill. Sure, the interim
governing council included people from Quebec. I am thinking of
Mr. Bureau, from the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec
and one of Quebec's top experts in the field. There was also Dr.
Renaud, a sociologist by profession and chair of the Humanities
Research Council of Canada. I hope members from all sides of the
House will give them a good hand of applause, because these
people were extremely dedicated in establishing the interim
governing council.
We are concerned that the bill, in its present form, not only
promotes research in the biomedical sector, but is also
intrusive. The current wording of the bill alludes at least 15
times, in the 52 clauses, to health research or to health
related issues. This creates an opportunity for the federal
government to get involved which, unfortunately, is of concern
to us.
In its last budget, the Quebec government earmarked $406 million
over a two year period. This gives an idea of the scope of the
projects.
The Quebec government, which is setting up a science and
technology department, is allocating $406 million over two
years, while the federal government will earmark $500 million a
year for all ten provinces. This is to say that Quebec is making
considerable structuring efforts to provide a consistent
framework, a concerted action plan for its research initiatives.
Would it not have been a good idea—and this is exactly what the
amendments before us today are all about and I hope that
government members will vote in favour—for the provinces, Quebec
for example, which historically has received 33% of Canada's
Medical Research Council grants and has trained generations of
top-notch biomedical researchers, to be able to provide lists to
guide the federal government in its recommendations so that the
governing council is truly representative of the people that
would have been selected by the provinces? This is what the
amendments before us have in mind.
1245
I have been in close touch with the scientific community, and we
know that it is not easy to be a researcher. It takes
perseverance; generations of equipment must be replaced every 5,
6 or 7 years. We are not opposed to $500 million being
invested, particularly in the biomedical research sector, but
why stipulate in the bill that there will be a single institute?
I have asked this question again and again.
If they want to establish 15 research institutes, which they
claim will operate autonomously, why word the bill as if there
were a single research institute, with a single governing
council, a single series of appointments by the governor in
council, as well as equipment and research to order that will
become the property of the Crown?
Would it not have been desirable, as my colleague from Jonquière
and I indicated to the committee, most assiduously and in a most
articulate manner, for us to have a truly decentralized bill?
Once again, the government was not willing to bow to the
arguments of the opposition, and that is why today we are here
with some thirty-plus amendments.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, known in certain circles as “the man
with the millions” and who is feigning ignorance, to lend an ear
to our arguments and our amendments.
I say again: this is a bill that means a lot to us. There is
not a single democrat in this House today whose heart is not
heavy. There is not a single democrat in this House today whose
thoughts are not for the future, and who does not say “shame on
you” to this government, which is making a travesty of democracy
and showing its contempt for the opposition and its lack of
respect for Quebecers.
Because the government is acting in such a cavalier manner,
because we cannot count on the members of this parliament who
sit at the Liberal caucus table to defend the referendum act,
and because we cannot count on them to defend the extraordinary
vitality of the democracy of the National Assembly and its right
to decide on the matter, I have no other choice but to move the
following, pursuant to Standing Order 60:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1335
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Earle
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(North Vancouver) – 49
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grose
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Myers
| Normand
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
– 135
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few
comments on Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research.
First, I want to thank the witnesses who appeared before the
Standing Committee on Health to provide their input and give
their strong support to this bill. This was very much
appreciated.
I also want to mention the work done by opposition members who,
in general, were very regular in attending committee meetings.
They also made suggestions. Finally, I thank members of my own
party, who also worked very hard on this issue.
A number of amendments are before us and we are currently
debating the first group of these amendments. I should point out
that, for us, investing in health research is the best possible
preparation to ensure adequate health services in the years to
come and to continue to provide such services to Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member. I ask all members to have the courtesy of following
the debate with me.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Madam Speaker, health services, health
care and quality research into health, are all linked in our
opinion and will mean improved health care services for
Canadians in general. Each poll tells us that health is the
number one priority in Canada.
1340
We decided, by transforming the existing health research
structure into the institutes, to invest and to double our
investments in the coming years in health and health research,
and I think that the people of Canada are generally pleased with
this decision.
[English]
The creation of health research institutes has been thought to
address key issues of importance to the health of Canadians. It
will allow greater focus for health research than existed with
the previous granting council model.
[Translation]
Thanks to the research institutes model, which we will call
virtual institutes, research will be better integrated across
the entire country. The research done here in a number of fields
will also be in daily contact with the best of what is being
done internationally. This is the sense of the way we want to
integrate these new institutes. I think the people of Canada
will surely benefit.
In addition, we do not want these research institutes to be
limited to theoretical research only ending up as impressive
reports for a few dozen specialists. We want this research to
mean specific benefits for the people, specific applications.
It will not just be a matter of information circulating among
highly specialized individuals, but measures, drugs and improved
services arising from this research for the people of Canada.
That is our style on this side of the House. Instead of talking
we are acting.
The bill also ensures collaboration with provincial governments.
Our second group of amendments includes clarifications that
address the loud—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: —but not necessarily lofty—concerns
expressed by a number of members of the opposition.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I am
afraid that the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies is misleading
the House when he says that he has the support of provincial
governments. I am prepared to table a letter to show that the
government—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is not a point of
order. It is part of debate.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Madam Speaker, as the House is well aware,
Bill C-13 was based on the recommendations of an interim
governing council composed of 34 well-respected Canadians
representing all fields of health research in Canada.
This interim council includes people from provincial governments,
universities, hospitals, the academic community and charitable
organizations in the health and private sectors, as well as
researchers from all fields of health research.
The institutes work with organizations that focus on the three
areas of health, health care and health research. For us, this
is all interconnected, since research is what makes quality care
and services possible. In general, the Canadian public and the
research community have been receptive to this message and given
it their strong support.
Research also provides Canada with an important opportunity to
contribute to improving people's health, not only in Canada but
internationally as well. That is one of our responsibilities as
an industrialized and developed country. Canadian researchers
in fact—and this is something to be stated with pride—are often at
the leading edge of their specialties and their contributions
are recognized worldwide.
It should be obvious to everyone that decision makers in the
political arena need to have research data to call upon. Those
of us who have to make decisions, who are in politics with the
people in the various departments backing us up, need to be
informed of the top research data when the time comes to make
decisions on policy, regulations, or mechanisms for managing the
programs for which we are responsible.
Public access to research material and reports on public health
related issues is also governed by the Privacy Act and the
Access to Information Act.
1345
These are acts to protect people's rights while guaranteeing
public access when appropriate. Some of the amendments are,
therefore, prompted by the bill itself, or by other bills
ensuring the public of access to information.
As for conflict of interest issues, which are addressed by some
of the proposed amendments, and matters of ethics, the health
committee's report contained a recommendation to the government
that application of the principles of ethics be enhanced as far
as the health research institutes are concerned.
Our committee recommended “that the Governing Council develop
and implement appropriate conflict of interest guidelines for
the agency, including the Institutes of Health Research”.
We are waiting for the government's response to this
recommendation. This recommendation shows that our committee is
concerned by this issue and has brought it to the government's
attention.
Therefore, it is not necessary to state in the act that the
governing council has the authority to develop a conflict of
interest code. The federal government has already taken measures
to ensure that organizations have a conflict of interest code
that meets their specific needs.
The federal government's ethics counsellor will work with the
president of the institutes to develop a code that meets the
specific needs of the new organization. As part of this process,
they will determine whether it is necessary to develop
additional conflict of interest policies for all members,
employees and volunteers of the institutes' committees and
advisory boards.
It must be understood that these institutes are headed by a
president. There is also a governing council and there are
advisory boards. When developing a code of ethics on conflict of
interests for the institute, it will be necessary to take into
account the various levels within the organization and the
positions held by those concerned.
Some of the concerns expressed earlier by opposition parties,
including the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois, concern
motions in both Group No. 1 and Group No. 2. Later on, when we
discuss Group No. 2, we will have the opportunity to provide
answers to these concerns. Some of these answers are in the form
of amendments proposed by the government to meet these concerns
expressed by the opposition.
The committee did a good job and its Liberal majority took good
note of the most important suggestions made by the members of
the opposition parties.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise with pleasure today to talk about Bill C-13, an
act to establish the Canadian institutes of health research and
to repeal the Medical Research Council Act. I agree with the
objective of the bill and the new Canadian institutes of health
research. Before I speak to the bill which I am pleased to
support, I want to take a moment to speak about the decorum in
the House and what has happened.
When I came in here earlier this morning a member from the Bloc
was speaking about the bill. The member said it was a very
important bill for Canada. I listened to the hon. member's
speech. I would hope that Bloc members would show the same
respect for all members of the House.
I understand the Bloc members are upset about closure being
brought in at the committee stage on the clarity bill but that
does not give them the right to derail the entire House. It is
okay to take a stand on a bill and I acknowledge we did it on the
Nisga'a bill. However it does not mean that they should try to
derail the whole House and cause problems on every single bill
over their one issue. I appeal to the Bloc members to give all
members of the House including those on the government side the
respect to be heard on this bill. It was very important to say
that at the outset.
1350
Why is this bill so important? At first glance one wonders
whether it will create another billion dollar boondoggle. On
really looking at the bill I agree with the concept of what it is
trying to do. It is putting money back into medical research. It
is very important that we make this investment. It will also
help stem part of the brain drain by making this investment in
our scientific community and will put the resources into medical
research. The intent is correct.
The Canadian institutes of health research appear to have a
precise game plan with the sole intention of promoting research.
There are couple of qualifications. First, there is little time
available to consult the scientific community for input on
research projects that are to be undertaken. It is important to
make sure that the scientific community is targeted. Second, I
have some concerns that the president of the Canadian institutes
of health research may bypass recommendations of the governing
council and simply appoint people to the advisory councils based
on individual choice rather than their qualifications. I say that
because of what we have seen historically in that appointments
become much more political.
When one reads the bill it does appear that the appointments
will be independent and made at arm's length from the federal
government. I applaud that and hope that will be carried out. Of
course, we will not know until the bill is passed and we see the
appointments but that issue seems to be addressed. Again, I
point these concerns out because it is very important that the
institutes operate independent of the government.
I wish I could say that was the case at HRDC. This all ties
together. It is government grants going out as subsidies. Again,
I think it has to happen in scientific research. That is an
important role the government must play and that is why I support
that. But we must make sure that the money gets to where it is
supposed to be and is done in a non-partisan way.
Unfortunately we have seen the billion dollar boondoggle at
HRDC. Not only that, it is the whole culture that flows through
all levels of many government departments. I personally witnessed
it with the TAGS program and the fisheries in Atlantic Canada.
The federal government paid $2.8 billion for fishermen to stay at
home and wait for the fish to come back. The government did not
achieve any of the desired goals. We have seen it in Indian
affairs, CIDA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the
list goes on and on.
I point out these concerns because if this is to work and we
make this investment in our scientific community, we have to make
sure it is done in a non-partisan way. The government has
addressed that in the bill. That is why I intend to support it
but it is important that we follow up and make sure that it
happens.
All grant money should be administered that way. The new
Canadian institutes of health research will replace the Medical
Research Council which until now has not been accountable. It has
not worked and that is why there must be a change. It is very
important that the money is fully accounted for and transparent.
This is the first step in making that happen.
We have seen in the past and on the front page of every paper
for a month concerning HRDC, that it has not been accounted for.
Most important it has not been transparent. Canadians are
wondering where their tax dollars are going. I hear over and over
again from people in my riding and in the medical community that
it is very important that we make investments in research. That
is an appropriate goal for government but it has to be
transparent. It has to ensure that the public has access to
where the money is going.
That is only one aspect. I wanted to raise it because I believe
this can play an important role in curbing the problem of the
brain drain. I have talked about this before in the House.
This issue is very dear to me. Some of our best and our
brightest in particular in the areas of health, engineering and
the high tech sector are going south.
1355
It is worth noting that we need that private sector and
government partnership. The bill addresses that. It brings in
the private sector for that partnership aspect. It is a very
important component. I encourage the government to look at that
in all ministries and departments. If we are going to help stem
the brain drain, I absolutely fundamentally believe we need to
lower taxes, but we also have to allow the private sector to
create the jobs. It is not a role government can play.
We have to make investments in the scientific community.
However, in other areas such as industry, and areas of grants
where there is no transparency and accountability, that is not
working. The private sector has a very important role to play.
I commend the government for the bill. I support it. It is
very important. We are putting money into scientific research.
It appears the government has tried to keep it at arm's length
and I applaud that. It appears that 95% of the resources will go
to front line research and that only 5% will be used for
administration. I applaud the government. It is an encouraging
first step. It will help reduce the brain drain. Hopefully when
the bill passes, this will happen.
We can apply this whole concept to other ministries such as
HRDC. We need to invest in our people but it cannot be a
political fund which is used to buy votes. That culture has
grown and grown and grown. We need to change that.
I will be supporting this very important bill. I look forward to
seeing the results and to our scientific community benefiting
from these so very important research dollars.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to extend my congratulations to the men and women
who work at the Department of National Defence.
Canadian forces have record levels of overseas deployments to
peacekeeping missions and increased activities at home.
The Department of National Defence has made fundamental
organizational changes in order to ensure that the structure of
the department and the Canadian forces are ready to support these
new challenges.
An independent report released earlier this month noted
effective implementation of reforms in over 300 areas. The
reforms range from the creation of a military ombudsman, to the
revamping of the military justice system and to the
implementation of quality of life initiatives.
The Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence have
demonstrated they are capable of fundamental changes at an
institutional and cultural level. I applaud their flexibility
and leadership. The department deserves our respect and our
gratitude.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, farmers in Saskatchewan are losing the shirts off their
backs and the government is to blame. The ministers brag about
all the money they have promised but 75% of the money the
Liberals promised is still in Ottawa's ivory towers, not in the
farmers' pockets.
Today's announcement for farm assistance to Saskatchewan is just
another billion dollar boondoggle. I held eight town hall
meetings in January and attended farm crisis rallies in Toronto,
Regina and Saskatoon.
A group of farmers asked me to bring the shirts they are losing
to Ottawa and give them to the Prime Minister. I have a box
full of them. I am going to be out in the lobby after question
period with this box of shirts. If the Liberals want to show
they care about western grain farmers, I trust one of the
ministers responsible for this disaster will come out to the
lobby and pick them up.
Farmers are being taxed to death by Ottawa. One farmer wrote a
note on his shirt, “Jean and Paul have taken—”
The Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.
* * *
ESTONIA
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today Canadians of Estonian heritage are commemorating
the 82nd anniversary of the declaration of independence of
Estonia.
It is an anniversary that is foremost in the minds of all people
who have been able to cast off the burden of foreign domination.
Canada has played a major role in helping to re-establish
democratic institutions in Estonia, in assisting Estonia to
become a recognized member of the international community, and in
providing infrastructure to make Estonia ready for membership in
international security arrangements.
Estonians have played an important role in sharing their unique
cultural attributes with all Canadians. I recognize the vital
importance that Esto 2000, the Estonian world festival, will be
to Toronto's cultural scene this coming July.
1400
The song, dance and gymnastic festivals and other festivities
will be followed with great interest by all Canadians.
May we wish Canadians of Estonian heritage success in all their
endeavours during Esto 2000 and may the independence of Estonia
be commemorated for generations to come. Elagu Eesti.
* * *
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, February is
Black History Month. It is a time for all Canadians to cherish
our country's history.
Yesterday the Reform member for Calgary East spoke and I could
not agree with him more. The ancestors of Canada's black
community have made a tremendous contribution building our great
nation.
That is why the government, through HRDC and the jobs creation
partnership program, invested in the Nazrey AME Church, the first
black national historic site designated in Canada. Located in
the town of Amherstburg, this architecturally distinctive stone
chapel is an example of the small refugee churches from Ontario
associated with the underground railroad.
For once I hope the Reform Party will recognize this useful
spending.
It is a sad day for Canadians when the Reform Party extols the
virtues of history in this country while at the same time
trashing one of the very programs that preserved it.
* * *
COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the member of parliament for Brampton Centre, it is
with tremendous pride that I welcome the Coca-Cola Bottling
Company to my riding.
Coca-Cola will invest $150 million in the construction of a new
market service centre facility that will include manufacturing,
sales and distribution functions and will employ approximately
550 people. This is the single largest facility investment ever
made by the Coca-Cola Bottling Company in Canada and will be the
company's largest production and warehouse facility in the
country.
Welcome, Coca-Cola, to Brampton where economic growth is the
real thing.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week Albertans learned that we have a vacancy in the Senate.
The last time this happened the Prime Minister appointed a
senator with full knowledge of a Senate election underway in
Alberta. These sneaky tactics were not part of his leadership
campaign in 1990.
There is even division in the Prime Minister's cabinet over
this. The MP for Edmonton Southeast is challenging the Prime
Minister's methods. I guess he could not live with the Prime
Minister's broken promises.
Bert Brown won the support of more Canadians than any other
federal politician in history. The will of Albertans has been
expressed, democracy has been denied.
There is no justice in the Edmonton West MP refusing to respect
her constituents' demands for democracy in the Senate. The
people, their premier and a cabinet colleague are all calling for
Bert Brown to take his place in the Senate.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
hundred or so mayors, municipal politicians and leaders of
economic development in the Eastern Townships and the Montérégie
area are here today to take part in a day-long event with an
international focus.
We are talking about foreign affairs, about the promotion of
culture abroad, international trade and, in particular, Team
Canada and international co-operation, looking at such topics as
how businesses can help in other countries.
I am delighted that so many of them accepted my invitation.
I also congratulate them on their interest in always looking for
new ways to help their town or municipality get ahead.
Municipal politicians are aware that they need to find ways of
meeting the challenges of globalization. Increasingly, local
communities will be called upon to work more closely with other
communities.
In closing, I greet the delegation from my riding of
Brome—Missisquoi and congratulate them on their initiative and
excellent team work.
* * *
[English]
DEPLETED URANIUM
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr Speaker, a
diabolical pallor of death looms over abandoned battlefields
affecting all with its ominous nuclear glow. A waste product of
our power industry that lights our homes is now a preferred
weapon of war.
Depleted uranium's battlefield signature is a pyrophoric ball
with a cloud of nuclear waste. Many suggest that the battlefield
killing and suffering continues long after the soldiers depart.
Both government and scientists duck and dodge questions
regarding this weapon's effect on man.
Depleted uranium is a nuclear weapon that does not discriminate.
It must be banned for conventional warfare use for the sake of
our soldiers and for the sake of all humanity.
* * *
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Mathieu Da Costa Awards Program was launched by the
Department of Canadian Heritage in February 1996 to mark the
official recognition by the Parliament of Canada of February as
Black History Month.
1405
At the Mathieu Da Costa Awards Ceremony this morning, nine
students were honoured for their efforts to promote mutual
respect and understanding between Canadians.
The award winners for best essay/short story and artwork were:
Timothy Fung from Vancouver, B.C.; Lauren Inrig from Delta, B.C.;
Karen Lowe from Abbotsford, B.C.; Charles Sargent from Calgary,
Alberta; Boeseya Man-VanDyck from Winnipeg, Manitoba; Ellen
Friesen from Winnipeg, Manitoba; Karine Houde from Kanata,
Ontario; Isabelle Vachon from Welland, Ontario; and Sharon
Boersma from Petrolia, Ontario.
I ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating these
young, talented Canadians.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Statistics Canada's report on Canadian international trade for
1999 confirms that the federal government's economic policies and
fiscal management have laid the groundwork for a booming trade
economy.
Our annual trade balance with the rest of the world was just
under $34 billion in 1999, its highest level since 1996. Our
volume of exports grew at almost twice the pace of imports.
In 1999 we exported over $360.6 billion worth of goods; 11.9%
more than in 1998. Much of this growth can be attributed to
increased domestic capacity in the automotive industry and high
demand for Canadian built models in the United States. Our
television and telecommunications equipment industry also
contributed significantly.
Overall, the resulting trade balance for 1999 was the third
highest on record for Canada.
* * *
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to celebrate Black History Month and to
extend congratulations to Brad Barton, a fellow black Nova
Scotian who will be receiving the Order of Canada.
The history of Nova Scotia and all Canada reflects the
tremendous contribution by black Canadians from all walks of life
and often against incredible odds.
Black History Month, also know as African Heritage Month, has
been celebrated in North America since 1926. These celebrations
mark the contributions made by black Canadians through exhibits,
informative lectures, cultural events, political activities,
recognition ceremonies for distinguished black Canadians and many
other events.
I encourage as many people as possible to participate in black
history and African heritage events wherever they occur
throughout the country.
I was pleased recently to attend an event to honour
African-Canadian veterans and other blacks in uniform. I am
looking forward to participating in an upcoming discussion forum
on the state of anti-racist education in Nova Scotia public
schools.
I hope the government seizes upon the spirit of Black History
Month to address the serious shortcomings in the role of blacks
in the federal public service so that we may have even more—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Quebec East.
* * *
[Translation]
FLANGERS ROCK GROUP
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pride that I pay tribute today to the performance of Flangers, a
group of four young rock musicians from the Quebec City area.
Fred Asselin, Serge Poulin, Julien Martre and P. O. Gosselin were
a knockout in California's Battle of the Band 3, placing second
in the finals on February 3.
The only Canadian group to make it to the finals since this
event first began, they scored a perfect 100% in the Dallas
semi-finals. With some 4,000 Canadian and American groups
entered in this prestigious rock music competition, the largest
of its kind in the world, their achievement was all the more
impressive. In addition, a number of international celebrities
told them that they were very talented and predicted that they
would go far.
I congratulate the members of Flangers on their talent and their
determination. All Quebecers—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Niagara Falls.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for weeks and weeks we have listened to the accusations by the
opposition of mismanagement regarding the administration of HRD
programs.
Maybe the time has come to say it as it really is. A recent
letter from the regional chair of the municipality of Niagara
states:
HRDC support to programs like Trade Niagara and the Niagara
Investment Marketing Initiative has contributed in no small
measure to the renaissance that is now underway throughout the
region.
Furthermore, its commends and pays special tribute to Jim
Williams and all the people at the HRDC regional office for their
professionalism.
The letter also stated that the economic recovery the Niagara
region now enjoys would not have been possible without the
support and partnership of the HRDC office.
Let us set the record straight—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Drummond.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
CHECHNYA
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
marked a sad anniversary indeed.
On February 23, 1944, Stalin ordered the deportation of the
Chechen people. Exasperated by this unsubdued people's constant
rebellion against Russia and threat to its territorial
integrity, Stalin decided to impose on them his “final
solution”. He meted out similar treatment to other peoples,
including the Qatari people, who never recovered from it.
On the pretext that the Chechens were collaborating with the
enemy, 450,000 people, mostly women, children and the aged, were
deported and spread through central Asia and Siberia. The men
were at war with Germany. The international community kept
quiet out for fear of damaging relations with Russia.
Truly, history repeats itself. The Chechen people, accused of
terrorism today, are once again the victims of a dirty war.
Although it has very politely raised its voice, the
international community continues to put its own interests ahead
of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.
* * *
REFUGEE IDENTIFICATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, in early
winter, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced a
pilot project whereby all refugee claimants would be issued
identification cards. These cards would allow better access to
social services.
There are advantages to this initiative, but I am perturbed the
minister did not reveal this project to the Standing Committee
on Citizenship and Immigration. She had ample opportunity to do
so when she appeared before the committee on November 24. That
was just under a week before she announced this initiative. I
find it hard to believe that the minister was not informed of
the plan when she was at committee.
The identification of refugees could be a costly measure for
taxpayers. I find it strange that the minister said nothing
when she had the opportunity to do so.
When will the minister be informing the House on the progress of
this pilot project?
* * *
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since their
re-election in 1997, the Liberal members have banished democracy
from the House of Commons. Elected representatives of this
country no longer have freedom of speech.
There have already been 62 gag orders in the House. This is a
sad record in the annals of Canadian political history. Of
these, three were for the purpose of preventing Quebecers from
expressing their views on the future of democracy in Quebec.
Every effort was made to ram through, without consultation, Bill
C-20, a bill with no other purpose than to subjugate Quebec, as
Claude Ryan has pointed out.
Democracy in this parliament has given way to arrogance and
scorn, the trademark of the Prime Minister and his henchmen,
including the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
In the next referendum, nothing will prevent the people of
Quebec from making the break once and for all with this federal
government, and they will do so by means of a democratic vote.
That is clear.
* * *
[English]
GASOLINE PRICES
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian truckers are facing a crisis as
rising fuel costs are causing many to actually lose money every
time they put their rigs on the road.
When questioned about the truckers' plight, the Prime Minister
responded that it was not his problem, despite the fact that the
federal government is collecting 15 cents on every litre of fuel.
Last year the federal government collected over $4.5 billion in
fuel taxes, yet it only put $150 million back into Canada's
highways.
Despite this massive surplus, the federal Liberals are refusing
to provide any tax relief to our struggling truckers, even on a
temporary basis. The Prime Minister would rather build fountains
in his riding and give grants to companies like Wal-Mart and
Videotron than provide tax relief for our truckers. Why? Because
tax relief does not give the Liberals the opportunity for a
photo-op.
Hopefully, the government will come to its senses before
Canada's truckers—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, thousands of farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba
are in dire straits this winter due to circumstances beyond their
control. There are international subsidy wars going on and while
our federal government has not supported our farmers, the
Europeans and Americans have supported theirs.
This morning the federal Liberal government took a baby step in
the right direction. After months of lobbying by the premiers of
Saskatchewan and Manitoba and by our federal NDP caucus, the
premiers and the Prime Minister announced $400 million in
additional assistance to agriculture.
I want to welcome this announcement. Every bit helps. But
having said that, it will not solve the farm income problem.
What our farmers need is a long term program which will kick in
and support their income every time it drops disastrously, as it
has in the last two years.
1415
We welcome this morning's announcement, but it does not get the
federal government off the hook. There is a lot more to be done.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government would love to distance itself from the
billion dollar bungle at the Department of Human Resources
Development, but unfortunately it is the government which gave it
the money.
Since the government was elected the auditor general has
repeatedly expressed concern about mismanagement of grants and
contributions by this department.
After all of these revelations of mismanagement, waste and
political interference, does the government still support
spending millions of taxpayer dollars on the discredited Canada
jobs fund?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government supports programs that help disabled
people. The government supports programs that help students.
The government supports people who need training and job
experience. We support those programs, unlike the NDP.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Herb Gray: They should be supporting them. They are
not and that is why they are doing so poorly.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, these programs help none of these people and these
answers are an insult to the House of Commons and the Canadian
people.
Canadians want action on this affair, not excuses. They want
the mess at HRD to be cleaned up. They want these questionable
files to be put out of the control of people in the department.
They want ministers and those responsible removed from their
positions and they want the suspension of these programs before
more damage can be done.
When is the government going to stop protecting incompetent
ministers and start protecting Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have protected Canadian taxpayers by eliminating the
$42 billion deficit, by bringing down the unemployment rate from
more than 11% to 6%, by having record low interest rates and
again today record low inflation. We have protected taxpayers by
cutting $16 billion from the tax rolls, and we will have further
cuts according to the Minister of Finance. That is how we
protect taxpayers, not with the empty rhetoric and false
innuendoes of the Leader of the Opposition.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask members to stay away
from the word false.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have the ingredients of a bad movie. We have the tip
of an iceberg that could sink the government over mismanagement.
We have a captain of the Titanic blindly sailing to the
iceberg. We have a minister of human resources over the bow of
the ship saying “I can fly”. But it will not fly with Canadian
taxpayers.
The only question left is: Would such a bad movie qualify for a
federal government grant?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the nerve of the Leader of the Opposition. He is the
captain of the Titanic, now renamed the Reform Party.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is Gone With the Wind. The Minister of Finance says
this boondoggle is actually about job creation, but the
government does not have a sweet clue as to how many jobs
actually get created. He says it is about helping the needy, and
yet Wal-Mart happens to be part of that category. We know that
he likes to help the little guy. I will tell the House who he
helps: the friends of the little guy from Shawinigan.
I am going to ask a specific question, and for once I would like
a specific answer. Does the finance minister agree with the
$200,000 taxpayer grant for the musical fountain in the Prime
Minister's riding?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has stated his support for the
programs administered by the HRD department because of what they
do to enable Canadians to have better lives.
The hon. member is the first mate on the Reform ship
Titanic. The first mate does not care about helping people
to have better lives through training, through job experience,
through permanent jobs. She ought to change her optics.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
can see the program now: “Fountains for a Better Life”, as if
anyone is going to believe that.
The finance minister may sniff at $200,000 of taxpayers' money,
but to Canadians that is a huge amount of money. They can make
fun of it, but that is a lot of money.
1420
The finance minister said that he supports the old style
government job creation schemes and now the Deputy Prime Minister
has agreed with that. It is nothing but shame that should be
heaped on them for that.
I would ask again, does he agree with the Prime Minister's claim
that this boondoggle of $200,000 for the fountain—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the program was supported by the
local municipality and the provincial government, which were not
supporters of the Prime Minister. The project did some positive
things for the community in the short run, and in the long run in
terms of the tourist strategy.
I think my hon. friend should check her facts. She would then
have a different view of this project and the other projects of
the Human Resources Development Department in her area and all
across Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development told me
that she was prepared to answer my questions after doing the
necessary checks.
Let us return to the case of the riding of Rosemont. How does
the minister explain that the company moved before April 9, 1998,
that it received a grant on April 14 of the same year, and that
the local HRDC office and the company's owner confirm that it
moved to the riding of Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's
riding, and received a grant in the amount of $165,984?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as promised, I asked my officials to look
into this file and I can confirm these facts to the House.
In December 1997 the department approved a project under the
transitional jobs fund for $165,948 to create 42 jobs in the
riding of Rosemont. Relevant community partners were consulted,
including the province and the local MP. The company discussed
with the Montreal centreville HRDC office its difficulty in
finding a suitable location in Rosemont. The local office agreed
to fund the project as long as jobs would still be created in an
area of high unemployment.
The company then located to an area of high unemployment.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
a very simple question. Of all the luck that it should be
impossible to find a place to locate a textile industry in
Montreal. Montreal is the textile capital of Canada. Better to
head to the pulp and paper capital in Shawinigan, but that is
another story.
That having been said, how is it that the lists she has given us
dated February 15, 2000, show the project as being located in
the riding of Rosemont, not in the riding of Saint-Maurice?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me confirm again that the company
advised the local office that it could not find an appropriate
location for the undertaking. It was agreed that as long as the
company relocated to an area of high unemployment the project
would go forward.
My officials continue to review this file.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I remind the
minister that the company and the promoter had pledged to create
jobs in the riding of Rosemont, more specifically at 5800
Saint-Denis Street.
Why then did the minister not at least inform the member that,
due to changes that occurred in the process, the grant would no
longer go to the riding of Rosemont but to the riding of
Saint-Maurice instead?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that I have confirmed
the facts to date and the officials continue to look at this
file.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this sounds
like a true coverup operation.
Is this not simply a case of taking grants allocated to the
riding of the member who approved the project and transferring
them to the Prime Minister's riding?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that the owner of the
operation advised the local Human Resources Development
Department that the company was unable to find a suitable area to
base the undertaking.
The department advised the owner that if the company took the
project to an area of high unemployment it would continue to be
funded.
Let me say again that the officials continue to look at this
file.
* * *
1425
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Eye surgery in Calgary today costs $1,500, and earlier in the
week the health minister basically shrugged that off as if it was
no problem.
Will the health minister stand in his place today and give an
undertaking that no Canadian will have vital eye surgery denied
or delayed simply because they cannot pay the money?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier in the week I reminded the hon. member that it was as a
result of the efforts of this government that we ensured that
those clinics in Alberta complied with the Canada Health Act,
that all medically necessary services are available to Canadians,
not just in Calgary but across the country, in accordance with
the principles of the Canada Health Act.
That is what medicare is all about and we intend to ensure that
those principles are respected in every part of the country.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let us
talk about putting the principles into practice. Let the record
show that this is the first health minister in over 30 years,
since the introduction of medicare, who could not answer that
question using one word, a simple yes.
When in practice did this government decide to give up on the
most fundamental principle of medicare, namely, that a Canadian
would receive the health care they need regardless of financial
circumstances or where they happen to live?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in relation to this, as in relation to so many other things, the
New Democratic Party is out of touch with reality. They are
looking at a government which defends the Canada Health Act and
each of its principles, each day, in each province across the
country. Through our financial contributions, through the
leadership we show in relation to necessary reforms and changes
in health care, and by making sure that practices comply with
those principles, this government stands four-square behind
medicare. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
CIDA
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the international cooperation minister
told us that her audit, although completed in September, was
finally read by her in December.
Although this contradicted her official spokesperson and a
January 24 newspaper account, it pointed out more irresponsible
largesse and more frivolous spending to the tune of $850 million.
Why has it taken almost five months and questions from the
opposition, again, for the minister to come forward and tell us
why she has not started to deal with this damning internal audit?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member continues to misrepresent
the information.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the hon. minister to
withdraw the word “misrepresent”.
Hon. Maria Minna: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
However, the hon. member continues to use the information in
different ways. First, the $850 million is from 1978 to today.
He is counting 22 years. It is not the budget for CIDA. CIDA's
budget is $60 million. In fact, in 1999 we spent only $43
million, not the full amount.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, when asked for a list of companies that were
audited, the president of CIDA and her department stated “This
becomes an issue of how much you want to go into the public
domain”. Shockingly arrogant. Heaven forbid that the Canadian
public find out just how their taxpayers' dollars are being
spent.
Does the minister agree with the president of CIDA, or will she
release the full list of companies that were audited so we can
finally get some truth and accountability from this department?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party was
the minister for seven years of CIDA. For seven years he did not
make any changes.
With respect, I have already implemented 80% of the
recommendations, and if the hon. member wants I will table the
list tomorrow.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in a
desperate attempt to show that he is not stuck in the seventies
like the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance recently told a
reporter that governments should not be subsidizing business.
Apparently fountains are okay, though.
However, here he is financing the HRD minister's nasty little
habit with millions for Dairy Queen, Videotron and a contractor
for Wal-Mart, to name but a few of the thousands of examples.
1430
How does the minister square his comments of a week ago with his
role as the chief financier of the business subsidy sweepstakes
at HRD?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Reform's
preoccupation is to deliver huge tax cuts to the rich. Unlike
Reform, we believe that the role of government is to be there
when Canadians need help.
Reform is the party that has called for cuts to equalization,
cuts to farm support programs and cuts to health care. This is
not the role of government.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
that were true the finance minister would be in favour of tax
cuts for the rich. In fact he might even bring his ships home
and register them here, and maybe we could collect some taxes on
them.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the member to go right
to his question.
Mr. Monte Solberg: I want to know what the minister's
excuse is for writing all those cheques. Is it that Wal-Mart
really needs the money now? Or, maybe he thinks that peanut
buster parfaits are the hot sector in the new economy.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the moneys that flowed to the projects
that included Wal-Mart did not go to Wal-Mart. They went to
Metrus Properties.
In this particular project in the city of Cornwall, which I have
visited, I can say that 300 men and women will be employed. The
problem with that party is that it wants to play politics. It
wants to forget about people. I also point out that its kissing
cousins, the Government of Ontario, supported this project.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October 27, 1997, Human Resources
Development Canada had the hon. member for Rosemont approve a
project to create 106 jobs in his riding.
On December 16—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, on October 27, 1997, Human
Resources Development Canada had the hon. member for Rosemont
approve a project to create 106 jobs in his riding.
On December 16, 42 jobs were approved by HRDC. On April 9, 1998,
the file was transferred to the Prime Minister's riding and,
five days later, the sum of $165,984 was paid out in the Prime
Minister's riding.
Are we to understand that the reason the project dates have
disappeared from the minister's new lists is simply to prevent
us from making such discoveries?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have made the comments about the
individual project, and my officials continue to look at it.
The hon. member makes reference to the list. We have provided
to the House an unprecedented volume and scope of information at
the request of members of the House. That information is
available. It should be used. If there continue to be questions
on individual projects we will answer them.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claimed that there was only
an overpayment of $250 in this whole issue. This week, he
increased the figure to $5,960 for the whole country.
Today, February 24, 2000, at 2.35 p.m., does the minister
realize that we are not talking about $5,960 for all of Canada,
but an amount of $165,984 earmarked for the riding of Rosemont
that disappeared only to resurface somewhere in the Prime
Minister's riding?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know where the money has gone. We are
following up on this particular project.
1435
As we have promised, we have provided information to the House
so that members of parliament who are interested can understand
where federal tax dollars are going and how indeed this money has
helped the citizens in their communities.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
since taking office the government has increased spending on
corporate welfare, pork barrel spending and patronage for its big
business friends, but at the same time has cut health care
spending by two-thirds or $21 billion.
Given that Canadians think health care is a more important
priority than corporate welfare, why has the government and the
Minister of Finance placed a higher priority on corporate welfare
to companies like Wal-Mart than on health care spending for
Canadians?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is absolute
nonsense. Transfers to the provinces for health care are now at
an all time high.
Having said that, Reform is the party which has advocated
massive tax cuts for the rich. That is the party that in the
past has called for eliminating all subsidies in terms of
equalization, getting rid of all subsidies for farmers and
actually cutting health care. They cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the only way the minister could answer the question and justify
the government's increased spending on corporate welfare and cuts
to health care is by misrepresenting, I am sure incidentally, the
position—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Let us be very clear. We want to get
low income people who are below the poverty line off the tax
rolls and we want increased spending on health care.
Why does the government continue to place a greater priority on
corporate welfare for its big business friends than on increased
spending for health care and tax relief for working families?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in terms of the
Reform Party flat tax, let me quote:
But which side of the argument would you choose...The side that
appears to spend the bulk of future surpluses on better off
Canadians, or the one that bows to middle income earners and
leaves more room for debt reduction and health spending?
That is from the Edmonton Journal of February 2.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, up to now the
Minister of Human Resources Development has been unable to
identify the criteria for awarding grants under the transitional
jobs fund.
I would ask the Minister of Human Resources Development if the
criteria were developed by riding or region, in writing, or were
they based on flexibility or oral instructions to officials?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said on a number of occasions that
there is a certain flexibility in the transitional jobs fund that
has allowed it to respond to local issues.
It is because of that flexibility that we have transitional jobs
fund projects and Canada jobs fund projects in the ridings of
many Bloc members of parliament.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have here a
document from a Department of Human Resources Development office
in downtown Montreal, which indicates that the minister is
unaware of what is going on in her department, because this
document mentions to two criteria: job creation in a priority
sector and the creation of a minimum of ten jobs. Many projects
do not meet these two criteria.
Will the minister recognize the increasing importance of
revealing the criteria used to award grants?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again let me say that there is a degree
of flexibility in the transitional jobs fund and the Canada jobs
fund so that local officials can respond to local needs.
Surely that party is not suggesting that all the decisions
should be made in Ottawa. Surely that party recognizes that the
Government of Quebec has been involved in all the decisions on
those projects.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the HRD minister gave a Toronto group called CANDO $1.15 million
in taxpayer cash, and $100,000 of that cash went directly into
the pocket of a CANDO employee.
The president of CANDO says that repeated attempts to get the
minister's department involved in recovering the money have been
ignored. Why did the minister promise to investigate fraud and
recover taxpayer money but did absolutely nothing when asked?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me confirm for the House that CANDO
has already referred the matter to the police. The matter
concerns an employee of the organization and as such it is
inappropriate for me to say anything further.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, CANDO had to refer the matter to the police because the
minister would not do a thing about it.
1440
Even when the minister was alerted that the local HRDC office
response was to take the money from one account and put it into
another to cover the missing cash, there was absolutely no
response from the minister.
Again, why did she promise to protect taxpayers and to look into
this matter when she did absolutely nothing when asked?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member that this
is a matter about an employee of the company itself. The company
has referred the matter to the police and the police are
investigating.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this government has got us used to the policy of “Not guilty
unless caught in the act”.
Now the refrain seems to be instead “Apologies accepted, you are
forgiven, provided some money found its way into my coffers, of
course”.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Can she
tells us whether the government plans to enter into a repayment
program with CINAR so that this company will not be faced with
legal proceedings later, having acknowledged that it was guilty
of fraudulent actions?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously, and I think that
everyone in this House is well aware of this, one of the
fundamental principles of taxation is the confidentiality of
records. Under the Income Tax Act, CINAR's files are
confidential.
Now, to pick up on what the hon. member was alluding to, there
is a program of voluntary disclosure in place, one of which I as
Minister of National Revenue am particularly proud, and it is
part of the initiative for fairness. It enables us to provide
better services to all taxpayers. Access to this voluntary
disclosure program requires exactly that: voluntary disclosure.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the premiers of
Manitoba and Saskatchewan today announced additional help for
farmers who have been struggling with low returns from their
crops. Would the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the
House the amount of assistance involved and some of the details?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House knows the struggle
that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House is
aware of the low income situation of a number of Canadian
farmers, particularly those in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Both levels of government have been working to find means in
which to help alleviate that situation. Last month we as a
federal government announced another $1 billion over the next two
years to assist. Today, after long negotiations with the
provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Prime Minister, the
premiers and the government announced that we will make available
another $400 million.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on February 1, CANDO sent the human resources minister
an urgent e-mail about the missing money: “We are in
jeopardy”. The next day it tried again by fax: “Critical
situation. We are seeking your help”.
What help did the minister give? Absolutely nothing, none,
while all the while she is telling everyone that she is fixing
things. Why were there no steps to recover this money stolen from
the taxpayer? Or, was the minister just too busy trying to fix
her image?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member again that this
particular issue involved an employee of the company itself. The
company referred it to the police and the police are
investigating.
On the bigger issue here, we are talking about grants and
contributions that have been extraordinarily valuable to
organizations and to individuals across the country. The value
of these undertakings is understood by this side of the House.
Clearly it is not by that side of the House that would scrap all
grants and contributions.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, here are the facts. In early February the minister was
alerted to the theft of grant money. On February 8 she told the
House:
Today we find out that her words were absolutely hollow. Money
was missing. She refused to do anything about it. The only
reason the group went to the police is that the minister totally
ignored them. What is the minister getting paid for, anyway?
1445
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making reference to
one single organization. We have thousands of sponsors making
sure that Canadians have the opportunity they need to get jobs,
to get opportunities they may not have otherwise.
Is the hon. member suggesting that those sponsors are not using
the money wisely? Again I say we know where the cheques have
gone.
My job is to build a strong foundation of administration to
support the grants and contributions that are so valuable to
Canadians.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians continue to ask the federal government to take
a leadership role to deal with the energy price crisis.
Yesterday Yukon energy minister Trevor Harding wrote to the
federal government saying:
Given the public's concern about increased fuel prices, I believe
it is critical for the federal government to play a leadership
role, and I urge you to convene a meeting of your provincial and
territorial counterparts...to discuss common strategies for
addressing this matter.
Other provinces have approached the government as well.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Will he
agree to convene an energy summit of the provinces, the
territories, the oil companies and other stakeholders to address
the soaring energy prices?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I am pleased to note that to date, higher prices
for fuels in Canada have not contributed to higher inflation.
Indeed inflation declined during the month of January.
With respect to the hon. gentleman's suggestion, at our last
federal-provincial-territorial meeting of energy ministers we
discussed the oil pricing issue. I have no doubt that item will
be on the agenda for the next meeting as well.
In the meantime I will canvass my territorial and provincial
counterparts to seek their views and to determine if they have
any plans within their jurisdictions to act on the matter.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised to hear the minister say that because the
last meeting of the council of energy ministers was in June 1998.
When the minister does convene a summit I ask that four things
be included on the agenda: immediate aid for those who need it;
elimination of the GST and/or a reduction in federal fuel taxes;
energy conservation components; and an approach to the OPEC
cartel to restore oil production levels. Will he put those items
on the agenda?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to OPEC, the OPEC ministers will be meeting
within the next month or so. It is obviously their jurisdiction
since Canada is not a member of OPEC. OPEC is very aware of
Canada's views which do not support the actions which OPEC takes
in the marketplace.
With respect to diesel fuels, it should be noted that most of
the consumers of those fuels qualify for such as things as the
GST tax credit. The impact of that tax credit has the effect of
reducing the burden on consumers.
* * *
[Translation]
INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION PROGRAM
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
for International Cooperation joined Cabinet on August 3. On
what date was she informed of the audit by her staff?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, I was informed of the CIDA audit
in September. I saw it in December, I read it in December, I was
briefed on it in December. It was released in December. That is
very clear.
With respect to the CIDA situation and CIDA aid, it is important
to note that the leader of the Conservative Party had seven years
in which to fix the problems of CIDA. He chose not to do that. I
have only been there for seven months and I have already
implemented 80% of the recommendations and every one of them will
be done by June.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
again for the Minister for International Cooperation.
In the name of transparency and openness, will the minister also
provide us with a full list of businesses and projects for which
funding was approved between 1997 and 1999?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. members are not listening
to this question period at all or are not participating. I just
responded to her colleague. Yes, I will table the list tomorrow
if the members so wish.
* * *
1450
COMMEMORATIVE STAMP
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services.
Given the tremendous support shown by Canadians to recognize the
Queen Mother's 100th birthday, is the minister willing to issue a
stamp in her honour?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me explain the
process. The minister for Canada Post does not make that
decision. An independent advisory committee decides which stamps
are to be issued. The committee met last week and recommended
that Canada Post issue a stamp to commemorate the Queen Mother's
100th birthday. Canada Post will issue such a stamp.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development refuses to take
responsibility for the boondoggle in her department. The same
goes for her predecessor. Moreover, the Minister of Finance was
in charge of the money throughout that period.
When was the Minister of Finance first informed of the
mismanagement and political interference at the Department of
Human Resources Development?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gives me a chance yet
again to talk about the undertakings in my department to fix the
administrative deficiencies. I remind him that we have worked
with outside experts, including the auditor general, to build a
plan of action that is going to fix the problem in my department.
I take responsibility for that. I look forward to continuing to
inform this place and Canadians on the progress in ensuring that
we have strong administration of grants and contributions.
* * *
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
January 14, the federal government secretly imported by
helicopter plutonium from the United States.
Tuesday, nuclear surveillance groups tabled a legal opinion
establishing that Canada had violated its own rules and that it
had acted illegally.
Considering that the public is opposed to importing plutonium,
what is the Minister of the Environment waiting for to demand
that his government at least comply with the process it set up
itself?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the process was respected. The transport shipment
complied with all of the requirements of the Atomic Energy
Control Board, the transportation packaging of radioactive
materials regulations, the International Civil Aviation
Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
* * *
SCOTIA RAINBOW
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, several questions about Scotia Rainbow have led to
either inconsistent answers or no answers at all from the
government and its ministers.
Canadians want to know how a $750,000 grant turned into a $2
million cheque. More and more alarming questions arise daily in
the community about how much public money was received by Scotia
Rainbow and how it is being spent.
If the government has nothing to hide, why does the minister not
table today the complete Scotia Rainbow file if she has one? Will
she do that?
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure we all want to
hear the answer.
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, speaking of opinions from the local
community, yesterday's editorial in a local paper in Cape Breton
said: “Now our NDP MP is condemning aid to a fish processing
facility here. Many of the workers at that plant have
traditionally made their living from the sea. The downturn in
the fishery left them and their families destitute. When our
elected representative openly condemns aid in this area, then it
is time to ask that representative to step down”.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1455
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
CIDA
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the minister for CIDA has selective listening
skills. We are looking for the full list. We hope she realizes
that.
The CIDA audit that was released and ready in September was not
read by her until December. A departmental memo also says “we
will make our staff more aware of the role starting in January
2000”, six months before they wanted their employees to know of
the audit in the first place. Where was the minister? Is she
willing to take responsibility for this unreasonable delay?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member has been
the last couple of days. First, I said that I will release the
whole list tomorrow. I have said it three times now. I hope he
does understand it this time.
Second, the CIDA audit was done. It was reported to me that it
was done in September. I was told that it was finished in
December. I read it in December. I was briefed in December in
my boardroom in Hull and it was released in December. I do not
know how more clear than that I can be.
* * *
IRAN
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
A significant shift in the Iranian political landscape has
occurred as reformers supportive of President Khatami have scored
an overwhelming victory in the Iranian elections. What is
Canada's reaction to this election? What will our government do
to encourage the reintegration of Iran into the international
system?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think we are all encouraged by the recent
political developments. Of course we will do everything we can
to support the reform spirit.
I do want to point out—
Mr. Monte Solberg: Reform is sweeping the world.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, they have their own
ayattolah. They have their own problems.
I would like to point out there are still very serious concerns
relating to the detention of Baha'is for religious purposes and
the detention of Iranian Jews for purposes that simply are
unfounded. We hope the new parliament will take steps to respond
to our entreaties to let those people go.
* * *
HOCKEY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice regarding
violence in hockey.
All Canadians were appalled by the vicious assault in an NHL
game in Vancouver a few days ago.
Can the Minister of Justice explain why there is one standard of
justice for NHL players and another for ordinary Canadians? Can
the minister explain why the criminal code for which she is
responsible is not enforced in NHL rinks?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in the House
condemns violence in hockey. I would hope the hon. member knows
that the enforcement of the criminal code rests with local
provincial law enforcement agencies. Therefore, local police
should be investigating this event. In fact it will be a decision
of the provincial prosecutor as to whether or not charges are
laid and a prosecution takes place. That is not within our
jurisdiction.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is responsible for the criminal law. Surely
she must be concerned that the criminal code for which she is
responsible is not enforced equally across Canada.
May I put this question to the minister: Will she urge
provincial attorneys general to apply the criminal law equally
across the country?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence that
provincial attorneys general are not enforcing the criminal law
across the country, be it in a hockey rink or on the streets.
I would ask the hon. member to direct his question to the
relevant attorney general.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the human resources minister's words about a plan of
action are laughable. CANDO got nothing from her but inaction.
1500
Another of the minister's favourite lines is “no money is
missing”. Even while she kept repeating that, she had an urgent
e-mail and fax on her desk that said the complete opposite.
Why should Canadians have any faith in what this minister says?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us talk about faith. We know that
this party has faith that trickle down economics will make sure
that Canadians with disabilities get opportunities in the
economy. We know that this party has faith that trickle down
economics will make sure that young people have the opportunity
of getting that very important first job. We know that this
party thinks that trickle down economics will ensure that
communities in northern British Columbia somehow magically are
transformed into dynamic economies. We know that is not right.
We take faith in the undertakings of this government to work with
communities to make sure—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the House leader for the government exactly
what kind of legislative plans he has for the coming week. Does
he plan to continue to bring in more time allocation and closure
in committees and does he plan to issue a stamp with a fountain
on it for the Prime Minister?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the risk of pouring cold
water on the hon. member's question, I want to answer to him
about the program of the government.
This afternoon we shall continue with Bill C-13, the health
institutes bill at report stage. Tomorrow the House will
consider third reading of Bill C-2, the elections bill.
Monday we shall begin consideration of Bill C-26, the airline
legislation. If we do not complete Bill C-13 this afternoon and
we complete Bill C-26 on Monday, perhaps we could then attempt to
conclude Bill C-13 then.
In any event, at 4 p.m. on Monday the Minister of Finance shall
deliver the annual budget and we will continue to debate the
budget on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.
Thursday of next week shall be an allotted day.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1505
[English]
CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
The House resumed from February 23 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-229, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act
(letter that cannot be transmitted by post), be read the second
time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 3.05 p.m.
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the amendment to the motion at the second reading
stage of Bill C-229 under Private Members' Business.
Call in the members.
1525
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the amendment. As is the usual practice, the division will be
taken row by row. We will begin with those in favour of the
amendment sitting in the back row of the side of the House on
which the sponsor sits and move forward. After proceeding
through the rows on my left, members sitting on my right will
vote similarly.
Those opposed to the amendment will be called in the same order.
1535
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Bryden
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Desjarlais
| Dion
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Earle
|
Easter
| Epp
| Fontana
| Gilmour
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Iftody
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Parrish
| Penson
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Williams – 118
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne – 35
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Accordingly, the
order is discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter
thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and on behalf of the Minister of
Justice, I am tabling, in both official languages, a document
containing a list of groups supporting the firearms registration
system at the Supreme Court of Canada, and which was quoted from
by the minister during yesterday's question period.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-13, an act to
establish the Canadian institutes of research, to repeal the
Medical Research Council Act and to make consequential amendments
to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee,
and on Group No. 1.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate on Bill
C-13.
At the very outset I cannot help but indicate to you, Mr.
Speaker, a certain amount of cynicism about the process. Time
and time again we were told by the members of the Liberal
government that this bill was urgently needed. We were under
considerable pressure at committee to get it through the whole
process.
Interestingly, there were many occasions when Liberal members
failed to show up for their responsibilities at the committee. In
fact, there was a meeting where we could not proceed because no
Liberal member chose to show up. We had that real push to get
this through, yet the government could not even ensure that the
process was followed with integrity.
I also have to indicate my cynicism around this bill. While we
are debating a bill that parliament has a say on, the Minister of
Health is out trotting across the country announcing money under
the auspices of the Canadian institutes on health research.
We have had press release after press release. On January 11,
28 and February 4 the Minister of Health announced grants for
research saying that they were under the MRC, soon to be renamed
the Canadians institutes on health research. It was very
cleaver.
We have seen parliament bypassed on many occasions and this is
just another example of how little weight this place has when it
comes to thorough review of legislation. That disregard for
parliament and the democratic will was evident throughout the
entire process on Bill C-13.
Earlier today we heard Reform members and other members who
participated at the committee talk about how seriously we took
the process at committee in terms of amendments and discussions
with no credence or support from the Liberal members on that
committee for that kind of participation.
I think it is absolutely important to put that on the record.
1540
When the bill was introduced, we in the New Democratic Party
said—and I think other caucuses have said the same—that we
support the concept behind the Canadian institutes of health
research and we endorsed the principle of the bill at second
reading.
However, we also identified a number of concerns that we felt
had to be addressed at committee stage. We therefore
participated actively in that process by listening to witnesses,
seeking clarification and proposing amendments. In that regard,
it is important on the part of everyone in the House to thank the
dozens of individuals and organizations who either appeared
before the committee or wrote to us with very thoughtful
presentations and indepth analysis of the bill.
What struck me, and I am sure struck others who were at
committee, was a recurring theme, an opinion repeated time and
time again, to the point where we had to take it seriously. The
theme was yes, but. It is a good idea on paper but how will it
work? How can we be sure that the noble principles of the bill
will be translated into action? That really is the essence of
our concerns with the bill before us today and with the process
that we are involved in today.
We all know what the bill attempts to do. We know it ends the
Medical Research Council and establishes the Canadian institutes
of health research. It appears to support a considerably
expanded range and volume of health and health research in
Canada. It deals with addressing a full range of health research
priorities in the country today, from biomedical services to
applied clinical research, to health systems and services
research, and finally to research on the broader social and
economic determinants of health that lie outside the system.
Who can disagree with that? Obviously that is something many of
us have been saying for a long time. It is much needed in Canada
today. On the basis of that stated objective, it is a bill worth
supporting.
However, what we are left with is trying to answer the question:
In terms of the details of the bill, are we sure? Have we been
guaranteed that these noble principles will be put into practice?
Is the bill prescriptive, clear and detailed about how this
transformative approach to health research in the country will
happen? Or, are we left with vague statements and unclear
requirements that leave in doubt the application of the
principles? That is exactly the situation we are dealing with.
I would point members to a very useful presentation we received
at committee from a well-known health researcher and policy
analyst in the country today, Bob Evans. He wrote a letter to
the committee, dated November 19, saying:
My impression, watching mostly but not entirely from the
sidelines has been of a continuing struggle between those
genuinely committed to this broad view of the CIHR mandate, and
those who would prefer to see an “MRC on steroids”—a vastly
expanded program of basic biomedical and clinical research, with
at best a nod in the direction of research on either the
provision (and financing) of health services, or the more
fundamental determinants of health embedded in human social
economic and economic environments.
That point has to be addressed by the House today because we
were unsuccessful in committee in terms of trying to convince the
government to put more weight on the whole issue of research
based on economic, social, cultural and environmental
determinants of health and well-being.
Over and over again presenters mentioned how imbalanced the
legislation was when it came to this very issue. A great deal of
weight, a lot of words and a lot of emphasis on biomedical
research and applied clinical research but only passing
references to economic, social and environmental determinants of
health.
1545
We heard from many groups involved in women's health. We
certainly heard from people involved in environmental health. I
want to briefly quote from a document presented by the Canadian
Labour Congress, which really captured the essence of this
difficulty. It states:
That reflects a very important gap in the legislation and one
which has to be addressed.
We have a number of concerns. I have said that we support the
principle, but we obviously have a number of concerns with the
bill. Let me go through those concerns, because it will help to
reveal how much disregard the government had for the process.
The bill mentions commercialization and in fact includes as one
of its objectives facilitating the commercialization of health
research. There is no need for legislation dealing with public
health research to emphasize commercialization. There are other
places where we deal with the question of the commercial
advantage of business in the country, but surely our job in
parliament is not to give any credence to the needs of private
interests over the wishes of the public. We tried to amend the
bill to get rid of those words about commercialization. We
failed. The Liberals said no to that amendment.
On conflict of interest, there is no provision in this bill to
ensure that people who are appointed to the board have no
pecuniary or proprietary interests in the pharmaceutical industry
or the medical devices industry. We proposed a clear conflict of
interest amendment to ensure that kind of situation would not
occur. What did the government do? It said no to that
amendment.
We also tried to ensure that there was an independent process
around ethics. We called on the government to put in place an
independent ethics advisory board to ensure that we could
guarantee the protection of human beings in all clinical trials
of research projects undertaken. What did the government say?
It said no.
We made proposals on some basic, fundamental issues.
We said that there should be in this day and age, given what the
Liberals themselves have said, gender parity on the board. We
thought that would be a normal assumption and that the government
would gladly adhere to that principle of equality between women
and men on appointments to the board. The government said no.
Liberal members on the committee said no.
We did not win on that one, so we suggested mainstreaming in
terms of a provision for the institutes of health research. What
did the government do? It said no.
We then proposed a women's health research institute. The
government said no.
We then proposed that the government address some of the other
concerns by looking at ensuring that there was an institute on
aboriginal health. We proposed an institute on occupational and
environmental health. The government said no.
The devil is in the detail and that is why we have concerns with
this bill and why we want the government to take seriously the
need for amendment to ensure that this bill is a shining beacon
when it comes to transparency and accountability.
Mr. Speaker, could I have the unanimous consent of the House to
continue for two minutes?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Winnipeg Centre has asked for the unanimous consent of the House
to continue for two minutes. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
appreciate the flexibility you have provided me on this very
important bill.
We really want to support this bill because the principle is
such an important one, but it is very difficult to give our
blessing to a bill when the government refuses to address very
fundamental questions which would ensure that the principles are
translated into action the way they have been outlined and
portrayed.
Why would the government not agree to some basic changes to the
bill to ensure transparency and accountability? Why is there no
provision on conflict of interest in terms of appointments to the
governing council? That was supported by numerous organizations,
including the Canadian Healthcare Association, the Canadian
Nurses Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the
Canadian Labour Congress, the Women's Health Research Institute,
and the list goes on and on.
1550
There was absolutely clear support for ensuring that this bill
upheld some very fundamental principles around which there would
be no questions of conflict between private greed and public
need.
We are left with big questions around the future because there
is not that kind of specificity in the bill. We would implore
members opposite to consider amendments that would actually
improve the bill and give people guarantees and the comfort that
in fact we will transform the research agenda and improve and
enhance Canada's public health care system.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will now give the floor
to the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead, then we will hear a
government member.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I apologize
to the Progressive Conservative members. This has nothing to do
with their speeches. I understood that we had agreed that,
because of the number of motions we have on the Order Paper, you
would recognize the Bloc Quebecois members, and then the
Progressive Conservative members and finally the New Democratic
Party member spoke.
Would you please explain the rationale for the order in which
you intend to recognize speakers or what you expect that order
to be, so that we may know where we stand?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We discussed what
the order would be. There is no formal order. I had said that
there would be the opportunity for the government to respond.
However, as is the tradition, every time there is a set of
motions a member from each of the recognized political parties
has the opportunity to speak. The hon. member for
Compton—Stanstead will be the first speaker representing his
party. Then we will recognize a member on the other side and
then we will recognize the hon. member for Bloc.
I understand that the Bloc has many motions and from now until
the end of the day we will keep that in mind.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my hon. colleague from New Brunswick Southwest, I rise
to speak to the amendments he has put forward at report stage of
Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian institutes of health
research and to repeal the Medical Research Council Act.
I hope my hon. colleagues on all sides of the House will listen
carefully to the motions that are being put forward and will give
them every consideration when it is time to vote.
It is my belief that these motions will by no means take away
from the bill, but in fact will add to its credibility. We could
probably even say clarity at this point.
The government must demonstrate a commitment and respect for the
principle of accountability through public access to research
material and reports pertaining to public health issues.
The Minister of Health has given us a bill that is specific in
its explanation of the organization of the CIHR. The CIHR will
consist of a president and governing council. Together they will
be responsible for the overall direction of the institutes.
The bill states that the members of this governing council will
reflect the highest standards of scientific excellence. The bill
further states that the appointments will be made by the governor
in council; by definition, the cabinet and ultimately the Prime
Minister. Here we go again. This is a very cozy arrangement and
the very reason we should be concerned. In other words, cabinet
and the Prime Minister will decide who will hold these positions.
1555
The president and the governing council of the CIHR will hold
these positions at the pleasure of the government and they will
be up for review every five years. The motions before us speak
clearly to the re-examination of the formula we currently use for
appointments to positions such as these.
I believe the motions before us today offer a distinct
opportunity to move beyond partisan politics. We must put in
place a process that is both transparent and principled, a
process that will be dependent on the credentials of the highest
order.
As I read the bill it became increasingly evident that I was on
familiar ground. The bill projects Jean Charest's plan for
Canada's next century, the platform for health care that I ran
and won on in the 1997 election. I cannot fault the minister for
coveting the plan of the Progressive Conservative Party because
our plan is visionary.
As Mr. Charest said, we should continue to adopt new medical
treatments, new pilot and experimental programs that would
provide Canadians with state of the art, cutting edge services
and treatments, and new technologies to improve the access to care
in rural and remote areas of the country. He said there would be
programs to test new integrated delivery systems aimed at
providing health care based on the the highest quality of health
practices. He spoke of the development and maintenance of a
Health Canada worldwide website on the Internet to provide a
state of the art health care information system, including advice
on the prevention and treatment of illness to help hospitals and
researchers link their knowledge bases in the country. Is that
not the task of the new agency?
In 1997 the Progressive Conservative Party said that it would
create a national institute for health with membership drawn from
the health care field. It would have a board that would be
co-chaired by the federal minister, along with the provincial and
territorial ministers. The Progressive Conservative platform in
1997 laid out the right process to save our health care system.
It was one of vision and challenge.
[Translation]
The Liberal policy is a disaster for our research institutions
and probably the major cause of the brain drain, particularly on
top of very high taxes. Are members aware that people with
cancer are being sent to the United States for very high-priced
treatment?
Today, they are forced to go after those brains for the new
technology and superior equipment that we should have here.
[English]
Members of the Progressive Conservative Party support Bill C-13
in principle since we had already written most of it. However,
the government now, more than ever, is under scrutiny by the
Canadian people for its accountability, responsibility and lack
of transparency and it might do well to give consideration to the
motions before us today, which pertain to these very issues.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to speak to the report stage motions in Group
No. 1 to amend Bill C-13. As a member of the health committee I
had the opportunity to listen to the excellent witnesses who
appeared before the committee.
Fourteen institutes of health research will be established. It
turned out to be a bit of a love-in early in the testimony of the
witnesses. Many groups and organizations appeared before the
committee to lobby with regard to issues concerning cancer,
women's issues, aboriginal issues and so on. It became very
clear that there are far more demands for health research dollars
in specific areas than there will be research institutes. That
means that it will be a very difficult process for the governing
council of the new Canadian institutes of health research to
determine how to properly structure those research institutes.
The previous NDP speaker, who did an excellent job in
representing her views on the committee, suggested that the
government was opposed to setting up specific institutes for
women, for aboriginals and so on.
1600
According to the bill that is the responsibility of the
governing council. It is not a matter of the government being
opposed to any particular research institutes or promoting any
particular research institutes. Those are the responsibilities
of the governing council.
The NDP member also raised a twofold issue with regard to
conflict of interest. All order in council appointees will
automatically be subject to the public service conflict of
interest rules. However, the member was quite right to point out
that there was an extension in this regard to the extent that
there would be appointees by the governing council which could
include the executive committee and the various advisory and
standing committees of the institutes of health research and of
the governing council. They will not specifically be subject to
any conflict of interest guidelines.
It would therefore seem appropriate to ensure, as with every
agency exercising authority in terms of government funding, that
appropriate conflict of interest guidelines be established. There
is a generic clause in the bill that requires them to put into
place all good management practices. It is included implicitly
although not as explicitly as the member requested.
Once we were beyond the lobbying for who wants to have health
research institutes, the issue for a number of witnesses changed
to that of accountability and transparency. As the previous
speaker mentioned, it is a very important issue with respect to
all legislation with which the House deals.
With regard to the government model for the Canadian institutes
of health research, the Public Policy Forum published a document
called “Proposed Governance Structure for the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research” on January 4, 1999. It
articulated excellent points for consideration, which were taken
into account by the advisory committee to the government, with
regard to structuring the legislation and designing the
governance model for the CIHR.
It laid out six principles of a good governance model and No. 3
was accountability and transparency. It stated:
Those within the CIHR, those who make decisions about funding the
CIHR, and the Canadian public in general, must be able to hold
accountable those in whom the responsibility for health research
has been entrusted. The lines of accountability must be clear
and clean. Making that accountability clear is the transparency
that is deemed fundamental to the CIHR.
There are many references in this document with regard to
accountability and good governance, transparency, et cetera. It
is an issue to which we are very sensitive.
A number of interveners before the committee decided to raise
specifically some of these issues. Dr. Susan Pisterman was one
such intervener. The Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian
Medical Association and the Canadian Health Association all
raised the same theme with regard to transparency and
accountability.
I have a couple of interesting quotes. To put it in context,
the first one is from Dr. James Turk, executive director of the
Canadian Association of University Teachers. His final issue was
commercialization and he said:
—there is a potential conflict of interest of members of the
governing council, which is not addressed in this bill. Quite
frankly, no one who represents major private commercial interests
should be able to be appointed to the governing council.
This matter is covered by the conflict of interest guidelines to
which order in council appointees by the governing council will
be subject. I believe that concern has been appropriately
addressed. However, as I said earlier, any other appointees by
the governing council who are not covered by the public service
conflict of interest guidelines should be adequately covered by
good management practices. He went on to say:
This is a public body that will control millions of dollars of
research money and will be probably the most decisive institution
in Canada with respect to the health of Canadians.
1605
There is no question about that. The Canadian institutes of
health research will be responsible for peer review and
consideration of about $500 million worth of grants. In view of
its size and importance there is no question that accountability
and transparency issues will be carefully taken into account by
parliament to ensure that they are in place. I am very confident
about that.
Other concerns were raised. The Canadian Health Association and
its spokesperson, Mrs. Sharon Sholzberg-Gray, also raised issue
about the fact that the CIHR president and the chairperson of the
governing council would be the same person and that there should
be a review in that regard. She also recommended that to further
strengthen transparency and accountability Bill C-13 should
include provisions for a parliamentary review.
There was consistency with regard to those who came to talk, not
just about the importance of having an authoritative body to
manage such an important area as health research in Canada but to
ensure that if there were ever any problems with regard to the
Medical Research Council, or any others, the mechanisms are in
place so that the public and parliament are comfortable with the
provisions of the bill.
I want to conclude my comments. I support the bill. I support
those who came before the committee to compliment and to
congratulate the government with regard to the structure of the
governance model being proposed. I am very sure the concerns
raised by a number of the witnesses with regard to issues such as
accountability and transparency have been adequately dealt with
in the bill and will be taken care of as we move forward to
establishing probably one of the most important health
institutions in Canada.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Churchill River, The Environment; the hon.
member for Halifax West, Visible Minorities.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-13 at report stage. We
are dealing with the first group of amendments.
This bill is aimed at officially creating Canadian institutes of
health research to organize, co-ordinate and fund health research
at the federal level. These institutes will replace the Medical
Research Council and will receive additional funding totalling
$65 million for the 1999 fiscal year and about $500 million
until 2002.
What will the institutes of health research do? They will
promote new ways of conducting research on biomedical themes and
also on issues more directly related to social sciences, which
is something totally new.
Moreover, these institutes will be virtual, since they will
allow researchers in universities, hospitals and other research
centres in Canada, as well as university students, to
communicate with each other and to share information
electronically.
The institutes will have various themes on which they will be
able to focus their research, including ageing, arthritis,
musculoskeletal development, cancer, molecular biology—a new area
of research—the health of children and their mothers and the
relationship between the two, clinical assessments, technology
assessments, heart disease, and many more. They should also look
at new genetic and reproductive technologies. These themes will
be studied from a social perspective.
The mandate of these institutes also includes other interesting
and innovative elements.
Ethical issues are to be taken into consideration.
1610
I am always surprised when this issue is raised, because the
feeling is that, in the scientific community, ethics are at the
forefront. It seems however that, with the new developments in
science, this issue will become more pressing.
Emphasis will also be placed on the need for integrated health
research with the co-operation of several groups: various
organizations, women's groups and governments currently involved
in research. This will be an important element in the future.
The approach is clearly multidisciplinary.
Moreover, the institutes will not be dedicated, which will allow
them to be more flexible and to alter their priorities to adapt
quickly to the changing nature of society and the fast-paced
developments in the research field. This is in response to the
OECD, which has been urging Canada since 1993 to increase its
investment in R and D.
It is expected that the health research institutes governing
council might start its activities as early as April 2000, in
keeping with the wishes of the government and the scientists who
are insisting on this timeline.
The Bloc Quebecois, whose support for increased R and D funding is
unwavering, salutes the efforts of the scientists who were
involved in the drafting of the bill to ensure they would have
access to innovative tools to improve the dissemination of
health information and facilitate the development of cutting
edge technologies in this area.
However—and this is significant—in its present form, Bill C-13
might encroach on provincial jurisdiction over health. The Bloc
Quebecois cannot support the bill as it is currently worded. The
problem is not the creation of the institutes per se. R and D
falls under residual powers and, as such, is theoretically
subject to federal jurisdiction. The problem comes from the
possibility of direct encroachment on provincial jurisdiction in
the area of public health care, without any prior earnest
consultation with the provinces.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois is proposing a series of
amendments mainly designed to highlight the importance of
respecting and sharing jurisdictions, and to reaffirm the
primacy of provincial jurisdiction in the area of health.
In addition, the Bloc Quebecois supports increased investment in
health research, and it is vital Quebec receive its fair share
of federal research and development funds, especially since,
historically, Quebec has received only 14% of federal spending
on research and development on infrastructures.
It is particularly noteworthy, however, that we receive about
30% of funding for researchers awarded on the basis of an
evaluation by their peers, because this funding is awarded on
the basis of merit. This means, therefore, that our researchers
are productive in Quebec and excel in such fields as mental
health, cancer research, genome research and biotechnology.
Although the multidisciplinary vision of Bill C-13 is
commendable, it is unacceptable that the provinces were not
given a major role.
Respect for Quebec's jurisdisction should be at the heart of any
intervention in the field of health. This is why we must oppose
the bill, if our amendments are defeated.
The government is doing a good thing by investing more money in
research now, but there is no need to lose sight of the need to
reinstate the transfer payments to the provinces. In fiscal
year 1999-2000, the shortfall in social transfers to Quebec is
estimated to be nearly $1.7 billion. Of this amount, Quebec is
denied nearly $850 million annually in the area of health.
We supported the principle of Bill C-13, we support the flexible
and multidisciplinary structure, the increased funding to
research and development, which could make researchers feel more
secure and slow down the brain drain. However, our basic
conditions are that the government re-establish transfer payments
and respect provincial jurisdictions.
1615
Given the events we have witnessed of late, Bill C-20, which
denies Quebecers' basic rights, and the number of gag orders we
face with the clarity bill and the concerns we have about the
democratic process with regard to this bill, I move:
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): Call in the members.
1700
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Girard - Bujold
| Guay
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
White
(North Vancouver) – 37
|
NAYS
Members
Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Catterall
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Copps
| Cullen
| Desjarlais
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grewal
| Grose
| Gruending
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lee
| Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Lowther
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Paradis
|
Penson
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pratt
| Price
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Solomon
|
Speller
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Vanclief
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Williams – 103
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to the amendments to
Bill C-13, the CIHR.
I want to publicly congratulate Dr. Friesen on the great work he
has done in pushing this through. I also want to make some
comments about my friend from the NDP, the health critic, who
also brought up some excellent points that were ignored in
committee and to which answers were not forthcoming.
Quite frankly, when I sat on the committee last year as the
health critic, we as a party were firmly in support of the
essence of the bill, the organization of it and the
public-private partnership notion. It had a great deal of
foresight. Dr. Friesen and his colleagues deserve a great deal
of credit for that. It is a good idea and something that we in
the Reform Party support.
However, a number of very constructive solutions that our party
put forward at committee stage were repeatedly shot down. Why?
Because once again the committee demonstrated very clearly that
it was not demonstrating the autonomy that it ought to have if it
was going to have credibility as an institution.
Committee members made amendments that would have strengthened
the bill and allayed the concerns of the research community.
These amendments were universally defeated by the government
without, I might add, a great deal of forethought. The
amendments put forward—some by the NDP, some by the Reform Party
and some no doubt by other opposition parties—would have
strengthened the bill and made it better. However, those
amendments were defeated because they came from the opposition,
and I think that is a sham.
Unfortunately, this takes place far too often in committees.
Committees are supposed to be an avenue where members from across
political parties can negotiate, discuss and debate issues
related to bills in a manner that is largely beyond partisanship.
The health committee chose not to pursue that course on a bill
which could be enormously supportive of the research community
and of the health and welfare of Canadians.
The organization is fairly good. We support Dr. Friesen's
contention and promise that a maximum of 5% of the moneys
allocated toward research will go toward administration, making
this a lean, mean organization, one where 95% of the money is
spent on the hard edge of research, which we support.
In order for this to happen, I put forward an amendment on behalf
of the Reform Party but it was not accepted.
1705
Another important issue is to ensure that basic research, a
fundamental aspect of research in Canada, would be secured and
that 20% of the money that was available would be proportioned
directly to basic research.
One of the problems of involving a public-private partnership is
that basic research, which does not have any short term to
intermediate term benefit and no observable, concrete benefit in
terms of profit-making for the private sector, would not be
adequately funded in Canada. Dr. Polanyi, our Nobel prize
laureate in chemistry, and other researchers, sent letters to all
committee members saying that this was very important. We put
forth an amendment to ensure that at least 20% of the money
allocated to the CIHR would go toward basic research but that was
defeated.
There are no assurances in the bill that basic research will be
financially supported, basic research that may not have the
support of the private sector. This is a flaw in the bill which
I hope the government will rectify as soon as possible.
We also found that there was not enough support for conflict of
interest provisions, which the NDP health critic talked about
very eloquently. These provisions could affect the decision
making and allocation of funds through the CIHR. This needs to
be addressed and I would ask the government to do that.
I have further issues that need to be addressed in the bill for
the sake of research in the country.
First, at least 20% of the money that is available should go
toward basic research. I challenge the new CIHR to investigate
naturopathic substances. As a physician, one of the problems we
have in the practice of medicine is trying to incorporate
naturopathic substances. We know some of it has a placebo
effect, is not useful and is not backed by any science. Others
have a demonstrative therapeutic effect on people but we do not
know if it is a placebo effect or if it is based on good science.
The medical community would love to know which naturopathic
substances have a therapeutic effect and which ones do not.
Pharmaceutical companies are not prepared to engage in the
roughly $500 million required to determine if a substance has an
effect. Therefore, it would be up to organizations like the CIHR
to engage in a public-private partnership to see which of these
naturopathic substances have an effect and which do not. This
would be fascinating.
It is frustrating to see substances such as EDTA being used by
people in Canada and the United States with allegedly profound
impacts on cardiovascular disease when there is not enough
evidence to show whether it truly works or whether it has a
placebo effect. If it does not work, then we should know about
it. If it does work it could have a profound impact on lessening
the need for surgical and non-surgical interventions in treating
cardiovascular disease. Statements have been made by patients
indicating that this has had a profound impact on their health
and well-being. I have no factual evidence to back this up and
no scientific proof that substances such as EDTA work.
St. John's wort can work very well for people with depression.
This is the impression we have and it has worked on patients.
However, we would like some scientific basis as to why these
things work. It would certainly help medical practitioners in
Canada.
I would also like to bring up the issue of research and how
moneys are allocated. Too often moneys are allocated on the
basis of special interest groups. The interest group that
screams the loudest gets the most money.
My colleague from Vancouver North Shore has done a yeoman's job
in bringing the issue of prostate cancer to the forefront. For
many years prostate cancer did not get the funding it warranted
based on the number of people it affected.
Similarly, breast cancer did not get the funding it required
based on the number of women it affected.
1710
We should base the research, and the moneys that are
proportioned to it, on the morbidity, mortality and economic
effects a disease has on society. It should not be based on the
group that screams the loudest.
The House might be interested to know that unipolar disorder or
major depression will have a profound effect on our country in
the future. In fact, it will be the second leading cause of
disability in the next 20 years. Just imagine major depression
being the second leading cause of morbidity in our country.
Another issue our policy makers are ignoring is the impact that
psychiatric disorders, particularly dementia, will have on our
health care system in the future. There is not enough leadership
on this issue. I plead with the Minister of Health to meet with
his ministers to look at what can be done today to address the
future problem of dementia. As we get older the issue of
psychiatric and dementia problems in the geriatric population
will have a profound impact on our health care dollar. If we do
not put in place today the tools to deal with it, we will be
caught in a very difficult situation in the future.
I will now put a plug in for my private member's motion that
passed in the House in May 1997 for the national headstart
program. I know it was supported by members across party lines,
but we need a spark to ignite it. It will save the taxpayers
billions of dollars. It will save thousands and thousands of
children in the country. It will deal with issues such as fetal
alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects. It will reduce teen
pregnancy by 40%. It will keep kids in school longer. It is
something that will benefit children.
Our party is prepared to work with members from across party
lines to put this into action. I implore the relevant ministers
to call their provincial counterparts in justice, health and
human resources and work together to put a national headstart
program in place that will benefit all Canadians.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to speak today in the debate on report stage
of Bill C-13, the short title of which is the Canadian Institutes
of Health Research Act. I would like to congratulate my
colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for the excellence and
relevance of his speech this morning.
My pleasure at being able to speak on the institutes of health
research stems from my very longstanding interest in this
matter.
As far back as 1997, I wrote the federal Minister of Health
submitting a medical research project in the area of genetics
that had been prepared by a leading group of researchers in the
region I represent.
At that time I asked him to examine the merit of the proposal in
order to award it some funding. At that time, unfortunately,
the Minister of Health informed me that there was no money.
Last June, I again wrote the Minister of Health, inviting him to
take advantage of being in my region to meet a team of
researchers interested in the possibility of a virtual research
institute which might meet their needs.
My party and I have long been calling for a fair share of R and D
investments for Quebec, and if these were to benefit my region,
all the better.
I would like to conclude this overview by mentioning that last
week I sent a letter to the Minister of Health in which I
pointed out my disagreement with federal government cuts since
1993 in the health sector and with the longstanding unfairness
in the disbursement of federal research and development funding
in Quebec.
I then observed that of course we would respond favourably to an
opportunity to receive our fair share of these new investments
and to provincial jurisdiction over health being respected.
1715
At this time, I also wish to thank the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for giving me a prime spot in committee
during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13.
I used the opportunity to invite two researchers from my region
to appear as witnesses. Dr. Marcel Mélançon, director of
Quebec's genetic and ethical research group at the Université du
Québec à Chicoutimi, and Michel Perron, director of the ECOBES
research group at the Cegep de Jonquière, which is studying the
living conditions and needs of populations, pointed out that
expertise in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region in the field of
genetic determinants in the health of the population is very
promising.
They also reminded committee members that it was important to
consolidate scientific expertise in the regions and to promote
the integration of researchers and interdisciplinarity. Mr.
Perron said that it was essential to support the training of
research graduates from the regions and that incentives were
necessary to keep them in contact with regional health problems.
Mr. Mélançon testified that project evaluation should be done by
peers, i.e. other scientists, and that it was essential that a
single committee of experts not be given sole authority.
CIHRs should ensure that science is conducted with conscience
and that it serves the public's best interests. The
contribution of normative social sciences such as ethics and law
should not be neglected.
This is why he was saying that CIHRs should have ethics
committees or even that an institute dealing exclusively with
ethical issues in research would be totally justified.
It would be good if people outside the scientific community,
sometimes called lay persons, could have their say, without
interfering with strictly technical decisions, so that the
wishes and concerns of the people can be heard and so that
scientists are not isolated in their ivory tower.
My party, the Bloc Quebecois, and I have long supported the idea
of reinvesting in research. The Bloc Quebecois supported the
principle of the bill at second reading.
Even though we agree with the principle of the bill, it does not
mean that we are willing to accept it as is.
The Bloc Quebecois has proposed amendments which, if adopted,
would make the bill acceptable. I truly believe in the
importance of this bill and I think it is possible to amend it
to make it better.
My colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, has brought
forward essential amendments, which would recognize the
provinces' jurisdiction in the area of health and which would
subject CIHRs to a consultation process with the provinces. It
is crucial that the bill be more explicit with regard to the
importance of treating the regions fairly in allocating the
research institutes that will be created.
I will briefly summarize the amendments brought forward by the
Bloc Quebecois.
Specifically, the first group of motions is comprised of 11
amendments, which clearly specify that the bill is about health
research, not about a potential expansion of mandates beyond
that research.
The idea is to ensure that decisions about the choices and
principles underlying health networks and services to the public
come under the exclusive authority of the provinces, as provided
by the Constitution, which the Liberals claim to protect when in
fact they are violating it through increasingly more
unacceptable infringements on provincial jurisdictions.
We are simply asking that the bill allow the establishment of
the institutes while respecting the division of powers.
1720
This is why we insist on these amendments, which seek to clearly
indicate that Bill C-13 is about health research. Again, it is
not the establishment of institutes that poses a problem to the
Bloc Quebecois, but the possibility of infringement on a
provincial jurisdiction, namely health services to the public,
without meaningful consultations with the provinces.
It is essential that the federal government make it clear that
it has no intention of using this bill to create parallel
structures and that it supports the initiatives undertaken by
the provinces.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is prepared to co-operate with
the federal government to amend this bill, so that it will truly
serve health research while also respecting federal and
provincial jurisdictions, for the benefit of the public's
health, and so that the region of Jonquière, which I have the
honour of representing, can benefit from it. In our region, we
have top researchers who, in spite of limited funding over the
years, have made their mark at the local, provincial and
national level.
Therefore I call on the government to pay very close attention
to the Bloc's amendments. If it does, we will be pleased to
support its bill. But if the government does not do that, we
will unfortunately have no choice but to oppose the bill.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
extremely important that the Bloc Quebecois be here to speak to
this bill.
While this may also be true of other provinces, we all know
that, in Quebec, research, and health research in particular,
has been extremely hard hit by the cuts made by the central
government. We have just gone through a period when transfers
were cut by some 40%. Universities have seen their budgets
reduced. We has been hard to provide training to new
researchers.
Yet, Quebec has continued to contribute more than Canada,
allowing Canada to build up its resources, which, as we now
know, have become surpluses the importance of which we will find
out on Monday.
As a result, while graphs on the growth of health research in
the United States showed an increase, those on health research
in Canada for the same period showed a decline. It was urgent
for the Canadian government to invest in health.
We have nothing against the Canadian government investing in
health, on the contrary. But how does it go about it? It decides
to change the structure. Instead of putting money back into the
centre for biomedical research which had been funding and
supporting, all over the country, groups that may also find
other funding sources and thrive, as was often the case in
Quebec—Quebec and its research groups are often cited as
examples—the federal government has seen fit and necessary to
centralize biomedical research through this legislation.
Some may argue that these are virtual centres. True, but the
intention is clear. That is why one the Bloc's amendments seeks
to change a paragraph in the preamble of the bill.
1725
On page 2 of the bill it states, and I quote:
I did not invent the word “focus”.
When they talk about co-ordination, one might wonder, because
this usually involves independent entities.
They use the word “focus” in reference to research, but
focussing is not always necessary; sometimes complementarity is
required, and teams working in different directions may, at some
point in time, through healthy competition, achieve results
faster. This bill however seeks to focus and integrate health
research.
I know that distinguished people have worked on that issue, but
we are here to fulfil our responsibilities as politicians and,
in politics, one cannot rely on politicians and deputy ministers
fits of generosity. We read the enactments. If we did not read
them and report what we found in them, we would not be doing our
job.
Too many extraordinary efforts have been made in the field of
biomedical research in Quebec, and too much creativity and
genius has been put into not only discovery but also preparation
and organisation processes to let the federal government step in
with its maple leaf and centralise and integrate health research
when money is being invested.
It is totally unacceptable. There is no doubt that those who
drafted this bill knew that it was totally unacceptable to
Quebec, but they also knew that the research industry has become
exhausted because of lack of funding and that it needs money. We
do understand that. But it is our responsibility to say that we
will not agree to anything just because we need money.
Otherwise, we would be saying that the government was right in
doing what it has done since 1994, which was to empoverish the
provinces, and particularly Quebec, when we all know how the
health budget was treated the last time. It would be saying that
the government had been right, because it would allow it to take
control over the centralization and integration of health.
This clearly shows the importance of the Bloc Quebecois'
presence here.
Under such conditions, Quebec's opposition is not surprising. I
am sure that nobody is happy about it, because we all know very
well that we need the money, but we cannot easily give up what
could be called community ownership. It would be utterly
unacceptable.
Although its authors' intentions are praiseworthy, this bill is
dangerous and unacceptable as it stands, and the Bloc will say
that it is dangerous and unacceptable. Would it be so difficult
for members opposite to accept to take away the words “to
centralise and integrate the research”? I would be very
surprised if they accepted to take that passage out.
What is happening with Bill C-20 can be seen in a general way in
the attitudes. I know that the members opposite are laughing,
but I urge them to try to understand that the people of Quebec,
its representatives, the National Assembly and all those who
defend our common heritage cannot understand that, for this
country that they claim to care for, they do not accept to make
amendments that are only legitimate, normal, necessary and
minimum.
We will therefore strongly oppose this bill.
* * *
1730
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I inform the House
that under the provisions of Standing Order 30, I am designating
Thursday, March 2, 2000 as the day fixed for the consideration of
private member's Motion No. 211, standing in the order of
precedence in the name of the hon. member for Churchill.
[Translation]
This other period set out for the consideration of Private
Members' Business will be held from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. and
the House will then move on to the adjournment proceedings
pursuant to Standing Order 38.
[English]
It being 5.31 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
SENATE
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, all proceedings of the Senate
of Canada in the Senate Chamber should be televised.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this evening's debate revolves around
Motion No. 98, which states that in the opinion of the House all
proceedings of the Senate of Canada in the Senate Chamber should
be televised.
While the House of Commons will not hold a recorded vote on this
subject, it is my sincere hope that perhaps some senators are
watching and may finally take action. Perhaps some senators are
even watching tonight's proceedings live on television. Maybe
they are working late on Parliament Hill. Maybe they have gone
home and are watching a rebroadcast on CPAC.
If I say something particularly outrageous tonight they may see
it repeated on television newscasts throughout the day tomorrow,
but I would never do that. I must therefore choose my words
carefully.
The point is that our debates in this Chamber are open to
television cameras. We have nothing to hide in this place. To
senators watching tonight this may seem surreal. We are in front
of television cameras debating whether the Senate of Canada
should allow television coverage of its debates. Currently the
Senate forbids such broadcasting. Granted, it allows some
cameras into selected committees, but the Senate of Canada is not
a group of committees engaged in study after study. It is a
legislative body. It is the other half of Canada's parliament
and it is a chamber where unelected people debate proposed
legislation. It amends bills. It adopts bills. It even defeats
bills passed by this elected chamber.
Regardless of how one views our current set-up, whether we want
it to be reformed, abolished or left alone, surely we want to be
able to watch our senators in action. We ought to be able to
watch them stand and be counted.
The Senate of Canada should draw back its dusty curtains and
expose itself to the scrutiny of television. Perhaps I should
contrast the Senate's approach to television with our experience
in this place. The House of Commons reached agreement to go on
the airwaves in 1977.
By way of background, I should say that the legislative chambers
in all democratic countries and states have public galleries.
Since the days of the Magna Carta the public's business has been
seen by the public. If I flash forward from 1215, some 762 years
later a debate occurred here in the House of Commons on extending
the galleries by way of television, realizing that in the era of
electronics and as the medium known as television matured it was
the ideal and modern way of extending the principle of the public
galleries in the Commons into Canadian homes.
On January 25, 1977 the House adopted a motion to broadcast live
all of its debates and proceedings. In September 1977 our
Chamber went on the air.
1735
The concept of extending the galleries is based on some very
clear and sound philosophies. First, as I have said, the public
has a right to see its legislators debating the public's
business.
Second, for our federal chambers to be relevant—and we have to
be more relevant—debates and proceedings must be fully
accessible to the public.
Finally, public broadcasting gives viewers firsthand experience
of legislators at work, as opposed to what otherwise would be
received through reports or commentaries prepared by journalists.
Quite simply, it is not filtered and it cannot be construed or
censored in any way.
It is interesting to note that today more than 100 countries
broadcast their legislative chambers' proceedings on a daily
basis, yet in this parliamentary precinct, which was the first
elected chamber in the world to broadcast its proceedings, there
is an exception and it is called the Senate Chamber.
I should tell the House that the only debate in that place on
this issue took place on November 5 and December 3, 1975, 25
years ago, when senators expressed a majority opinion that the
public should not view their proceedings by way of television. I
will provide details on this later.
I draw the attention of the House to the Senate rule book, which
is the equivalent of the standing orders of the House of Commons.
Its rule book says that the televising of proceedings is strictly
prohibited.
I should declare my own bias concerning the Senate. It will
come as a great shock. It would be my preference to see it
abolished. In fact, I have joined with other members of this
elected chamber in circulating petitions in support of abolition.
I want to read part of the official response to these petitions.
This is an official response from the government, and it states:
The government shares the petitioners' concern about modernizing
parliamentary institutions. However, a constitutional amendment
would be required to abolish the Senate—
We know that.
A consensus does not exist on what the role and form of the
Senate should be in the future, that is, whether it should remain
as it is, or be reformed or abolished....In the meantime, the
Senate will continue to play a fundamental role in the federal
legislative process.
Let me repeat that. “The Senate will continue to play a
fundamental role in the federal legislative process”.
Let us look around the world. There are 80 countries which
televise all of their legislative chambers' proceedings, yet we
in this parliament average 50%, one out of two.
The British House of Lords, for example, went on the air in
1985, about four years before the British House of Commons, and
rather than affect the general demeanour of that place, public
opinion polls suggest in Great Britain that it has clearly
revealed two points. First, the public in Britain actually like
the House of Lords. In fact, it became a rating success. Second,
it is agreed among the British public that the quality of debate
in the House of Lords went up, not down.
Finally, I want to repeat that we live in an electronic
information age. I have to ask, is it not ironic that the other
place, the Senate of Canada, is not available to Canadians
through the medium known as television?
We can gain inspiration from the practice of televised
proceedings elsewhere in Canada. It is alarming to realize that
the Senate of Canada is the only major assembly not to televise
its proceedings. I think it is odd that such a centrally
important institution is effectively not open to the public.
Other sorts of assemblies in Canada are required to bear the
democratic weight of visibility. Why should the Senate not meet
this democratic litmus test?
Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of Canadians are
effectively barred from the affairs of the Senate. For the 30
million Canadians who do not live within the boundaries of the
national capital region and cannot make it to the Senate public
galleries, the lack of television coverage means that they are
unable to follow the business that is being transacted supposedly
in their names.
Why deny access to a key component of our legislative process?
Whether someone agrees or disagrees with a unelected Senate, the
fact is that it is a central player in our legislative process.
No government bill, private member's bill or finance minister's
budget can be enacted without the Senate. The Senate signs off
on every piece of legislation it receives from the Commons.
Without the Senate's acquiescence laws could not be made. That
is the law of this country. That is the way it is.
Under the constitution the Senate holds as much power as this
place, the House of Commons.
While it has usually been the practice of that place of the
unelected senators to defer to the elected Commons, there have
been occasions when it has invoked its constitutional prerogative
to reject or to withhold approval of Commons legislation.
1740
We know by our constitution, principally by the British North
America Act, that the Senate is central in the lawmaking ability
of what we call the federal parliament. Canadians need to have
access to this component of the Canadian legislative process. It
is 50%.
Not willing to televise the Senate places a shroud over an
integral part of Canadian governance and, at worst—and I think
this is becoming more common—it creates the perception that
something is going on that the Senate is hiding.
Let us open up the old heavy oak doors, part those old dusty
curtains to allow the fresh breath of public transparency and the
bright light of visibility into a place that has been, some would
say, dark and stale for too long.
The Senate belongs to all Canadians and, while only a select few
can trespass on to its royal red adornments, it is important to
at least provide some degree of ownership to citizens over an
institution that is key to the conduct of public affairs.
It is not as though what I am proposing can even be considered
radical or trend-setting because legislative assemblies across
Canada already broadcast their proceedings, as do municipal
councils, school boards and all kinds of quasi-judicial
tribunals. Even the Senate of Canada standing committees have
been known on occasion to allow the public to catch a glance of
senators at work in committee, although it should be noted that
Senate committees involve only a dozen of the 105 people who
occupy that place.
Not only in Canada, but elsewhere upper chambers have their
proceedings televised. As I have said, the U.K., the United
States, Australia and over 100 other chambers in countries around
the world televise their proceedings. I should say that in my
own municipality of Sarnia I can get the Sarnia city council, I
can get the Chatham council, which is about 75 miles away, I can
get two city councils, but I cannot, unless I have a Ouija board,
get the Senate of Canada.
In the House of Lords of the United Kingdom daily sittings have
been permanently broadcast since 1985. The opponents of Canadian
Senate broadcasting wrongly argue that TV would destroy its
deferential and so-called polite decorum at the very high level
of civilized debate that we are told takes places in the Senate.
One senator has even described the place as being serene.
In the early 1980s, when the House of Lords was discussing
proceeding with broadcasts, some peers echoed a similar concern.
However, the track record tells a different story. The decorum
and the politeness of the lords' debates has not gone down, but
has probably gone up. The Senate of Australia, an elected body,
has been broadcasting since 1990.
The wonder of the Westminster parliamentary system is its
ability to evolve toward greater democratic governance with
stronger links to citizens. The history of parliaments in Canada
and the U.K., and I assume elsewhere in the Commonwealth, has
shown that they have never shied away from strengthening the link
to citizens. Televising the Senate should be viewed simply as
another logical step in that evolutionary process.
Even though television did not exist in 1867, the Senate, I
would suggest, has a duty and a responsibility to adapt toward
greater accountability and visibility so that the link with
citizens is strengthened. Letting public business into the
living rooms of Canadians is a good thing. Not only will it let
citizens hold senators to account in a more effective way, it
will also contribute to a heightened legitimacy of parliamentary
institutions, this place known as the Parliament of Canada.
If, as senators maintain, they are truly effective and they make
a positive contribution, they should not fear television. Their
deliberations should be able to withstand the bright lights of TV
cameras.
As I said, in 1975 the Senate debated the idea of televising
proceedings. It decided against the practice at the time and
since that time it has been loath in any way to discuss it.
In 1975 former Conservative Senator Martial Asselin provided
insight into why the Senate is so apprehensive about televising
its proceedings. At that time he said:
I will give you my own point of view, since I feel that the best
way to get the Senate abolished is to permit television and radio
coverage of our proceedings.
1745
As the Senate Hansard showed, some hon. senators concurred
by saying “aye, aye”. They obviously did not feel that the
Senate's work at that time was all that valuable. He seems to
indicate that it would not be able to stand up to public scrutiny
and that upon seeing the Senate in action, or should I say
inaction, the public would call for its abolition.
I think it is a sad state of affairs when senators themselves do
not even have confidence in the work they do to hold up their
institution to public attention. I think I speak for all members
in saying that we certainly hope senators no longer believe this.
I would like to close by referring to an op-ed piece written by
a senator who occupies that place at the moment. Senator Joyal
lists his daily schedule and tells how busy he really is, or says
he is. He may have chosen a busy day to illustrate his schedule.
His examples are by no means an accurate composite of activities
for all senators, nor does his schedule appropriately address the
substance that a senator might encounter in a typical day's work.
It was a criticism against a newspaper article. I think Senator
Joyal's criticism should not be directed to a columnist's
assertions that most Canadians would agree with, but rather
should be directed to the institution and its members who have a
massive credibility problem.
We know that 90% of Canadians would prefer to see it changed. Of
them, half would support it being abolished and the other half
would support it being elected in some way. We know that 10%
have no opinion or like it the way it is.
It is an institution which has an incredible problem of
legitimacy. I am saying that TV would encourage senators to
respond to issues that Canadians care about, lest citizens judge
them as completely useless.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, why
should the Senate be televised?
The regions of Canada need to be more involved in decision making
and policy making at the national level. To meet the hopes and
dreams of those who live in the west and the Atlantic, a reformed
Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected,
effective and equitable.
Those were the words of the Prime Minister as recorded in
Hansard on September 24, 1991.
I on the other hand support Senate reform. If it is done
properly, a restructured and revitalized upper chamber can give
Albertans a voice in the governance of Canada. If elected
Liberal leader I pledge to work for a Senate that is elected,
that has legislative powers of its own and contains strong
representation from all regions of Canada.
That was said by the present Prime Minister on June 23, 1990.
“You want the triple E Senate and I want one too”. That was the
Prime Minister again in the Toronto Star on February 2,
1990. “The Liberal government in two years will make it elected.
As Prime Minister I can take steps to make it happen”. Once
again that was the present Prime Minister speaking to 400
delegates at the annual general meeting of the Alberta branch of
the federal Liberal Party.
Liberal prime ministers agree that the Senate needs to be
reformed. One of the steps to make that happen, one of those
true reforms, is what the member for Sarnia—Lambton has put
forward today in the House of Commons, which is the idea of
making the Senate televised.
Even in the grandmother of all parliaments, in Westminster, in
1985 the House of Lords televised its proceedings. Indeed the
House of Commons in the grandmother of all parliaments followed
four years later and televised its meetings in 1989.
1750
Our Senate is a place that is undemocratic in that it is
appointed. Our Senate is a place that is not accessible. Instead
of providing information via the electronic method where most
people get their understanding of the news today, our Senate
instead is a place that is out of control. It allows people like
Andy Thompson to spend but one day in the spring sitting and one
day in the fall sitting and collect a full salary. Only because
of public pressure, because of media pressure, because of light
shed on the institution and scrutiny brought to bear did those
things change.
The Senate should be a place that has nothing to hide, that
stands behind no shroud. As a result TV cameras should be in the
Senate.
I am going to talk about the public support for Senate reform,
in particular an elected Senate, because it hinges on this very
debate.
In British Columbia 84% of people are in favour of an elected
and reformed Senate. In Manitoba 86% are in favour of such
reforms. In my home province of Alberta 91% of people are in
favour of reform of the Senate, of modernizing this institution.
Television would modernize the institution.
We have had a recent development. One of the senators, the last
Progressive Conservative or Tory senator in the province of
Alberta, has expressed the intention to resign his seat as of
March 31.
Last year Albertans elected Bert Brown, a man who has been
campaigning for an elected, equal and effective Senate for over
10 years. He received more votes than any other federal
politician in Canadian history. Even if we went back prior to
1867, nobody could compare to Bert Brown in the amount of votes
he garnered. During the Senate election, in the midst of that
process, the Prime Minister had the audacity and disrespect for
the people of Alberta to appoint someone to sit in that chamber
in Bert Brown's place. Shame on the Prime Minister.
Thankfully there is an opportunity to have that made right; that
wrong can be made right. When that seat becomes vacant on March
31, I implore on behalf of the people of Alberta, on behalf of
the premier and the letters he has written to the Prime Minister,
and on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of people who cast
their ballots, that the Prime Minister do the right thing. I ask
that he stand by the convictions he ran for as Liberal leader in
1990 in Calgary, Alberta when he won his election, and by his
predecessor Pierre Elliott Trudeau whom he served in cabinet, and
uphold that idea of an elected Senate and appoint Bert Brown to
that place.
My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton is talking about changing the
rules of the Senate, section 130(1), which only allows for audio
broadcasts in the Senate. My hon. colleague would like to expand
it beyond audio broadcasts to broadcast the proceedings on
television, to carry the business in the Senate as people see me
tonight here in the House of Commons.
Canadians wherever they live should be able to see their
government at work. They have seen their government at work in
the House of Commons since 1977. The debate for that began in
1973. They now see their provincial legislatures at work from
coast to coast to coast. They see their municipalities at work.
Municipalities across the land have taken it upon themselves to
televise their proceedings.
1755
More than that, even school boards in this country have gone so
far as to televise their meetings so that the public knows what
they do in their interests and that the business be known to all.
Canadians deserve to know what they are getting for the $50
million plus a year they spend on the Senate. Last year the House
of Commons attempted to draw before it those members of the
Senate who did not want to explain their budget appropriations,
their 16% increase in their budget. The people of this country
deserve to know and to see with their own eyes what goes on in
that place.
As it stands, people have to go into that chamber. Only from
that vantage point, those few precious seats in that red chamber,
are they allowed to see what goes on. As a matter of fact last
year the Senate took steps to restrict access to the printed
records of who takes their seat in the Senate and does their
public business as they are paid to do. It is a crying shame
that people are not even allowed to see those minutes, to have
them published and available on the Internet as is other business
of this Commons and of this parliament.
Michael O'Connor, a fellow who lives in Ottawa, was so upset
over that very predicament that he took time away from his part
time job to sit in one of the rooms in the Senate. He
transcribed all of those sittings of the Senate to know who was
or was not there and who was collecting his taxpayer dollars to
sit or not sit in that place on his behalf. That type of thing
is egregious and should not be going on.
When we consider that 80 countries in the world permit the
broadcasting of all proceedings in their chambers and now over
100 countries permit some form of broadcast, the idea that our
Senate allows none of its main chamber is a disgrace. The Senate
must be reformed and televising it is but one of the mechanisms.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There has been some
use of the word hypocrite flowing back and forth. I want to make
it absolutely clear that we are not going to let the use of this
word creep into the proceedings of the House.
I have previously intervened if the term has been used to
describe a specific member or a specific minister or describe a
specific person's actions. It has been used in the House to
describe the actions of a group. While it is still a word that
must be used in the English language, we are going to measure its
use very carefully.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I
want to thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for Motion No.
98, which suggests that all Senate proceedings be televised.
Since the hon. member is in favour of the abolition of the
Senate, knowing him as I do, I think his aim is mostly to get
Canadians and Quebecers to see, through television, how useless
the Senate is, how absurd what is going on there is, and how
archaic and even undemocratic that institution is.
Basically, the hon. member wants to ensure that people
understand that the Senate must be abolished. He said so himself
in his remarks.
My Bloc colleagues and I are in favour of the abolition of the
Senate. But televising proceedings would be a waste of money, I
believe.
1800
Indeed, we know that the Senate spends over $60 million every
year. This is a waste of money, because we know very well that
the Senate, even though it has many powers, which are equal to
those of the House of Commons, unfortunately exercises these
powers in a partisan way. They are exercised by people who often
use this money and these powers for personal and partisan
reasons.
If we want more Canadians to be aware of what is happening in
the Senate, we should ensure that its budgets are more
transparent and that the auditor general can examine the Senate's
books. I think people would then be much more aware of what is
happening in the Senate.
We know that only one auditor general's report, the 1991 one,
dealt with the Senate. The auditor general found that the Senate
lacked transparency, that it was trying to hide what goes on
there. Indeed, my Reform colleague pointed out how it is
difficult to get a precise account on Senate attendance. All the
information on the Senate is very difficult to access, or they
are trying to hide it.
Senators have no benefit in being known to Canadians.
Nevertheless, ensuring transparency on spending and budgets
would be sufficient for people to call for the abolition of the
Senate. Ultimately, this is the only solution: the abolition of
the Senate.
We know, for example, how the money is badly spent.
We know that the Senate costs more than $60 million a year.
Public accounts show an amount of only $47 million. However, if
we add the services provided by a range of federal departments
and organizations, the cost of the Senate exceeds $60 million a
year and could even reach $70 million.
No one knows that. At this time, no one in Canada and not a
single member of this House knows exactly how much the Senate
costs. If only we knew the exact amount, we would be getting
somewhere. We do not know how much the Senate costs because,
unfortunately, this kind of information is not disclosed. About
two years ago, the House of Commons invited the Senate to appear
before the House's standing committee to explain its expenses
and cost increases, which had reached 16% over the two previous
years.
Well, the House of Commons was not allowed to know how the
Senate had spent its $47 million budget which, as we know,
actually exceeds $60 million.
We also know that senators do not work very hard. They sit an
average of 65 days a year, for about three hours a day, and half
or at least a third of the senators are absent half of the time.
I did a calculation of the efficiency of senators and if you
take all those factors into account, the cost of a senator
reaches between $3,000 to $6,000 an hour. Those people, who
spend $60 million of the taxpayers' money, do not account for
what they do and, furthermore, some of them may even use their
position as senators to advance private interests, to become
members of boards of directors or to get involved in many
partisan activities.
1805
For example, people should know that senators use their status,
their offices, their funding, their privileges and their
frequent flyer points for partisan purposes, either for the
Liberal Party or the Progressive Conservative Party. I find it
utterly immoral and unacceptable. However, it seems that here,
in Canada, such practices are accepted in the Senate.
Moreover, senators can sit on boards of directors, which opens
the door to potential conflicts of interest. Senators who sit on
such boards are required to disclose the names of the companies.
I know that one senator sits on Power Corporation's board of
directors as vice-chairman.
Last year, just for sitting on that board, he received $430,000.
Add to that what he gets for sitting on other boards of
directors, his salary as a senator and all the benefits he gets
as a senator.
I have no problem with people who sit on the boards of large
corporations being paid $1 million. However, I find it immoral
that they also sit in the Senate and use their privileges as
senators to lobby officials in various departments. It is not
illegal, at least not for now, but it is highly immoral.
When one looks closely at the Senate, when one sees how
undemocratic and archaic it is, one realizes that it should have
been abolished a long time ago. The longer this kind of
institution is kept in place, the easier it will become to see
how rotten it is, or so I hope.
It is not necessary to put cameras in the Senate because I think
that it would only be money wasted over and above what the
Senate already wastes.
I suggest that my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton go directly to
the heart of the issue. As a Liberal member, I find him very
courageous to voice his opposition to the Senate and to work for
its abolition. I think that we must go all the way and simply
abolish the Senate. That would be doing an excellent service to
everybody.
We would save the $60 million given each year to that
institution. That money is wasted each year. This is not money
that we waste once in a while but money that is thrown out the
window every year. Over ten years, that adds up to $600 million.
If that money were invested in job creation or in constructive
projects, I think it would be a lot more useful to Canadians
than to give it to tired old politicians who are there only due
to patronage.
If the Liberals, among others, had the courage to do so, it
would be very easy to get rid of the Senate. All they have to do
is vote against the Senate's budget in June. That is what I
suggest they do.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton has moved an
incredible motion. As a matter of fact I consider it to be quite
mischievous.
I went door to door during the 1993 federal election campaign
and 90% of the constituents in my riding signed the petition to
abolish the Senate. The other 10% did not want to talk to me
because they were concerned about other issues, were busy making
supper and did not have time to sign it. There was not one
person in my riding, and I canvassed about 45 polls, who said
they would not sign a petition to abolish the Senate.
Televising the Senate proceedings would be like archaeology,
moving a set of bones from one grave to another.
They could have a sitcom style program if they televised it:
Who wants to be a millionaire senator. Of course the
questions would be rigged and the moderator would be the Prime
Minister, and only his friends would win. That is what the
Liberals would do.
1810
Since it already costs $60 million a year to operate the Senate,
television producers might consider a weekly format. They could
call it What's in it for me. Selected senators would
discuss a piece of government legislation and how it would
personally benefit them or their friends or the Liberal or the
Conservative parties. It would be a great program, but there are
no New Democrats in the Senate. There never have been and never
will be.
If they televise the proceedings in that place, which by the way
I do not support, I hope the Canadian public understands that it
is just a Liberal and Tory chamber, somewhat like a bedchamber.
Televising the Senate would the parliamentary version of the
sitcom Friends, or I mean friends of the Prime Minister.
What a novel idea is televising the Senate. Ratings would go
through the roof. Can we not see the viewing public glued to
their television sets while watching the senators cavort for the
cameras? It would be like televising the Titanic at the
bottom of the ocean hour after hour, week after week, year after
year.
There would be some difficulties in translation if we were to
televise the Senate, because how would we translate snores?
Televising the Senate would be like televising homemade bread
rising. Watching homemade bread rise would be more exciting than
televising the Senate.
I have 10 top reasons why the Senate should be televised. The
No. 10 reason for televising the Senate is to assist Canadians
who are deprived of sleep. No. 9 is to show Canadians the fine
and expensive furnishings of the Senate chamber. No. 8 is to
provide an outlet for people experiencing anger management
problems. No. 7 is to provide Canadians with a true non-news
program. No. 6 is to provide Canadians with the funny side of
politics. No. 5 is to give Canadians a break from reality. No.
4 is to encourage young entrepreneurs who want to know how to
make a fortune by not doing anything useful with their lives. No.
3 is to endlessly bore Canadians. No. 2 is to frustrate
Canadians. The No. 1 reason for televising the Senate is to
reveal just what a bankrupt, nonsensical, patronage ridden,
decrepit, useless outfit it really is.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I did not want
to interrupt the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
just in case a talent scout from The Letterman Show
happened to be watching CPAC and there may be a new job in line.
However, the fact of the matter is that parliament as a whole
includes the Senate of Canada. One of the arms of governance of
our country is the Senate of Canada, as is the supreme court, as
is this Chamber. If we do not respect the occupants at any
particular time, we must respect the institutions. If we choose
to change the institutions then let us change the institutions in
a parliamentary manner.
Our rules state very clearly that there should not be
reflections on any of the chambers as a whole. I will not get to
reflections on the Chair. We will save that for a different day.
I will just talk about reflections on the House and the Senate
because we must have respect for our institutions if we expect
others to have respect for our institution:
Disrespectful reflections on Parliament as a whole, or on the
House or and the Senate as component parts of Parliament are not
permitted. Members of the House and the Senate are also
protected by this rule. In debate, the Senate is generally
referred to as “the other place” and Senators as “members of
the other place”. References to Senate debates and proceedings
are discouraged.
1815
I understand that we are debating whether the Senate should be
televised. I am quite prepared to allow us to have some fun with
this, but we must keep in mind that we have the institutions of
parliament in our hands and in our trust while we occupy our
positions. We will come and go and our parliament will withstand
any of us who happen to be elected at any particular time.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order. You have just read a short excerpt
from Montpetit-Marleau. I must say that it makes me uneasy, since
this excerpt says that we must show deep respect for the
institution of the Senate.
I have a problem with that because if, as elected members of
parliament—we know full well that the members of the other place
are not elected—we want to make major changes to the other place,
it means that we do not have a very flattering opinion of it, so
to speak. If we want to bring about theses changes, we will be
forced to voice opinions that might be less than flattering or
more or less unrespectful.
In such a case, how will we settle this conflict between what
the jurisprudence says and what our own convictions are, if we
really want to make changes to the unelected Senate?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): One of the
distinguishing characteristics of the Bloc is that although the
Bloc came to parliament with a specific raison d'être, it has
worked scrupulously within the confines of the democratic
process. That is, in my view, a great honour for members of the
Bloc Quebecois. The nature of our parliament is to have the
freedom to do what we need to do to change the way our country
works but to do so within the regulations that are set down
before us.
If we want to change those regulations then we should change
them; and they can be changed through democratic and
parliamentary means. It is not impossible to make the statements
that are necessary to be made in order to effect a change in the
other place and still have fidelity to the rules by which we
conduct ourselves. It may require persistent application of
imagination and it may require quiet consultation, but it can be
done.
I meant it very sincerely when I said that if there is one group
of parliamentarians in the House that has been respectful of the
rules of democracy, it is the members of the Bloc. It is a great
testament.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am sure our colleagues
appreciate your guidance in this debate.
In the instance that the remarks of the hon. member from the New
Democratic Party were egregiously unparliamentary, I would
suggest that at least toward the end of his remarks there are
elements that should be withdrawn because they were
unparliamentary. You might invite the hon. member to withdraw
them. He will stand advised and be guided by your remarks.
1820
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I appreciate the
intervention by the parliamentary secretary. I chose, rather
than to draw specific attention to any one member at any one
time, because this is something that has been going on for some
time, to make a statement to parliament as a whole. It was not
my intention to address this to any one member. For that reason,
I would not ask the member to withdraw his statement.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your remarks.
The Speaker is always correct in his observations and I respect
that. If I have offended anyone, I apologize.
I will continue my remarks by saying that the Senate can never
be reformed. The Reform Party members have said that the Senate
costs us $60 million and that they want to reform it. They want
an elected Senate which will cost Canadians $120 million or more
every year to operate. If we put this question to a referendum
and asked Canadians if the Senate should be abolished, my sense
is that they, in a unanimous way—probably around 80% to
90%—would support the abolition if the alternative, as the
Reform has said, will cost twice as much money.
I put the case forward that if we abolish the Senate we would
encourage Canadians to petition us in the House of Commons to
strike yet one more level of government that would cost all this
money. I bet there would not be a lot of people signing a
petition to do that.
The reason I say that is because we are already overgoverned in
this country. We have municipal governments, urban hamlets,
towns and villages, rural municipalities, counties, school
boards, hospital boards, provincial governments, the federal
House of Commons and the Senate. We have more governments than
people want to pay for. They are asking us to downsize the
number of politicians not to increase the number of politicians.
What we should be doing instead is undertaking a referendum on
the abolition of the Senate. We should be downsizing the number
of politicians we have in the House of Commons and eliminate the
Senate. We should argue and put the case forward for more
democracy for the members of parliament who are elected to
represent constituents in this very important Chamber.
We should, for example, have a forced representation system to
empower Canadians to elect as many individuals as they see fit.
Whether they vote for the NDP, the Bloc, the Reform Party, the
Liberal or the Conservative Party, their vote would count.
Therefore, on a percentage basis, if the Conservative Party got
20% of the votes it would get 20% of the seats in the House of
Commons. The same would go for the NDP, the Bloc, the Reform
Party and the Liberal Party. This means that Canadians would
have a vote that counted as opposed to the vote they now have
where, in many ridings, they cast a ballot for candidates in
political parties that do not get elected.
We should also move to more free votes in the House of Commons.
This would empower members of parliament. Committees would be a
little more worthwhile and a little more important if we gave
members of parliament a little more authority in committees. If
we made committees more democratic they could actually look at
reviewing the thousands of appointments made by the Liberal
government every week and month. They could make sure that
appointments were reasonable and fair and that the people who
were appointed were fairly competent, as opposed to the many
cases where they are not.
The final check and balance we need once the Senate is gone is
to have less power in the Prime Minister's office. Let us share
the power with some of the cabinet members and some of the
members of parliament like they do in other countries through the
proportional representation system.
I want to tell a story that I think is very important. If we
were to have two elected bodies at the federal level, including
an elected Senate that the Reform Party is always pushing for to
spend more money on government and politics, the result would be
gridlock.
I had the honour and the occasion to meet Bob Dole's campaign
manager. Bob Dole ran for president of the United States four
years ago. His campaign manager told me that he admires the
Canadian democratic process because in the House of Commons the
government is accountable every day to the opposition which is
elected by other Canadians. He said that what they have in the
states is total gridlock. He told me that he was withdrawing
from the political process because all they have are very wealthy
individuals getting elected to congress and the senate, who are
looked after in terms of their priorities and their time by the
12,000 registered lobbyists in Washington. He said that only the
wealthy had access to their politicians.
They are not accountable every day as we are in this House. We
may not like the answers we get in question period, we may not
like the things the government says from time to time, but the
importance is that we have a democratic process in this country
that with the House of Commons alone, if it was empowered in
terms of more Canadians becoming involved, empowered because we
would have more individual influence on committees, on free votes
and so on, we have a very democratic process here.
1825
I maintain that another elected Senate would be a gridlock. It
would be counterproductive, costly and I do not think Canadians
really want it.
With respect to my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton who does
support the abolition of the Senate, as I and all other members
of the NDP do, I am not sure we will able to support the motion,
although individually some might. However, I really believe that
spending extra money on the Senate at this time is throwing good
money after bad. We should try to husband our resources like
they are our resources, as opposed to the ministers' and the
Prime Minister's money.
We should husband the resources that are given to us by the
taxpayers and make sure they are spent efficiently and more
wisely than we actually are spending them right now.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to the private member's motion, Motion No. 98.
I find it rather disturbing, with all the serious problems facing
Canadians throughout the country, that the hon. member for
Sarnia—Lambton would choose to introduce a motion calling for
the introduction of television cameras in the Senate to cover
Senate proceedings.
I have listened closely to the debate this evening and two words
keep coming to mind to describe it. Those two words are
gratuitous frivolity. I have to question why we are debating
having television cameras in the Senate at all. It is obviously
not a point for the House of Commons to debate. It is a question
for the Senate to debate.
The hon. member for Quebec Est discussed, at some length this
evening, the attendance of Senate members. We never refer to the
attendance of members of the House of Commons. It is against the
rules to refer to the attendance of members of the House of
Commons, yet we stood here and talked about the attendance of
members of the Senate of Canada.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker—and I am saying this very
carefully trying to stay within the rules—that any member who
introduces any bill, private member's bill or other bills, in the
House should stay for the full and complete debate of that bill.
I think that would be following parliamentary procedure.
I recognize that the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton who
proposed the motion has been openly critical of our Senate. He
has certainly voiced his opinion on this subject through a number
of mediums. Now he wants to use the time allotted for Private
Members' Business to once again address the issue.
Major changes to the Senate, as all Canadians know, whether we
are talking about the abolition of the Senate or the introduction
of an elected Senate, will require constitutional change. I am
convinced that Canadians do not have the patience for renewed
constitutional discussions. Remember, we are not that far
removed from the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.
Minor changes to the Senate, such as TV cameras, must come from
the Senate, not from the House of Commons.
Since Confederation there has been a certain decorum that has
been strictly adhered to by the upper and lower Houses. The
House of Commons governs the way we operate just as the upper
chamber governs itself.
1830
Although there have been many disagreements among members of
both chambers, there has, nevertheless, been a sense of mutual
respect for each other's role in our confederation. Both Houses
have their own important role to play in our government.
The member for Sarnia—Lambton appears to want to infringe upon
the responsibility of the upper chamber. He wants to impose his
views on how the business of the upper chamber should be managed
and reported to the Canadian public. We may or may not agree
with his opinion on TV cameras. Really, that is a moot point. It
really does not make any difference. It is not up to us to
decide.
I am sure his intentions are honourable. Perhaps he believes
there is not a role for the Senate in the Canadian confederation,
that it is a waste of money. Perhaps he believes we should have
a cameral versus a bicameral system of government. To make this
point he introduced a motion that would see the government invest
significant amounts of money to televise Senate debates. This
little gamesmanship is being played at the expense of the
Canadian taxpayer.
Every time we rise in the House it costs Canadians money. Why
is the member for Sarnia—Lambton not focusing on some of the
major problems that we have in the House of Commons rather than
going on a tangent about the upper chamber? Would we not think
that after witnessing the terrible debacle that was orchestrated
by his government over the past three weeks that he would be
looking to make significant changes in the House of Commons and
leave the Senate be?
With the Department of Human Resources Development being
involved in the greatest example of government mismanagement in
the history of Canada, we would think that the member would be
pushing his government colleagues to provide Canadians with
answers to how $1 billion in government mismanagement was allowed
to occur.
Why is he not pushing for changes within the House of Commons
and, more specifically, question period? Right now question
period is simply that, questions. We ask the questions of the
government and it either chooses to ignore them completely or it
answers something that is totally irrelevant to what was asked in
the first place. Why is the member not pushing to change
question period into question and answer period, whereby the
government would be forced to answer the questions that are being
put to it? Would that not be a novel idea?
Over the past three weeks the acting Minister of Human Resources
Development and the real minister in charge, the hon. Prime
Minister, have consistently ignored, sidestepped or made light of
very serious questions and accusations. Actual answers to the
questions have been at a premium. The government—particularly
these two individuals—believes that it can simply throw Canadian
taxpayers' money into the wind and not have to be held to
account.
I really believe that Canadians do care how their hard-earned
tax dollars are being spent. I firmly believe that the
government has the duty to tell them. The government's smoke and
mirror answers will eventually catch up to it and it will be held
accountable for its actions.
The House of Commons and the upper chamber are filled with
tradition. One of these traditions is that we respect each
other's role in confederation and do not go about telling one
side or the other how to run its business. In short, each House
governs its own processes within our bicameral system.
If I remember correctly, another longstanding tradition in
government has been maintaining the contents of the government's
budget secret. Think about it. We have a budget coming down and
the budget is secret. Nobody knows what is in the budget. Nobody
has a clue what the finance minister is about to deliver to the
House of Commons and, therefore, through the House of Commons to
the people of Canada. Nobody has any idea what is in the budget.
I do not think that is necessarily correct. I think we do have
some idea. Has it not become a joke the way the finance
department has been leaking contents of the budget to the media
in recent weeks? It is a wonder if anything will be left to
announce come budget day. It will just be another day in the
House.
It is no surprise that Canadians have been made privy to some of
the details of the finance minister's budget. The government has
been desperately trying to deflect attention away from the
embattled Minister of Human Resources Development. The
government hopes that by spreading a little good news here and a
little good news there that the Canadian taxpayer will somehow
overlook a $1 billion discrepancy. The sheer amount of leaked
information coming out of the finance department simply
highlights the extent to which the Liberal government is
concerned about the damage it has done by the HRDC fiasco.
There are a few other issues I want to raise. There are other
important issues that we should be debating in the House of
Commons.
One of them is the HRDC debacle. The other one is the September
17 Donald Marshall Jr. decision made by the Supreme Court of
Canada and the way the government has handled that decision. It
is deplorable.
1835
We do not have a set of rules. It has been five months. There
are 33 bands in Atlantic Canada and one of them has been dealt
with. One band out of 33. In less than 60 days the lobster
season will open on the east coast and we will be putting boats
back on the water. What is going to happen then?
We want to talk about Private Members' Business and we want to
talk about the role of parliament. We have issues to debate and
one of them is not whether we have cameras in the Senate.
We have a trucking situation going on from coast to coast in
this country—
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I fail to see the relevance of what the member is saying. We are
here to debate Motion No. 98, having to do with the televising of
debates in the Senate. Is what he is saying relevant to the
debate?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have been
following the member's remarks. From time to time it has been a
stretch. There are other issues which, in the opinion of the
member, are points of debate which he feels could be more
relevant.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, there are many relevant
items that need to be debated. There is the Atlantic fishery.
There are serious problems in our farming communities. Sixty
thousand farmers in western Canada are facing bankruptcy. High
diesel prices are forcing our truckers off the market and out of
business, which will raise the cost of living and the cost of
doing business in Canada. We have a 15% tax on diesel fuel. The
government brings in nearly $4 billion a year and spends $150
million of that $4 billion on highways. Where has the rest of it
gone? Who is it benefiting? Why do we have truckers going
bankrupt in Canada? We cannot move goods and services.
There are a number of issues which need to be debated in the
House. There are a a number of issues which need to be brought
to parliament to be debated by all parties, by all members, but
this is not one of them.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank everyone who has spoken, even the member from the
fifth party, who, in my opinion, gave a very spirited speech
which displayed why he is a member of the fifth party. He has
made a very convincing argument about why this is the last place
we can argue about the relevance of parliament. That is a very
interesting perspective.
It was also interesting that a party which some would suggest
has had chemical traces in the public opinion polls would want to
defend that 45% of the Senate of Canada which it holds.
I congratulate the speaker from the fifth party for convincing
me, and I hope others watching, that the fifth party does not get
enough floor time to speak in this place and that it has shown
very clearly why its members are having problems following the
national agenda.
I appreciate the point of order made by the parliamentary
secretary because there is something called relevance in this
place. Indeed, there is something called relevance in politics.
That party has clearly shown tonight why it might be deemed to be
irrelevant at the ballot box.
I want to quote from a book written by a former occupant of the
other place, Phillipe Gigantes. He wrote a book called Thin
Book: Reforming the Senate. In his opinion “The evolution
of the Senate as a more effective institution will be slow and
will require changes in attitude from current senators and the
House of Commons”—and I am sorry to reveal that to the fifth
party—“but will be worth it. If we do not attempt to reform
the Senate it will be abolished. If we persist in failing to
address the shortcomings of the Senate there will come a time
when it becomes impossible to justify its existence”.
This is a former occupant of the other place who said,
notwithstanding what the fifth party says, that it must be done
from within the House of Commons and the other place.
1840
I have never pretended to advocate anything but the abolition of
the Senate. However, on the issue of Senate TV, I think that
former Senator Gigantes and other like-minded occupants and
former occupants of the other place can make common cause with me
in the effort to have the other place televised. With this in
mind the televised broadcasting of all Senate proceedings could
accomplish the following.
It could give Canadians the opportunity to judge for themselves
whether they are getting their money's worth. They pay about $60
million to shore up the other place and keep it going. Are they
getting their money's worth?
The occupants of the other place would no longer work in
relative obscurity such as those members in this place who are in
parties which do not get a lot of time to speak. In fact, I
would be very surprised if the average Canadian could identify
one occupant of the other place. If Senate proceedings were open
to television cameras, a consensus might finally emerge on the
issue of the Senate itself.
In the year 2000 the occupants of the other place can no longer
hide behind the curtains and maintain the quality of their
debates is higher. They say that the quality of their debates is
higher in the absence of television coverage.
I am absolutely shocked that members of the fifth party in this
place would use the House of Commons to defend the approximately
48 members in the other place who are there, who are not
accountable and some of whom were given 35 years of uninterrupted
service to this country by their former leader. I find it
shocking that they would try to defend that in this place. This
is a place of debate and they do not want to debate it and that
is that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for
the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the
order is dropped from the Order Paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
The new millennium offered Canada an opportunity to start a new
approach to resource development across this great country. We
have a responsibility to learn from the mistakes in the last
century so we do not repeat them in the next.
We have a duty to involve and respect the people's views and
recommendations to resource management issues. This includes the
extraction of resources and the crown's responsibility under the
charter to respect traditional land use for hunting and gathering
purposes.
As parliamentarians it is our duty to represent the best
interests of Canadians and to ensure that our decisions today do
not harm the generations that will follow.
I bring to the attention of the House that there are serious
problems associated with the proposed Diavik diamond mine in the
Northwest Territories. A multibillion dollar fiasco is unfolding
in Canada's north.
The Diavik project is an important step toward providing jobs
and self-sufficiency for northerners. Northwest Territories
proponents stated in an open letter to the Prime Minister that
the 20 year project could create $1 billion in federal corporate
taxes, $600 million in federal royalties and $500 million in
territorial corporate taxes. This $2.1 billion is in addition to
the $1.3 billion construction investment. The total is $4.3
billion and most important, 400 permanent jobs will be created.
Liberal government mismanagement and a disregard for a proper
environmental assessment process have placed this project and the
crown's integrity at risk.
In October 1999 the environment minister was presented with
serious concerns from the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact
Review Board. The highlights included: abandonment and
restoration of the Diavik diamonds project was not considered in
the comprehensive study report; the environmental impact of loss
of wilderness as a social value was not assessed; the cumulative
effects of nearby mine operations were not addressed, a specific
promise made by the government.
The environment minister decided to ignore the first major
challenge by the Mackenzie Valley board to ensure proper resource
procedures were followed.
His decision placed little assurance on future northern
development and community concerns.
1845
The minister also chose to make his announcement while out of
the country and not subject to direct questions or accountability
for his actions. Thankfully the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development showed courage and called for specific
recommendations to be met before land use permits would be
issued, thankfully because a dramatic demonstration in federation
incompetence soon followed.
The Northwest Territories Water Board discovered during routine
proceedings that the tailings liners, a plastic and cement
material crucial for protecting the environment, did not work in
cold conditions. How could a federal environment minister
approve a project when key project components failed? More
remarkable, CBC North footage which aired on February 11 showed
that work had begun on the site without permits. Shame.
With taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars
in northern mine site cleanups, and with northern regions of
Canada pleading for sustainable development that does not destroy
the land and traditional land use, when will the Liberal
government put competence and respect ahead of arrogance and
neglect?
I look forward to the parliamentary secretary's response,
although I do not expect specific details as the Diavik project
is under federal investigation.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to questions by
hon. colleagues from Churchill River and Yukon on the Diavik
mines project, let me say that the government's actions are
completely consistent with the commitments outlined in the Speech
from the Throne. We in the government continue to set tough
environmental standards across Canada. We are taking steps that
will continue to protect the northern environment and safeguard
the long term interest of Canadians who live in the north.
The comprehensive study process for the Diavik diamonds project
was the most detailed comprehensive study review that has taken
place under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act so far. The
Government of Canada spent more than 18 months working on the
assessment of this project. Public consultation was extensive
with more than 300 meetings, workshops and technical discussions
conducted in affected communities throughout NWT.
More than three-quarters of a million dollars was provided to
northern stakeholders to help them participate in the review
process, a process that was open and inclusive and placed a high
priority on public participation. The minister heard from and
took into account the concerns of aboriginal organizations,
environmental groups, concerned citizens, as well as the
Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board.
The comprehensive study report prepared by the departments of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Fisheries and Oceans,
and Natural Resources reflects the tremendous amount of effort
that has been invested in assessing the potential environmental
impacts of this project. The minister fully supports the
conclusions of the comprehensive study prepared by these federal
departments. He is confident that with the implementation of the
mitigation and monitoring measures set out in this report, the
Diavik mines project is not likely to have significant adverse
environmental affects.
To further demonstrate the government's resolve in protecting
the northern environment, I draw my hon. colleague's attention to
the additional commitments set out in the decision on this
project. These commitments include the implementation of a
regional, cumulative effects management framework, establishing a
monitoring program mechanism that will include aboriginal
peoples, and the approval of a program to abandon and restore the
mine site in a manner consistent with sustainable development.
These commitments address concerns raised during the public
consultation process, and they will contribute to further
reducing the residual effects.
These actions demonstrate the government's environmental
commitments, including the commitments set out in the Speech from
the Throne.
VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
October I raised the issue of the terrible situation facing
visible minorities in the federal public service. I pointed out
at the time that the Canadian Human Rights Commission noted that
there was a decrease of 501 visible minorities in permanent
public service jobs in 1998. Of the 28 executive positions
filled from outside the public service, a grand total of zero
were visible minorities.
The minister responded by claiming that the government had been
“working for years to increase the number of people of visible
minorities working in the public service”. It is now four
months later, and we have still seen no action.
This month is Black History Month. The Liberal government has
taken no major concrete action this month or since its election
to address the representation of blacks or other visible
minorities within the federal public service.
1850
In about one month from now I expect the task force on the
participation of visible minorities in the federal public service
to table its report with the President of the Treasury Board. On
behalf of all Canadians seeking fairness, justice and equity, I
challenge the Liberal government to act quickly and with
integrity when the report is tabled. The report may very well
call for specific quotas and targets to be met in the short and
medium term.
While there are legitimate concerns with quotas, I fear that the
Liberal government has let racism and discrimination in the
federal public service become so out of control that such short
term measures are the only way to begin to address the extent of
the crisis.
I am appalled that the government has chosen to exclude those
designated as permanent residents who are not Canadian citizens
from the available rate established for visible minorities. Our
Canadian community includes visible minorities, many of whom are
permanent residents but not yet Canadian citizens.
It is outrageous and inexcusable that the Liberal government
treats these people as statistical pawns in an ill fated effort
to make the numbers look better. The Liberal government can also
take action to improve the current accountability mechanisms used
by departments with respect to staffing and equity.
While the Canadian Human Rights Commission does very good work,
it should not fall upon it to undertake employment equity audits
or complaints investigations. Surely simple logic would suggest
that the government has an obligation to people of colour and to
all Canadians to ensure there is accountability that works.
The accountability mechanisms must ensure that non-complying
departments and agencies can be dealt with and forced to comply.
Will the government also ensure that the increasing number of
hirings done through acting appointments and secondments are
subjected to the same scrutiny and considered part of the
analysis of hiring shares which are used by the government to
determine participation rates from various sectors of society?
I also encourage the Liberal government to no longer hide from
the issue of the participation of visible minority women. I
challenge the government to develop concrete plans out in full
view of the public to increase the participation of visible
minority women in non-traditional occupations. Is the government
even aware that the proportion of visible minority members
entering the female dominated administrative support category is
at 40%?
In closing, should the Liberal government finally agree to meet
the challenge posed by racism and discrimination in the public
service by actually coming forward with a plan, I encourage the
government to work closely with its elected employee
representatives.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in
response to the question posed by the hon. member for Halifax
West. This is an issue that has been near and dear to my heart
in all my life and in all my career.
As the President of the Treasury Board has already pointed out,
the government is working to increase the number of people in a
visible minority in the federal public service. It is important
to recognize that during fiscal year 1998—99 there were a total
of 14,338 indeterminate departures from the federal public
service, of which 3.7% were visible minority employees. During
the same period we recruited 2,533 new indeterminate employees,
of which 6.9% were persons in a visible minority. While we
recognize that 6.9% does not meet the labour market availability
of 8.7%, we are continuing to make progress toward a
representative public service.
During fiscal year 1998—99, 38 executives were hired from
outside the public service, of which 10.5% were persons in a
visible minority. We are demonstrating our commitment to
increased representation of persons in a visible minority in the
executive ranks.
A task force on the participation of visible minorities in the
federal public service was established in April last year, as the
member opposite recognized. The task force is examining the
situation of visible minorities, building on previous studies and
developing a government-wide action plan with concrete strategies
to address the issues and improvement of the situation of visible
minorities in the federal public service.
We expect the action plan, as the member recognized, to come in
the coming months. The government is committed to making the
Public Service of Canada better reflect the diversity, the
strength and the growth of the Canadian society. I join the
member opposite in encouraging the President of the Treasury
Board and all hon. members, in making their suggestions for
concrete action, to come forward and see that plan implemented.
It is important for all Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.54 p.m.)