36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 86
CONTENTS
Friday, April 14, 2000
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1010
| CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1015
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1100
| JOSEPH DEKORT
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CHARLTON HESTON
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| VIA RAIL
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1105
| NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURES
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| PEACEKEEPING
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
1110
| “THE TRUE NAMES OF BIRDS”
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| COMMUNITY POLICING
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| DIABETES
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| THE SECOND BATTLE OF YPRES
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1115
| VOLUNTEER WEEK 2000
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1120
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| MIDDLE EAST
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1125
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FUNDRAISING
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1130
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1135
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
1140
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Hon. John Manley |
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1145
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| PLUTONIUM SHIPMENTS
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1150
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1155
| GIANT MINES
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien |
| HOUSING
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1200
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
| CANADIAN GRAIN COMMISSION
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Statements by Members
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1205
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. John Bryden |
| The Deputy Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Citizenship and Immigration
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1210
| PETITIONS
|
| Pesticides
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| Bill C-23
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| National Highway System
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mammography
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Rural Route Mail Couriers
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
1215
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Divorce
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Second reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1255
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1300
1305
| Hon. David Kilgour |
1310
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1315
1320
1325
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1330
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Motion
|
1335
1340
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1345
1350
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1355
1400
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1405
1410
| Mr. John Bryden |
1415
| Mr. Randy White |
1420
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 86
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 14, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1010
[Translation]
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
The House resumed from April 6 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity
and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court, and to make consequential
amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, this second
reading of Bill C-19 is an opportunity to say how long it took
this bill to appear. It is not that Canada was long in the preparation
of it, but this bill is of a very particular nature, because it is
the translation into law of an international agreement to create an
international criminal court for global concerns.
I will take the liberty of reading a text by Philippe Weckel, a
professor at the University of Nice-Sofia-Antipolis, which
summarizes well, it seems to me, the realization of the Rome
statute in Bill C-19.
The Rome conference opened on June 15 and closed July 18
following the adoption of a treaty on the statutes of the first
international criminal jurisdiction of a permanent and universal
nature.
An old utopian idea is achieved paradoxically with the help of
realism. This success, uncertain to the last minute, will not enthuse
those who wanted to proceed much more quickly and go further.
However, the balanced compromise finally reached, after the
laborious negotiations of the night of July 16-17, gives the new
institution a chance to survive—
I repeat “gives the new institution a chance to survive”.
This introduction expresses both the hope raised by the Rome
Treaty creating, once the signing and international ratification
conditions have been met, an international criminal court, and
the difficulties connected with it.
The famous conference of July 17 and 18 ended, it must be said,
in confusion. On July 18, 23 states, including France, signed a
document that had been hastily put together and not reread. Two
months later, the true and authentic instrument of the Rome
Treaty was still an unknown quantity.
As the bill tells us, this treaty was adopted on July 17, or the
morning of July 18, corrected by the protocols of November 10,
1998 and July 12, 1999. This speaks to all the difficulties
surrounding the birth of something on which thinkers had focused
a half-century of efforts.
1015
The term “international criminal court” is an unusual one in
itself. Any viewer who has not yet given up on such a
complicated subject, knows what a court is, and there is nothing
new and different about the words international and criminal
either.
The truly revolutionary aspect of it is the combination of the
three. Until this treaty, a criminal court was an instrument,
within a state, which judged individuals who had committed
offences of a criminal or other nature. The international court
was in place to judge conflicts between states or between groups
and a state.
For the first time, a court will be called the “international
criminal court” to ensure—this is the objective—that certain
categories of extremely serious crimes will no longer go
unpunished, as has been the case until now. This is our hope
and objective.
What crimes will the international criminal court deal with?
There are four different types. There is the genocide, which is
defined as follows:
—acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such—
Crimes against humanity are also included. A crime against
humanity is defined as follows:
War crimes are defined as:
Such breaches include attacks against civilian populations,
deportation, hostage takings, the intentional destruction or the
pillaging of civilian property, including towns, villages,
dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not
military objectives, and employing poison or poisoned weapons.
Finally, there is the crime of aggression, which could not be
specifically defined in the Rome Statute.
The court will have authority over the crime of aggression only
when this crime has been properly defined under a new treaty.
As members can see, and also our viewers, the future
international criminal court will have a huge responsibility.
Throughout history, and until the creation and operation of that
court, these crimes were often not defined or named as such, but
they were recognized in foreign policy and in history as actions
taken by certain states in their quest for power. We know that,
over the centuries, that quest for power has been a quest by one
country to dominate another.
It can also be domination over groups or confrontation with
other nations. All manner of horrors were perpetrated.
1020
This was how political tyrants and dictators behaved, but their
actions were not judged. People might be revolted by the
ensuing millions of deaths, but there was no other way to judge,
and worse, no other way to try them.
How did this idea of an international court arise therefore?
Several individuals must have had the same idea over the years,
centuries even, but it was actually in the aftermath of World
War II and specifically the crimes against the Jews that the
Nuremberg tribunal was set up.
In fact, it was the first international criminal justice
organization.
It is clear when we look back on these events that this tribunal
caused many problems, particularly from a legal perspective.
Right up to the beginning of the trial, genocide was not
considered a crime. At Nuremberg, victims were only witnesses,
not complainants or civil parties. It was the states that
judged.
It has not been possible to rid this tribunal of its image as a
court of victors. Very often, as we know, history is written by
the victors, and much time must pass before it can be rewritten,
I might add, since my background is in history.
The idea of an international court arose at the same time as the
Nuremberg tribunal was created.
This idea first came up at the UN over 50 years ago. On
December 9, 1948, the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, with its article 6
providing for the possibility of the future establishment of an
international criminal court, was adopted by the UN National
Assembly.
Article 6 provided that persons charged with genocide would be
tried by a competent tribunal of the state in the territory of
which the crime had been committed or by such international
penal tribunal as might have jurisdiction.
How is it then that the treaty launching the process of adoption
was not signed until July 1998? Because even though this idea
was adopted by the UN, it ran into tremendous difficulties, the
first being that the sovereign states could not agree to the
creation of a court whose jurisdiction exceeded their own and
which could try actions committed by the powers in control of a
state at some point in their history.
1025
The project was the result of certain events, it must be said.
The international law commission was making no progress. The
work was resumed in 1989, but what really hastened progress was
the events in Bosnia and later Rwanda, and the Security
Council's decision to use its powers to create the international
criminal tribunal to judge the crimes committed in Bosnia and
Rwanda to which we have referred.
The mere mention of these two courts shows how difficult it is
to have a true international court. After everything that has
been done, we know that 65 individuals have been charged, 35 are
presently imprisoned, and 14 have been sentenced. This shows
how lengthy proceedings are, that it takes a long time to ensure
justice and the appearance of justice. No one, however, would
say it was not worthwhile.
Unlike the international criminal tribunal created for Bosnia
and Rwanda, the international criminal court will have two main
elements. There will be a permanent court with nine justices,
in the Hague. States ratifying the Rome Statute will be
required to work in collaboration with this court. How? Mainly
by delivering up the accused and the witnesses, or evidence in
their possession.
The court will operate along the same lines as the international
criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
As well, the international criminal court will be able to
delegate its powers to national judicial systems, which is what
interests us even more in Canada.
Courts in countries that have ratified the statute could judge
accused persons themselves, in accordance with the rules of law
recognized by the court. This latter mechanism is what is
termed application of—and this is a term that will come up a
great deal—“universal jurisdiction”, which confers upon national
courts in countries such as Canada jurisdiction over serious
crimes committed outside their territory and not involving any
of their nationals.
It is important to keep these two conditions in mind.
They are rather surprising as principal conditions, because—I
would need to go into detail on amendments to Canadian statutes
here—a Canadian court could have been empowered to judge in
Canada criminals who were not Canadians or had committed crimes
against persons who were not Canadians.
1030
The minister of the time did not consider it appropriate to
enforce the law of Canada, so that the jurisprudence is such
that, without the passage of Bill C-19, no court in Canada can
judge criminals who are not Canadian or who did not allegedly
commit crimes against Canadian nationals.
The fact of being able to delegate to other national courts the
attributes of the permanent court at The Hague—this is the
hope—will take a load off this international court, and lighten
its operations and its costs, two sources of criticism against
the international court of justice and against the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, whose mandate was
expanded to include Rwanda.
I have spoken of the long history behind this Rome Statute, but
I have not yet said why many base their hopes for world peace on
the creation of such a court. The first reason given is to
ensure justice for all.
I will quote Kofi Annan:
For nearly half a century—almost as long as the United Nations
has been in existence—the General Assembly has recognized the
need to establish such a court to prosecute and punish persons
responsible for crimes such as genocide. Many thought, no
doubt, that the horrors of the Second World War—the camps, the
cruelty, the exterminations, the Holocaust—could never happen
again. And yet they have. In Cambodia, in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, in Rwanda. Our time—this decade even—has shown us
that man's capacity for evil knows no limits. Genocide...is
now a word of our time, too, a heinous reality that calls for a
historic response.
As a corollary, we can add that this court aims at putting an
end to impunity. Justice for all means the end of impunity.
Jose Lasso, the former UN commissioner for human rights said,
and we should bear this in mind:
We run a greater risk of being brought to justice and sentenced
for the killing of one man than for the killing of 100,000.
That is what impunity is all about.
That impunity has resulted in a rapid increase in the number of
conflicts in several regions of the world. Perhaps we get that
impression of a rapid increase because we are immediately aware
of these conflicts, through our modern media. In any case, we
are aware of an increasing number of conflicts and of the fact
that many of those who committed terrible crimes escape justice
through power, wealth and honours. There is nothing that we can
do against these people.
1035
If such a situation is generally accepted in this day and age,
it will undermine the moral order. Some think that the Rome
Statute, which parliament will ask Canada to ratify, will help
put an end to conflicts. How can they say that? There can be no
peace without justice, no justice without laws, no laws worthy
of that name without a court responsible for ruling on what is
fair and legal under specific circumstances, including in
situations of ethnic conflicts.
It is clear that not everyone shares the same hopes
regarding this treaty until it becomes law.
The international criminal court will try to remedy the
inadequacies of special tribunals and will take over when
national institutions, in the area of criminal justice, do not
have the will or the ability to act. I should point out that
those who have already signed this treaty, or who will sign it,
are committed to do everything in their power- but, as we will
see, this power does not have enough teeth—to ensure that country
leaders who do not ratify the statutes and may have committed
crimes against humanity can be prosecuted. If these people leave
their territory, they could be extradited and tried in another
country.
Some claim that the Rome Statute could deter future war
criminals. Perhaps, but, as far as I am concerned, that argument
is not any more valid than another one that we reject, namely
that imposing capital punishment in a country has a deterrent
effect on criminals. I believe this is why Canada decided to
abolish the death penalty.
Many hopes are pinned on this international criminal court, but
let us be clear. Before we get to the stage where this
universal jurisdiction can be exercised, 60 countries must
ratify the Rome treaty. What progress has been made to date?
Eight countries have made the move.
Naturally a number of countries whose leaders might be targeted
by this court will not be rushing to add their signature.
1040
As William Chabase said in a presentation to the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, those
countries which are in the position of disapproving of the
actions of leaders of other countries will rush to sign the
accords and the Rome convention.
Which countries have ratified this treaty? Belgium, the Fiji
Islands, Ghana, Italy, Norway, San Marino, Senegal, and Trinidad
and Tobago.
There is a long road ahead before the Rome treaty is fully
implemented. It should be emphasized that the United States has
serious reservations about this international criminal court.
Other countries, such as France, may also drag their heels
because of the influence of the military and their assessment of
the impact of the international criminal court. I mention these
two countries because they are important, but there are
undoubtedly many others.
Earlier I said that there has been criticism, even from experts
and politicians who are in favour of the international criminal
court, but who fear that it will not be able to completely meet
our expectations, and in certain cases not be able to meet them
at all.
I wish to cite Lise Bissonnette, an editor who has now moved on
to other equally noble functions. On July 20, two days after
the treaty was adopted, she wrote the following:
She poses a number of questions. These are very certainly the
same questions we will be asking ourselves when we begin our
deliberations in committee.
She goes on to say:
Beyond the classic definition of genocide, war crimes, and
crimes against humanity, must these offences be broadened to
include enslavement, sexual offences, the use of chemical or
biological weapons? Will the court have automatic and universal
jurisdiction and could it pursue nationals of a state that had
refused to sign the treaty? Where would the jurisdiction of
national courts end and that of the international court begin?
Some responses have been forthcoming since the writing of this
editorial, but other questions remain unanswered.
Again quoting Lise Bissonnette:
The zeal focussed by numerous countries, which eventually led to
the creation of the international criminal court, paradoxically
shows how readily the international community could prevent war
crimes, genocide and aggression. As history has shown, from
Latin America to Africa, only the democratization of nations put
an end to abuse, to reprisals against civilian populations, to
political murders, to the violent crushing of minorities and
dissidents. The most scandalous of impunities is not, therefore, that
allowed to dictators and their underlings when they are allowed
to get off scot-free because there is no international tribunal
before which they can be judged—
1045
I will raise my voice here and repeat what Lise Bissonnette
said “—the most scandalous of impunities is that guaranteed to
them at the very moment they are leading their reign of terror”.
It dates back to 1998.
—was that of Indonesia and of former President Suharto, whom the
international community has just let off for economic rather
than moral reasons, he who had on his conscience the proven
genocide of one third of the population of East Timor. This was
perpetrated before the very eyes of the country's trading
partners, and with their full knowledge, for over twenty years.
As far as the warm, and self-serving friendship Canadian Prime
Minister Chrétien had for this murderer (a minimum of 200,000
people killed during his regime and on his orders) is concerned,
the fact that our Minister of Foreign Affairs was at the same
time agitating for the creation of an international criminal
court makes our diplomacy look pretty calculating and cynical.
This is a harsh judgment, but one that is worthwhile. The
example of the relative effectiveness of the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia justifies such
questions, which need to be asked today, as the committee begins
its deliberations.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs' global position on human
security is an important component of this international
criminal court to ensure the protection of children and civilian
populations, but are we not, at the moment, in international
terms, agreeing that the only role of the international
community is to ensure order within existing borders?
We are giving ourselves the means to punish the heads of states
once we catch them. Madam Justice Arbour's charge against
Milosevic, who remains the President of the Yugoslav Federation,
served as a signal, but at the moment, and I will point this out
in committee, almost all the peacekeeping measures we refer to,
the ones we invest in, are means of repression, when we must
accept that the vast majority of current conflicts are conflicts
within countries and due to various causes.
These causes, which may be the unrecognized but disputed
self-determination of peoples, may underlie the huge problems we
see and, in this area, the international community is much less
active.
There is a whole side to this activity by the international
community that must be raised during committee debates.
As my speaking time is drawing to a close, I can say that at
second reading, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill, but we
have some concerns, including the fact that the treaty was
signed without prior debate in parliament, as we have been
calling for prior to the implementation stage, when we cannot
change much.
1050
I point out that my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry has a
private member's bill calling for international treaties to be
put before parliament prior to the ratification stage and not
when an enacting bill is under consideration, such as this one.
The subject is a difficult one for ordinary citizens, but the
House of Commons must be the place to explain difficult issues,
the place for instruction on democracy and on international
democracy vital to future peace.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to speak to Bill C-19, an
act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
The Progressive Conservative Party supports and applauds this
excellent initiative by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The
purpose of Bill C-19 is to implement Canada's obligations under
the Rome Statute, which was adopted on July 17, 1998 by the
United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the
Establishment of an International Criminal Court.
[English]
As has been previously mentioned, this piece of legislation
forces us to examine some very disturbing matters throughout the
world and oftentimes within our own borders.
Once the ICC has been set up it will be the first permanent
international court empowered to investigate the most serious of
crimes under international law. These include genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes. We can all be assured that
although Canada is showing great leadership by making sure that
war criminals will be prosecuted and punished for their awful
crimes against humanity during a war, there is more that we can
and must do. The legislation lays the groundwork to empower
those officials within our borders to do just that.
Too many lives have been taken. It is time for the
international community to work together to ensure that something
is done to provoke positive change in this area to bring about
greater accountability and to bring to justice those individuals
who have performed and partaken in these atrocities.
Canada's leadership throughout the century has been one for
which we can all be proud. With Bill C-19 we have an opportunity
to do more. Canada is one of many countries taking steps to
implement statutes within a framework of national and
international systems of law.
Although six states have already ratified the statute, Fiji,
Italy, San Marino, Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, in light of the
legislative initiatives brought forward by the federal government
last December 10, the Conservative Party is glad to say that
Canada is one of the first countries to take overall
comprehensive legislative steps to implement the Statute of Rome.
I again congratulate the minister for his efforts and his
leadership in pursuit of justice for war criminals, and certainly
on behalf of victims.
According to justice department statistics, there are presently
400 people living within the boundaries of Canada who have
allegedly been involved in the commission of war crimes, crimes
against humanity or genocide. It is simply unacceptable that
many war criminals are able to live out their quiet lives here as
if nothing had happened, as if nothing they had done was wrong
and escape prosecution for terrible atrocities.
Most of these individuals in question hail from the Balkans,
Africa and Central or South America. Canada must not ever become
or be seen to be a safe haven for war criminals. In response to
this problem, Bill C-19 is a great achievement.
1055
Sadly Canadians and the world will have to wait until the
international community gets together to implement a permanent
institution that can have genuine and necessary judicial capacity
to fulfill the mission to address the problem.
In the meantime we have witnessed the carnage in Kosovo, in
Rwanda and in other countries around the world, which makes this
legislation all the more important and all the more timely.
Basically Bill C-19 would implement the Rome Statute and
replace the current provisions in the criminal code with respect
to war crimes. It creates two kinds of offences: offences
within Canada and offences outside our borders. Offences within
Canada are encompassed in clause 4 of the bill. Pursuant to
clause 4, every person is guilty of an indictable offence who
commits, in Canada, genocide, a crime against humanity or war
crimes.
These definitions provided for the three offences are based on
those found in sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute. This is
in addition to the criminal code where a person, if convicted of
one of these offences, shall be sentenced to life imprisonment if
the crime was committed intentionally. Obviously there is the
burden of proof on the crown. In any other case, a person is
liable to life imprisonment, a very serious and appropriate
response.
These provisions would apply to conduct committed in Canada and
permit Canada to either prosecute these offences or extradite
individuals to the country where the atrocities occurred and face
prosecution in those lands.
This is a great addition since it was extremely difficult for
the justice department in the past to prosecute war criminals who
had taken refuge here as a result of the supreme court ruling,
the now very infamous and famous ruling of R v Finta. In
that decision, many will recall that Imre Finta, who was legally
trained as a captain in the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie was in
command of an investigative unit at Szeged during the second
world war.
It is documented that during that time over 8,000 Jewish people
were detained in a brickyard, forcibly stripped of their
valuables and deported to horrendous, dreadful conditions in a
concentration camp as part of the Nazi final solution. This
order for execution, the final solution, was on the gendarmerie
and certain police forces to carry out.
After the war Mr. Finta fled to Canada. In the early 1990s the
Canadian courts challenged the respondent under the Canadian
Criminal Code war crime provisions with unlawful confinement,
robbery, kidnapping and manslaughter of the victims at that
horrible death camp.
In his client's defence, Mr. Finta's lawyer argued correctly
that the defence of obedience to superior orders and the peace
officer's defence were available under the criminal code, which
was the case for members of the military or police forces in
prosecutions for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
These defences are weighed by the courts, subject to the
manifest illegality test. This test basically refers to defences
that are not available when the orders in question are
manifestly unlawful. The burden of proof here relies very much
on the qualification of the unlawful act.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have 12 minutes
remaining after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
April 28 is a National Day of Mourning, a day to commemorate
those who have been injured or who have died in the workplace.
I rise to remind all Canadians of the importance of preventing
work related injuries and death. Work related accidents cause
more than 800 deaths and some 800,000 injuries every year. I
encourage all Canadians to help prevent workplace accidents so
that all workers can enjoy safe and healthy work environments.
On April 28 the Canadian flag will be flown at half-mast on
Parliament Hill to mark the National Day of Mourning. I
encourage all Canadians to please set aside some time to remember
the workers who lost their lives or who have been injured on the
job. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families and
friends.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the current grain handling and
transportation system in western Canada is rigid, unaccountable
and does not efficiently serve the needs of farmers.
The Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition estimates that reforms to
the system could save farmers over $300 million annually.
The savings from reform would give the average farmer an extra
$15,000 per year. This is $4,000 more than the government's
failed AIDA program.
1100
In two separate reports the government's own experts have
recommended that the Liberals eliminate the Canadian Wheat
Board's stranglehold over farmers, grain companies and the
railways. The presidents of Canada's five major grain companies
have joined the call for grain transportation reform. However,
this government appears to be deaf. The Liberals still refuse to
act.
Preserving the control of the Canadian Wheat Board is far more
important to these Liberals than preserving farm families. This
government is denying farmers millions of dollars by letting the
Canadian Wheat Board dictate national transportation policy.
* * *
JOSEPH DEKORT
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a community leader and
constituent, Joseph DeKort, who died suddenly two weeks ago. Joe
served five terms as a councillor in the former City of
Scarborough. Throughout his career in public life, he put the
interests of his constituents first and helped guide Scarborough
through the transformation of the neighbourhoods of Agincourt and
Malvern from the mid 1950s to full-fledged cities in the mid
eighties.
He was a man whose abilities allowed him to serve in capacities
going beyond those of a councillor. After a bid to become mayor
of Scarborough, Joe easily assumed new roles of leadership in our
local community, living up to his election motto: Let's build a
better community together.
He worked tirelessly on many election campaigns at all levels.
We all knew we could count on his good advice and election
expertise, especially in the sign campaigns. Joe also worked for
both the Scarborough General Hospital and the March of Dimes.
To his wife Mary Jane and his children, my constituents and I
extend our condolences on their loss.
* * *
CHARLTON HESTON
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, National Rifle Association president
Charlton Heston came to Canada yesterday and demonstrated his
ignorance of Canada and Canadian values. Heston told Canadians
“We are North Americans by birth on either side of the line. The
rest is just survey stakes and politics”. He could not be more
wrong.
Canadians are not Americans. Our west was opened with treaties,
not wars. Our health care system responds to the depth of an
illness, not a wallet. Our gun laws keep guns out of the hands
of the wrong people.
Heston says “We share a border that's more a myth than a
fact”. Canadians see the effect of American gun violence on
television every day.
We joined with the world in sorrow after Columbine, Jonesboro
and too many other tragedies to mention.
Charlton Heston may think that our shared border is a myth.
Canadians do not. We do not want the American gun culture
crossing that line.
* * *
VIA RAIL
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week the transport minister announced a funding package of
$400 million to improve and modernize VIA Rail's infrastructure
and rolling stock. This is great news for rail passenger service
in Canada. Indeed, I hope that it will lead to new
infrastructure to make riding the rails more convenient and more
attractive to those in the southwest part of the national capital
region.
For at least a decade the idea of constructing a combined VIA
Rail and local Ottawa-Carleton transitway station in south Nepean
has been around. Unfortunately, every time the regional
municipality went to talk to VIA Rail in the past, the railway
was always pleading poverty, that it had no capital funds. This
is no longer the case.
It is my hope that VIA Rail will give very serious consideration
to this combined use facility. It could be a wonderful showcase
of a multimodal transportation facility combining bus,
automobile, heavy rail and eventually light rail facilities.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today is day five of the Shawinigan shenanigans in
the Middle East. The tired and bruised Prime Minister is in
Jordan, apologizing for missing the late King Hussein's funeral.
His Gaza gaffes are headlines all over the world. His spin
doctors are panicking and working overtime. They cannot keep up
with the Prime Minister's lack of preparation and the remarks he
bleeds into the Middle East media every day.
The Prime Minister does not understand what he is talking about.
After four days of saying what he was not supposed to say, now he
says “Listen. I do not have to discuss the situation between
those two countries”. Which countries? For him, any two
countries in the region.
Why has he not been saying that since the beginning when he
realized he could not be helpful to the peace process and he
could not be a statesman?
Canadians are ashamed of the damage he has done to three
different sets of sensitive negotiations that have forced him
with his tail between his legs to ask if he was still welcome in
Syria.
* * *
1105
[Translation]
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday
night, as part of National Volunteer Week, Centraide Outaouais
handed out its Bénévolat 2000 award, honouring the commitment
and devotion of a volunteer in one of its member organizations.
I would like to congratulate this year's winner, Michel Guimond,
a volunteer with Grands-Frères et Grandes-Soeurs de l'Outaouais.
Mr. Guimond has been a Big Brother to Nicholas for eight years,
and also headed the organization's board from 1995 to 1998.
Despite heavy job pressures, he has also been a provincial and
national board member of Big Brothers and Sisters, as well as a
volunteer member of the campaign board for Centraide Outaouais.
May I take this opportunity to salute the commitment, not only
of Michel Guimond, but also of all the volunteers who make a
contribution to improving the quality of life in the Outaouais.
* * *
HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURES
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Wednesday, the hon. member for Chicoutimi criticized the
Government of Quebec for not investing sufficiently in the
development of highway infrastructures in the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Quebec City regions.
I would like to remind the hon. member that the Government of
Quebec invests close to 72% of its fuel tax revenue in highway
infrastructures, unlike the federal government, which collects
over $6 billion yearly in excise tax but invests only 17.4% of
it. The rest of that revenue goes to swell the already
over-inflated budget surplus.
The hon. member for Chicoutimi will agree with me that the level
of government responsible for our poor road conditions is none
other than the federal. With its surpluses, it could renew
strategic agreements for highway improvements with the
provinces.
The Government of Quebec is once again the only one bearing the
burden of highway development. I trust that the hon. member for
Chicoutimi will have a better idea which direction to take with
his steamroller, the next time he takes the floor in this House.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I came to
the House as an environmentalist and today I still call myself an
environmentalist.
I realize that our world is magnificent and that it is incumbent
upon each of us to do all we can to protect the earth and the
species that live upon it.
With this in mind, I was delighted to hear the Minister of the
Environment introduce the species at risk act earlier this week.
The act covers all wildlife species listed as being at risk and
their critical habitats. As well, the act recognizes for the
first time the Council on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada. The minister will have to report annually to parliament
on the council's assessment of species at risk in Canada.
This is a strong step forward to protect the biodiversity of our
natural environment. I congratulate the minister for his work
thus far.
* * *
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on April 29, Dan Dillon of Medicine
Hat, Alberta, will launch his canoe into the Bow River west of
Calgary to begin a journey to Lake Winnipeg.
This in itself would not be particularly noteworthy except that
Mr. Dillon suffers from multiple sclerosis. He plans to do the
trip with minimal assistance and he will, in fact, be doing most
of his own portaging. He is doing this not only for personal
satisfaction, but to raise money for the Multiple Sclerosis
Society.
Donations can be directed to the Multiple Sclerosis River Run in
care of Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, Royal Bank,
2901-13th Avenue S.E., Medicine Hat, Alberta.
Please join me in a show of appreciation for this gutsy
individual.
* * *
PEACEKEEPING
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada has been a leader in forging peace in the Middle East.
Canada's involvement in international affairs to secure peace in
the Middle East dates back almost 50 years to when Lester B.
Pearson won the Nobel Peace Price for his efforts during the Suez
crisis in 1956. Canadian peacekeepers have participated in every
UN peacekeeping effort in the region and Canadian troops are
currently serving on the Golan Heights.
Canada is playing a pivotal role in the Middle East peace
process as the chair of the Refugee Working Group. Contributing
toward an effective multilateral track is helping to build
confidence and trust among the parties. The efforts of the group
have brought tangible improvements to the lives of Palestinian
refugees and peace in the Middle East.
Furthermore, since the launch of the Ottawa process in October
1996, Canada has been engaged internationally in building
momentum for a global ban on land mines.
In the Middle East these activities have resulted in an effort
by Canada, Norway, Israel and Jordan to rid the Jordan Valley of
land mines.
1110
Canada has a sincere interest and a deep commitment to securing
a lasting peace in the Middle East and will continue to take a
leadership role.
* * *
“THE TRUE NAMES OF BIRDS”
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week
in the House New Democrats have read the works of poets from
across the country. Today I am honoured to read “The True Names
of Birds” by Susan Goyette of Dartmouth, who was nominated for
the Governor General's Award in 1999:
There are more ways to abandon a child
than to leave them at the mouth of the woods
Sometimes, by the time you find them they've made up names
for all of the birds and constellations and they've broken
their reflections in the lake with sticks
With my daughter came promises and vows
that unfolded through time like a roadmap and led me
to myself as a child, filled with wonder for my father
who could make sound from a wide blade of grass
and this breath. Here, in the stillness of the forest,
the sun columning before me temple-ancient,
that wonder is what I regret losing most, that wonder
and the true name of birds
It is through poetry and wonder that we make sense of the
unknown and find the strength to face it. And it is culture
which truly legislates the heart and soul of a nation.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, “You may see
problems, I do not see any”. Those are the words of our Prime
Minister in his travels in the Middle East. “I have not seen a
word in the press here, and there has been no negative comment
on TV”, he added.
The Prime Minister has certainly not seen the middle eastern
press, which is echoing his remarks, and he should not phone
home, like the words in the song, to find out what the press
reviews are saying here.
The headlines are saying “A blunder a day”; “Chaos reigns”;
“Prime Minister's gaffes embarrass Ottawa”. Never have we seen
the cartoonists having such a heyday.
All is well.
We would laugh, if it were not so pathetic. Quebecers have
known for a long time that the Prime Minister has no sense of
the delicacy of relations between peoples. The rest of the
world can now bear witness to the fact.
* * *
[English]
COMMUNITY POLICING
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I would like to acknowledge the careers of two
police officers who recently retired after more than 20 years of
service in 51 division in my riding of Toronto Centre—Rosedale.
Constables Gerrard Jones and Danny Forsyth were pioneers of
community policing, making it their priority to know members of
our community and work closely with them to address concerns. No
issue was too small to merit their attention. At night and on
weekends they were there to work with us and to celebrate with us.
The complex social environment of our urban areas requires many
innovative approaches to the issues of drugs, crime and
troubled youth. In that context, community policing has an
important role to play in creating a safe and harmonious
environment for us all.
Constables Jones and Forsyth are examples of integrity and
selfless service in the bringing of community policing to our
neighbourhoods. They have given much to make the neighbourhoods
in my riding safer and healthier places in which to live, and for
that the community is deeply grateful.
It is an honour and a privilege to acknowledge their service and
I wish them every happiness for years to come.
* * *
DIABETES
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
while most Canadians think that diabetes is not a serious
disease, diabetes and its complications cost Canada more than $9
billion per year in health care and lost productivity.
Therefore, diabetes is a major public health issue.
To raise awareness and educate people about diabetes, the
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation organizes each year a Shoppers Walk
for the Cure fundraiser in cities across Canada.
The purpose of this event is to raise much needed funds to
continue essential research programs. So far the Juvenile
Diabetes foundation has given more than $49 million to diabetes
research in Canada since its beginnings seven years ago.
I encourage all members of parliament to take part in this
year's Walk for the Cure.
* * *
[Translation]
THE SECOND BATTLE OF YPRES
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as we recall our achievements at the battle of Vimy Ridge, we
must not forget that April 22 and 24 mark the 85th anniversary
of the battle of Ypres. In 1915, 6,035 Canadian soldiers—one
soldier in three—died in this battle.
These young Canadian soldiers were among the first victims of a
new deadly weapon—poison gas.
The most disastrous and horrible battle took place at
Saint-Julien. On April 24, as they were trying to end an
impasse, the Canadians were hit with a great cloud of mustard
gas.
1115
Our courageous Canadian soldiers continued to fight fiercely and
to hold their position for two weeks, although their lungs were
burning and they could hardly breathe because of the terrible
effects of the gas. It was not long after this battle that John
McCrae wrote his famous poem “In Flanders Fields”.
Canadians must never forget the sacrifice made by the victims—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton East.
* * *
[English]
VOLUNTEER WEEK 2000
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Edmonton North District Area
Council Two. They are celebrating 25 years of volunteer
commitment to our communities on Volunteer Week 2000.
I wish to recognize all who have given unselfishly to volunteer
and contribute to many worthwhile projects. Contributors permit
the soil of aspirations to be cultivated, help breathe life into
dreams, nurture mere ideas to fruition and bring the riches of
goals to harvest.
Volunteers give freely of their daily lives. Their efforts add
to our quality of being and are vital contributors to success, as
dreams take wing and rise to lofty heights. All volunteers have
my deepest appreciation for outstanding service to their
communities. I wish everyone continued success and welcome their
community leadership. I extend a sincere thanks to everyone for
their good efforts.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, revelations to the HRDC committee
have raised even more startling questions than the infamous
audit.
The minister who claimed to know that she knew where every penny
went was completely unable to give specifics. The information
commissioner blasted the government for a deliberate policy of
holding back important documents requested under access to
information.
Four opposition parties want to get to the bottom of this for
all Canadians. Why will the Liberals not join the move to have
an independent inquiry to get complete answers?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is an independent inquiry under way which is being
performed by an officer of this parliament, the auditor general.
Not only did he approve of the six point action program of the
minister to deal with the problems in the department, he said
that he would carry on his own inquiry, the results of which he
will make public in October.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, would this be the same auditor
general whose reports have been ignored by the government for
years?
Yesterday all opposition parties joined in calling for a public
inquiry into the HRDC scandal in which billions of dollars in
grants and contributions were handed out with a cavalier
disregard for the interests of the taxpayer.
The minister's answer that she knows where every penny went is
patently incorrect, as the 19 police investigations clearly show.
Why will the minister not set up an independent inquiry so we can
fully find out where the billions have gone?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true
that the opposition did unite in its efforts to have an
independent public inquiry.
However, by that suggestion it knows full well that the auditor
general has HRDC grants and contributions on his list for audit
this very year. By that suggestion are the opposition parties
also suggesting that the auditor general is not an independent
official?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister has done almost nothing
but stonewall for months now. She rejects an inquiry. She
rejects revealing all the facts. She even rejects access to
information requests.
Yesterday I asked her why taxpayers funded the purchase of a
motorhome. She has had a day to think about it. I would like to
know what the explanation is today.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite seems unaware of the fact that mobile vehicles have
purposes other than that which she cited yesterday, a luxury
motorhome.
This mobile vehicle was purchased to provide access to
technology, information, seminars and workshops in rural areas
around Strathroy. Access to computers was available as well as
information on business start-up, employment training and
education. It served the community from May to October 1999.
The next thing we will find out is that the member is opposed to
bookmobiles.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, for two and a half months the HRDC
minister has stood in the House defending her programs as being
beneficial to Canadians.
Now we see how Canadians are benefiting. A select few who
control the funds are receiving five figure honorariums. They
are playing the stock market with Canadian taxpayer dollars, and
they are buying motorhomes.
1120
Are these the types of activities that the minister has in mind
when she tells Canadians that they are benefiting from her
department's funds?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems
that this party can never get itself out of the gutter trying to
pick up those projects with which there have been problems.
Canadians have benefited. In one program alone, under grants
and contributions, 28,000 new jobs have been created which employ
Canadians. The main thing is that with our investment of about
$300 million we have leveraged $2.7 billion to partner with us,
for a net gain of $3 billion of economic activity in regions of
high unemployment. The people who live in those regions know
that these programs are valuable to them.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is incredible. In 10
weeks the minister's standard response has gone from “There are
a few problems, but I have everything under control” to “There
are a lot of problems, but Canadians are benefiting from the
expenditure of funds” to “I can't answer that because of the
police investigation”.
Since the parliamentary secretary cannot give us more of the
specifics, can she provide us with an update? How many police
investigations are there into the grants and contributions from
HRDC and how much Canadian taxpayer money is involved in those
investigations?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is and
what is not a matter of police investigation is the business of
the police. To comment could impede the investigations, and I am
sure the member opposite would not want that to happen.
* * *
[Translation]
MIDDLE EAST
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister's trip continues to make waves.
The Lebanese Prime Minister even joked that he hoped the Prime
Minister of Canada would not make a gaffe in Lebanon.
Considering that a government leader went so far as to allude to
several faux pas made by his guest, will the Deputy Prime
Minister continue to say that the Prime Minister's inappropriate
statements are of no consequence?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again, it is very interesting to see a separatist party support
the foreign policy of a united country. What a flip flop.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
preparations for the arrival of the Prime Minister of Canada in
Syria are basically completed.
However, the Prime Minister had to ask his ambassador in
Damascus to confirm that Syria's president would meet with him,
in spite of his unfortunate statements.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister not feel more comfortable if
Canadian diplomats put all their energy into making sure that
Canada has its proper place in the peace negotiations in that
region of the world, instead of being busy making up for the
Prime Minister's gaffes and mistakes?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is only normal for our ambassador in Syria to be in contact with
her Syrian counterparts. This is nothing new.
Again, on the issue of gaffes, it is interesting to see those of
the Bloc Quebecois, which changed its policy of opposing our
foreign policy as a united country to one of full support. What
will Mr. Bouchard have to say about that?
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I urge the
member to reread Hansard.
Despite the Deputy Prime Minister's assurance on Wednesday that
middle eastern newspapers were not reporting on the Prime
Minister's gaffes, today it seems that not only have his remarks
had repercussions in the Middle East but that they have been
picked up by major international news agencies.
Is the government not afraid that all its diplomatic efforts in
this region will be compromised by the negative fallout from the
Prime Minister's statements?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
heads of state with whom the Prime Minister has held talks have
not been critical of the Prime Minister's remarks.
1125
I am told that Prime Minister Barak of Israel publicly thanked
Canada for its peacekeeping efforts in the region and that
President Arafat also publicly thanked the Prime Minister for
visiting the region and for Canada's support for the Palestinian
people.
So, if we are talking about really important figures, leaders of
countries in the region, they thanked the Prime Minister.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some people
must be very busy.
The Prime Minister's goal was to use Canadian diplomacy to
create just, lasting and general peace in the Middle East. That
was his goal.
Will the government agree that this goal is threatened by the
Prime Minister's apparent insensitivity to the complex issues in
the region, which require all international players to show
careful judgment?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
we are talking about agreements, our Prime Minister has signed
some very important agreements with Israel and Egypt and we are
also pursuing our efforts to help the cause of peace in the
region.
Once again, I thank the new federalist party, the Bloc
Quebecois, for supporting our efforts as a united country.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health.
Yesterday, the Minister of Health indicated that his department
was studying the NAFTA implications of Bill 11 in Alberta. We
welcome this. We think it should have happened a long time ago.
But time is now of the essence. By the time we come back from
the Easter recess Bill 11 could have passed and the wall that
protects Canada's medicare system could well have been breached
by then.
What contingency plans does the minister have to stop Bill 11
and to stop Premier Klein from committing this act which has
irreversible and national consequences?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, there are differing points of view on that question. The
hon. member has expressed one, there are others.
The job of this government and its lawyers is to examine those
various interpretations to determine which is the most sensible,
and then develop policy on that basis. That is what we are
doing.
The NAFTA is only one of the concerns we have about Bill 11. We
think it is bad policy. We have also written to the Alberta
government saying that enhanced services should not be sold for
profit at a private for profit hospital.
The bill has not yet passed. Amendments will be coming before
the Alberta legislature. We hope the bill, as it emerges—if it
emerges—will not contain that feature.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I say to the minister that he cannot afford to be wrong
in his interpretation of the NAFTA. Time is of the essence. We
cannot afford to allow the bill to pass if there is any
uncertainty.
Recently we passed Bill C-20 in the House, which said that
Quebec could not unilaterally separate from Canada, that the
interests and rights of all Canadians must be taken into account.
Where does Premier Klein get the right to unilaterally sabotage
a national social program which all Canadians value? What will
the national Minister of Health do about this?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the national Minister of Health, from the beginning of this
debate in November, has made it very clear that the Government of
Canada will safeguard the principles of our national health care
system. We have done precisely that in the positions we have
taken and on the issues we have identified for the Klein
government, including NAFTA.
I tell the hon. member that not only NAFTA, but the combination
of enhanced services being sold at a private for profit hospital,
elements of conflict of interest and overnight stays enlarging
the role of private for profit hospitals at an accelerated rate
are all issues that have been taken up with the Alberta
government, and we will continue to do so.
* * *
FUNDRAISING
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions.
Bank lobbyist Barry Campbell, a long time Liberal, organized a
huge fundraiser for the minister last fall, raising over $70,000.
Did the minister consider the clear violation of the conflict of
interest code that a fundraising event organized by a bank
lobbyist for him would create?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, prior to the
fundraiser I called the ethics counsellor about this issue. He
said that as long as the solicitation was broadly based there
would be no problem if financial institutions attended or were
invited.
1130
In spite of this, we went out of our way not to solicit
institutions within my area of responsibility, and if cheques
were received they were sent back and refunds were issued.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, there
is no solicitor like an old solicitor. If there was no conflict
of interest, why is federal ethics counsellor actually
investigating?
Barry Campbell, a friend of the minister, was a lobbyist for the
Bank of Nova Scotia from May 1998 to mid-March 1999, a period
when the bank mergers were under discussion and review by the
government.
Why did the minister compromise the merger review with his close
affiliation with the bank lobbyist representing the Bank of Nova
Scotia who later rewarded this loyalty with $70,000 of
fundraising?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Let me be very clear, Mr.
Speaker. Mr. Campbell is a former colleague and a long time
friend.
When Willowdale's regular finance chair could not be available
for the event, I asked Mr. Campbell to replace him. He did. At
no point while he was the chair of our fundraising dinner did I
have any dealings with Mr. Campbell in any area of my
responsibility.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we believe that the grants and contributions mess at
HRDC should be looked into by an independent public inquiry. Such
an inquiry would be most effective if public servants at HRDC
would be free to speak about abuses of which they have knowledge.
Why does the minister not agree that legislation protecting
whistle-blowers within her department is crucial to employees
divulging crucial information without loss of their jobs?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, employees
within HRDC are free to come forward at any time and state what
they have to tell us without fear of reprisal.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the human resources minister rejected the
public's request for a public inquiry into the boondoggle at
HRDC. The Oxford dictionary defines the words public inquiry as
a search into a matter done by the people for the people.
I would simply ask the minister and the government why they do
not want the Canadian public to get the information regarding the
boondoggle at HRDC.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
did not reject the need for a public inquiry. We are having one.
It will be done by the auditor general and it will be done during
this calendar year.
The public has not asked for this. It is the only thing that
the four opposition parties could agree on in trying to put
forward a dissenting report to the committee's majority report.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Human Resources Development has again totally
contradicted the owner of Placeteco, who received a grant of
$1.2 million and who said on the CBC that he had 78 people in
his firm and not the 170 the minister keeps reporting.
If the minister continues to totally contradict her department
and its figures and the figures of the head of Placeteco on the
number of jobs, is it not because she is incapable of justifying
the use of $1.2 million by the creation of jobs at Placeteco as
the grant went elsewhere?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been
clear that there were different numbers of people working at
different times as the business cycle rose and fell. To the best
of our knowledge the combined workforce at Techni-Paint and
Placeteco is now 170.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister herself is confusing Placeteco and Techni-Paint and
preventing the details of this matter from coming to light.
Why is she so afraid to table the invoices she must have in hand
to justify the grant, unless no jobs were created?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that party
always wants to point out things that might be wrong with every
project that we help to bring to the workers of Quebec.
I emphasize the good news about this company, which is that it
just signed a five year contract worth $8 million with a major
aeronautical company, Bell Helicopter, and there are 78 people
working at that firm.
* * *
1135
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canada could have played a dominant role in the
peace process in the Middle East. Instead, the Prime Minister
damaged it.
As a Syrian minister said, our Prime Minister comprised the
neutrality of Canadian peacekeepers monitoring the ceasefire
between Israel and Palestine. The Prime Minister's Gaza gaffes
are putting the lives of Canadian peacekeepers in jeopardy and
destroying our reputation and neutrality.
How could the Deputy Prime Minister continue to blindly defend
the Prime Minister, even after he has put the lives of Canadian
peacekeepers at risk?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if there is any blindness here, it is in the eyes and
mind of the hon. member.
He does not recognize that Canada continues to be the chair of
the multilateral group on refugees as part of the Oslo peace
process. He does not recognize that Canada remains one of the
members of the overall steering group of the peace process. He
does not recognize how successful the talks have been that our
Prime Minister has had with the leaders he has met so far. I am
sure this will continue to be the case.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Patrick Seale, a journalist and
Middle East analyst with access to President Assad with regard to
the Prime Minister's remarks said that they:
—suggest someone who has not fully grasped the subtleties of the
different positions...In this crucial moment on the peace
process, the Middle East needs someone that tries to contribute
to the solution, rather than someone that makes the solution more
difficult.
Why does the Prime Minister not quit while he is behind and come
back home?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, speaking of behind, the hon. member and his party have
been behind for a long time, and that will continue to be the
case.
The Prime Minister's mission is going very well. He is having
very successful talks with leaders of the Middle East. The hon.
member has quoted one person. I quoted another, the well
informed president of the Hebrew University, who has been
praising the Prime Minister for his efforts. That also has
weight.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there are limits to the nonsense that can be passed off in the
House. We have proof, and we even wanted to table it in the
House, that the grant was used to pay back a National Bank loan,
and the owner of Placeteco himself admitted it. The government
cannot keep sticking its head in the sand on this one.
The Minister of Human Resources Development can no longer hide
behind the pat answers prepared by her staff. What is she
waiting for to table the invoices that would back up what she is
saying?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
unbelievable to me the opposition claims that grants and
contributions are a serious subject. It has co-operated with us
in investigating them in the committee for months now and those
people across the way can only ask about one file out of tens of
thousands.
I think it is time to grow up and to realize that when there are
10,000 projects there are probably 100,000 partners and among
those 100,000 partners there will be a few people for whom—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Verchères—Les-Patriotes.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
such arrogance. There is no word in the French language that
would be acceptable in the House to describe the behaviour of
the government in this affair. No jobs were created. Gauthier
himself admitted it. The Groupe Vidéotron was forced to pay
back its grant.
What is the minister waiting for to call back the $1.2 million
grant that was used for purposes other than creating jobs?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made
it clear in the past and it continues to be true. If a review of
a file indicates that there has been an overpayment, we will ask
for the money back. We have done that in some cases and the
money has come back.
If one cannot establish an overpayment, one cannot ask for the
money to be returned, and that is the case with this particular
file.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately there has been no conversion on the road
to Damascus for the Prime Minister. He just keeps on doing what
he always does when he puts his foot in his mouth; he keeps on
stumbling. He has aggravated our allies and he has threatened a
delicate diplomatic balance. If this mission is going well, I
would hate to see bad.
Let us see if the Deputy Prime Minister could perhaps answer
this question without saying “I reject the member's premise” or
quoting some friendly academic. Why will the government not
bring the Prime Minister home before he hurts us any more?
1140
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, now I know why the CCRAP is behind in public opinion.
When we have questions like that I do not see why one should take
them seriously.
The Prime Minister's talks are going well. The leaders of the
countries he has met with have spoken well of his efforts. I am
sure he deserves the support of all Canadians, even the CCRAP.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if it is going well, I would hate to
see bad. Today is day five of the Prime Minister's Middle East
travel. After four major gaffs in four days, saying what he is
not supposed to say, now he says “listen, I do not have to
discuss the situation between those two countries”.
We might ask what two countries. For the Prime Minister, it
could be any two countries in the region. Why will not the Prime
Minister just come home?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member did not say that, when the former leader
of the opposition badmouthed Canada abroad. That is the guy who
should have been brought home.
Speaking of the Prime Minister's four steps, yes, there have
been four major successful accords signed involving Israel and
Egypt. There will be other concrete, positive achievements for
Canada and the cause of peace because of the Prime Minister's
efforts.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance plan as we know it is
disintegrating.
Self-employed workers, who account for 18% of the work force, are
excluded; women and young people are victims of flagrant
discrimination, which will be dealt with by the courts; soon, as
well, most unemployed workers will receive benefits that will
not exceed 50% of what they were earning.
Can the minister make a commitment to totally review the present
program so as to bring it in line with the labour market
realities of the year 2000?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
employment insurance system was completely reviewed and revamped
in 1996, only four short years ago. We have monitoring and
assessment reports which monitor the progress and the adjustment
of Canadians to this new system.
As far as discrimination against women under the new system, it
seems rather strange to me because women's unemployment rate
right now is at the lowest point in 15 years at 5.6%. Sixty-one
per cent of all claims involving small weeks projects were made
by women. Two-thirds of our new family supplement recipients
were women. Women have done well by our reform.
* * *
COMPETITION ACT
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. In
today's global economy the effects of anti-competitive conduct
are not limited by borders. The government needs to be able to
enter into mutual co-operation agreements with other enforcement
agencies to be able to effectively deal with anti-competitive
conduct which crosses borders.
That is exactly what Bill C-471 will do. Would the minister
tell Canadians what his and this government's position is
regarding Bill C-471?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am aware of the very positive suggestion that the
member has made in the context of Bill C-471. There have been a
number of very useful recommendations with respect to the
Competition Act that have been proposed by private members,
including by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge and the
member for Kitchener Centre.
I have asked the commissioner of competition, in light of the
number of bills that deal with the Competition Act, to take those
bills and use them as a basis for public and stakeholder
consultation over the months to follow and if acceptable—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
* * *
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
both the finance minister and the Prime Minister promised that
they would release the minutes of the CDC when the finance
minister was on the board.
Yesterday we got the documents. We got 100 pages of newspaper
clippings, 100 pages of annual reports and 2 pages of whited out
minutes. Why should not the victims of hepatitis C think that
whited out minute documents are nothing but a whitewash?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member is criticizing the report of the ethics
counsellor. If he has questions about the report he might want
to address them to the ethics counsellor.
1145
The ethics counsellor looked into the matter thoroughly. He not
only reviewed and released documents, he also carried on
discussions and interviews with persons who played key management
roles at the relevant time. They confirmed that the CDC board
never discussed the question of tainted blood during the relevant
period in which the person who is now the finance minister was on
the board.
In general, the ethics counsellor found that the Minister of
Finance had not—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister may be in a conflict of
interest by being on the board of the Canada Development
Corporation because of discussions about the tainted blood issue
at the cabinet table.
We know that the Deputy Prime Minister has said that the ethics
counsellor has the board minutes of the CDC and Connaught Labs.
There is one way to clear this issue up and that is to release
all of the minutes of those boards. Why does the government
refuse to issue those board minutes?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that certain documents belong to private
corporations. They are not under the control of the government.
The decision of whether or not to release them belongs to the
companies in question.
As to whether more efforts can be made in that regard, I suggest
my hon. friend address his question to the ethics counsellor who,
I repeat, found that the present Minister of Finance is not in a
conflict of interest nor was he because of his service on the
board of Canada Development Corporation.
* * *
PLUTONIUM SHIPMENTS
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, in January the government quietly granted approval
to allow weapons grade plutonium into Canada. Now we hear about
plans to import an even larger amount from Russia, something
which may well be illegal. The Americans who are part of this
deal are being up front about it, but our government is less
forthcoming.
Can the minister tell us how much plutonium is coming from
Russia? When is it coming? How will it be transported to Chalk
River? Will the public be consulted if the shipment is larger
than that approved last year?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the details of what AECL is proposing was laid out
through the public consultation process last fall. That
methodology as described by AECL at that time was approved. If
it is to change in any material way, AECL would have to reapply
for a different undertaking.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this week the Minister of Transport announced funding for
VIA Rail service across the country.
The NDP believes that public passenger rail strengthens the
federation and brings Canadians closer together. However, I
wonder if the minister knows that the province of Newfoundland is
no longer served by passenger rail. I wonder if he knows that
Newfoundlanders have been waiting for 12 years for needed
upgrades to the Trans-Canada Highway and for improvements to
existing ferry service.
Will the minister commit today to timetables with targets to
deliver on four laning and improved service to the mainland which
Newfoundlanders have been expecting for years?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as one of the conditions for the elimination of the
rail service some 10 or 12 years ago, the former government
entered into a long term financial arrangement with the
government of Newfoundland to upgrade the highways. That province
has been particularly well served by that agreement. I am
surprised the hon. member was unaware of this.
On the larger point, this has been a great week for passenger
rail in this country. We have turned the corner and we are
saying that in the new millennium there is a role for passenger
rail.
Other countries in the world are supporting their passenger rail
systems. It will become an even more important fabric of
Canadian life.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians who are repaying their Canada student loans have been
able to claim a 17% tax credit on the interest paid on their
loans.
Thousands of students each year have to scramble to get a
student loan privately because the federal government turns them
down. Yet the government does not allow them to claim that tax
credit on their student loan.
Why not allow all students to claim the student loan interest
tax credit? Why is there a double standard?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these issues are
ones which we have addressed very fulsomely in past budgets. The
plight of students and the need to have a highly educated
Canadian populace, the best educated and the best trained in the
world, has been part of our strategy from day one, even when we
were in deficit.
This is why we have had all sorts of tax incentives made
available to students. We have enhanced them fulsomely. This is
why we brought in the millennium scholarships.
1150
If the member has further representations he wants to make as to
how to help make post-secondary education more affordable, we
would be happy to listen to him.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, was that an answer?
The average debt for a Canadian student has tripled to $25,000.
To help in repaying that debt some students can now claim the
interest paid on their income tax but tens of thousands of
students cannot. Only those who qualify for government loans are
eligible for the tax credit.
When is the government going to treat all students equally and
allow all students to qualify for the student loan tax credit?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I bring to the
hon. member's attention not only the millennium scholarships that
we have brought in but also in past budgets we have enhanced the
tax incentives for those who want to go back to school, for those
who have dependent children and for the fees students have to pay
in addition to their tuition. All of these have been enhanced in
a way to make it possible.
The student loans program has been enhanced so the repayment
provisions relate to the capacity of the individual student to
repay. We do not believe—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Essex.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
Cancer Society issued its 12th annual report entitled “Canadian
Cancer Statistics 2000”. The report contains some positive news
for the decline in the incidence of some types of cancer but
reveals that areas such as breast cancer and tobacco related
cancers need more attention.
Can the Minister of Health tell the House today what the
government is doing to reduce the incidence of cancer?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the report released yesterday contains both good news and bad.
On the positive side, the incidence of some cancers is down.
Recovery rates are higher because of new treatments and early
detection. But there are also troubling signs. We know that the
death rates particularly in lung cancer and especially among
women are way up. We are told that in 15 years the incidence of
new cases is going to increase by 70%.
The signals are clear. First of all, lifestyle and other
changes to prevent cancer, early detection, but also new
treatments and renewing medicare so that we can afford to
properly treat the—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Battlefords—Lloydminster.
* * *
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the
government's ethics counsellor is accountable to no one but his
boss the Prime Minister. He has no independence and no incentive
to come clean about his findings. In fact, there is a big
disincentive if his report embarrasses members of cabinet. Only
two pages of minutes from six years of meetings, that would be an
embarrassment.
If the finance minister has nothing to hide, why will the Prime
Minister not instruct his ethics counsellor to release all the
minutes we know he has?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that the Prime Minister has said that the
report of the ethics counsellor be made public. It was made
public.
In addition to documents, the ethics counsellor's office
conducted interviews with people who are involved with the board
meetings in question. I am told that some documents are not
under the direct control of the government or the ethics
counsellor. If I am wrong in this, I will be happy to correct my
statement. My hon. friend should go to the office of the ethics
counsellor and see what further things he has to say about this.
The important point is that the finding was that the Minister of
Finance was not and is not in any conflict of interest. That is
the important point.
* * *
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according
to this morning's La Presse, Canada is preparing to import from
Russia five times the planned amount of plutonium: 600 grams.
This plutonium will, moreover, be brought in by plane, a
practice that is banned in the United States.
How can the Minister of Natural Resources endanger the safety of
his fellow citizens by allowing plutonium to be carried over
Canada by air?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what has been approved in the regulatory procedure last
year is a shipment volume from Russia that could rise up to
something just below 400 grams. If AECL proposes to change the
volume, that would require reapplication through the regulatory
process.
With respect to the transportation mode, the American system is
not approved in Canada and the Canadian system is not approved in
the United States. If I have a choice between the two, I will
follow Canadian law.
* * *
1155
GIANT MINES
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
history of Giant Mines in Yellowknife is one of tragedy,
violence, corporate greed and now environmental degradation,
because yesterday it was fined $1.4 million for dumping cyanide
into the water system. Ironically, that is about the same amount
of money that workers were cheated out of in terms of severance
pay and cuts to their pension plan. The federal government
played a role in negotiating away the rights and benefits of
those workers in terms of those two figures.
Will the government intervene again, this time on the workers'
behalf and apply this $1.4 million to the pension plan and the
severance packages which Peggy Witte cheated these workers out
of?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of the
shortfall in the workers' pension plan is one that the government
takes very seriously.
We have been investigating and looking into it on behalf of the
pensioners. We have brought a claim against the receiver. We
are contemplating other possible action because when this type of
thing happens to pensioners or people who will eventually be
pensioners, we take it very, very seriously.
Along with the other members of parliament involved, including
the member for Western Arctic, we are committed to pursue all
possible avenues to making those pensioners whole.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to include
fishermen and processors in negotiations with first nations in
Atlantic Canada. The minister skirted the answer because he has
not listened to processors or the fishermen. Yet in order for
this interim agreement to work, he absolutely needs their support
and, I might say, their input.
Will the minister re-open dialogue with the east coast fishermen
and processors immediately?
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
point out to the hon. gentleman that so far we have concluded
eight agreements with the aboriginal parties, i.e., first
nations. We have eight more agreements in principle in
negotiations right now. We are making great progress in
concluding agreements.
I can tell the hon. member also that last Tuesday the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans met with the standing committee. He
released information on licences at dollar value by species. We
will continue to release information as it becomes available. But
most important, we will conserve our stocks—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
* * *
HOUSING
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Public Works and Government Services.
Would she mind informing the House what has the government done
to help the Canadian housing industry participate on the
international scene?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would not mind at all.
Canada's national housing agency, CMHC, works closely with
industry and its team Canada partners to promote the
participation of the Canadian housing system in foreign markets.
CMHC brings down housing barriers, gathers market intelligence
and supports the housing industry's export promotion, new trade
shows and other missions.
In fact, I was able to join the team Canada mission to Poland
last year which saw a lot of contracts signed. Joint ventures
were entered into that enriched both economies.
Opening new markets and increasing the number of Canadian firms
involved in exports is at the heart of Canada's international
business.
* * *
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in relation to the finance minister's involvement in
the tainted blood situation, I would like to follow up on what
the Deputy Prime Minister said.
He said that all the documents were under the control of the
government. He also said that board members were interviewed.
The fact is that the same board members could face liability
issues on this too. It is no wonder that they said there was no
conflict.
The truth of the matter is that the ethics counsellor and the
government have the board minutes and they are stonewalling and
refusing to release them. What is it that they are hiding in
these documents?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not say all the documents are under the control of
the government. I said just the opposite.
Also, the hon. member is making an assertion which is not
accurate, and that is that the Minister of Finance is involved in
the tainted blood scandal. This is not true and this is backed
up by all the inquiries made into this matter.
1200
The hon. member ought to take another look at the premise of his
question. His colleague does not like me talking about the
premise of a question but if the premise is wrong, it is wrong. I
will not be muzzled and I will not be censored when I want to
bring that fact to the attention of the House.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as regards the
GMO issue, the Minister of Agriculture is either burying his
head in the sand or he is not properly informed.
Europe has the technology to detect GMOs and is threatening to
ban Canadian agricultural products. Here in Canada, the
Laboratoire d'environnement SM, in Quebec, and Genserve
Laboratories, in Saskatchewan, can detect GMOs.
Since the technology to detect GMOs exists in Europe and in
Canada, what is the minister waiting for to order the mandatory
labelling of GMOs, for the benefit of consumers and farmers?
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we already said that a
committee of experts was set up to see if it is advisable to
label GMOs.
This week, I met with Australia's chief scientist. Last year,
Australia passed a law on the labelling of GMOs. He told us that
the law cannot be enforced, because they do not have the
scientific means and it costs too much money. We are currently
looking at the issue and we will protect the public's health.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN GRAIN COMMISSION
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, problems
continue to mount inside the Canadian Grain Commission. The
government has had to address a $20 million cost overrun
recently.
There is an ongoing inquiry as to why 70 grain inspectors were
off the job recently in Thunder Bay. One inspector is under a
gag order for criticizing mismanagement at the place. Now
unidentified grain inspectors are sending mail to members of
parliament saying they feel stepped on, suppressed, silenced and,
frankly, scared of management at the grain commission and the
government. How has it deteriorated so much—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Natural
Resources.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada has taken some very positive
steps, most recently in the latest budget, to deal with the
pressures that apply to the Canadian Grain Commission.
Substantial new dollars have been made available which will
ensure that the grain commission can continue to provide top
quality service protecting the interests of farmers and, at the
same time, there will be no fee increases for a period of at
least four years.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my point of order arises out of Standing Order 31. You may have
noticed that there was a member who did a bit of fundraising for
a particular cause during his statement.
Although I have a great deal of sympathy for the cause, which is
multiple sclerosis, and I have a great deal of admiration for the
person who was named in the statement, I think it would be a
mistake if we were to get into the habit or even allow it to pass
without comment when members rise in their place and give
telephone numbers and addresses as to where people could donate
to certain causes.
I think this is something that the Chair might perhaps want to
comment on. If there is no rule against it, it seems to me there
should be. I just wanted to register my own concern about that
particular event.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to rise on
this point but now that the hon. member has raised it, there
could be a precedence here that should be looked at either by the
Chair, and if not, then perhaps House leaders could arrive at a
consensus to make a recommendation, if there is none available,
to the Chair immediately.
It seems that using Standing Order 31 for the purpose of
fundraising for charitable causes, and in this case a very
excellent one, is perhaps a precedent that we should be very
careful of setting.
1205
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, there is no disputing the value and legitimacy of the
question raised by the member. If the House leader of the
government has a problem with it, we would be glad to get
together with all House leaders to talk about it.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this issue has come up. We in
the House should also understand and respect the right of each
member to submit to the House issues that are importance to them.
If the information in that S. O. 31 was important to the member
then it should also be respected and kept in mind if any
decisions are made.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have done a lot of research on non-profit
organizations and charities. The reality is that although there
are very many worthy charities, sometimes it is impossible to
tell when a charity is not worthy. I think it would be a great
mistake to set a precedence whereby members would be promoting
one charity or another charity when there is always some danger
that the charities may, indeed, not be worthy.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is ready to at least
say something on this subject. It is a matter of some concern to
the chair, not just because of the point raised today but because
there have been other occasions when the Chair occupant has been
in the House and has heard statements listing other members'
number so people can call and complain or giving various sorts of
advertising for different causes. They are sometimes of interest
and sometimes of great amusement but they are not always ones
that are necessarily widely appreciated on every side.
Being conscious of that and being conscious of the freedom of
speech that the Chair seeks to ensure for all hon. members in the
House, I respect the submissions that have been made by all hon.
members who have said something on this subject.
For the benefit of all hon. members, I will read from page 364
of Marleau-Montpetit. It states:
The Speaker has also cautioned Members not to use this period to
make defamatory comments about non-Members, nor to use the
verbatim remarks of a private citizen as a statement, nor to make
statements of a commercial nature.
Whether we have stepped beyond a charity, to commercial in this
case, I am not prepared to rule. I would caution members to
exercise discretion in their use of the time they have. It is a
one minute statement. There are guidelines. If hon. members
feel uncertain about the guidelines I urge them to read chapter
10 of Marleau-Montpetit and conduct themselves accordingly.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 30
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
third report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration with regard to Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian
citizenship.
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance
regarding its order of reference of Thursday, April 6, 2000 in
relation to Bill C-22, an act to facilitate combatting the
laundering of the proceeds of crime, to establish a financial
transactions or reports analysis centre of Canada and to amend
and repeal certain acts in consequence.
The Committee has considered Bill C-22 and reports the bill with
amendment.
I want to quickly take the opportunity to thank the clerk, the
researchers, the members of the committee, the witnesses and
departmental officials for their excellent work.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 27th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
and associate membership of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade, and I should like to move
concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1210
PETITIONS
PESTICIDES
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition by 25 people in my
riding and other areas of Quebec who call on parliament to enact
an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical
pesticides.
[Translation]
That moratorium would be in effect until the safety of these
products had been demonstrated and their long term effects
known.
[English]
BILL C-23
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to
the House today.
The first petition, although it is late and third reading has
already been given, prays that parliament withdraw Bill C-23 and
affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and
ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): The second petition, Mr. Speaker, calls on
parliament to prioritize funding for the national highway system,
a project very dear to me, in the 2000 budget to reduce
fatalities and injuries on the roadways, alleviate congestion,
lower vehicle operating costs and reduce emissions, improve
Canada's competitiveness, economic development and overall
economic prosperity. This is a wonderful petition.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a petition signed by
dozens of Canadians who are concerned about the high rate of
breast cancer in Canada.
The petitioners point out that Canada has the second highest
rate of breast cancer in the world, second only to the United
States. They also point out that the U.S. has had a mandatory
mammography quality assurance standard since 1994 and that Canada
has no legislation for mandatory mammography quality assurance
standards.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to enact
legislation to establish an independent governing body to
develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography
quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition signed by virtually hundreds of Canadians, most
of them from the Victoria and Nanaimo, B.C. area.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that
one in five Canadian children live in poverty; that on November
24, 1989 the House of Commons unanimously resolved to end child
poverty in Canada by the year 2000; and that since 1989 the
number of poor children in Canada has increased 60%.
They therefore call upon parliament to use the federal budget
2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the well-being of
Canada's children. The budget is already over but the sentiments
of these Canadians continues on to other budgets and beyond.
BILL C-23
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have in my hand a petition calling on the government
to withdraw Bill C-23 and affirm the opposite sex definition of
marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as
a unique institution.
You will realize, of course, Mr. Speaker, that the House of
Commons did indeed pass Bill C-23. Bill C-23 does include
legislation that defines marriage as a union of opposite sex
persons and that it has ensured that marriage is recognized as a
unique institution.
RURAL ROUTE MAIL COURIERS
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have also another petition from rural route mail
couriers who would like to see the government support private
member's legislation that would ensure that contract mail
couriers could form collective bargaining units. That private
member's bill was defeated in the House, but I do urge the
government on behalf of the petitioners to look very carefully at
the plight of contract rural route mail couriers.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the last petition I have concerns the problem of child
poverty and asks the government to seriously consider taking
measures to improve the situation of children by means of a
multi-year plan that will help Canada's children.
1215
I believe this is, generally speaking, very much at the heart of
the government's budget that just passed. I urge the government
to bear in mind that Canada's children are indeed a concern to
all of us.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour on behalf of my
constituents to present two petitions today. The first petition
concerns immigration and calls for the government to enact much
tougher immigration laws than those proposed in Bill C-16. The
petitioners ask that people smuggling cease and that Canada no
longer be a target.
TAXATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is very timely as
it has to do with high taxes. Hundreds of people across my
riding have signed the petition calling for real tax relief, not
the tinkering we see in Bill C-32.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first
petition comes from a large number of people in my constituency.
The petitioners are concerned that under the Criminal Code of
Canada it is currently not a criminal offence for an adult to
engage in sexual activity with a young person aged 14 years or
older if the young person consents to sexual activity, as long as
the adult is not in a position of trust or authority over the
young person. The petitioners therefore ask that parliament
amend the Criminal Code of Canada to raise the age of consent for
sexual activity for a young person from 14 to 18 years of age.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the petitioners who have signed the second petition
are concerned about Bill C-23. I am, as well. They suggest that
it is an inappropriate intrusion and discriminatory for the
federal government to extend benefits based on a person's private
sexual activity while excluding other types of dependency
relationships.
The petitioners ask that parliament withdraw Bill C-23, affirm
the opposite sex definition of marriage in the legislation and
ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
Given the government's record on that issue, a fat lot of good a
petition would do.
The last petition I wish to present is related, as well, to Bill
C-23. It states that the government has invoked time allocation
to cut off debate on Bill C-23 and that the Prime Minister has
indicated that a free vote would not be allowed. I see that it
was.
The petitioners ask parliament to withdraw Bill C-23, affirming
the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and
ensuring that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
Given the government's record, once again, a fat lot of good a
petition would do.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present
today. The first asks parliament to withdraw Bill C-23 and to
ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
DIVORCE
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the second petition pertains to
divorce and calls upon parliament to pass legislation
incorporating the rights of children and the principles of
equality among parents.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the last petition which I wish to
present today concerns child poverty. The petitioners urge
parliament to fulfil the promise of the 1989 House of Commons
resolution to end child poverty by the year 2000.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 57 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 57—Mrs. Michelle Dockrill:
For the period covering the last three years, what grants,
loans, or interest-free loans have been provided to Scotia
Rainbow, Serge Lafrenière, or the Rainbow Group by: (a) Human
Resources Development Canada; (b) Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency; (c) Industry Canada; (d) Economic Cape Breton
Corporation; (e) Canada-Nova Scotia Infrastructure Program; and
(f) Canada-Nova Scotia Cooperation Economic Diversification?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am
informed as follows:
(a) In so far as Human Resources Development
Canada, HRDC, is concerned only one agreement was contracted with
one of the companies mentioned above. HRDC has contracted with
Scotia Rainbow, under the transitional jobs fund program. HRDC
contributed $2 million for the fiscal year covering the period of
April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999.
(b) In July 1998, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA,
made an offer of a $1 million repayable contribution for the
establishment of Scotia Rainbow.
In February 1999, ACOA offered a $150,000 loan to Liscot
Enterprises of Pictou County to assist in the construction of an
additional building and the purchase of equipment. Subsequent to
the offer being accepted, Liscot Enterprises was purchased by
Scotia Rainbow Incorporated and the letter of offer was amended
to include both companies.
(c) No.
(d) In September 1999, Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, ECBC,
offered an $800,000 conditional interest subsidy to Scotia
Rainbow for a period of five years for an expansion project and
ACOA offered a $500,000 repayable contribution for the same
project.
(e) No.
(f) No.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
question No. 25 could be made an order for return, this return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 25—Mr. Charles Caccia:
How much money in the form of direct grants, loans, tax
concessions and other payments have been made available to Spar
Aerospace by the Government of Canada since the company's
inception?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, an
act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court, and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 is, of course, a very important bill that
has international and national ramifications here at home. It
highlights a very serious situation at a time when our Prime
Minister is in the Middle East making numerous comments which
have made Canada the focus of the world stage.
He has made some very reckless comments, which have been referred
to in the House. It is no joking matter. Sadly, some of the
commentary that has been highlighted is quite pathetic in nature,
and the ramifications are most serious for Canada as our
international reputation is very much at stake.
1220
Turning back to the bill at hand, it is very clear that the
parlance in this legislation is basically aimed at the defence of
disobedience to superiors' orders and peace officers who use a
certain type of defence. The bill is aimed, in essence, at
scrutinizing very closely the defence that individuals were
simply taking orders when partaking in some of the most heinous
crimes imaginable. Instances in which this type of defence is
raised and circumstances where the accused has no moral choice as
to whether he or she could follow the order are addressed in the
bill.
When we refer to moral choice we mean that other particular
circumstances might exist where there was such an air of
compulsion or threat to the accused that he or she had no
alternative but to obey orders. Obviously this argument was
maintained throughout the trial of R. v Finta and, for those
reasons, on March 24, 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that
Mr. Finta could not be found guilty of the crimes against him. It
is a very troubling situation, one that takes a great deal of
moral intrusion and comprehension as to the human dynamics that
exist when a person in authority is faced with this type of
order.
I can assure hon. members, as a former crown prosecutor, that
the provisions included in Bill C-19 are very necessary and
welcome. It is a shame, however, that rather than amend Canadian
law to do away with some of these grey areas when it comes to
prosecuting individuals for war crimes or crimes against
humanity, or when these specific defences are invoked, the
federal government opted instead for a course of action whereby
war criminals could be deported to their native country as a
temporary solution to the problem at hand.
However, with that said, this is a very complicated process
because in most cases the events in question took place as far
back as the second world war and sometimes before. Many of those
events that date back 50 years are increasingly difficult to deal
with, simply because the individuals who may be involved or who
may be able to give evidence are no longer available or, in some
cases, are no longer living or no longer compos mentis.
The individuals who perpetrated war crimes and crimes against
humanity under the Nazi regime fall very much into the latter
category.
Furthermore, the same problems surface when justice department
officials attempt to find witnesses to those events to justify
the extradition or the prosecution. Evidence sometimes goes
missing and key witnesses, as referred to, may no longer be
available.
[Translation]
As I mentioned earlier, the offences of genocide, war crimes and
crimes against humanity committed outside Canada are covered
under clause 6 of Bill C-19. Contrary to the three offences
defined in clause 4, those in clause 6 are based on the
provisions of international law existing at the time they are
committed.
[English]
Henceforth, perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity or
war crimes could be brought to justice regardless of where the
crime was committed. Furthermore, pursuant to subclause 6(4),
the crimes in question could be dealt with if they were committed
prior to July 17, 1998, the date on which the Rome Statute was
adopted by the United Nations. As such, the bill applies
retroactively.
I congratulate again all members of the committee and the
minister for bringing this bill to fruition. In that precaution,
if this had not taken place, this bill would have been, some
would argue, irrelevant.
Another particularity of the bill is that in the case of war
crimes or crimes against humanity or genocide committed outside
Canada or within Canada, clauses 5 and 7 of the bill make it an
offence for a military commander or other superior to fail to
take reasonable steps or exercise proper control over one or more
military or civilian person under their command.
As a result, very serious offences may sometimes be committed.
1225
In the case of offences committed outside Canada, subclause 7(5)
provides for criminal prosecution before the coming into force of
Bill C-19, to the extent that at the time and place of the act of
omission the latter constitutes a contravention of customary or
conventional international law.
This means that the offender may be prosecuted if the criminal
act according to the general principles of law is recognized by
the community of nations, whether or not it constituted a
contravention of law in force at the time and in the place of its
commission.
Bill C-19 is fairly complete, as it gives jurisdiction to
Canadian courts in the case of offences committed outside Canada
through clause 8. This clause also recognizes that Canadian
courts have the authority to prosecute any person charged with
having committed specific acts, providing one of the conditions
is listed exists.
For instance, if a person was a Canadian citizen or was employed
by Canada at the time, perhaps in a civilian or military
capacity, or if the victim was a Canadian citizen, there may be
some attachment to Canadian law.
The Conservative Party supports this idea. Canadian courts also
have jurisdiction to prosecute if, at the time the offence was
committed, Canada could, in conformity with international law,
exercise jurisdiction over the person with respect to the offence
on the basis of that person's presence in Canada before or after
said criminal offence.
As I mentioned, the defence of superior orders, which is perhaps
one of the most compelling and interesting aspects of this bill,
and the defences which stem from it, can be used, barring a few
exceptions. The defence of superior orders should be in
compliance with the provisions set out in the Rome Statute.
Therefore, an accused cannot base his defence solely on the
belief that it was an order if it was unlawful and if the belief
was based on information about a civilian population or an
identified group of people who encouraged the commission of
inhumane acts or omissions against the population or group.
There is potential for prosecution.
Bill C-19 puts aside the Finta decision, to all intents and
purposes, and is a good step toward the pursuit of justice. Bill
C-19, because of its complexity and because of the objective it
pursues, also makes it an offence to possess or launder property
obtained as a result of the commission of the proposed new
offences. This is a good provision.
Canada and the Progressive Conservative Party fully support the
principle that no one should profit from war crimes. Obviously
there is potential for further legislation. If the government
wanted to make sure that all war criminals would and could be
convicted, other laws might have to be modified. I am referring
to the Citizenship Act and the Extradition Act which, through
their new provisions, would make it easier to prosecute.
[Translation]
Clause 33 of Bill C-19 would amend the Citizenship Act so that
while a person is under investigation by the Minister of
Justice, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service for one of the offences in Bill
C-9, that person shall not be granted citizenship or take the
oath of citizenship.
[English]
With respect to Bill C-19, Canada now has an obligation to
surrender people caught by the ICC for genocide, crimes against
humanity and war crimes.
Pursuant to section 48 of the Extradition Act, a person who is
the subject on a request for surrender cannot claim immunity from
arrest or extradition under common law or by statute under the
Extradition Act.
In conclusion, by stating that victims of war crimes have
suffered terrible ordeals is to understate the obvious. Through
Bill C-19 Canada takes the position that no war criminal is safe
or welcome within our borders.
This is a positive undertaking on behalf of the government which
is supported, I believe, by all opposition parties. The
Progressive Conservative Party also affirms this principle.
Canada cannot tolerate our wonderful country being used as a safe
haven to escape responsibility for acts so heinous and so
atrocious against humanity.
There will be ample opportunity to review further provisions
within this bill.
As it moves to committee, there will be opportunity to modify and
perhaps improve upon this legislation at that time.
1230
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to have participated in this
very important debate.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, when we look at this legislation, it appears on
the face of it to be a good thing. We all have concerns about
human rights and war crimes. We would have to say that the devil
is in the details or in some cases lack of details in respect to
some of these things. There are some very vague definitions and
in other cases, no definitions at all.
Our party supports war crime tribunals in practice and the
apprehension, trial, conviction and punishment by due process of
genuine war criminals. However, we have some serious
reservations about the international criminal court. We have
these reservations because the statutes that were agreed to in
Rome in 1998 regarding the international criminal court were
negotiated without adequate public consultation and input from
parliament. They were negotiated with the aid of NGOs that did
not represent the values and principles of most Canadians. The
international criminal court is flawed in several ways. From the
larger perspective of international treaties in general, we see
that there needs to be a democratic reform of the whole
treaty-making process in Canada.
An esteemed member of the Bloc yesterday put forward a private
member's bill in regard to this whole problem. We agree to these
international treaties without ever having scrutinized them
within this House and without having had any discussion or forum
across the country. We see the same problem in what is before
us today.
Our party supports foreign policy guided by the values and the
principles of Canadians, that is political democracy, economic
freedom and human rights. Therefore, we support in principle the
idea of war crimes tribunals. However, as I said, the
international criminal court threatens to become an unaccountable
institution with power to investigate, prosecute, indict and try
citizens of Canada, thus undermining Canadian sovereignty and
Canadian justice. As a new and permanent international
institution, the international criminal court creates a new power
hungry United Nations type of bureaucracy.
Canada and its like-minded allies failed to win the support of
the United States and some other critical countries around the
world. Without that support, the input and the co-operation of
those major countries in the world, how can the international
criminal court ever be effective or ensure true justice?
The international criminal court threatens to become an
international stick in the hands of rogue states and special
interest groups in particular to beat the United States and its
allies, including Canada. That would be the primary intent of
certain of those who are involved. The international criminal
court could undermine the ability of UN members to act in the
interests of international security and peace, for example,
stopping Saddam Hussein or sending a message to terrorists.
Charter and common law rights such as the right to a fair trial
by jury would not be guaranteed under the international criminal
court.
The federal government paid for special interest groups to
attend five weeks of meetings in and to advise the Canadian
delegation. I do not have time to speak today about some of the
shenanigans and games that were played. There were secret
meetings off to the side. Certain other Canadian people were
shut out because it was known that they would oppose certain
elements and aspects of the international criminal court.
The failure to consult with Canadians about what is wanted at
the international criminal court is a major problem. Canadians
were again left out of the process as they were at Kyoto and with
the MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment. This
situation is no different.
We believe that the people, through parliament, should have an
oversight of treaty making and international agreements well
before it gets to the stage where we have our leaders signing.
The international criminal court will have power to investigate.
I think we are pretty much agreed in terms of the war crimes
area, but there are other vague terms such as crimes of
aggression that are used where it is left wide open to judges
from around the world who will constitute the tribunal to
interpret.
It is another reason why we have some serious reservations about
this.
1235
We support human rights objectives in co-operation with
international organizations. Such activities must be the result
of free and sovereign Canadian initiatives acted at the will of
parliament through international instruments of our choice and
not the other way around. The emphasis should be on working with
them as that suggests a voluntary nature of working alongside
them instead of an element of coercion as is the case here. This
is another reason why we have for many decades now supported ad
hoc tribunals, agencies with a sunset provision rather than
permanent bureaucracies and the concept of an unaccountable
international court.
Some supporters are calling for empowering this court to
prosecute not only war crimes and things of that sort, but to
prosecute drug trafficking, something we should be going after,
as well as such other vague offences as serious threats to the
environment and committing outrages on personal dignity,
whatever that possibly could mean. This is the direction many
individuals are pushing this to go. Obviously we do have
concerns about some of that.
As an alliance, we are certainly prepared to work with
international organizations, but we feel it should be our
Canadian parliament first and foremost that makes decisions. We
should not give up our sovereignty.
I want to read for the record part of a letter from a rather
outstanding individual, Judge Eli Nathan, head of the delegation
of Israel to the UN diplomatic conference where this was being
discussed. I read this into the record because Israel was one of
the countries that over the years because of the Holocaust and so
on has had a real strong interest in a court, generally speaking,
of this nature. Israel initiated this.
Israel was the original country to come up with this idea and
has been promoting it because of the terrible injustices and
genocide committed against its people. I think it rather
significant and very noteworthy that Israel itself had to back
away and could not vote in favour of the statutes agreed upon by
other countries. Israel, as one of the prime movers of this, had
to back away and could not give its approval. I will cite at
least one of its major concerns but it has other concerns as
well.
The letter from Judge Eli Nathan states:
Mr. President, it causes me considerable pain, both personally as
a victim of the Nazi persecution of the Jewish people, and on
behalf of the Israeli delegation which I proudly head, to have to
explain the negative vote which Israel has been unwillingly
obliged to cast today with regard to the Statute of the
International Criminal Court.
It is no secret that out of the embers of the Holocaust against
the Jewish people—the greatest and most heinous crime to have
been committed in the history of mankind, came the calls of Jews
throughout the world, and leading Israeli lawyers and statesmen,
as far back as the early 1950s, for the establishment of an
International Criminal Court, as a vital means of ensuring that
criminals who commit such heinous and terrible crimes will be
duly brought to justice. This was, Mr. President...our idea!
He said “With this aim in mind, Mr. President,” and having
regard to the world renowned judiciary established in Israel, we
have enthusiastically and quite responsibly been involved at the
earlier stages here.
The letter goes on to point out and make the particular point:
We therefore fail to comprehend why it has been considered
necessary to insert into the fist of the most heinous and
grievous war crimes, the action of transferring population into
occupied territory, as it appears in Article 8, Paragraph 2(b),
subpara.viii.
Without entering here into the question of the substantive
status of any particular alleged violation of the Geneva
Convention...can it really be held that such an action as that
listed in Article 8 above really ranks among the most heinous and
serious war crimes—
That refers to the resettling of people as they have done in the
Middle East. We can question that but there are many in the
world who do not accept that on the rank of a heinous war crime
or the nature of the others listed. He asks whether:
That gets to the nub of it.
1240
This international criminal court already has become very
politicized and will be more than ever because of the special
interest groups that are involved, the radical feminist groups
and the anti-family groups and so on. It will be a very
politicized tool in the hands of elite and special interest
groups.
One of the delegates, this esteemed judge from Israel, goes on
to say:
Despite all our entreaties, during the discussions of the
Prep-Com as well as here in Rome and directly to capitols, this
paragraph still remains as a symbol of politicization, sullying
the entire Statute.
He went on to say:
Mr. President, neither the Delegation of Israel nor other
delegations have been given the opportunity to vote against
inclusion in the Statute of Article 8, Paragraph 2(b),
sub-para.viii.
He further talks about his frustration at this politicization of
the statute and the court. Then he goes on to say:
Mr. President, Israel has other problems with the Statute, which
we will address at the appropriate time.
It is very insightful and eye-opening to understand that a
country, which of all should most be concerned and wanting
something like this, has grave concerns with the direction this
has taken.
I mentioned before the matter of overriding our national
sovereignty. This permanent international body, if that is what
it becomes, could be very unaccountable and might override the
sovereignty of our nation's legal and government systems.
Some people defend it and say that it has been structured so
that the sovereignty of nations will remain primordial, and it
does so by requiring the enactment of domestic legislation as
before us in each ratifying state, which gives that sovereign
state both the judicial equipment and the right to prosecute
suspected cases of the said crimes domestically.
We would rebut that by saying that requiring an enactment of
legislation does not allay our fears. The legislation may simply
enact the signing away of Canada's sovereignty.
Actually, while the legislation gives Canada the right to
prosecute suspected cases of said crimes, there is a whole list
of them and there are some vagaries in there as well, we do have
the right to prosecute domestically. It also imposes not only a
right but an obligation to do so with the penalty being that the
international criminal court will step in and take over if in its
judgment Canada does not fulfil its obligations.
Our courts over the course of time, including the supreme court,
are dangerously close to conceding Canada's sovereignty. For
example, a recent decision in the Supreme Court of Canada states
that international covenants have no direct application within
Canadian law, however, it goes on to say:
Nevertheless, the values reflected in international human rights
laws may help inform the contextual approach to statutory
interpretation and judicial review...The legislature is presumed
to respect the value and principles enshrined—
In whatever international law happens to be out there.
In so far as possible, therefore, interpretations that reflect
these values and principles are preferred.
Referring to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Chief Justice
Antonio Lamer gave impetus to that when he said:
What we are saying here is that we have in effect been invoking
international arguments about which Canadians and their
legitimate lawmakers were never properly consulted, and that is
the problem, getting back to the ceding of our sovereignty to
other countries.
What we also find somewhat disconcerting is the fact that Bill
C-19 writes a blank cheque. What I find rather disturbing is the
fact that the rules of procedure and evidence are currently being
negotiated through a series of meetings of prep-coms which
include delegations from signatory states and other interested
states.
The details of precise meetings, of terms found in the statute,
evidence and court procedures and administrative structure are to
be concluded in consensus agreements adjacent to, not part of,
after the fact, it seems. It is kind of like buying a pig in a
poke or signing a blank cheque for these things to be worked out
over the course of time, but we already agreed to be part of the
deal.
The negotiations address some of the critical and fundamental
issues, the things that as we said before are not discussed here
in parliament. Issues such as the definition of aggression and
other terms, the conditions of imprisonment, judicial protocol
are controversial issues. All of these decisions taken at these
negotiations should be subject to the input and ratification of
parliament, otherwise the values of Canadians might not be
adequately enshrined in the law, the structure and procedure of
the criminal court.
1245
I also draw attention to something which may be of interest to
some. Some words make up new terms and expressions in a
surreptitious manner. I draw attention to some of the concerns
from the pro-family, pro-life perspective.
There were certain things with respect to the protection of
family and so on which some of the Mideast and Arab nations
wanted to be put in yet they were turned aside. They have grave
concerns about the intrusion into family and imposing our
culture, a western mindset if you will, on some of the other
cultures. Some of the Arab states are concerned about removing
protection for families.
Another one is in terms of respect for life or a pro-life point
of view. They realized they could not get abortion into the
statutes, so instead they talked about enforced pregnancy. That
was a new one to me. What is enforced pregnancy? We find out as
we begin to read the material and get at a definition of what
they have in mind. An enforced pregnancy is where a woman has
become pregnant, a wife or a girlfriend, and she has to carry the
child for nine months. I think this is a beautiful and wonderful
thing. An enforced pregnancy is when there is no access to
abortion so in effect the pregnancy has to run its course.
Countries that do not have abortion facilities nor provide that
option to women would be subject to the International Criminal
Court. An enforced pregnancy has to go its nine months because
the abortion clinic or facility is not available. It would be a
punishable crime if a country did not provide abortion clinics.
For example, in 1992 in the state of Utah, the American Civil
Liberties Association came up with this new, strange and perverse
wording. It argued that the law caused enforced pregnancy
because there was no possibility of an abortion, that a woman had
to carry and give birth to a child, that it was an intolerable
and dehumanizing form of servitude. It said that it was an awful, atrocious
thing and tantamount to a war crime, a crime against
humanity.
A lot of special interest groups have got in at the very
beginning and are pushing their point of view in a pretty
persistent way. In fact these groups can have individuals
helping out in the International Criminal Court, funded by
wealthy individuals, the billionaires of this world, and of
course are beholden somewhat to those individuals.
Instead of the International Criminal Court, we should support
the continuation of the concept of ad hoc international
tribunals. Such tribunals would not be permanent. They would
always remain ad hoc and subject to “sunset provisions” as are
the tribunals that operate at present. An ad hoc body has the
advantage of being able to be set up and dismantled again by
sovereign governments.
The bureaucrats of ad hoc bodies in turn can be removed at the
will of elected parliamentarians by dismantling these bodies.
That is why officials and bureaucrats are keen supporters of a
permanent body that is not subject to the will of the electorate
or the public in any one country.
Primarily, because of the imposition of international law, and
we have a good law system here in Canada, there is an overriding
of our sovereignty. The vagueness of some of the definitions
leaves room to shoehorn in some rather strange terms that impose
other cultures upon certain countries around the world, to which
we have major objections.
In effect we are signing a blank cheque. The rules of procedure
and evidence, which are well established and have stood the test
of time in our country and within the British Commonwealth, are
still being made up on the fly. We would be signing on to
something over which we would not have proper control with
respect to that.
For those and other reasons, notably that there are certain
major countries around the world that have grave concerns, it is
not a good thing for our country. Countries like Israel no less
have not been able to sign on because of the politicization of
the International Criminal Court.
It may suit the Liberal government and its agenda of soft power,
but frankly we think for a whole host of reasons, it is not a
good thing to do. As a Canadian Alliance government coming into
power, we would have to revoke and pull back on this.
1250
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to
the hon. member for Wanuskewin.
Does he not think that Bill C-19 deals with some very important
issues of implementing a process by which people cannot commit
crimes against humanity? Genocide and war crimes are defined in
the bill. Is he suggesting to the House that this bill is not
trying to deal with an extremely important question in the world
today?
I do not know if the member was here when President Václav Havel
from the Czech Republic was here. He talked about the fact that
in the new century the nation-state concept was giving ground to
wider responsibilities. From everything I have read and know of
him, I suggest that Václav Havel would be supportive of this.
What is in the bill that any citizen of goodwill in Canada or
another country would not support? With Kosovo, Rwanda and with
all of the catastrophes we have seen around the world, this bill
is something all of us should support, not just members on this
side of the House.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Madam Speaker, I certainly
appreciate the question asked by the hon. member. There is no
doubt in my mind that he has probably looked at the greater
document, the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of
Plenipotentiaries on the establishment of an International
Criminal Court, the five weeks of meetings in Rome and some of
the other things. I referred to the Israeli concern in terms of
the politicization of the whole thing.
No, I am of the view that we need to prosecute and pursue these
people to the full extent of the law. We need to go after them.
We have to reach into these different countries and so on. I
think we can do that by the ad hoc tribunals of the past. I am
not sure what this is going to do that we have not already been
able to do. If we cannot get access to those people by way of ad
hoc tribunals, how will we be able to it by way of this?
I am also very much aware, and no doubt the hon. member is
somewhat aware, that over the years we have had the aspect of
victors' justice. I have never seen a situation historically.
These bodies when they came together for prosecution, it was
always from the perspective of the conquerors and not the
vanquished. We look at some of this stuff within the
International Criminal Court. If we were to go back to some of
the actions that were taken on the part of the victors, they
sometimes deserve due consideration but in the real world that
probably will not happen. I have concerns for that reason as
well.
There are different cultural backgrounds. Frankly, to load all
that into a situation would on many occasions be an imposition of
a western mindset or world view in respect to other countries.
I believe that we could address these things, as we have in the
past, by ad hoc tribunals. I am not convinced that this is any
improvement. In fact, I see all kinds of flaws and problems in
terms of usurping our country's sovereignty.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, like
the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, I am
mystified at how anybody can find fault with what is being put
forward today. I cannot understand how people can fail to see it
and mix in as part of the argument such narrow and parochial
views such as abortion or whatever special interest group the
hon. member happens to represent.
It strikes me that the hon. member for Wanuskewin has failed to
recognize that the international institutions to deal with these
things are inadequate. They were not adequate during Kosovo. We
bumbled our way through the Balkans. The whole world, as are
hon. members and guests who have visited this House recently, is
calling out to leaders around the world to come together. If we
are going to have the globalization of capital, we must also have
the globalization of human rights, labour standards,
environmental standards and the rule of law in order to enforce
those newly agreed upon standards.
1255
I do not want the hon. member to restate the arguments he has
already put forward which I thought were very weak. Does the
hon. member have any way to defend his position other than
dredging up his family values, special interests, abortion and so
on? I ask the hon. member to leave that stuff to the side and
honestly try to address how to defend or criticize a concept of
an international institution that is capable of dealing with the
very complex issues of globalization and globalization standards.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Madam Speaker, I certainly will.
As I move to do that I do not apologize for my pro-family
concerns. I do not apologize for acting on behalf of Arab
families and these were the states that brought these concerns
forward.
I will say when we have brought into the International Criminal
Court some of the statements and others pushing for other things
with respect to environmental issues and those being tantamount
or ranking equally with crimes against humanity, war crimes and
so on, I have considerable concerns about that. We would begin
to shoehorn all other kinds of things. We talk in terms of
aggressions that are undefined. What exactly do we mean by that?
Yes, I am concerned that this would become captive to special
interest groups that would drive the agenda. We already have
enough issues in terms of judicial activism within our own
country, never mind some unaccountable group of the United
Nations which would be entrenched forever. We have no way of
recalling those people. We have dollars to no end that are
wasted in my view on some of the United Nations activities.
This just adds another big monster with respect to trying to do
things that can be done effectively in other ways. Sunset clause
tribunals that are ad hoc over a shorter period of time can get
to the same result.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-19, on the
issue of the International Criminal Court, its purpose and
relationship to Canadian law and rules.
I will do an overview on the purpose of the International
Criminal Court. It is designed to be a permanent institution
that would prosecute serious crimes of international concern. It
is designed to be complementary to national criminal
jurisdictions.
I note that our Minister of Foreign Affairs is vigorously
supportive of this court. On September 25, 1998 when the
minister appeared before the UN General Assembly he said, “A strong
reinvigorated United Nations is still the best foundation for the
future. The contours of that future are emerging. A new system
based on humanitarian standards and new practices based on
humanitarian needs and human security is emerging. Also
enhancing human security requires establishing new legal
instruments. The agreement in Rome which establishes the ICC,
the International Criminal Court, is a major step toward that
goal”. Our minister has stated publicly and internationally that
he supports this initiative.
In trying to review issues like this one I believe in doing an
equilibrium or balance. I will try to do that today to lay out
some of the positives behind the bill, this institution, this
court and then highlight some of the potential concerns which I
think could well be addressed and should be addressed.
On the positive side, the crimes are defined pretty specifically
as crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
A reasonable thinking Canadian citizen would say that any of
those things should be prosecuted, should be taken care of and
should see sanctions.
1300
A second positive aspect would be that war criminals would have
difficulty hiding. In this modern day of rapid communication it
would be very difficult for a war criminal from another country
to hide. With international scrutiny and the scrutiny of the
public, I think that would surely be a positive. This process
would leave the right to prosecute still with the nation's
judicial system. In other words, if Canada had a war criminal
living here, we could prosecute that individual here under
Canadian law. To my mind that would be appropriate.
Another thing I find positive is that the bill is a forward
looking bill which could not look backward at crimes committed
before the bill was enacted. We have a bill which is trying to
look at things that most reasonable thinking individuals would
say are horrific. They should not be condoned. They should not
be allowed. They should be prosecuted. To that end those are
the positives.
What concerns are there related to going down this road? One of
the concerns is about national sovereignty. When there are extra
country bodies there is a concern about national sovereignty.
I listened to my colleague from the NDP, which is regularly
against globalization when it relates to financial issues,
praising globalization of court issues. That is one thing I
would like to engage in, in terms of an information gathering
source. If globalization is bad with these big international
companies coming in and taking over, and I think that is a
legitimate concern in some cases, how is it that suddenly
globalization of a court system would cause no anxiety
whatsoever? There seems to be a bit of an imbalance in that
debate.
National sovereignty is a concern. Would the prosecutor have
powers that would override national laws? I am not certain that
I have the answer to that. I pose that more as a question than
as a statement of fact.
The second big issue for me is accountability. That is a
buzzword phrase these days in politics. By that I mean that if
there is an expansion of rules relating to specified crimes, if
there is a problem with the bureaucracy growing and becoming very
expensive, are those mechanisms of accountability present? In my
reading of this issue that is another question mark. The
regulations which go with these processes often do not follow the
line or the trend intended. Accountability is a second concern.
There is the issue of cost. It would be a very foolish
politician who said “Here is a blank cheque. Let's have an
international court that is not subject to cost”. I listened to
those who said that war crimes tribunals would be more expensive
than an international criminal court. I have yet to see an
international organization save money, especially one run by
politicians and bureaucrats.
The politicization of some of these issues, these war crimes, is
another concern I have. I will use the specific example of
expansion. I said before that one of the big crimes was crimes
against humanity. That is a very broad categorization. During
war crimes rape is one of the horrific crimes. No one would
argue with that.
1305
Another crime under crimes against humanity is enslavement. If
someone were to ask me if a soldier enslaving a group of
individuals would be a war crime, my answer would be
categorically yes. To bring people under bondage is a crime
against humanity.
What if the definitions went a little further? In a relatively
more narrow form the family position in many Arab countries is
that the woman stays home, covered and does not have much
interchange with the masculine component of society. What if
that were to become enslavement?
I have heard from members of Arab nations that they have
concerns in that regard. How would I prevent those definitions
expanding? The means to do that so there are no court challenges
would be to have very specific definitions of enslavement. I
will not go deeper into that, but the specific way in which those
crimes are defined is very important in something of this nature.
I mentioned briefly the issue of globalization. There are many
who think that globalization is absolutely ideal when it comes to
economic issues. There are many who think that globalization is
absolutely ideal when it comes to a large police force in the
world to do peacekeeping. There are many who think that
globalization is ideal with regard to a court system for these
crimes.
I raise my own personal concerns because I have not seen good
accountability, good cost control and a lack of politicization at
that level. The idea of going after criminals worldwide for
heinous crimes is one that any sound thinking Canadian would
support vigorously. The bill may end up being supportable. Bill
C-19 may end up having enough definition and specificity brought
to it. I certainly hope that would be the case.
I will pause in my commentary on the international criminal
court and sum up by saying that I believe this could move toward
a point where it is supportable. At this point in time, in terms
of the positive and the negative, maybe we need to tip the scales
of balance a bit to bring in more of the positive before I could
personally support the way the bill is laid out.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke
indicates it is one hand or the other for him, but does he not
think that there is much that is positive in the bill?
Anybody who has been, for example, to Rwanda has seen the bodies
of people as I have in the schools that are still there. Does he
not think that we need something like this that will help us to
bring to justice people who commit these crimes outside Canada?
I know the member admires Václav Havel too. Was this not the
kind of thing that President Havel was talking about when he
spoke to the House not so long ago? What would it take to tip
the balance for the hon. member so that he could support the
bill?
Mr. Grant Hill: Madam Speaker, I value the opinion of the
member opposite. I have always found him to be a very fair and
balanced individual. The positives that I mentioned of course
were not allowing war criminals to escape by hiding in a
jurisdiction, the definitions of the crimes and having an
oversight.
The concerns I have relate to expanding definitions of some of
these crimes and having an impact on cultures which do not
operate like those in Canada. I do not think it would be
impossible to make the bill very supportable. The definitions of
the war crimes would need to be pretty specific.
They would have to exclude some things that activists might go
after. I do not mean to spend a lot of time on that, but issues
of costs and accountability would be very well and properly laid
out.
1310
One thing I did not mention was the comparison between the ad
hoc tribunals that we have had and a permanent operation. My
long term hope is that this sort of thing would not be necessary,
that we would be able to co-operate in an international way, and
that brotherhood and wonderful values would prevail. Perhaps the
eternal optimist in me is showing.
I do not think my concerns are insurmountable. I would hope
that we could review these things in a good and open spirited
dialogue.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, my question is with respect to some of the other
material in the Statutes of Rome. I am referring to a rather
intriguing section in chapter 6 under genocide.
How would the member define the things included under article
6(b)? It talks about causing mental harm to members of the
group. In another place I read in article 8(c)(ii) that it talks
about committing outrageous acts upon personal dignity. Would
the member have a way of defining or telling me exactly what that
means?
Mr. Grant Hill: Madam Speaker, I believe those
definitions are not specific enough for me. I think my colleague
is moving in the same direction as I am. If we are to define
crimes against humanity, let us be specific. Most of us
understand that these are major crimes such as genocide. Wiping
out a population for political purposes is absolutely against
everything I believe in. Since time immemorial we have had
people who have purposes that I do not understand.
Let us not go down the road of politicization. Let us not go
down the road of saying that if there were a war and a host of
people were being held in an area against their will would
somehow be the definition of crimes against humanity.
I talk about murder. I talk about rape. I talk about torture.
I talk about the awful things that happen. Let us make sure that
we stay on real true crimes against humanity rather than going to
some idea that is hard to define such as mental cruelty. I have
real trouble with that in my own family. I sometimes think my
teenagers practise mental cruelty on me. I hope I would not be
confined for that.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, the debate today on Bill C-19
concerns setting up an International Criminal Court that would
deal with serious issues like genocide and various other crimes
between nations and internally.
The idea for this court came up after the serious issues of the
second world war involving the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. It
also came from the current United Nations special war crimes
tribunals which arose out of Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
On July 18, 1988, under the auspices of the United Nations
General Assembly, Canada along with 119 other countries signed a
treaty that would bring into force the International Criminal
Court. This court is intended to be a permanent court with a
permanent bureaucracy. The treaty was specifically referred to
as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
This court would have the power to investigate, prosecute,
indict and try persons for the most serious crimes of
international concern.
These include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and
the crime of aggression which are open to wide interpretation by
judges from around the world who would be sitting on this
tribunal.
1315
In short, the purpose of the ICC is to prosecute war crimes,
including internal acts of repression. This is where we begin to
question the interpretation that the various judges would use and
bring into effect judge graded law, I guess, on an international
scale. It is my understanding that the regulations and other
issues setting up this court are not in place at this time. To a
certain extent, we are buying a pig in a poke on this treaty with
not knowing those very things.
We in the Canadian Alliance certainly support foreign policy
that is guided by values and the principles of Canadians. In
trying to set up one court that would encompass the beliefs and
traditions of the whole world, it is hard to see that being done
in a very effective and efficient manner or even in a manner that
would deal fairly and justly with individual countries around the
world.
That is one of the arguments why ad hoc courts have been set up
to deal with specific incidents that arise as opposed to trying
to say, before the crime is even committed, that we will be
imposing this set of values on those people in that country when
it may be culturally insensitive and not in keeping with the
traditions in that area of the world.
A specific country or individuals in a specific country who are
committing crimes against humanity certainly cannot be tolerated,
but I question whether or not this permanent court is the best
way to address those crimes.
The ICC threatens to become a powerful, unaccountable
institution with power to investigate, prosecute, indict and try
citizens of even Canada. Here we would run into the
interpretation of the courts as to what constitutes this crime
when that may be something we would consider a crime in Canada
but a crime that should be dealt with internally as opposed to a
crime that this court and the United Nations would feel should be
dealt with on the international scene. That is a serious
consideration.
I do not believe it has been demonstrated that the United
Nations has the capacity to run an international criminal court
without making it as ineffective as some of its programs and the
bureaucracy set up to handle issues of starvation and so on
around the world. It always seems that individual countries end
up having to come to the aid of other countries that are
experiencing problems that the UN seems incapable of doing
anything about because of the gigantic bureaucracy it has put in
place. It is a bureaucracy that has been put in place not by an
elected government necessarily. The bureaucracy is made up of
people who were appointed, often patronage appointments, from the
member countries of the UN that puts these people in place.
What we could see with a permanent court is virtually permanent
employees of the bureaucracy and permanent appointments to that
court that would not be in the best interests of many people and
many countries. As Canadians, we have to very seriously consider
national interests and national values as to what we believe is a
criminal justice system.
Even between ourselves and Europe there is a difference in how
criminal justice systems work. I do not believe the negotiations
that were entered into to bring this treaty forward really
considered all the various aspects.
1320
From our government's point of view, prior to the signing,
besides the non-government organizations that were funded by the
federal government, we should have obtained more input from the
general population of Canada and from the opposition members in
the House of Commons.
I believe that the ICC could undermine the ability of the United
Nations to act in the interests of international security and
peace. One example would be stopping Saddam Hussein or sending a
message to international terrorists. I do not see how, at this
point in time, we can get away from the co-ordinated efforts,
such as we have under NATO, to take care of these serious
international issues. The United Nations just does not have that
capacity. Giving the United Nations a permanent criminal court
would not seem to be the way to go at this point in history.
I do not think the world is ready yet for a world government.
There is a lot of resistance out in the ridings when people
consider that there is this bogeyman set up as the world
government. When we talk about permanent institutions like a
criminal court, that is what is happening. I appreciate that it
is not designed for every small offence inside a country, but it
does smack of having one world government, which is certainly not
in the best interests of individualism, freedom or democracy as
we know it in Canada.
I support the concept and the continuation of the ad hoc
international tribunals that have been dealing with war crimes
and international situations. These tribunals should never be
made permanent. Instead, I argue that they should always remain
ad hoc, subject to sunset provisions as the tribunals are
presently operating.
My main reason for saying that is that a permanent international
body would essentially be unaccountable and would, as experience
with other international organizations have shown, become a rogue
type entity to the sovereignty of elected parliaments and
legislatures. Not every country that appoints people to this
court would be democratic. Many countries in this world are
still run by dictatorships.
The ad hoc bodies have the advantage that they can be set up and
dismantled by sovereign governments and by governments that have
a direct concern and interest in the area and might have the
military strength. In the case of Canada, which has little or no
military strength, it could make a strong, morally persuasive
effort for which we have a good reputation on the international
scene. The world would be much better served by having that type
of ad hoc court which would be more sensitive to the very
incident that has given rise to the complaint of war crimes.
In conclusion, war crimes are something that every one of us has
lived with in our lifetimes. We can certainly go back into
recent history and see the war crimes that were committed. It is
of very serious concern to all of us.
However, rather than just submitting a good idea forward to our
foreign affairs minister and certain other people around the
world, maybe the majority of people will not be in agreement with
that. Countries with a long history of democracy, such as the
United States or Israel, have very serious concerns about this
treaty.
1325
I think we would be remiss as a government in Canada and as
Canadian people to approve a treaty that is deficient in any way.
When the majority of the world, including a major power like the
United States, have their questions answered, along with the
serious questions we have raised here today as part of the
Canadian Alliance, that is the time we could consider having a
permanent court.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Madam Speaker, does the hon. member for
Selkirk—Interlake, who stressed what he regards as the financial
unaccountability of the international court, accept the fact that
there is an assembly of states parties that will elect the
prosecutor and judges for the court on the basis of established
qualifications, that the assembly will be able to remove judges
for improper conduct, will have management oversight of budgets
and will audit the operations of the court?
Does this international court not have a good deal of
accountability? I would contend that it has a lot more
accountability than the present ad hoc tribunals do, at least the
one in Arusha. Perhaps the member is aware that there have been
all kinds of administrative and other problems with the ad hoc
tribunal operating in Arusha.
Is it not more cost effective to have a standing court rather
than continually reinventing the wheel, such as we have had to do
in the case of the ad hoc tribunals?
The member said that we were buying a pig in a poke. That is a
good metaphor but where is the pig and where is the poke? It
seems to me that this court is something that has been shrieked
for by what has been happening around the world, which the member
knows very well. I would urge him to reconsider what he said
about the lack of accountability in the bill.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Madam Speaker, the pig in a poke
comment referred to the fact that it would be nice to have all
the regulations and everything set out beforehand so that we
could know fully how the court will actually operate and how it
will be put into place.
When it comes to war crimes, I do not believe that cost is a big
concern when trying to deal with the actual issue, but I am
concerned with costs that are imposed by a bureaucracy that has
been put in place.
I do not think the hon. member opposite can deny that the
bureaucracy of the United Nations has been really unaccountable.
We saw several countries, including the United States, withhold
payments in order to get the United Nations to become more
accountable and more efficient. I think its agriculture
department was one of those that was identified.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is aware that article
44 in the documents from Rome provides that the international
criminal court may employ, free of charge, expertise of personnel
provided by state members and individual NGOs. To me that will
mean that well-funded radical groups will be stacking this court
with their selected radicals. Article 105 also provides that the
$80 million annual cost to the ICC could be defrayed by voluntary
donations.
I wonder if he has a concern that groups like the Rockefeller
and Ford foundations will be contributing to the court with many
strings attached.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Madam Speaker, certainly non-elected
organizations, which are non-government organizations, should
have input into government policy in their home countries.
However, to be so directly involved on the international scene
affecting the sovereignty of countries like our own is
unacceptable to me.
1330
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 1.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
PETITIONS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
Except in the case of a petition referred to the Chief Electoral
Officer pursuant to section (1) of Standing Order 36.1, every
petition presented pursuant to this Standing Order shall
forthwith be transmitted to the Ministry, which shall, within
forty-five days, respond to every petition referred to it;
provided that the said response may be tabled pursuant to
Standing Order 32(1). In the case of a petition referred to the
Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to section (1) of Standing Order
36.1, it shall be transmitted to the Ministry for response
pursuant to this section only if the Chief Electoral Officer
reports that it does not comply with Standing Order 36.1(1), or,
if it complies, the motion pursuant to Standing Order 36.1(2) is
defeated by the House.
II. That the Standing Orders be amended by adding new Standing
Orders 36.1, 36.2 and 36.3:
36.1(1) At the request of the Member presenting a petition,
or if no request is made at the time of the presentation of the
petition, by any other Member giving notice in writing to the
Clerk, a petition which has been presented in accordance with
Standing Order 36 and which purports to be signed by two per cent
of the persons entitled to vote in the last general election to
the House of Commons may be referred to the Chief Electoral
Officer, who shall determine within forty-two days whether the
petition complies with this requirement by counting the
signatures and verifying such proportion of them as is in his or
her opinion reasonable. The Chief Electoral Officer shall make a
report of his or her findings to the Speaker within the time
specified, and such report shall forthwith be submitted by the
Speaker to the House of Commons.
(2) If the report of the Chief Electoral Officer is that the
petition complies with the requirement set out in section (1) of
this Standing Order, immediately after the said report is
submitted by the Speaker to the House of Commons, the Clerk of
the House shall cause to be placed on the Notice Paper, a notice
of motion for referral of the petitioners' prayer to a standing
committee, which shall stand in the name of the Member presenting
the petition or such other Member who requested that it be
referred to the Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to section (1)
of this Standing Order, as the case might be.
(3) When a notice given pursuant to section (2) of this
Standing Order is transferred to the Order Paper, it shall be set
down for consideration, and the House shall meet at 11:00 a.m. on
the next Wednesday when the House is sitting, at which time the
order of business shall be the consideration of the said notice.
In the event that a notice or notices of motion for concurrence
has been set down pursuant to Standing Order 124 for such day, or
if other business pursuant to this Standing Order or Standing
Order 36.2 has been previously set down for such day, it shall be
set down for consideration, and the House shall meet at 11:00
a.m. on the following Wednesday when the House is sitting.
(4) When the House meets at 11:00 a.m. on any Wednesday
pursuant to section (3) of this Standing Order, the House shall
not consider any other item but that provided pursuant to that
section, provided that:
(a) if such proceedings are concluded prior to 1:45 p.m. on any
such day, the Speaker shall suspend the sitting until 2:00 p.m.;
and
(b) all such proceedings shall be concluded except as provided
pursuant to section (5)(b) of this Standing Order at 1:45 p.m. on
the same day.
(5) A notice given pursuant to section (3) of this Standing
Order shall be taken up and considered for a period not exceeding
two and one-half hours, provided that:
(a) during the consideration of any such motion, no Member shall
speak more than once or for more than ten minutes; and
(b) unless the motion be previously disposed of, not later than
the end of the said two and one-half hours of consideration, the
Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and
put forthwith and successively, without further debate or
amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the said motion
or motions, provided that any division or divisions demanded in
relation thereto shall stand deferred until no later than the
ordinary hour of daily adjournment in that sitting, when the
bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than
fifteen minutes. Any remaining questions necessary to dispose of
proceedings in relation to such motion or motions, on which a
decision has been deferred until after the taking of such a
division, shall be put forthwith and successively, without
further debate or amendment.
(6) The provisions of Standing Order 45(5) shall be
suspended in the case of any division demanded pursuant to
paragraph (b) of section (5) of this Standing Order.
36.2(1) When a petition is referred to a committee pursuant
to Standing Order 36.1, the committee shall, within sixty sitting
days of the referral, report back to the House, provided that if
no report is presented by the end of the sixty sitting days, the
Member who presented the petition, or such other Member who
requested that it be referred to the Chief Electoral Officer in
accordance with Standing Order 36.1(1), as the case might be,
shall be entitled to present a bill or motion to give effect to
the petitioners' prayer within fifteen sitting days, and such
bill or motion shall for all purposes be deemed to be the
committee's report referred to in section (2) of this Standing
Order.
(2) The committee's report shall be in the form of either
(a) a bill for an Act which, if adopted by the Parliament, or
(b) a motion which, if adopted by the House,
(3) The Member who presented the petition, or such other
Member who requested that it be referred to the Chief Electoral
Officer in accordance with Standing Order 36.1(1), as the case
might be, shall be deemed to be the sponsor of the bill or of the
motion prepared pursuant to this Standing Order in the House,
unless the Member is a Minister of the Crown in which case it
shall be considered to be an item of Government Orders.
(4) After forty-eight hours' notice, the Member sponsoring
the bill, or a Minister, as the case might be, may introduce the
bill during the daily routine of business and the House shall
give it first reading in accordance with these Standing Orders.
(5) Notwithstanding any other provision in these Standing
Orders, a bill that has been introduced pursuant to section (4)
of this Standing Order by a Member who is not a Minister of the
Crown, or a motion sponsored by a Member who is not a Minister of
the Crown after forty-eight hours' notice upon the Member giving
notice in writing to the Clerk, shall be placed on the Order
Paper and shall be set down for consideration, and the House
shall meet at 11:00 a.m. on the next Wednesday when the House is
sitting, at which time the order of business shall be the
consideration of the said bill or motion. In the event that a
notice or notices of motion for concurrence has been set down
pursuant to Standing Order 124 for such day, or if other business
pursuant to this Standing Order or Standing Order 36.1 has
previously been set down for such day, it shall be set down for
the consideration, and the House shall meet at 11:00 a.m. on the
following Wednesday when the House is sitting.
(6) Subject to paragraph (b) of section (8) of this Standing
Order, when the House meets at 11:00 a.m. on any Wednesday
pursuant to section (5) of this Standing Order, the House shall
not consider any other item but that provided pursuant to that
section, provided that:
(a) if such proceedings are concluded prior to 1:45 p.m. on any
such day, the Speaker shall suspend the sitting until 2:00 p.m.;
and
(b) all such proceedings shall be concluded except as provided
pursuant to section (8)(c) of this Standing Order at 1:45 p.m. on
the same day.
(7) Notwithstanding any other provisions in these Standing
Orders, but subject to the time limits set out in this Standing
Order, a bill under this Standing Order shall be debated at
second reading, and, if passed, it shall immediately be
considered in a Committee of the Whole, which shall report to the
House forthwith upon completion of its consideration, and the
House shall immediately take up the report and third reading
stages of the bill; provided that, unless the Committee of the
Whole has reported the bill earlier, then fifteen minutes prior
to the end of the time scheduled for consideration of the bill,
it shall be deemed to have been reported without amendment.
Standing Order 71 shall be suspended with respect to any bill
considered pursuant to this Standing Order.
(8) A bill or motion set down pursuant to section (4) of
this Standing Order shall be taken up and considered for a period
not exceeding two and one-half hours, provided that:
(a) during the consideration of the motions to adopt the bill at
all stages or the motion, no Member shall speak more than once or
for more than ten minutes;
(b) in the case of a bill, if the said bill has not been disposed
of prior to the end of the first ninety minutes of consideration,
during any time then remaining, any one Member may propose a
motion to extend the time for the consideration of any remaining
stages on a second Wednesday when the House is sitting for a
period of two and one-half hours beginning at 11:00 a.m.,
provided that
(i) the motion shall be put forthwith without debate or amendment
and shall be deemed withdrawn if fewer than twenty members rise
in support thereof; and
(ii) a subsequent such motion shall not be put unless there has
been an intervening proceeding;
in the event that a notice or notices of motion for concurrence
has been set down pursuant to Standing Order 124 for such day, or
if other business pursuant to this Standing Order or Standing
Order 36.1 has previously been set down for such day, it shall be
set down for the consideration, and the House shall meet at 11:00
a.m. on the following Wednesday when the House is sitting; and
(c) unless the bill or motion be previously disposed of, not
later than the end of the said two and one-half hours of
consideration, or not later than the end of two and one-half
hours of consideration on the second Wednesday agreed to pursuant
to paragraph (b) hereof, the Speaker shall interrupt any
proceedings then before the House and put forthwith and
successively, without further debate or amendment, every question
necessary to dispose of the motion or motions, provided that any
division or divisions demanded in relation thereto shall stand
deferred until no later than the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment in that sitting, when the bells to call in the
Members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes. Any
remaining questions necessary to dispose of proceedings in
relation to such motion or motions, on which a decision has been
deferred until after the taking of such a division, shall be put
forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
(9) The provisions of Standing Order 45(5) shall be
suspended in the case of any division demanded pursuant to
paragraph (c) of section (8) of this Standing Order.
36.3 No vote taken in the House pursuant to Standing Orders
36.1 or 36.2 shall be deemed to involve a question of the
confidence of the House in the Ministry or a Minister, unless the
Bill or Motion is considered to be an item of Government Business
pursuant to section (3) of this Standing Order.
III. That the Clerk be authorized to make consequential
amendments to the Standing Orders.
He said: Madam Speaker, in addressing the House today on
petitions I want to start by saying several things about the
democracy within which we live. There are many concerns in the
country about the ability to take concerns to the House of
Commons to be heard and to get action taken. Petitions is one of
the few ways that citizens can sign a document, send it to the
House of Commons, have it read in the House of Commons, and get
some action taken.
The unfortunate thing about petitions is getting the action
taken. I just submitted three petitions today. Two were on Bill
C-23 which the government has already disposed of and really did
not listen to it. The other one was about changing the age of
consent from 14 to 16 years for consensual sex. That will fall
on deaf ears. A letter will go back to the person who initiated
the petition saying so sad, too bad, try again some time.
I will give a brief background about petitions and what they are
used for. The petition process was first introduced into the
Alberta legislature by Jim Gurnett, an NDP member for Spirit
River. Those particular concepts upon which this motion is
debated were eventually brought into the House of Commons by Ross
Harvey, another NDP member for Edmonton East in 1992 under Motion
No. 89.
Let us not make the wild assumption that I am following the
dialogue and prospectus of any bill in which the NDP would be
interested, but where it comes down to the input as a democracy I
think those two gentlemen had the right idea.
In the United Kingdom the right of petitioning the crown and
parliament for redress of grievances dates back to the reign of
King Edward I in the 13th century. Citation 666 of Beauchesne's
fifth edition at page 209 says the following about petitions:
The right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for redress of
grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the
constitution and has been exercised without interruption since
1867.
The difficulty with petitions in this land is that they fall on
deaf ears once they reach the House of Commons. Virtually
everybody in the House has submitted petitions. Many of them
have been very good and informative petitions that we want to go
somewhere.
The current process is that they are presented by members of the
House under Standing Order 36. Then the government tables a
response in the House and sends the response to the first name on
the petition. Even if 40,000 people signed it, only one person
would get a response. That is the end of the deal.
The only way a petition can be referred to a committee is with a
show of unanimous consent, which is something that almost never
happens in the House of Commons.
Basically it does not even go to a committee for study, which is
sad indeed.
1335
When we debated whether or not the particular motion should be
votable, it is unfortunate that even the subcommittee on Private
Members' Business decided not to support it as a votable motion.
I believe the issue has a great deal of support in the House of
Commons. It is sad that it will never get to any further action
than what is said here today.
What was I proposing in the motion? Let us see how harmful it
is, if it is at all. If hon. members had 3% of eligible voters
on a petition, which is approximately 550,000 people, it would
ultimately get to be a votable resolution in the House. It is as
simple as that.
I could go through a lot of the other details, but the primary
point is that people in our country see it important enough to
physically take a petition around their areas, their cities,
their communities and their provinces. They see it important
enough to take it door to door. Those who see the issue as
important enough to sign a petition should have some way of
seeing it followed through by their representatives in the House
of Commons.
This is not happening today. If someone signs a petition it
basically goes nowhere. It comes into the House. We say we have
a petition and have about 15 seconds to read the darned thing,
and there it dies.
The government might say that it looks at the petition and
considers it in legislation, but let us face it: since I have
been in the House I have not seen a petition that has really
affected a piece of legislation. Major bills have come forward
such as the Young Offenders Act; Bill C-68, the gun control bill;
and Bill C-23, the recent modernization of benefits. All of them
had substantial petitions from across the country with hundreds
of thousands of names. They have come into the House and nothing
has happened with them.
As politicians we hear from people who say that they feel
strongly about an issue. They want to get a petition together
and ask for help in wording it. They want to take it door to
door and make a change in Canada. I do not even have the heart
to tell them that the other half of the process is that I will
take it to the House and read it for 15 seconds. Then I will sit
down and it will die. It is not a good process whatsoever.
The motion is not votable. I stand here today on a non-votable
issue only to get my point across. What we need is all parties
in the House to say that the process is not working. We need to
be able to effect change by the will of a majority of people who
care about it. In effect that is called citizens initiative. We
talk about citizens initiative. That is what a petition really
is. It is a citizens initiative to invoke change.
Mr. John Duncan: When it reaches a certain threshold.
Mr. Randy White: Yes, I agree with my colleague. This
certain threshold is 3% of eligible voters. When it is signed
and 3% or more of eligible voters want the change, it does not
mean that it has to come into the House and is done right away.
It means discussion takes place. It means committees get
involved and look at it. In effect, rather than have legislation
that comes into the House top down, we are getting legislation
that is encouraged bottom up. It makes sense to most people.
I hope this does not fall on deaf ears after today. I hope when
we get into committees like procedure and House affairs, the main
management committee of the House of Commons, we could table this
as a necessary change to the standing orders.
1340
We could have a serious discussion and have a subcommittee and
the House of Commons look at some way of putting some strength
into the courage and convictions of those who walk around the
country and sign documents to get change to take place.
The point is being made here that we lack a certain amount of
democracy in what we call a democracy. If we continue with
majority governments in this land that basically make the bills
in cabinet and whip their members into a vote on a Tuesday
night—
Hon. David M. Collenette: You're cynical.
Mr. Randy White: The minister says I am cynical. At
least there is one minister here listening to how we should
invoke democracy into the country by getting petitions in place.
If the government and the democracy keeps working from a
majority government and a cabinet to its members to vote in a
certain way, notwithstanding the desires of people through
petitions across the land, then we tend to alienate ourselves
from the very people who have put us in this place.
My comment is this. If we truly want democracy, then let us put
it in place. Let us take a simple process like petitions with
some threshold of numbers of our population who sign them and
turn their question or desire into a motion. Let us get it into
a committee, study it and possibly turn it into legislation or
include it in a piece of legislation that we want.
That is it. I would be interested in other comments in the
House, but more than comments, I am interested in some action.
The next time this comes up, it should be in the House of Commons
with some kind of legislation with teeth in it and not some kind
of rhetorical comments that, sure, they want our comments but,
too bad, so sad, they are going to do nothing about it.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to speak to Motion M-128. Institutional
reform is something for which I believe there is a broad based
level of support, not just within this parliament but from
Canadians, and that we do need a significant level of
institutional reform to make parliament and our democratic
institutions more functional. There are a number of things that
need to be done.
There has been a secular decline in the role of the member of
parliament over the last 30 years. It started in the late 1960s
when the practice of debating the estimates in the House of
Commons ceased and instead committees took over some of that. The
notion of committees taking over some of these responsibilities
previously held by the committee of the whole in the House of
Commons is not in and of itself necessarily a bad thing. The
difficulty with it is when the committee structure becomes so
partisanly controlled and, of course, comprised of a majority of
the government.
Often we get the idea in the House as members of parliament that
the committees are operated as branch plants of the ministers'
offices and in fact committee chairs are often at the beck and
call of ministers it seems. Sometimes the legislative agenda of
committees seems to be more dominated by the legislative agenda
of the executive than it probably should be. I think there would
be a rather significant level of agreement with that from both
members on the opposition benches and members of the government
side.
This proposal brought forward by the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford would change the standing orders to provide
direct access to the agenda of the House of Commons for
petitioners representing 2% of the eligible electorate. It does
this by requiring qualified petitions to be the basis for
legislation or an order of the House to meet the demands of
petitioners. A mandatory process of time allocation or closure
of debate governs the considerations of all qualified petitions.
1345
It is ironic in some ways that the hon. member, who regularly
objects to the government's use of time allocation, is prepared
to have it further enshrined in the rules to cover this proposal.
Time allocation, some arbitrary allocation of time to any
legislation whether imposed by the government or some
institutionalized parliamentary procedure, is equally egregious.
This proposal would give something to petitioners that members of
the House do not enjoy and that is the guaranteed consideration
of any proposal meeting the 2% threshold. I have some concerns
about that.
At the heart of the discussion is the age old question of what
is the role of the member of parliament. Are members of
parliament here to represent their own best judgment and to
represent the best interests of their constituents by using that
judgment? In a representative democracy this is a very important
issue.
A representative democracy is based on the premise that when a
member is elected to the House, that for the period of a member's
term he or she makes decisions. The member's goal is not only to
represent the views of his or her own constituents but also the
interests of all Canadians in this House. Every four years there
is an opportunity for the electorate to make a decision to
re-elect that member or to elect somebody else.
If in fact the hon. member actually believes we should be moving
away from the principles of a representative democracy to a
direct democracy, I have some significant concerns as would many
Canadians when they really thought about it. What is the magic
of a 2% threshold? It is an arbitrary figure. Certainly it is a
large number of people, but 2% of the electorate certainly does
not represent a majority. It is 2%. Why should special powers
be given to 2% of the electorate that is denied to other
petitioners? Are the ideas or grievances of persons lacking
resources to garner the 2% threshold automatically less worthy
than the beliefs or concerns of the people who may account for
1.5%?
At present the House requires 25 signatures on a petition. This
was put in place in reaction to abuses that took place in the
past when petitions were used to delay or oppose government
bills. Those days are gone and the House should back Canadians
who petition the House of Commons on legitimate issues.
All members take very seriously the petitions presented in the
House. I listen intently to petitions when they are presented. I
consider the views of individuals who have through the petition
process an opportunity to have their views heard here in the
House of Commons. Through the private members' process, which
should be bolstered and improved, individual members of
parliament have the opportunity to represent views presented in
petitions from their constituencies, not just on Wellington
Street but on the main streets of their ridings. We should be
using the private members' process, as should the government. All
parliamentarians should advance the notion that there should be a
greater level of engagement for private members to bring forward
through the private members' process constructive motions and
legislation that can benefit Canadians.
My concern is with who would use this provision. It is a ready
opportunity for many of the moneyed interest groups and so-called
ordinary citizens are quite likely to initiate petitions. If we
look at the U.S. with the well financed and powerful lobby
organizations, the difficulties and problems are far greater with
the degree to which these lobby organizations are financed.
This would invite the same type of what the hon. member may view
as direct democracy. I consider this as being an opportunity for
some of the major lobby organizations and individuals with money
to use the process to garner support and actually gain direct
access to the House of Commons. In some way they could push
aside the elected members who are here as part of a
representative democracy to not only recognize the concerns of
focused special interest groups, but also to make decisions on
behalf of all Canadians.
1350
I have a number of concerns. The hon. member has spoken a number
of times about the importance of his constituents. If the
majority of his constituents want something, then it is
absolutely the right thing for us to do. I remind the hon.
member that there have been times in the past when decisions have
been made, which in retrospect have been the right decisions,
that a majority of Canadians did not agree with.
One was the free trade agreement. The majority of Canadians
voted against a free trade agreement in the 1988 election, but a
visionary and courageous government was willing to seize the day.
It had a vision for the future. Instead of focusing on polls,
it took a significant risk. It actually implemented the types of
public policy Canadians needed for the long term, not the types
of public policy that would benefit the party in the short term.
Populism is the natural enemy of representative democracy. The
poll based populism which is so pervasive in the hon. member's
party, seems so palatable to people when they first hear of it.
When Canadians have thought about it more clearly however, and
they have, they have rejected the hon. member's party. Canadians
have done this because they realize they are better served by
thinking members of parliament who have a vision for the future
and who will take risks sometimes and offer Canadians real
solutions and courageous visionary policy on issues of importance
to Canadians instead of focusing on short term polls.
The party the hon. member represents has at various times fought
against the charter of rights. It has criticized the charter of
rights and has referred to it as judicial activism. It has
ignored the fact that in our system of government the judiciary
has a role. Ultimately I am glad that we have a charter of
rights to protect Canadians against members of parliament who
would go with the tyranny of the majority and where majority
rules in areas where it should not, such as minority rights.
I could go on an on about this motion. It clearly will not
work.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to address the issues raised in Motion No. 128
introduced by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford. He
proposes that we amend the standing orders to alter the way we
deal with petitions.
My hon. colleague is well known for his background, experience
and knowledge in the area of parliamentary procedure. I will
take the time to review the proposal carefully and I hope he and
the House will view it as constructive.
If I understand my hon. colleague's motion correctly, the
purpose of his motion would be to alter the process for dealing
with petitions so that a public petition could automatically
become the basis for law or a resolution of the House. Not only
does the member propose that any petition with sufficient
signatures could become law, he also proposes that these laws
could come into effect with no apparent policy analysis or prior
consultations with affected groups and with relatively minimal
parliamentary scrutiny. In fact it appears that the House and
its committees would be forced to consider these petition bills
on a relatively short deadline.
Before I discuss the merits of the motion, I will address the
historic background of petitions. The procedure for petitioning
parliament is a longstanding practice which goes back many years.
1355
In medieval England, the records show that individuals
petitioned parliament to seek resolution to an issue in cases
where the courts had been unable to reach a decision. The
British House of Commons, therefore, served in a quasi-judicial
capacity.
Procedures for handling petitions evolved from this early form
partly because of their extreme popularity in Great Britain in
the early part of the 19th century. In the year 1843 alone there
were over 33,000 petitions filed in the House of Commons.
However, as my hon. colleague might imagine, dealing with this
inordinate number of petitions did not leave very much time to
deal with the other pressing matters of national business.
Because of the impact of these petitions on the time of the
House, changes were made to limit the rules of debate so that
matters of interest and importance to all individuals would not
be hijacked by political strategies that might not be in the
broader interest of the nation.
Canada, of course, has adopted these British parliamentary
traditions and petitions are now only presented to the House,
generally without provision for debate. In the 1985 report of
the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, the
chair, Mr. James McGrath, noted:
This is still true today.
As a means of ensuring that petitions are treated in a relevant
fashion, the standing orders require that the government respond
to petitions within 45 days to ensure that the government would
take note of the content of the petitions.
It appears that the sponsor of this motion is suggesting that
petitions are not given due recognition by the government and it
would seem that through Motion No. 128 he is attempting to alter
the nature and significance of petitioning a parliament.
To begin with, the government does take seriously its
responsibility to respond to petitions presented by Canadians and
within the 45 day limit. In this session we had about 600 to
700 petitions presented by members from both sides of the House.
First, the presentation of petitions allows parliament and the
government to tap the public mood and to hear what issues concern
individuals, not only from across the country but also from
specific regions.
Second, the standing orders require the responsible department
to respond to petitions. Petitions give these policy makers or
policy advisors valuable information that can be fed into the
ongoing and dynamic process of policy development. This can and
often does stimulate legislation, regulatory or policy change.
Finally, members of the House have numerous instruments here at
their disposal for debating issues of national and regional
importance, including those raised in petitions.
As a representative of his constituents and with his experience,
if my hon. colleague saw an issue that required attention he
could introduce a private member's bill or motion to allow an
issue to be considered, just as he has done in this case.
On any day the House is sitting, a member can ask a question of
member of the government during question period or can submit a
written question. Of course, opposition parties can make their
own determination of what issues are important to Canadians. They
actually select the subject of debate on any opposition day in
the House.
Furthermore, the standing orders of the House now provide that
standing committees have a mandate to study any issue that falls
within the mandate of a minister's department.
The process that my colleague is proposing through Motion No.
128 raises a number of questions. For example, how would
parliament deal with several petitions on the same subject but
with opposing perspectives? How would a standing committee cope
with petitions that affected many other committees or that
required broader consultation and integration with the work of
other committees of the House? From a purely constitutional and
procedural perspective, bills which involve the spending of
public funds can only be introduced by the government with what
we call the royal recommendation.
I suggest that my hon. colleague's motion, while it is a
creative initiative, it has a number of practical difficulties.
I want to emphasize that the government supports the ability of
Canadians to petition their parliament. With reference to the
member's initiative, members of the House may wish to consider
whether they want to alter the way we deal with petitions. We
might wish to consider other ways of dealing with them and place
these procedures in the standing orders. I therefore suggest
that if the hon. member wishes to pursue this matter further—and
he may well might as well might other members of the House—he
could seek to have this issue, among others, brought on to the
agenda of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
which might study it further. One never knows what might be
recommended back to the House.
1400
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Madam
Speaker, Motion M-128, introduced by our colleague from
Langley—Abbotsford, moves us to reflect upon the political system
within which we operate.
The British parliamentary system is, as we know, one of
representative democracy. It is absolutely beyond the realm of
possibility for 30 million Canadians and 7 million Quebecers to
all get together at one time in one place to pass rules to
govern the society in which we live.
As a result, the population delegates the power to legislate to
a certain number of representatives, their members of
parliament, who meet together in parliament to pass legislation
in lieu of their constituents, their fellow citizens, whom they
represent to the best of their ability, during a mandate. At
the end of their mandate, if the elected representatives have
not fulfilled the expectations of those who elected them and
have not carried out their mandate, it is the responsibility of
the population to decide to change representatives and to place
its trust in another party, another individual.
The debate around Motion M-128 leads us to reflect upon this
system of representative democracy within which we operate at
the present time, and to look at what possibilities are
available to us in order to achieve better participation and a
participative and more direct democracy. This would result in
our fellow citizens, those whom we represent, becoming more
involved.
When the British parliamentary system as we know it was first
established, centuries ago, in the United Kingdom, Great Britain
at the time, communications systems were obviously not like
those we enjoy today.
It is, therefore, understandable that our fellow citizens
experience a degree of frustration and cynicism as far as
politicians are concerned, because nowadays they are in a
position to follow politics closely. They can get their
expectations and concerns through to their MPs quickly, and they
are also able to see very quickly the impact of the decisions
made by their elected representatives.
If we are to counter this sort of wave of public cynicism toward
politics and parliament, perhaps we should consider involving
the public more in the democratic process and politics outside
the traditional election periods when they choose their members
of parliament.
That said, let us get back to the heart of the debate, the
matter of petitions. We know that petitions have been an
integral part of the British parliamentary system since its
inception. It became clear very quickly that, outside election
periods, the public needed a way to make its expectations known
to parliamentarians and to direct the work done and decisions
made by its representatives. So petitions made this possible.
1405
The pubic could sign a petition from time to time, express, in
doing so, its support for a given cause, its support for a given
government legislative measure. In fact, the petition served to
draw the attention of parliament and the government to a variety
of public concerns.
It is obvious that over the years, even though petitions remain
a privileged means of expression for the people, they have lost
a great deal of their meaning, not because it is no longer
important for Canadians to share their expectations with their
elected representatives, but because we can see that the
government is paying less attention to those petitions.
How many times have we tabled petitions in the House and
received just a very short response from the government? And
then nothing further is done.
At least the motion brought forward by the member for
Langley—Abbotsford would make sure there would be a proper
follow-up on every petition. Having said that, I have some
questions regarding the appropriateness of the particular
measure proposed by the member for Langley—Abbotsford.
Obviously, and members certainly noticed that in my
introduction,
the Bloc Quebecois is completely open to the development of
mechanisms for participatory democracy. As a matter of fact, we
embarked on a thinking exercise on democracy to see which
avenues could be explored to bring the people to take a greater
interest and participate more actively in the political process.
This first thinking exercise led to a second one because we felt
there was still a lot of work to be done, there were still many
elements to develop with regard to this idea of better involving
the people in the political process.
However, I must tell my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford that,
in this respect, the legislation introduced by one of his
colleagues, namely Bill C-229, seemed to me more appropriate,
even though I had some concerns regarding it as well.
In his motion, my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford proposes that
when a motion is supported by at least 2% of registered voters
it eventually become a resolution of the House or a bill.
Bill C-229 is better in that a petition was not supposed to
minize, so to speak, the work of parliamentarians because it
provided for one extra step. A petition was needed to hold a
referendum. And its was only after the referendum was held that
parliament could consider passing a bill.
In this case, I wonder about the mechanisms, as they seem
somewhat absent from Motion M-128, if I may say so; mechanisms
should be put in place in order to ensure that ultimately it is
the elected representatives of the people who make the decision
to pass legislation so as not to jeopardize or make a travesty
of representative democracy by introducing an element of direct
democracy.
If the goal is to allow people to bring about changes to the
existing political framework, influence public policy and
government action, questions arise since even an election fails
to alter the course of events in parliament.
1410
One has only to think of the 1993 election, which at the time
completely destroyed the political balance within this
parliament and reflected a deep desire for change among then
people. What did this deep desire for change translate into?
Nothing. The federal government has done absolutely nothing.
I wonder how this could be done. How will this measure manage
to take into consideration other measures passed by the House?
I am thinking in particular of the distinct society motion
passed in this House.
Points 3 and 4 stipulated that:
(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;
(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and
executive branches of government to take note of this
recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.
Even the House is paying no attention to this motion. How could
the House pass Bill-20? How can the House be preparing to pass
Bill C-3, without taking into account the distinct character of
Quebec, which should have precluded it?
In conclusion, I would say that, because even this House fails
to respect a number of earlier decisions, how can members of the
public be expected to stay on top of all those decisions
previously taken by the House, which would eventually affect its
subsequent actions?
We are open to discussion.
I believe that Motion M-128 opens the debate on participatory
democracy. Unfortunately, I think that Motion M-128 as drafted
fails to meet the short term goals.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Well,
Madam Speaker, never let it be said that private members' hour in
the House does not produce some interesting debates and some
excellent speeches.
I had never intended to speak on this debate. I just happened
to be in the House doing my duty, but I received I think some
very eloquent points of view on an issue which I think is of
importance.
The question of petitions and what petitions mean when people
submit them to members of parliament is a very important
question.
I have to say, Madam Speaker, that I remember when I came up
here as a parliamentarian for the first time in 1993, there was
an orientation period in which experienced members of parliament
instructed us in this very chamber on what to expect as fledgling
members of parliament. I remember, for the member for
Langley—Abbotsford's benefit, that one of those MPs who advised
the new MPs on what to expect here was the member for Edmonton
North who brought up the question of petitions.
What she said basically, was that the members of
parliament can take advantage of the opportunity to present
petitions from their constituents. I remember classically the
words. She said “They do not really mean anything when you put
them before the House. They do not actually do anything or have
any effect, but they are a great instrument for encouraging
personal attention in your own riding”.
So the member for Langley—Abbotsford I think touches a real
nerve. I remember that statement vividly. In fact, Madam
Speaker, as a result of that statement I have tended to
discourage petitioning in my riding, and yet I hear the
parliamentary secretary observe that in fact, yes, there is a
place for petitions in the House, that it is an opportunity for
people to actually get a forum through their MPs. So there is
merit both ways, although I am very sensitive to the criticism
that is being raised by the member for Langley—Abbotsford, that
is where do petitions really go?
One of the difficulties, however, with petitions, and trying to
expand the opportunity for petitions to have an effect, as
suggested by Motion No. 128, is in fact petitions like opinion
polling or referendum, that kind of thing, can in fact represent
a minority trying to grab the agenda by putting direct pressure
on the parliamentarian.
Earlier today, I presented three petitions in the
House. Each one of those petitions represents a minority in
society who has a particular thing they want to see happen. They
are trying to put pressure on me as a member of parliament by
means of a petition. It does not matter whether there are 25
names or there are 200 or it is 2% of the entire population.
It is still a minority. It is still a special interest group.
Whether the special interest group represents people who are
against Bill C-23, as was the case in one of the petitions I
presented, or whether the subject is a contract for the postal
workers who were petitioning me to support a private member's
bill allowing the unionization of rural mail couriers, it is
still a special interest group pressuring a member of parliament
to take a particular action.
1415
In the final analysis there is nothing wrong with this. I have
to answer not only as best I can to everyone in my riding, but I
also have to be sensitive to the petitions of minorities, the
petitions of special interest groups, the petitions of groups of
people with whom I may personally disagree. They still have to
have a voice in this place.
I agree with the member for Langley—Abbotsford that the present
situation and the present method is inadequate. People, no
matter what their viewpoint in a democracy, particularly an open
democracy like Canada, have to have an opportunity to speak.
I think that parliament is in the process of being reformed.
One way it is being reformed is by opening up Private Members'
Business. Just as we are having a very fine debate this
afternoon in private member's hour, so too are we trying on all
sides of this House to open up the opportunities for backbench
MPs to advance meaningful legislation. We have had a number of
very good private members' bills advanced, and on this side of
the House, at any rate, voting on private members' legislation is
always a free vote.
I would say to the member for Langley—Abbotsford that rather
than try to adjust the rules in a huge way in which basically we
would be advancing the power of minority special interest groups,
which we do not want to do, I would take the point of the member
for Kings—Hants. We are elected to represent and to make
decisions on behalf of everyone, as best we can. That is the
parliamentary system. That is what we inherited from the British
system. On the other hand, we can give everyone an opportunity
to be heard and to have their issue debated.
What I would suggest is that we go forward and try to find a new
method of dealing with petitions. One thing we could consider,
and this would go to the procedure and House affairs committee,
would be to open up Friday, which is a day which is not very good
for government business because many MPs are away and often
cabinet ministers have other duties. Perhaps we could devote
Friday entirely to Private Members' Business, to debate and
advance private members' legislation.
Why not use part of that time to debate petitions, no matter
what the petition is about? If I have received a petition,
whether it is on Bill C-23 or the rural mail couriers, that
petition is independent of everything else. It is independent of
legislation and it deserves to be heard and debated.
I would propose that perhaps the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs could consider setting up a regime whereby the
petitions would come before a subcommittee to determine whether
they should be debated in the same way as private members' bills
come before a subcommittee to determine whether they should be
made votable. That way the petitions which Canadians gather,
again whether there be 25, 100 or 1, 000 names, might have more of
a life in this House than they do at present. I congratulate the
member for Langley—Abbotsford for raising a very important
issue.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I often get some of my knowledge and points from
the great and learned Yuroslav, who is an individual of
impeccable knowledge. The great Yuroslav has often told me about
the need to involve people in politics.
I want to make a couple of comments about the comments that were
made. By and large, we all agree that we should do something
with petitions, that they should not just come into the House and
die here, that we should have a way of at least discussing the
darn things.
1420
One of my colleagues, the chairman of the procedure and House
affairs committee, mentioned that we should discuss this issue at
committee. I did table that idea about three years ago, so one
has to ask where it is going to go.
The only disappointing comments I heard today were from the
Progressive Conservative members, who said “If the majority of
Canadians want it, that is not necessarily the right thing to
do”. Is it any wonder people do not vote Progressive
Conservative today. That is exactly the opposite of what I think
most people are saying today in Canada. If the majority of
people want it, that is necessarily the right thing to do, even
though politicians in their rhetorical positioning in the House
may not agree. That should be quite irrelevant. It is what the
majority of Canadians think that matters.
The bottom line is that petitions are indicators in our society
that people want change. People organize petitions and go
through the exercise of getting a certain number of Canadians
interested in an issue for the purpose of sending it to the
House. No matter what the issue is, and it may not be palatable
to the House, we should have the right to discuss it, to look at
it, to provoke thought and to send something forward to move the
government in some direction.
I would not ask for unanimous consent, but I would suggest to
the chairman of the procedure and House affairs committee that
the committee look at this issue. I would ask that it look at
the issue and not exactly what I have put forward in my motion.
Let us not get tangled up in whether there are opposing positions
on certain petitions. Let us not get tangled up in whether it is
2% or 3%. Let us take this issue to the procedure and House
affairs committee to see if there is anything that can be done
with petitions to make the people of Canada feel that all the
work they went through was worth it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
As the motion has not been designated a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
[Translation]
It being 2.22 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday, May
1, 2000 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.22 p.m.)