36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 96
CONTENTS
Friday, May 12, 2000
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
| Bill S-10. Second reading
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. John Maloney |
1010
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1015
| Mr. René Laurin |
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1045
1050
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| MOTHER'S DAY
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1100
| SCOTT ISLANDS
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| CANADA POST
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| RAGLAN MINING COMPANY
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| PENITENTIARIES
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| SAMUEL DE CHAMPLAIN
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1105
| MASOUD FARZANEH
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| CANADA HEALTH DAY
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| GOVERNMENTS
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| GEORGE FINDLAY
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1110
| NURSES
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| THE LATE JUSTICE JULES DESCHÊNES
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| ENVIRONMENTAL ILLNESS
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| INTERNATIONAL YOUTH WEEK
|
| Mr. Ian Murray |
| HOLLAND
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1115
| THOMAS LOBSINGER AND HOBY SPRUYT
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1120
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1125
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. John Manley |
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1130
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. John Manley |
1135
| ATHABASCA RIVER
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| YOUTH JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Mr. David Iftody |
1140
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1145
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| NISGA'A TREATY
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| PRISONS
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1150
| Mr. John Maloney |
| AMATEUR SPORT
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1155
| YOUTH
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| FORESTRY
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| DAY CARE
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| TOBACCO PRODUCTS
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1200
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Question Period
|
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| TOBACCO ACT
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1205
| PETITIONS
|
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
| Bill S-10. Second reading
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1210
| INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
|
| Bill S-3. Second reading
|
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1215
1220
| Mr. John Duncan |
1225
1230
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1235
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1240
1245
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| NATURAL GAS
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1250
1255
1300
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1305
| Mr. John Duncan |
1310
1315
| Mr. John Solomon |
1320
1325
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1330
1335
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1340
1345
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 96
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 12, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
Hon. Elinor Caplan (for the Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.) moved that Bill S-10, an act to amend the National
Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and the criminal code, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to address the House today on second reading of Bill
S-10, an act to amend the National Defence Act, the DNA
Identification Act and the criminal code.
The bill follows up on an earlier piece of legislation, the DNA
Identification Act, which received royal assent in December 1998.
That act provides for the creation of a national DNA databank
which will contain DNA profiles of convicted offenders and
unsolved crime scenes.
As members of the House will recall, parliament endorsed a
post-conviction scheme for the databank because it will ensure
that all charter requirements are met. Bill S-10 does not change
this important feature or the other key elements of the DNA
Identification Act. It does fine-tune the legislation to create
a more comprehensive and effective national DNA databank.
Bill S-10 also proposes some practical changes to ensure the
smooth and effective implementation of the databank. The data
bank is scheduled to be up and running by the end of June this
year.
We therefore urge hon. members of the House to give Bill S-10
prompt consideration so that we can move quickly to introducing
this powerful investigative tool to improve public safety for all
Canadians.
I want to share with members how Bill S-10 was developed, how it
will work, its benefits and how the bill was improved as a result
of its passage through the Senate.
The bill addresses a number of proposals that were recommended
by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
when it reviewed the original databank legislation. At that time
the Senate committee proposed ways to better protect privacy
interests and promote the databank's operations in an open and
accountable manner.
Bill S-10 amends the National Defence Act, the DNA
Identification Act to include the national DNA bank profiles from
offenders who are subject to the military's code of service
discipline and who are convicted of serious and violent offences.
This amendment will ensure that we have a more complete databank
that is not limited to civilian offenders.
For the purposes of the National Defence Act, a designated
offence includes all the current criminal code designated
offences as well as those service offences that are similar in
nature to the criminal code offences.
Military judges will be authorized to impose databank orders on
persons subject to the code of service discipline after they are
convicted of a designated offence. The DNA profiles obtained
from these offenders will then be entered into the databank's
convicted offenders index.
The National Defence Act is also being amended to authorize
military judges to issue DNA warrants for military police
investigations of designated offences committed within or outside
Canada by someone who is subject to the code of service
discipline. This will assist military police in conducting more
efficient and effective police investigations.
I want to emphasize that the proposed amendments to the National
Defence Act mirror the current provisions in the criminal code.
They include the same constitutional and privacy safeguards.
To enable parliament to monitor the ongoing operation of the
databank, Bill S-10 includes new accountability measures. The
RCMP commissioner will have to submit an annual report on the
operations of the national DNA databank to the solicitor general.
The solicitor general will then report to both Houses of
parliament. Through this report, parliament will regularly
receive valuable information about the databank's operations and
will be able to assess whether it is meeting its intended
objectives.
The parliamentary review provision in the DNA Identification Act
has also been amended to give a Senate committee the same
authority as a House of Commons committee to independently review
the act.
The statement of principles in the DNA Identification Act is
also being expanded to clarify that bodily samples and the
resulting DNA profiles can only be used for law enforcement
purposes. Bill S-10 makes it clear that such misuse is
prohibited.
To ensure the smooth and effective implementation of the data
bank, Bill S-10 also makes some practical changes to the criminal
code. These changes were identified during recent consultations
with the provinces and territories in planning for implementation
of the databank.
Federal and provincial heads of prosecution noted that the
current law is unclear as to when a court does not have to make a
databank order. Therefore, the criminal code is being clarified.
Bill S-10 will require that the only time the court is not
required to make a databank order is if the prosecutor advises
that the person's DNA profile is already in the data bank.
To deal with offenders who may be transferred out of a province
before a databank order can be executed, provincial court judges
will be able to endorse an order that was granted in another
province.
1010
Two criminal code provisions that have not yet been proclaimed
are also being repealed. These provisions would require a peace
officer to inform a person specified in a DNA warrant or data
bank order that he or she may express a preference on what type
of DNA sample to give, and for the peace officer to take that
preference into account.
These provisions could cause uncertainty when a person's
preference conflicts with a judge's discretion in the the DNA
warrant or order. Uncertainty cannot be allowed to enter into
this important process. Giving a person a choice on what type of
sample to provide is also unnecessary in law.
The criminal code provision allowing a person to consent to the
use of his or her existing DNA results for the databank is also
being repealed. This is because Canadian forensic labs do not
support sending to the databank bodily substances or DNA profiles
obtained from the criminal investigations. Re-using an old DNA
profile is not feasible because there is no way of verifying
whether it actually belongs to the person specified in the
databank order.
Bill S-10 contains another important change to the criminal code
and the National Defence Act to promote the accuracy and
integrity of the national DNA databank. Peace officers, or
persons acting under their direction, will be required to take
fingerprints at the same time that DNA samples are collected for
the databank. This will enable the police to verify the identity
of the person specified in the DNA databank order.
By comparing the person's fingerprints with those contained in
the RCMP's automated fingerprint identification system, the
police will know whether they are taking a sample from the right
person. Fingerprints are also useful in verifying the identity of
a person when a match occurs in the databank. Not only will this
measure enhance the reliability of the databank but it will also
protect a person who has the same name as an offender specified
in the databank order. To ensure the complete privacy of
fingerprints, the bill makes it clear that they may only be taken
for databank purposes.
As a result of the improvements proposed in Bill S-10, Canada
will have a more complete and effective databank that will better
protect the public from repeat violent offenders. The
legislation includes practical changes to ensure that the data
bank can be successfully implemented and that parliament can
oversee its operations over time.
All provinces and territories, the police, victims and the
public are looking forward to the databank's timely
implementation. It will be an important milestone and a long
awaited tool to improve public safety.
I would therefore urge the hon. members of the House to support
Bill S-10 so that we may proceed quickly in ensuring that its
proposals are passed by the time the databank is implemented.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I will try to slow down. I think I see some smoke
coming out of the translator's booth.
The opportunity to speak to this Senate bill, Bill S-10, an act
to amend the National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and
the Criminal Code, puts me in a bit of a quandary.
On one hand, I do not agree that we should be dealing with
legislation that comes from the unelected and unaccountable other
place. On the other hand, I have to agree with much of the
intent of the legislation. It illustrates once again how the
government has failed to do its job properly.
Just a couple of years ago we dealt with DNA legislation. In
fact this is at least the third time we have dealt with DNA
legislation in the past five years. I suppose the government was
embarrassed about its previous failures to adequately address all
that was necessary. That may explain why it brought Bill S-10
through the back door, so to speak, through the Senate once again
instead of through the House of Commons. Surely the government
will get it right one of these days.
In the meantime, while Canadians want legislation to address
failings in our youth justice system, while Canadians are dying
through failures in our health system through lack of funding and
through the lack of a plan to address the failings of our
national health program, and while victims of crime continue to
wait for legislation from the solicitor general, we are forced to
once again spend time in this place dealing with DNA.
Do not get me wrong. I believe DNA technology is one of the
greatest tools for law enforcement and our justice system. All I
am saying is that it is unfortunate that we have to take three or
four kicks at the can just on DNA legislation when there are so
many other issues of importance to our citizens. It is a travesty
that the government wastes time and money trying again and again
to get something right.
I remember the last time we discussed DNA legislation. When we
were dealing with Bill C-3 just two years ago, the government
played politics instead of sufficiently supporting our police
officers.
When our police are asking for tools to help them solve hundreds
of unsolved murders and rapes, the government goes only halfway.
The government is more concerned with inconveniencing our
criminals than it is with protecting our communities and ensuring
that our more dangerous predators are removed from the streets.
Perhaps after a number of our incarcerated criminals succeed in
getting back onto the streets, only to recommit additional
crimes, will we then be able to obtain their DNA samples to help
the police with past unsolved serious crimes. Maybe then we will
once again be back in here dealing with yet another attempt to
properly legislate on this issue of DNA and the DNA databank once
and for all.
Bill S-10 amends the National Defence Act to authorize military
judges to issue DNA warrants to assist in investigations of
National Defence personnel. The bill also authorizes military
judges to order military offenders convicted of a limited number
of offences to provide samples of bodily substances for the
purpose of the DNA databank.
Essentially all this legislation is doing is including similar
provisions for the national defence justice system that we
provided under the criminal code through Bill C-104 in 1995 and
Bill C-3 in 1998. As a side note, hon. members will also be
aware that Bill C-3 was a prime example of just how little the
government really considers its law enforcement officers and its
citizens.
1015
Bill C-3 was passed in September 1998 to set up the DNA databank
so that evidence left at crime scenes for very limited types of
offences could be compared to the DNA samples taken from some of
our more dangerous criminals. I say some of our more dangerous
criminals because the government decided to severely limit just
who had to provide samples of saliva or blood.
For example, individuals who have only been convicted of one
murder do not have to provide a DNA sample. Furthermore,
Canadian citizens will be surprised to know that such a valuable
and highly effective justice tool is not even in force yet. As I
say, it was passed in September 1998. It will not be in effect
until next month.
The RCMP have been quoted as saying:
It has taken over a year and a half to come into being.
Typically there are indications that it may take our correctional
service another couple of years to fulfil its responsibilities
under the legislation and to provide samples of those offenders
presently incarcerated or serving sentences within the community.
Should Bill S-10 pass this place I can only wonder how far down
the road it will take before it too is actually in effect.
As I have previously stated in debate, it is most unfortunate
that our DNA databank legislation is not much broader to include
most, if not all, indictable offences. We all know that the vast
majority of our more dangerous criminals start their life of
crime with the lesser offences and move up to the more heinous
criminal activity. Once a criminal commits an indictable offence
that criminal should be included within the databank so that he
will show up should he ever leave DNA evidence at the scene of a
subsequent crime. The government seems to think that it should
be a game between the criminal and our law enforcement personnel.
I keep hearing about the government's concern for balanced
legislation. Seeing its legislation and seeing its political
endeavours, I often wonder whether part of its aim toward balance
is ensuring that our criminals have a fair chance against getting
caught and receiving punishment for their crimes. It is often
more concerned for the interest of the criminals than it is for
the safety of our citizens and the efforts of our police
officers.
Before the listener gets the impression that this DNA databank
and DNA warrant process will only bring our criminals to justice,
I should point out that it is most important to also prove the
innocence of some accused. We are all familiar with how DNA
evidence was used to exonerate Guy Paul Morin and David Milgaard.
They provided bodily samples to prove that the evidence left at
the scene of the crimes did not match their DNA, so this whole
DNA revolution is probably more important or at least just as
important to prove innocence as to prove guilt of an individual.
I have not said much about Bill S-10 specifically. As I have
said, it brings to the military what we have done for our primary
criminal justice process. It only makes sense that our military
system operates on the same footing. Yes, it is an inadequate
footing overall but at least it is a start.
I will be supporting the legislation. It is my hope that it
will not take as long to come into force. For some reason the
government does not seem to realize the importance of each day it
delays the implementation of legislation such as this. It may
result in another day that victims have to live with not knowing
who was responsible for the crime. It may result in another day
that an individual is falsely accused of a crime. It may result
in a day that a criminal gets away with a crime, to say nothing
of the added expense to the taxpayer of added investigation by
our police and additional legal argument within our courts as
both the innocent and the guilty make their appeals.
To sum up, DNA is a valuable tool to separate the guilty from
the innocent. It will greatly assist the police. It will
provide greater certainty to our justice system. It will protect
our citizens. Some of us may question the necessity to separate
our justice system from our military in this time of peace, but
it only makes sense that we provide a similar regime for that
process for the same reasons we have provided it within the civil
justice system.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the
terrible way I sound this morning, I would like to be able to
give you my message to the end. I am counting on the co-operation
and indulgence of yourself as well as my colleagues so that I
may manage to do so properly.
Bill S-10, with which we are dealing today, addresses a most
interesting and timely subject, DNA evidence.
1020
DNA is located in the nucleus of human cells and contains each
human being's genetic code. In fact, each of us has a personal
genetic code, with the exception of identical twins. A person's
DNA yields his or her genetic fingerprint. For law enforcement
officers and lawyers, the advancement of science in the area of
genetics is an indispensable tool for solving crimes, that is
for finding the guilty parties and clearing innocent ones.
Before addressing the main thrust of Bill S-10, an act to amend
the National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and the
criminal code, I would like to provide a brief overview of
Canadian legislation as it applies to the sampling of bodily
substances.
Before 1995, the criminal code included no provisions allowing
bodily substances to be sampled for genetic analysis on
individuals suspected of a crime. Police officers did,
nevertheless, collect bodily substances for genetic analysis
purposes on accused individuals. This practice was challenged
before the courts under the provision of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, which provides protection against
unreasonable search and seizure.
The decision in Borden by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1994 is
an example of this. In this decision, the Supreme Court of
Canada clearly says that the taking of bodily substances
constitutes a search and seizure. Unless permitted under the law
or unless the accused validly agrees to it, it is to be
considered abuse. In this instance, hair and blood samples were
taken from an accused in connection with an offence involving
sexual assault. Since no legislative provision authorized this
seizure and the agreement of the accused had not been obtained
validly, the supreme court declared the seizure illegal.
This decision moved parliament to legislate in this area in
order to respond to the constitutional requirements set by the
Supreme Court of Canada. At the time, Bill C-104 added a section
entitled Forensic DNA Analysis to the criminal code.
These provisions have established the conditions and procedure
to be followed for obtaining a warrant to entitle a Canadian
peace officer to collect bodily substances for forensic analysis
purposes from individuals suspected of having committed certain
serious offences.
In 1997 the government decided to go further in the area of
collecting bodily substances by introducing Bill C-3. The bill
was passed by the House of Commons on September 19, 1998 and the
new provisions contained in it are to come into effect in June
2000.
In the future, in addition to the taking of bodily substances
when an individual is suspected of a crime, samples of bodily
substances may be obtained from people already found guilty of
designated offences in order to include them in the DNA data
bank.
1025
Indeed, Bill C-3, the DNA Identification Act, created a national
DNA data bank administered by the RCMP. That bank will include a
crime index containing genetic information collected at the
scene of a crime.
It will also include an index containing the genetic
identification profiles of adults and teenagers convicted of
specific offences under the criminal code. This will help police
compare DNA information found at a crime scene with the profiles
of suspects and convicted offenders, the objective being to find
the guilty party as quickly as possible, with the smallest
possible margin for error.
Offences for which the taking of a sample may be authorized are
called designated offences in the act. These offences are
included in the criminal code and they are classified in the act
as primary designated offences or secondary designated offences.
For example, for the purpose of the taking of a sample, murder,
manslaughter and sexual assault are primary designated offences,
while piracy, assault and dangerous driving are secondary
designated offences.
When this bill comes into effect, the justice system will have
an effective tool to solve crimes. Only one group had been left
out in the previous legislation, namely the military.
Bill S-10, which is before us today, complements the legislation
on the taking and the storing of DNA data.
There were no reasons to exclude military personnel from the
system established for civilians, and this is why the Bloc
Quebecois supports Bill S-10.
I will now comment on the main amendments to Bill S-10. Bill S-10
essentially adds to the National Defence Act provisions that
will authorize a military judge to issue a warrant authorizing
the collection of bodily substances for DNA testing on military
personnel who are suspected of having committed a designated
offence, or who have been found guilty of such an offence.
First, the classification of offences for which a sample may be
authorized is the same as in Bill C-3.
It was quite rightly decided to include in this list certain
offences specific to the military and covered under the National
Defence Act, such as mutiny with violence, endangering a person
on an aircraft, and negligence in the handling of dangerous
substances.
A military judge may now issue a warrant authorizing the taking
of a sample in a case where a member of the military is
suspected of having committed a designated offence. The
military judge will issue the warrant if there are reasonable
grounds to believe that a designated offence has been committed
and that a bodily substance has been found at the place where
the offence was committed or on the body of the victim.
The results of forensic DNA analysis can be destroyed if the
sample of the bodily substance taken does not match that
obtained at the place where the offence was committed, if the
person is acquitted of the offence, or if the charge is
withdrawn.
In addition, when a member of the military is found guilty of a
designated offence, the court martial may make an order for the
taking of a sample in order to include the accused's DNA profile
in the DNA data bank.
1030
The distinction between primary and secondary offences is
relevant here because it determines whether the taking of a
sample will be ordered. When a member of the military is found
guilty of a primary offence, the court martial must order the
taking of a bodily substance sample. However, if he is found
guilty of a secondary offence, the court martial is not required
to make such an order.
In the latter case, a series of guidelines are given to assist
the court martial in deciding whether or not to order a sample.
The court martial must take into account the impact taking a
sample would have on the privacy and security of the person.
It can also take into consideration any previous convictions as
well as the nature and circumstances under which the offence was
committed.
Bill S-10 also contains the provision that, when samples of
bodily substances are ordered, they shall be taken as soon as
possible, even if there is an appeal. Results of the DNA
analysis of bodily substances taken when a member of the Armed
Forces is convicted of an office are transmitted to the
Commissioner of the RCMP for entry in the convicted offenders
index of the national DNA data bank.
Any portions of samples of bodily substances that are not used
in forensic DNA analysis are also transmitted to the
Commissioner.
Finally, I believe it is worth pointing out that the bodily
substances which can be sampled are hair, saliva and blood. The
foregoing were the main points of the new provisions to be added
to the National Defence Act by Bill S-10 in order to allow the
sampling of bodily substances for purposes of DNA analysis.
Bill S-10 goes still further, by also amending the Genetic
Identification Act and the Criminal Code. I will therefore
present the amendments to the act proposed by Bill S-10.
First of all, there is provision for the DNA profiles, as well
as samples of bodily substances from which the profiles are
derived, to be used only for law enforcement purposes in
accordance with this Act, and not for any unauthorized purpose.
This addition provides additional protection to those who have
had samples of bodily substances taken.
In fact, these substances may in no case be used to develop a
psychological profile or for medical research purposes. The DNA
Identification Act will help solve crimes, convict the guilty
and avoid legal errors.
We must remember however that every person has the right to
privacy and must be assured that DNA information gathered will
not be used for experimentation. The law provides penalties for
those failing to meet these objectives.
Bill S-10 adds to the DNA Identification Act the requirement that
the Commissioner of the RCMP responsible for administering the
data bank report to the Solicitor General annually on the
national DNA data bank.
Provision has already been made for a committee of the Senate or
the House of Commons or a joint committee to examine the
application of the law in the five years following its coming
into effect. This is why this amendment does not seem crucial
to me.
1035
However, in the light of the financial problems the RCMP seems
to be facing these days, this requirement may draw the attention
of parliamentarians to the problems of implementing the law more
quickly and, therefore, resolve them right away.
However, Bill S-10 also amends certain provisions of the
Criminal Code concerning the collection of bodily substances.
It involves permitting an order for sampling obtained following
conviction to be executed in another province.
Let us take the example of an individual who is convicted and
sentenced in Quebec of an offence for which the law permits a
sample to be taken.
The Quebec judge hands down a sentence and orders the taking of
a blood sample, to include the DNA profile of the individual in
the DNA data bank.
Under the new provision proposed in Bill S-10, if the individual
is transferred to a penitentiary located in Ontario before the
sample is collected, an Ontario judge can confirm the order
issued in Quebec, thus making it possible to collect the sample
in Ontario.
In other words, it would not be necessary for an Ontario judge
to receive a new application and to issue a new order. This will
help avoid having multiple and useless proceedings, thus
allowing those who work in criminal law to save money and time.
The second change concerns a criminal code provision allowing
the crown prosecutor to obtain the authorization to collect
samples for a designated offence under the act on young
offenders who are already serving a sentence when the act comes
into effect.
These are ex parte applications, which means they are submitted
without the offender being present. Under the current act, these
applications must be accompanied by a certificate attesting that
the offender is indeed serving a sentence for a designated
offence, and a notice must be sent to the offender to inform him
that the crown will submit the certificate. Since this is an ex
parte application, the notice of filing is not necessary and
Bill S-10 removes that obligation, which, in my opinion, is
something quite acceptable.
A third amendment concerns a section in the criminal code
dealing with the execution of the warrant.
This section lists the formalities to be observed by a peace
officer taking a sample of a bodily substance. One paragraph in
this section requires the peace officer taking the sample to
inform the offender that he or she may express a preference as
to the substance to be sampled.
This requirement, if maintained, would place the peace officer
taking the sample in a dilemma. If the judge ordered a sample
of hair and the offender preferred to give a blood sample, the
peace officer would be unable to enforce the judge's order.
Bill S-10 repeals this requirement. I am sure this will avoid
many impossible situations.
Under the fourth amendment, a peace officer taking a sample of a
bodily substance in accordance with a court order may take
fingerprints from the person at the same time.
This is not stipulated in the legislation.
The purpose is to
allow a comparison with fingerprints already taken at the time
of arrest and to ensure solid identification of the offender. I
am not convinced of the usefulness of such a procedure. It
seems to me to hamper the process, when the fingerprints are
already available, when the RCMP is overburdened and unable to
keep up. Would this be another sign of a lack of communication
between the various departments? Time will tell.
1040
Finally, according to the present criminal code, the court does
not have to issue a sampling order when this is not required for
application of the law. This was unclear, and has been replaced
in Bill S-10 by unequivocally stating that an order shall not be
made if the national DNA data bank already contains a DNA
profile of the person.
These then are the main changes to the DNA Identification Act
and the criminal code by Bill S-10. I would like to close by
reminding hon. members that the use of DNA has had spectacular
effects on the lives of certain individuals.
We might refer to the case of David Milgaard, who spend 23 years
behind bars for a crime he did not commit. In 1997, he was
fully exonerated through DNA testing. The tests made it
possible to charge a certain Larry Fisher, a repeat sex
offender.
Then there was the high-profile case of Guy-Paul Morin, who was
sentenced to life imprisonment in 1992 for a murder that he had
not committed. Once again, DNA evidence came to the rescue and
provided proof that he was not the murderer.
Undeniably, the use of DNA evidence can virtually work miracles.
One cannot help but agree with the results. The sampling of
bodily substances for forensic purposes, however, also raises
some concerns. Some people fear that holding substances taken
from individuals may result in the unjust marginalization and
abuse of certain individuals.
The profiles must absolutely not be used for such purposes.
This is why it is imperative for vigilance to be maintained in
connection with this technology, which is invasive to say the
least, and has the potential to allow countless information on
an individual to be obtained.
Overall the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill S-10, with some
reservations. It is pleased with the provision offering
additional protection against the use of profiles obtained for
purposes other than those allowed by the law.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to a bill that is very
important for the concept of justice in our nation.
As has been said by other members of the House, I am very
disappointed that the bill emanates from the other place and that
the government has not seen fit to bring forth this legislation
and move it forward through the proper channels, which would be
through the House of Commons, so that the bill on this very
important topic would originate here. At the same time, I
commend the hon. senators of the other place who put their time
and effort into working on this very important issue.
This enactment, as has been indicated, would amend the National
Defence Act to authorize military judges to issue DNA warrants in
the investigation of designated offences committed by a person
who is subject to the code of service discipline. It also
authorizes military judges to order military offenders convicted
of a designated offence to provide samples of bodily substances
for the purposes of the national DNA data bank. These
authorities are similar to those that may be exercised by a
provincial court judge under the criminal code.
This enactment would make related amendments to the DNA
Identification Act and the criminal code. The DNA Identification
Act amendments would allow bodily substances and the DNA profiles
derived from them, which are taken as a result of an order or
authorization by a military judge, to be included in the national
DNA data bank.
1045
The criminal code amendments extend the prohibition against
unauthorized use of bodily substances and the results of forensic
DNA analysis to include those obtained under the National Defence
Act. In this bill there are other amendments to the criminal
code which clarify and strengthen the existing regime concerning
the taking of bodily substances for the purposes of forensic DNA
analysis.
The important thing is that the legislation brings about
consistency between the justice system for those who are in the
national defence regime and those who are not. I have often
spoken to members of our Canadian forces. I have been saddened to
hear some of them tell me that quite often in the areas of health
and justice they feel that they are second class citizens.
One young man talked to me in confidence about the fact that if
he had a medical problem he did not feel he got the same kind of
treatment as he would if he were on civvy street so to speak. The
same sentiment was echoed with respect to the justice system.
Quite often they saw the justice system as a kangaroo court.
Because of the rank and file structure of national defence, they
felt that they were not getting fair justice and that they were
in a lot of cases facing a kangaroo court. These sentiments were
expressed to me by members of the Canadian forces.
Any step that can be taken to make the justice system fair for
all of our citizens is a very important step to take. Certainly
this legislation moves in that direction by making sure that
provisions for DNA collection and sampling are similar across the
justice system. This is a very important aspect of the bill.
The bill touches on many topics and I will not get into all of
them. It outlines the information that is required for taking
the DNA warrant. It talks about the various investigative
procedures, the contents of the information and how this
information must be filed with the courts, the marshal
administrator, certain formalities that are involved respecting
the taking of warrants, the issue of the detention of people,
privacy, transmission of results to a commissioner and the
transmission of bodily substances. All these topics are dealt
with in the bill, as is the role of the peace officer. These are
all very important items.
The bill repeats a lot of things that were mentioned in previous
legislation, Bill C-3. This bill has widespread support with the
law enforcement agencies and the public. The concern of many
people in the public is that our justice system bring about
speedy and just results. They see the collection of DNA and the
taking of samples and so forth as being one means to ensure that
kind of justice.
I recall speaking with some law enforcement officers not that
long ago who were very concerned about this issue. They wanted
the support of the members to make sure that appropriate
legislation was passed to facilitate them with their most
difficult job of trying to handle the crimes that come before
them. The bill is certainly a step in that direction.
The NDP supports the idea of the bill, the collection of DNA via
warrants. It is important that due process be built in when this
kind of system takes place.
While there is a great deal of support by police officers and
members of the public, a number of people also have concerns
about the bill. Many civil liberties groups have some concerns
about it. We recognize that these are valid concerns. They
range from economic concerns, the money that could be spent on
other issues, to ethical concerns of DNA testing itself and the
probability that the forcible taking of DNA samples may be
challenged under the charter of rights.
1050
A number of issues need to be addressed when this legislation
goes to committee. Some of these are the indefinite period of
keeping DNA on file; the inclusion of young offenders in the
bill; and the issue of who has access to the DNA data bank and
how the information may be used. The latter is very important
because when we are talking about DNA we know that it is very
peculiar to an individual. It is a part of the individual's
identification, a part of that person. There has to be a certain
amount of privacy and respect for privacy. We have to be careful
as to how this information is used.
The fact that DNA may be taken even while a case is under appeal
is another issue which should be discussed in committee and dealt
with. The taking of DNA is mandatory upon conviction rather than
at the discretion of the judiciary or upon request of the
accused. That is an issue of concern to many people.
Finally, there is the fact that a person can be detained for
what is defined as a reasonable amount of time for the taking of
samples as opposed to setting a clearly defined period of time.
What is reasonable in one person's eyes may not necessarily be
reasonable in another person's eyes. There should be some kind
of consideration given to specifying the amount of time involved
when we are implementing that part of the legislation.
There are also the costs, maintenance and security of the DNA
bank.
While we in the NDP support this legislation, we are supporting
it cautiously with the caveat that the issues we have defined and
talked about are extremely important and must be dealt with. They
should be dealt with in a way that is going to make sure that we
are improving the justice system and creating fairness and
justice for all.
DNA is an extremely valuable and reliable tool for crime
fighting. We support this legislation and urge that when the
bill goes before committee that the very important issues I have
talked about be discussed and dealt with.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to Bill S-10. This is an important bill
which amends the National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act
and the criminal code.
The purpose of the bill is to include in the DNA data bank
created in December 1998 the genetic profiles of offenders
convicted under the military justice system. At present the DNA
Identification Act affects only offenders who are convicted by
the civilian court system and not the military. It also makes a
number of minor changes to the existing act.
For us it only makes sense that this happen. It brings the
military rules more in line with civilian rules and the
circumstances with which civilians must deal. It is somewhat in
line with the recent court decision which determined that
military officers have the right to refuse questionable
medication in the same way that civilians do. The military is
going to have to treat the DNA process the same way as civilians
do and we certainly support that. We support the total merging
of the two systems into one.
In recent years the courts have seen high profile convictions,
such as that of Paul Bernardo, and eventual acquittals, such as
that of Guy Paul Morin, due to the use of DNA evidence. It is
but the latest tool for law enforcement to use in the protection
of Canadian society.
Bill S-10 allows for a more broad, equal use of the DNA data
bank while being careful not to trample on an individual's
privacy rights. It is a good piece of legislation brought about
by the hard work of the hon. senators. The PC Party would like
to commend their efforts by stating that we will be supporting
Bill S-10 when it comes to voting time.
The DNA tool is a powerful tool in conducting criminal
investigations. It began as a result of the warrant for taking
DNA samples, the 1995 criminal code amendment to allow for DNA
samples to be taken under a warrant to facilitate the conduct of
certain police investigations and identification of suspects. The
second stage was Bill C-3, a 1997 bill on DNA identification
which set the structure and administration for a national DNA
data bank containing the DNA profiles of those convicted of
serious criminal offences and of the DNA samples found at the
scenes of unsolved crimes.
The data bank should be operational by June 2000 and will be
administered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which at
present administers six forensic laboratories in the country.
We can only hope that the federal government will come through
with adequate funding for the DNA data bank.
1055
The solicitor general proudly stated recently that public safety
would continue to be the Liberals' number one concern as he
announced funding of $115 million for the data bank. Sadly, many
RCMP experts who will have to use this technology stated they
needed $280 million for the data bank to combat crime in the 21st
century. Once again the Liberal actions were nowhere near the
Liberal rhetoric and law enforcement has been given short shrift.
In 1998 during the Senate meetings dealing with Bill C-25, an
act to amend the National Defence Act which was to reform the
military justice system, the then defence minister and his staff
were enlightened to the fact that members of the military who
were charged or convicted under the new National Defence Act
enforced by the military police would not be subject to the
provisions of Bill C-3 because it was enforced by the RCMP. For
cases of sex offences involving members of the military, the RCMP
would not have the jurisdiction needed to do the job of taking
and storing DNA samples. By law it was supposed to do so but in
cases of offences only involving the military, it could not.
Along with this apparent problem, a 1998 Senate report
concerning the DNA data bank said that such access might affect
the privacy of Canadians in an unprecedented and unintentional
way. In addition the committee believed that the nature of the
information contained in the proposed data bank necessitated the
strict monitoring of any process that would allow for the release
of this information to governments or agencies outside Canada.
The report recommended that the government strengthen the
legislation concerning the administration of the DNA data bank
and the security of the information in that bank.
To ensure the passage of Bill C-3 the solicitor general
committed to draft a new bill which is the bill we are talking
about today. The bill would allow for, first, the jurisdiction
of the DNA data bank to be extended to offenders convicted in the
military justice system.
Second, the commissioner of the RCMP would be required to report
on the operation of the DNA data bank as part of his annual
report to the minister and then it would be tabled in parliament.
Third, a provision would be included in the new bill for
parliamentary review every five years to address the concerns of
members of the committee about the highly sensitive nature of the
information contained within the data bank and the rapidity of
technological change in this field.
Fourth and finally, the Senate and the House of Commons
committees would have the same power to do a five year review as
provided for in the new bill.
The solicitor general then asked that the bill be introduced in
the Senate before being tabled in the House of Commons so that
the senators could ensure that all of the points of concern had
been properly addressed.
The amendments proposed in Bill S-10 include under the National
Defence Act that the DNA profiles of offenders subject to the
code of service discipline who are convicted for serious and
violent offences will be included in the DNA data bank for the
first time. The code would apply to military personnel, the
reserves and some civilians who accompany military personnel
abroad. As in the case of the existing provisions of the DNA
Identification Act, Bill S-10 provides that both samples and the
results of analyses must be transmitted to the commissioner of
the RCMP and stored in the data bank.
The new bill also provides that the provisions to be included in
the National Defence Act concerning authorization for taking DNA
samples, the handling and storage of samples, the results of the
DNA analyses and the respective privacy will be identical to the
provisions set out in Bill C-3.
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon.
member but I think it is time to move to statements by members.
I can assure the hon. member that after routine proceedings he
will have 14 minutes remaining in his allotted time.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MOTHER'S DAY
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this Sunday is Mother's Day. Each of us in our unique
way will pay special tribute to our own mother and greet other
mothers as well. We do so to celebrate the beauty and heroism of
motherhood.
Our mothers carried us in their wombs and brought us into this
world. They laboured to instil creativity in our minds and
kindness in our hearts.
Mothers are the fountain of their children's virtues, the pillar
of strength when children are in sorrow and the wellspring of
inspiration when sons and daughters share their joy and success.
Mothers perpetuate humanity.
This Sunday, whether our mothers have gone to the great beyond
and live on in our memories or whether our mothers are in our
homes now, to them we say, “I love you, Mother. I love you very
much”.
* * *
1100
SCOTT ISLANDS
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Cape Scott is a large provincial park
at the north end of Vancouver Island. The park includes five
islands at the northwest tip of Vancouver Island. These are Cox,
Lanz, Beresford, Triangle and Sartine. So known as the Scott
Islands, they contain the most important breeding colonies of
seabirds on our west coast and it is ranked as a globally
significant important bird area with over two million breeding
birds. Over one half of the global population of Cassin's Auklet
and significant percentages of the world's populations of some
other seabirds reside there.
The Canadian Nature Federation is launching an important Simon
Fraser University biological research project to study feeding
patterns around the Scott Islands. This launch will coincide
with International Migratory Bird Day, which is tomorrow, May 13.
This is an important project, in a special place, for a very
good purpose.
* * *
CANADA POST
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians now have access to another innovative online
service from Canada Post.
First there was ePost, then eParcel, and now PosteCS. With
PosteCS Canadians can send documents of any size around the world
instantly and securely. PosteCS is more secure than regular
e-mail and it features delivery tracking and an electronic
postmark. It is an affordable alternative to costly courier
service.
PosteCS is further evidence that Canada Post is becoming a world
leader in providing innovative, physical and electronic delivery
solutions.
The government is determined to make Canada a world leader in
the field of electronic commerce with innovative online products
such as PosteCS.
* * *
[Translation]
RAGLAN MINING COMPANY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since its establishment by Falconbridge Inc., the Raglan mining
company has contributed to the economic development of two
airports, one in Val-d'Or and one in Rouyn-Noranda, in the latter
case through its chartered plane, which transports miners to the
Raglan mine in Nunavik.
Lucien Bouchard's PQ government has put several million dollars
into the construction of Raglan's building at the Rouyn-Noranda
airport.
Now, the Government of Quebec and the City of Rouyn-Noranda want
to extend the airport's runway by 1,000 feet at a cost of
several millions of dollars so that they can stop contributing
to the economic development of the Val-d'Or regional airport,
which is located a mere 15 minutes away from the Rouyn-Noranda
airport.
Once again, Quebec's PQ government, through its regional
minister, Rémi Trudel of Rouyn-Noranda, is riding roughshod over
the economy of the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region. It no longer
wants the Raglan mining company to contribute to the economy of
Val-d'Or.
* * *
[English]
PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we now have scanners that can detect the smallest
amount of drugs. When I spotted a scanner at Joyceville
Penitentiary I knew what it was. They told me it cost about
$60,000, but I figured this was a good investment as we could
confiscate the drugs. They told me “Oh, no, we do not
confiscate the drugs. When we find somebody who brings drugs
inside the prison we send them back home and then they can try
again 24 hours later”.
That is like someone getting caught while driving impaired and
when they blow over the legal limit the RCMP tell them to turn
their car around, go home and try again tomorrow.
They also told me there is another choice. The visitor carrying
the drugs can still go on with the visit, but must be accompanied
by a guard.
This week's lesson for the solicitor general is, we might reduce
the drug problem in our prisons if the guards could at least
confiscate the drugs. Then they could let the prisoners have
plenty of time to visit with their buddies while their buddies
are doing five years for illegal drug smuggling.
* * *
SAMUEL DE CHAMPLAIN
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, nearly 400 years ago, in 1603, Samuel de Champlain
began years of exploring and mapping eastern Canada from the St.
Lawrence to the Great Lakes.
In 1613 Champlain lost one of his navigational instruments, an
astrolabe, near Cobden in my great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Over 200 years later that
astrolabe was found by a local farm boy and is now on display at
the Museum of Civilization across the river in Hull.
In 1632 Champlain published a detailed map of Canada as it was
known at that day and it has been acknowledged as a masterwork of
Canadian cartography.
He wrote:
The great love I have always had for making discoveries in New
France made me more and more eager to travel this proud country
so as to have a perfect knowledge of it.
Nearly 400 years later that spirit of discovery is with us today
in the form of students who are visiting from Champlain Discovery
School in Pembroke. I salute these young students who will be
our celebrated cyberspace explorers in the 21st century.
* * *
1105
[Translation]
MASOUD FARZANEH
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
congratulate Professor Masoud Farzaneh, an internationally
renowned expert in atmospheric icing and high voltage. A
professor at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi and holder of
the atmospheric icing chair, Mr. Farzaneh was recently made a
member of the U.K.'s Institute of Electrical Engineers.
He is one of a very small group of researchers in Quebec to have
achieved this distinction.
He belongs to ten or so national and international professional
associations and has more than 250 scientific publications to
his credit.
Mr. Farzaneh is presently holder of the CIGELE chair, in which
ten or so partners are involved, including Hydro-Québec.
Bravo to Professor Farzaneh for winning this honour. His
achievement reflects on the entire academic community of
Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean.
* * *
[English]
CANADA HEALTH DAY
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that May 12 is
Canada Health Day.
Canada Health Day is held each year on the anniversary of the
birth of Florence Nightingale and is jointly sponsored by the
Canadian Public Health Association and the Canadian Health Care
Association.
[Translation]
To draw attention to the celebrations in 2000, a new theme has
been developed for the campaign “Healthy Beginnings: Child
Health in the New Millennium”. This theme underscores the
importance of the first five years of life in the development of
healthy children.
Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of scientific
information on what children need to get the best possible start
in life. We now know that the first five years are crucial to
the development of a child's ability to think, love, trust and
develop a strong and positive self image.
Let us join together in wishing an excellent Canadian Health Day
to the Canadian Public Health Association and the Canadian
Healthcare Association.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, some members of the public accounts
committee have just returned from Washington, D.C. after meeting
with officials of the U.S. government, the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund and the Inter-American Development
Bank. The discussions were about increasing government's
transparency and accountability and about supporting
parliamentarians working to make their governments accountable to
their people.
There is a great desire for governments to do what they were
elected to do and to spend taxpayer money for the greater good of
all the people. Our government in Canada, however, does not seem
to share this desire for transparency and accountability. In
fact, the treasury board is now gathering its resources to
further limit the flow of information to parliament in the name
of increased efficiency. We all want efficiency, but not at the
expense of democracy and a fully accountable government.
I call on the Government of Canada to listen to those who know
from firsthand experience the need for open and accountable
government. Canada belongs to all its citizens, not the
government. Give the people this respect.
* * *
GEORGE FINDLAY
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to recognize a great Canadian, Mr. George Findlay, a
teacher at Princess Elizabeth Public School who received the
Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence.
Mr. Findlay inspires his students to stretch academically and to
gain a sense of pride and achievement in their work. As a
teacher he always prepares his students well for the transition
to high school and adult life. Part of Mr. Findlay's teaching
philosophy is “Once you are in my class, you are mine for
life”.
I commend Mr. Findlay and all of the other award recipients this
year for their outstanding teaching and dedication to students
everywhere.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that
the Liberal's allow Alberta's bill 11 to go unanswered is
absolutely shameful.
As early as March the NDP tried to table a legal opinion that
showed concrete examples of how bill 11 violates the Canada
Health Act, but the Liberals blocked us. Our legal opinion says
that the enhanced service provisions of bill 11 violate the
accessibility principle of medicare because patients can choose
an enhanced level of service.
By upgrading the service to include extras, the service then
becomes uninsured. Since speed and quality of service would vary
according to ability to pay, this creates a two tier system and,
as such, violates the accessibility principle in exactly the same
way the Calgary eye clinics violate it, and yet for four years
the Liberals have not enforced the act on the eye clinics because
of the secret 12 point deal.
The fact remains that existing violations go unpunished, bill 11
goes unanswered and the health care system goes to rot under the
minister's watch.
The Canada health care system needs a champion. If the minister
cannot stand up to Ralph Klein, he should step down, resign and
let somebody with courage and conviction take the helm.
* * *
1110
[Translation]
NURSES
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on this International Nurses Day, I am proud to pay tribute to
my colleagues, the nurses in Quebec.
Since 1994, in Quebec, we have celebrated Nurses Week. This
year the theme is “nurses, expertise from the heart” reflects
the commitment by these 65,000 health care professions, who
provide quality care for the sick and their families, often
under difficult circumstances.
It is not a matter of chance that the nursing profession was
third last March among the top professions.
The listing of clinical expertise published by the Ordre des
infirmiers et des infirmières du Québec numbers more than 600
projects focussed on the needs of the patients and their
families. From all over Quebec, these innovative projects
brilliantly illustrate the competence of nurses and their
profound desire to provide care that is adapted to the latest
technologies and able to meet the needs of an ever more
diversified clientele.
To the nurses of Quebec and Canada, on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois, I say thank you. We know we can count on you.
* * *
THE LATE JUSTICE JULES DESCHÊNES
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada lost an eminent jurist on Wednesday, when Jules
Deschênes, chief justice of the Quebec superior court, passed
away.
We want to recognize, among other initiatives, his support for
legal assistance and for a family mediation system, which have
allowed Canadian society to make remarkable progress.
Born in Montreal on June 7, 1923, Jules Deschênes studied law at
the Université de Montréal and was called to the Bar in 1946.
In March 1972, Mr. Deschênes was appointed directly to the
Quebec court of appeal. He was chief justice from 1973 to June
1983. From 1985 to 1987, he chaired a commission of inquiry on
war criminals in Canada.
From 1993 to 1997, he sat on the international criminal tribunal
on war crimes in the Balkans.
Among other distinctions, Jules Deschênes was presented with the
Order of Canada, in 1989—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENTAL ILLNESS
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, today is the international day of recognition for
chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. Approximately 15% of
all Canadians suffer from environmental illnesses, which include
chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Environmental
Illness Society of Canada for all the work it does in this area.
The society works across the country to raise awareness of these
illnesses.
In November the first ever national symposium on environmental
illnesses will be held in Hull, Quebec. Thanks in part to the
work of the society it is sure to be a successful and extremely
informative event.
The time is right for the government to assure sufferers of
environmental illnesses that they will soon receive the support
and recognition they need and deserve.
I would like all members of the House to support my private
member's bill, Bill C-416, which addresses this very issue.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL YOUTH WEEK
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
this is the last day of International Youth Week, it is my
pleasure to address the House on the many ways the government is
helping young Canadians to obtain new skills and training to help
them compete in the global economy and broaden their exposure to
foreign cultures.
Through the youth employment strategy, six federal departments
are investing nearly $35 million to help over 2,500 youth each
year get this valuable experience. In today's global economy it
is vital to end the “no experience, no job/no job, no
experience” cycle.
These international youth internships and exchange programs are
part of our answer to helping young people take control of their
lives and to make wise career choices in the global economy.
These programs are getting results. To quote a recent
participant in HRDC's internship program “This internship
changed me from a graduate intern with no experience to an export
market representative for a manufacturing firm at the cutting
edge of technology”.
I encourage every young person who is interested in
participating in such a program to contact their local Human
Resources Canada centre or to look up HRDC's youth page on the
web.
I have every confidence they will benefit from these youth
projects and will learn valuable lessons that will last a
lifetime.
* * *
HOLLAND
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, 55 years ago freedom arrived in the heart of Holland;
freedom bringing hope for a future built upon the sacrifices of
the day; freedom brought at a very high price.
Row upon row of Canada's youth rest on Dutch soil, testament to
a supreme effort in bringing an end to Holland's war torment. The
Dutch remember this true price of peace.
1115
This week the people of Holland opened their homes and hearts
and welcomed thousands of Canada's veterans. They honoured them
on parade and remembered the dead. Three hundred thousand
cheered Canada's war soldiers as they proudly marched under royal
review.
The Dutch touched all with their sincerity and respectful
thoughts for Canada's honourable war veterans and remembered war
dead. Holland paused and gave its respect. I thank Holland and
and Canada's war veterans.
* * *
THOMAS LOBSINGER AND HOBY SPRUYT
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to pay tribute to Bishop Thomas Lobsinger and Brother Hoby Spruyt
who died in a plane crash while on route to Dawson City, Yukon.
My first recollections of the bishop and the brother were as a
young mother with four children in Catholic school. They were at
all the assemblies and all the council meetings. The bishop of
the Yukon was always smiling, but I think it was his kindness
that was so moving and always, always felt.
We shared a neighbourhood and, as good fortune would have it, we
often crossed paths. Either of us would stop mowing our grass at
a moment's notice in order to talk, always about justice as he
was a powerful advocate for the poor no matter where they lived.
His humour and gentle nature inspired all who came within his
sphere. For both men, their compassion extended far beyond
themselves, their diocese, and their country. Bishop Tom and
Brother Hoby dedicated their lives to the service of humanity.
They are buried now but their spirits will never be buried.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, what is so disturbing about the Modes
Conili scandal is that the minister turned a blind eye to obvious
wrongdoing. His own employees alerted him to the fact that
workers were simply transferred from company A to company B, but
after a so-called investigation he rejected the only obvious
conclusion that no jobs had been created.
The government is covering up the investigation report. Why
would that be?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is wrong again. The government is not
covering up any report. The government undertook a report in
1977. I seem to recall being told that it did not show anything
to act upon at that time.
However, as the parliamentary secretary said in the House, new
information was received on Tuesday. It was reviewed on
Wednesday, and promptly the government itself referred the
information to the RCMP. That shows our intention and our
commitment to having things done properly.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if the government is not covering up
the report, why do members of the House not have it? We have
asked for it. Why was it not tabled? It is being covered up and
the Deputy Prime Minister knows that full well.
The minister must have hired Inspector Clouseau for that
investigation because it only took a reporter two phone calls to
have enough evidence to spark a police investigation. The
minister was obviously too negligent or incompetent to check out
the same officials that a reporter did. Or, did he have his own
reasons for not investigating properly? Did the need to show job
creation and get a fat campaign donation override the—
The Deputy Speaker: The Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from the insinuations and innuendos in the question it
is obvious that Inspector Clouseau wrote that question and is the
chief of the Reform research bureau. They ought to get someone
better to prepare the questions, if not to ask them.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. There are
questions that the government is not answering about why clear
evidence was ignored and $750,000 of Canadian taxpayer money were
given for job creation when everyone could have told them that
there were no jobs being created.
It has been a week of shame for the Liberals. They have once
more been exposed to having wrongdoing in the HRDC department.
How much more has to surface before the government does what
Canadians have a right to expect and remove those responsible
from cabinet?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1997
after officials expressed some concerns we did investigate the
particular case but the conclusion was not as obvious as the
member opposite says.
The conclusion was that there was no indication of wrongdoing.
It is the information that has come to light of late, at the
beginning of this week, which we have passed on to the RCMP.
1120
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, HRDC conducted its investigation more
than two years ago but Canadians have yet to see the results.
The parliamentary secretary said that the investigation cleared
the way for human resources to cut a cheque for three-quarters of
a million dollars. Either the government cannot be trusted to
investigate itself or it cannot be trusted to accept the
recommendations and findings of its own investigation. Why will
the government not release the report on the HRDC investigation?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once a
subject has been handed to the RCMP it is not appropriate to
start talking about all the details of the particular case. That
would jeopardize the investigation, and I am sure the member
opposite would not want that to take place.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression
that the Deputy Prime Minister said the government was not hiding
anything. The parliamentary secretary said:
That money was spent to hire 162 workers who did not have jobs
and who are working today because of this program.
That is 100% incorrect. It is a testament to the kind of
misinformation that the government has been giving all along. The
government will not release the report on its own investigation,
and both the minister and her loyal secretary have made a policy
of toying with the facts—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary, if
she wishes to respond.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
sharing with the House the information that we have as we have
it. That is why we have sent this information to the RCMP and
the particular story is in its hands now. It is the appropriate
authority to deal with it.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the Government of Canada, the mandate of the Canada
Information Office, the CIO, is to inform Canadians and
Quebecers about federal services. Since 1996, the CIO has had an
annual budget of $20 million.
Can the Minister of Public Works tell this House what amounts
were spent by the CIO in Quebec and in the other Canadian
provinces?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is asking a very specific and detailed question. We
will be very pleased to provide her with that information if it
is available, but this is not the kind of detailed question that
can be immediately answered in the House, without previous
notice.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
media are telling us that BCE Média's name was used by the CIO.
Can the Minister of Public Works confirm here in the House that
this story about using BCE Média's name is an exception at the
CIO and at Public Works Canada?
[English]
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada uses advertising to inform Canadians about
government programs and priorities, so many of the programs that
are financed through this program are in co-operation with other
governments.
As far as detail as to how much is spent and in what direction
it goes, I cannot provide that at this time as the Deputy Prime
Minister suggested.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Public Works and Government Services told a
parliamentary committee that Services Canada and 1-800-O-Canada
were federal resources for informing Canadians about federal
programs. Today, it is only too clear that the CIO will fund
just about anything.
If these two services inform Canadians, why is the CIO needed?
And if the CIO informs them, what are the other two services
for?
[English]
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
find it ironic that members of the Bloc Quebecois are concerned
about this issue.
These programs are being used in Quebec. They are being used to
inform Canadians across the country as to what is being done with
government services, what we are spending our money on. We are
informing Canadians of how the government works for them and I am
surprised that he would object to that.
1125
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the government is quick to defend the Canada Information Office.
Will the minister admit that, in addition to being a waste of
public money, the CIO does a rather good job of serving the
interests of the Liberal Party of Canada?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[English]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the big oil companies that are earning record profits
are now threatening to hold consumers ransom in their fight with
the government over sulphur levels in gasoline.
The government should be protecting consumers and our air
quality and supporting the latest environmental technologies, but
the responsible departments cannot even agree on their bottom
line. Meanwhile, consumers who are already being gouged now face
shortages at the pump, independent retailers face bankruptcy, and
gas prices are set to rise by yet another 10 cents a litre. Why
are the oil companies and the government holding consumers up for
ransom?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it all wrong. We are not in any
collusion with the oil companies. In fact, I have to say the
government generally agrees with the tone of the hon. member's
concerns.
The fact is that the health benefits of what the oil companies
have been proposing are not good enough. My colleague, the
Minister of the Environment, has said quite consistently that the
oil companies would have to propose something that protected the
health of Canadians to the same degree or better than the current
regulation.
He also said that the regulation was about protecting the health
of Canadians and that any proposal by the oil companies would
have to demonstrate that there could not be any exception to the
protection of health.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is a question of competence. The Liberals' left hand
does not know what the right hand is doing. Meanwhile, record
gas prices could rise even further.
The government and the oil companies have had years to work on
these problems. Here were are down to the wire. Both sides have
dug in their heels and consumers are supposed to pay for the
Liberals' incompetence.
A litre of gas costs 78 cents in St. John's today. They can
little afford it. Do the Liberals really want to be the ones on
guard when gas hits $1 in Newfoundland, or will they finally
agree that it is time to establish a federal energy price review
commission?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is funny about this is that the member comes the
province of Saskatchewan where his own party has been in power
for a number of years. We know that pricing at the retail level
is entirely within the jurisdiction of the province. His own
party refuses to take any such action in the province from which
he comes. Why does he not call his own government in the
province of Saskatchewan and ask it if it wants to regulate
prices in that province?
In the meantime, I have to wonder about the tone of a question
that seems to put emphasis on a clean environment yet still wants
even cheaper gasoline when Canada, second to the United States,
has the cheapest gasoline of any developed country.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport. The minister
recently announced a $175 million program to address rural roads
in western Canada.
Will the minister extend that $175 million program to rural
highways in eastern Canada which also suffers from bad highways
and has to compete as well as the western provinces?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend well knows that in the budget the
Minister of Finance announced that there would be $2.65 billion
over six years for infrastructure, including $600 million
specifically for national highways. The province of Nova Scotia
will certainly have access to those kinds of funds.
He will also know that the $175 million of new money that I
announced this week will help farmers in western Canada adjust to
the new competitive world. I assume the Conservative Party has
some cares about western Canada, at least as much as the Liberal
Party does.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, he says he wants to help the western provinces adjust to
the new economy. The eastern provinces have to as well.
Perhaps he could explain to me the thought processes when he is
deciding how to spend the $175 million. There is a highway in
Nova Scotia on which 50 people have died in the last six or seven
years, mostly young people. We could put the money in that or we
could put the money in rural highways in western Canada to help
grain transportation. How does the minister make the decision to
put grain transportation over saving lives?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about two different
programs. I have said to him that there is money available under
the infrastructure program to deal with the very tragic
circumstances of Highway 104 in Nova Scotia. I would ask him to
talk to his provincial colleague in Nova Scotia to make that a
priority at the provincial level.
* * *
1130
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Modes Conili grant is a disaster
royale. The MP for Ahuntsic lobbied the government for a
$700,000 grant for Modes Conili and received a $7,000 donation
from the company, the single biggest donation to a re-election
campaign. Instead of creating new jobs, we see jobs transferred
from Paris Star to Modes Conili.
How can the minister justify the government wasting $700,000 in
public funds for the devious transfer of jobs?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the
information that has been handed to the RCMP. I would ask the
member how he can justify the allegations and the insinuations
that he is making in the House about one of his colleagues who
sits across the floor. If he believes what he is saying, I would
suggest that, if he has the courage, he make those allegations
outside the House.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the two letters that have been
obtained from the two companies concerned, Paris Star and Modes
Conili, prove that jobs were in fact transfers, not new jobs
created.
My question for the parliamentary secretary is: Why is it that
all the dirt at HRDC only gets referred to the RCMP after
questions are raised in the House?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
information was passed promptly to the RCMP as soon as we had our
hands on it.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on Monday, the Minister of Transport confirmed that Marine
Atlantic had purchased a used ferry for Newfoundland, which will
go into service in 2001 because it needs to be upgraded. In the
meantime, the corporation has to lease another ferry. Does the
minister realize that his penny-pinching election-minded decision
will deprive the shipyards of Canada and Quebec of hundreds of
jobs?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope that the hon. member is fully aware of the
pressure on the Canadian government. Marine traffic to
Newfoundland has increased in the past two years and we did not
have the time to wait for a new boat to be built.
That is why we bought one offshore. However, I have instructed
my officials regarding the future replacement of Marine
Atlantic's existing fleet. A Canadian replacement program will
be developed.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
what an illogical answer. The minister himself just confirmed
that he should have taken this decision two years ago. Then
there would have been time to build a boat. Since he has
decided to lease another ferry and the boat he has bought will
not be ready until 2001, he would have had the time to have
another one built.
Why is he depriving shipyards in Canada and Quebec of hundreds
of jobs?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member knows something more about
shipbuilding than most other people in Canada but to say that we
could have had a ship designed and constructed within the last 18
months to put in service in the next couple of weeks on the gulf
between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland just defies any logic.
The fact is, we had no choice but to acquire a ferry offshore.
What I have just said is that for the future replacement programs
of the Caribou and the Joseph and Clara Smallwood we
will look to a Canadian built solution.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the EDC's alliance with London Guarantee shows the
contempt the government has for the work of the foreign affairs
committee. The government has not yet tabled its response to a
committee report examining the role of the EDC and already we
know the outcome.
The government has ignored the submissions made by the banks and
the insurance companies calling for the EDC to exit the domestic
insurance market completely. The EDC is in control of the
government's policy decisions. Why?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not quite sure what that question means. As the
member knows, the London Guarantee arrangement was entered into
by EDC on the basis of a contractual arrangement, which is not
inconsistent with others that have occurred, that has balanced
the export insurance requirements of companies with the domestic
insurance requirements of companies. It makes sense.
I recommend to the member the letter that the president of the
EDC, Mr. Gillespie, has had published today. It might help him
understand a little better what the nature of the transaction is
that has occurred.
* * *
1135
ATHABASCA RIVER
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the fisheries minister gave us the criteria
for introducing a $15 million dredging program on the Great
Lakes. I would like to apply that same criteria to the Athabasca
River region.
The minister said that there were $2 billion worth of investment
in the Great Lakes region. Well there are $35 billion worth of
investment in the Athabasca River region. The Athabasca River
has been a lifeline to the people of Fort Chipewyan for hundreds
of years. His answer was an insult to those people.
What is the real reason for the difference between the two
regions?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the level of
the water in the Great Lakes, particularly in Ontario, is at an
all time low and that something needs to be done there.
I remind the hon. member to go back into his files and read a
letter that he received from the parliamentary secretary back in
June 1999 wherein it was stated clearly that an alternative
resupply route for the communities on Lake Athabasca has been
found and that those communities can and will be served in that
way.
* * *
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according
to information obtained from the Russia's Bochvar Institute,
which is in charge of the Parallex project along with Atomic
Energy of Canada, it seems that the air route is one of the
means currently being considered for moving Russian MOX fuel to
Canada.
Is the Minister of Natural Resources going to stop mocking the
public, and show some transparency in this matter, by explaining
to us why he is looking into shipment by air, when even Atomic
Energy of Canada deemed this too dangerous last fall?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the methods of moving MOX fuel are being
examined. Anyone who would be subjected to the presence of that
are being consulted on this.
I and the government assure the hon. member and all Canadians
that all international guidelines, all laws and all safety
aspects in the movement of MOX fuel will be followed.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by
changing his import plans last January, the minister was
thumbing his nose at democracy.
Can he stand up and make a commitment not to go back on his word
about the shipping of MOX from Russia, and to consult the public
on this?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in every case the methods of
transportation are looked at. What I and the government can
assure the hon. member is that the safety of Canadians will be
number one.
* * *
YOUTH JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, a recent murder in British Columbia has highlighted the
lack of resources in the justice system. It appears that the
accused young man became heavily involved in the youth justice
system at an early age and the lack of resources left his
problems completely unaddressed and tragedy resulted.
The province is partially responsible but the federal government
also carries much of the blame. Over the years it has cut its
share of youth justice funding to a mere fraction of the
originally agreed upon 50:50 split. The proposed funding is a
drop in the bucket.
How many more tragedies will it take before the government fully
restores its proper share of funding for youth justice?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
costs are a very serious factor in the execution of youth
justice. We are always open and negotiations are going on now
with the provinces to look at this split.
The hon. member's question was a very good one and we will take
it under advisement.
* * *
INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, during the 1998-99 fiscal year, the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development made a $10,000 grant to the
National Tulip Festival. I realize that just everyone loves
tulips, but according to the Indian Act, expenditures must
promote the general progress and welfare of the bands.
Given the deplorable conditions on Canada's reserves, can the
minister explain how the progress and welfare of Indian bands was
promoted by giving a $10,000 grant to the National Tulip
Festival?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not know the context of the grant to which the hon. member
referred. I would like him to table that information.
I can tell him, like other Canadians, that first nations people
across the country do participate in a number of different forums
with non-government groups involved in community activities. It
is not unusual that they would have been involved in this
activity and that we would have participated in some way to
highlight native culture as part of that process.
I do not find that unusual, but if the good gentleman would
table that document, I will have a look at it.
* * *
1140
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at its
recent convention, the Liberal Party of Canada passed a
resolution calling upon the federal government to immediately
amend the Employment Insurance Act in order to remove the
intensity provisions.
Now that even her own party is condemning her program, will the
minister yield to the evidence and abolish the infamous
intensity rule which penalizes seasonal workers?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just this
week the government supported Motion No. 222 as amended by the
member for Miramichi, because we are concerned about seasonal
workers and their families and because we recognize the unique
economic situation facing seasonal workers.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, public service employees in the government were very
glad when we were able to reach a settlement of the pay equity
complaint last year. Now we find out that many people doing the
same work for the same federal government and belonging to the
same union are not covered by this settlement.
What is the President of the Treasury Board doing to work toward
pay equity for these employees of so-called separate employers?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearings on the pay
equity complaint, all parties, including the Human Rights
Commission and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, agreed
that the complaint did not apply to separate employers. The
court order applies therefore strictly to employees for whom
Treasury Board is the employer.
However, we have also received official requests from four
separate employers, including the Office of the Auditor General
of Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Public
Service Staff Relations Board, to look at a similar request.
The Treasury Board Secretariat is reviewing the situation with
them.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, depleted uranium, a radioactive nuclear waste, is a
common weapons component on today's battlefields.
A report released by the Royal Military College in Kingston
informs us that depleted uranium fallout may lead to cancer,
mutations and unacceptable levels of toxins.
Will the Minister of National Defence call for our military to
discontinue the use and stockpiling of depleted uranium for the
sake of our returning soldiers' health? Has the minister yet
enacted any of the report's recommendations?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the
hon. member opposite and tell him that the Canadian forces never
use depleted uranium.
I also want to tell him that, if there are members of the
Canadian forces who think they have been poisoned by this
product, they should simply get tested. The Canadian forces will
pay for the tests.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the best measure of a country's
economic progress in international terms is in the value of its
currency.
When the Liberals took office in 1993 the Canadian dollar was
worth 78 cents U.S. This morning it is worth 67.25 cents U.S., a
decline of about 14%, and see-sawing back and forth, struggling
for even this poor performance.
Could the Minister of Finance tell Canadians why even in the
midst of the economic boom of the past several years he has not
been able to protect the value of the Canadian dollar?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon.
member failed to mention was that against all other currencies in
the world except for the American dollar, the Canadian dollar is
very strong.
The economic fundamentals in Canada over the past seven years
have gone from a situation in which the Wall Street Journal
has referred to Canada as being in the class of a third world
country to what The Economist of London called the economic
miracle of the western world.
We are very proud of the steps that we have put in place, tough
though they may have been, in order to restore the fiscal—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax West.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
recent defence audit condemns contracting out. Instead of making
decisions based on what is best for the taxpayers' dollars,
Canadians, those abroad served by our forces and for the forces
and civilian men and women who work so hard for Canadians, the
Liberal government seems to base decisions on how many jobs it
can cut and how it can whittle down the union.
1145
Will the defence minister learn from this audit and put a
moratorium on any current plans to contract out more work to
prevent us from being ashamed by yet another audit a few years
down the road?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the 1990s DND had to
dramatically reduce the number of CF members and its civilian
employees. Thousands of people accepted a departure incentive
package to leave the department. Only a very small number
returned to DND. The vast majority of these employees are term,
casual or contractors.
In 1992-93 there were few restrictions on Canadian forces
members who took a departure incentive from finding employment
with the public service or re-enrolling in the Canadian forces.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the government is presiding over the destruction of CBC
regional broadcasting. I am holding in my hands the red book one
and two, 1993 and 1996. Members can holler all they want, but I
am going to quote from the red book which is perfectly
legitimate. The Liberals promised in 1993, “Finally, a Liberal
government will be committed to stable multi-year financing for
national cultural institutions,” including the CBC.
Where is that promise? Did it get lost with the GST promise?
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, funding for the CBC has
been stable since 1998. We stabilized the funding over a five
year period.
[English]
If the member is not aware of that, perhaps he should have done
more homework. Since the 1998-99 fiscal year, CBC Radio Canada's
funding has been stabilized and in some cases increased.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I do not accept that answer. I am going to go to a
minister who may have an answer on a program that was hugely
successful. I will direct my question to the human resources
ministry.
There is a program in New Brunswick called NB job corps. It is
a joint program between the province of New Brunswick and the
federal government aimed at putting older workers into the
workplace. I am talking about those workers who have problems
finding work because of age. What is the status of that program?
Do we have any assurances that it may be developed along—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for his question and the courtesy of alerting me to the
subject he wished to speak about today.
We were pleased to fund NB job corps with the Government of New
Brunswick. Over the five year life of the project we will have
assisted more than 1,300 workers between the ages of 50 and 65.
We are also pleased with the program's track record. Lessons
learned from this corps will be valuable in addressing the future
needs of older workers.
We continue the discussions with our provincial counterparts to
address the needs of older workers in a more general way. We
will certainly consider the member's suggestion.
* * *
[Translation]
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
In December, the House adopted the Nisga'a treaty. Last month,
the treaty was ratified by the Senate. Can the minister tell the
House whether the treaty was well received by the Nisga'a and
whether they signed the agreement?
[English]
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can tell the House that yes, the Nisga'a people have ratified
the agreement after one of the most prolonged debates in the
House of Commons.
After 100 years of the Nisga'a people knocking on the door to
come back into Canada, I am proud to say that today at this very
hour Canadians from across the country are gathering in the Nass
Valley to celebrate their entry back into Canada. We welcome
them home.
* * *
PRISONS
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the people of Nass Valley never left this country.
Canadian taxpayers have spent $60,000 for scanners in federal
prisons that can detect the smallest amount of drugs.
Yet when the bells and whistles go off, these people are not
arrested nor are the drugs confiscated.
1150
My question is for the solicitor general. If a person visiting
an inmate at a federal prison is caught with illegal drugs, the
drugs are not even seized and that person is not charged. Why?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the question posed seems very difficult to understand. Perhaps I
could have more particulars before responding to it. When a
criminal offence is committed then charges should be laid.
* * *
[Translation]
AMATEUR SPORT
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, barely two
months ago, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport announced
with great fanfare that there would be increased funding for
elite sport athletes and promised that they would receive their
cheque by May 1.
He said “The athletes will not have to think about how many
Kraft Dinners they can eat anymore”.
The athletes are still waiting.
How does the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport explain this
delay? Has the Y2K bug caught up with the secretary or is he
simply having a hard time meeting his commitments?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
The Bloc Quebecois was pleased as well with our March 20
announcement. Of course, there have been problems. I have
waited neither for the hon. member to put her question nor for
the news in order to act on the problem.
I personally called the athletes who were having problems in
this regard. I can say that as of May 9, at 8.45 p.m., all the
cheques were in the mail, and I apologize for the inconvenience.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Two days ago the minister said in the House that to his
knowledge there are no U.S. nuclear weapons in Canadian waters,
but that the U.S. refuses to confirm or deny the presence of
these weapons.
I want to ask the minister, why is our military now training for
a possible U.S. nuclear weapons accident in Canada at Nanoose Bay
or possibly in Halifax? Why will the minister not stand up for
Canadians as the New Zealand government has done and tell the
United States to keep its nuclear weapons out of Canadian waters?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the United States does not bring its
nuclear weapons into Canadian waters, into Nanoose, into the
testing range.
For decades we have been providing a testing range but it does
not test nuclear weapons or any warheads. It only goes through
testing in that range.
Our personnel are trained in case there could be a nuclear
accident somewhere off our coast because there are submarines and
other vessels travelling on the high seas. The United States
Navy does not indicate whether it has nuclear weapons on board.
That has been a longstanding policy. There is nothing new about
this.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps I can give the minister another chance to say no
to the Pentagon hawks.
His colleague the foreign affairs minister said last week, “The
U.S. should refrain from unilateral decisions on a national
missile defence system that could jeopardize the integrity of the
ABM treaty regime and have a negative impact on nuclear
disarmament and non-proliferation”.
I want to ask the minister, does he agree with the foreign
affairs minister? Is he prepared to join with the foreign
affairs minister in urging the United States to get off the fence
and to say a very clear and emphatic no to the national missile
defence system?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact it has already said yes to the
national missile defence system through legislation that has been
passed and approved by the United States Congress and by the
President. It is a matter of the testing that continues to be
done to perfect the technology, then a final decision on
deployment will be made at that point in time.
No final decision has been made with respect to that. Canada
has not been asked. Certainly the matters that the hon. member
raises and which have been raised by the foreign affairs minister
are very legitimate concerns, and concerns that need to be
addressed. There are other concerns. The defence, the security
and the relationship between Canada and the United States must
also be taken into consideration.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Further to the $175 million announcement for western provinces'
rural roads, what provinces qualify for this money? Will they be
required to cost share in the money and who will distribute the
$175 million?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the details of this program are still being worked
out but there is a precedent with the money that was put in to
compensate western provinces under the WGTA reforms. We will be
looking at that in the next little while.
We do hope that the provinces will do their bit as well to
assist with the rebuilding of these grain roads. The $175
million that we are allocating is new money and I think it will
be well spent.
* * *
1155
YOUTH
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
Speech from the Throne the Government of Canada committed to
establish a national exchange program so that Canadian youth from
different parts of the country could participate in programs and
learn about the country's diversity and the different languages
and cultures that exist within the mosaic of Canada. I ask the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage what
happened to that proposal and when can we see some action on the
ground?
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we live in a vast
country, a country rich in natural resources and in its
geography as well as in its cultural diversity and in the
linguistic duality it is important to discover.
This is why two weeks ago, the Minister of Canadian Heritage
announced a further $15 million, which was provided in the
budget this year, for interchange Canada, in order to permit
young people to take part in the some 300 exchange programs in
this country to enable our young people to discover each other,
to discover communities from sea to sea and to appreciate this
great and beautiful country of Canada.
* * *
[English]
FORESTRY
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the federal government sponsored the
film l'Erreur boréale which is a one-sided anti-industry
diatribe against Quebec forest management designed for an
international audience. At the same time the Minister of Natural
Resources professes to support forest practices in Canada but
funding seems to be a problem. Why is the government so
reluctant to fund promotion of our world class forestry standards
internationally?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know that there are concerns not only
in Canada but around the world about our forestry standards. It
is very important because the export of forestry products is
important for Canada, as it is domestically in Canada, for
economic and environmental reasons. It is very important that
we, as we can, demonstrate to the rest of the world that we
practise sound environmental and forestry standards.
* * *
[Translation]
DAY CARE
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
study released yesterday reports that the Quebec day care model
is markedly superior to the Canadian one.
Yet the Minister of Finance, with his wall to wall taxation, is
penalizing Quebec parents who only pay $5.00 a day for day care.
How can the Minister of Finance accept a taxation policy which
continues to penalize Quebec parents, when the Quebec system is
the one on which all others ought to be modelled?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the question refers to a
credit for charges that were not paid, this would be
unreasonable.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Tombstone
Park in the Yukon was negotiated through a land claim with the
Tr'ondëk Hwëch'en but mining claims were staked within the park
boundaries. While in the Yukon the minister for DIAND made a
clear statement opposed to mining in the park saying it was very
difficult to comprehend how we could have mining. Yet last week
the licensing process went ahead as if the minister had said
nothing.
Will the minister act now to protect the ecological integrity of
this park and the land claim agreement?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are well aware of the discussions and negotiations ongoing in
Yukon with the treaty people and the mining interests. I have
had a briefing on these particular matters and in fact met with
representatives of the mining industry from in and around that
community in the territory of Yukon.
We are continuing to negotiate on those specific matters that
were brought forward. The minister has given his assurance to all
those particular parties that we will continue to sit around the
table to resolve third party interests, the interests of first
nations people and the people of Yukon generally.
* * *
TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, in 1994 the government caved in and abandoned Canada's
anti-smoking initiative. The reason was because of the smuggling
of tobacco products. Now the government is planning to
significantly raise tobacco taxes once again to do the very thing
it abandoned in 1994.
1200
Is the government prepared to put money into the enforcement
side? Or, does it have a plan at all? Or, will it simply
flip-flop on this issue as it did in 1994? What plan does it
have to deal with smuggling?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
member has hit the nub of the problem.
We saw a number of years ago, when the prices were very high,
how in some markets more than 50% of the supply came from
contraband. Our position has always been that we would increase
the taxes on cigarettes just as quickly and as much as we could,
commensurate with the problem involving smuggling.
This is what we are doing. This is what we are doing in
collaboration with the provinces. Enforcement is a very big
concern.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I unequivocally support parts of Bill C-17 which
would reduce cruelty to animals, but I would ask the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to assure the
House that this legislation will not egregiously affect those who
are involved in business and animal related industries, including
fishing.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have called upon parliament to increase the penalties
with respect to cruelty and the people who would purposely injure
animals.
I wish to assure the House and the country that normal and
legitimate practices, such as hunting, fishing, agricultural
works and animal husbandry, which are legal today will be legal
tomorrow when the bill is passed.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Deputy Speaker: I would like to draw the
attention of all hon. members to the presence in the gallery of
the hon. Joseph Handley, Minister of Finance, Minister
responsible for Workers Compensation Board, Minister of
Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development for the Government
of the Northwest Territories.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in one of my answers in question period I referred to a
1977 agreement. Obviously I intended to refer to a 1997
agreement.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
TOBACCO ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing
Order 32(2), I am tabling proposed regulations pursuant to the
Tobacco Act.
Pursuant to section 42(1) of the act, the proposed regulations
stand referred to the Standing Committee on Health.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present the government's response to 12 petitions
in both official languages.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 30th annual report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the main
estimates, Vote 5 under “Parliament”, dated March 31, 2000.
* * *
1205
PETITIONS
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by many constituents who ask the government to
remove the tax imposed when applying for permanent residency in
Canada.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of my
constituents which references Bill C-23. The petitioners wish to
affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation to
ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
I received the petition after the bill had passed the House.
However, I would like to inform my constituents that, indeed,
paragraph 1.1 of the amended legislation passed by the House states:
For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not
affect the meaning of the word “marriage”, that is, the lawful
union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I hardly think it is appropriate to deliver a petition and then
talk about how the government addressed the whole issue in a
piece of legislation. I do not think that kind of comment goes
with delivering a petition.
The Deputy Speaker: We get a lot of comments with
petitions, but I agree that it does seem unusual for the hon.
member to say how the petition has been answered. On the other
hand, some hon. members present petitions and have to say that it
is too late because the petition is late, and make comments about
the fact that legislation has passed. It is a fine line.
I will take the matter under advisement and review again what
the hon. member said in light of the precedents and the eminent
discourses that occur on this subject in Marleau and Montpetit,
which we all read with such enthusiasm.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-10, an
act to amend the National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act
and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When debate was interrupted for
question period, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester had
the floor. He has 14 minutes remaining for his remarks.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
when Government Orders was interrupted I was talking about the
amendments that address the taking of DNA samples in the DNA
Identification Act, which contains a list of designated offences
which provide that DNA samples may be taken from any individual
convicted of any one of those offences that I was talking about
for forensic analysis.
The list was divided into two types of offences, primary and
secondary. In the case of primary offences, it is mandatory for
samples to be taken at the time of conviction, except in
exceptional circumstances. These offences consist mainly of the
most serious and violent offences, as well as sex offences, which
are the offences where DNA evidence may be of the most
assistance. The list includes offences such as incest, murder,
manslaughter, assault with a weapon, causing bodily harm, sexual
assault, et cetera.
For a secondary offence case it is not mandatory to take a
sample, so the crown must satisfy the judge that it is in the
interests of the public safety to take such a sample. These are
less serious offences in which DNA analysis cannot always be used
to solve a crime or prevent other crimes. They include such
offences as using explosives, breaking and entering with intent,
arson, assaulting a peace officer, robbery and hostage taking,
among others.
Under Bill S-10 this list, which limits the situations in which
DNA samples may be taken, now applies to members of the military
who have been convicted of these offences. The amendments made
by Bill S-10 do not change the key elements of the DNA
Identification Act, but rather their objective is to strengthen
certain principles of the act and to remedy some major failings
identified by members of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal
and Constitutional Affairs.
The provisions of the new act include, first, that the DNA
profiles of offenders convicted of a designated offence who are
subject to the Code of Service Discipline will now be included in
the national DNA data bank. Second, within five years after the
act comes into force, a review of the provisions and operation of
the act will be undertaken by a committee of the Senate, of the
House of Commons, or of both Houses of Parliament.
1210
Third, a report on the operations of the data bank will then be
submitted each year by the commissioner of the RCMP.
Fourth, there will be a clear statement that DNA profiles and
samples of bodily substances taken in order to establish DNA
profiles may be used only for the purposes of the administration
of the act.
With the implementation of Bill S-10, Bill C-3 will now become
more effective, as the two pieces of legislation will work
together harmoniously to improve management of the national DNA
data bank and ensure a greater respect for Canadians' privacy.
The DNA data bank is an extremely powerful tool with important
repercussions for our justice system and our society.
The provisions of Bill S-10 will ensure greater respect for the
privacy of Canadians by setting very clear guidelines for police
and the courts regarding the use of DNA profiles in criminal
investigations.
The Progressive Conservative Party supports this bill, as it
will help bring our society ever closer to achieving a sense of
public safety.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, the bill stands referred
to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
* * *
INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Minister of Finance)
moved that Bill S-3, an act to implement an agreement,
conventions and protocols between Canada and Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon,
Algeria, Bulgaria, Portugal, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Japan and
Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation and the
prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
speak today at second reading of Bill S-3, the 1999 conventions
implementations bill.
This legislation puts into force seven new tax treaties that
Canada has signed recently with Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Algeria,
Bulgaria, Portugal, Uzbekistan and Jordan. It also replaces the
existing convention with Luxembourg and amends Canada's treaty
with Japan.
[Translation]
These nine tax treaties have been designed with two objectives
in mind—the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of
fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income
Before discussing the specifics of this bill, there are a couple
of points I want to make for the benefit of my hon. colleagues.
First, I want to make it clear to hon. members that Bill S-3 is
standard, routine legislation.
[English]
Proof of this is the fact that all of these treaties, like their
predecessors, are patterned, to a large extent, on the OECD Model
Tax Convention, which is accepted by most countries around the
world. The provisions in these particular treaties comply fully
with the international norms that apply to such treaties.
Another point I want to make at the outset is that, should any
conflicting matters arise, tax treaty rules take precedence over
the Income Tax Act. This ensures that the objectives I just
mentioned can be reached.
Let me take a moment to put this legislation into context. One
of the goals of the 1971 review and overhaul of Canada's income
tax system was the expansion of our network of tax treaties with
other countries, a goal that the government has worked hard to
achieve, and with great success I might add. At present Canada
has tax treaties in place with 68 countries, a number that will
increase to 75 when the treaties in this bill come into force.
It is interesting to note that Bill S-3 is the 24th tax treaty
bill to be introduced in parliament since 1976. In the past two
years alone Canada has signed treaties or protocols with 14
countries.
Tax treaties are particularly important to two ongoing
government priorities: tax fairness and the promotion of trade
and investments. I will deal first with tax fairness.
1215
[Translation]
Since coming to office in 1993, the government has been guided
by the following principles of tax policy—principles that the
finance minister recently reaffirmed in the 2000 budget.
First, our approach to tax relief must be fair. While tax
reduction must ultimately benefit all Canadians, it must be
directed first to those who need it the most—middle- and low-income
earners and especially families with children.
Second, broad-based tax relief should focus initially on personal
income taxes where the burden is greatest and where Canadian
taxes are most out of line with our history and with other
countries.
[English]
Third, the business tax system must be internationally
competitive. Fourth, broad based tax relief should not be
financed with borrowed money.
As hon. members know, the government's fiscal improvements have
enabled it to begin providing general tax relief, an integral
element of our strategy for sustained economic growth and an
improved standard of living and quality of life for all
Canadians.
While tax reduction has begun, the government realizes that more
needs to be done to lower the overall tax burden and to reform
the structure of the tax system. Tax treaties are a part of this
overall structure and tax fairness demands that no Canadian
should ever find himself or herself caught in the midst of double
taxation. As their full title implies, this is exactly what tax
treaties work to eliminate.
Let me explain what I mean by double taxation. International
double taxation arises as the result of the imposition of
comparable taxes in two or more jurisdictions on the same taxable
income in the hands of the same person and for the same period of
time.
This overlap between source based taxation and residency based
taxation can result in adverse and unfair consequences for
taxpayers. These tax treaties like the ones included in the bill
avoid double taxation by establishing rules for dividing taxing
jurisdictions between the country of the taxpayer's residence and
the country where the income arises.
Allocating taxing rights not only helps safeguard against double
taxation but also reduces the burden of compliance to taxpayers
resident in one country who have only limited contact in the
other country. An example of this is the reduction of
withholding taxes.
[Translation]
Withholding taxes are the taxes countries generally impose on
income paid to non-residents. This is a subject I will discuss in
more detail a bit later.
The other government priority that tax treaties address is the
promotion of trade and investment. Tax treaties are directly
related to international trade in goods and services and
therefore directly impact on Canada's domestic economic
performance.
[English]
Their impact is very significant. Over 40% of Canada's annual
gross domestic product is tied to exports. Moreover Canada's
economic wealth also depends on foreign direct investment as well
as inflows of information, capital, technology, royalties,
dividends and interest. It is obvious then that the tax treaties
contained in Bill S-3 will benefit Canadian businesses and
individuals with operations and investments in these nine
countries.
Let me outline the additional benefits in addition to the
avoidance of double taxation that I have already mentioned.
Taxpayers will know that a treaty rate of tax cannot be increased
without significant advance notice. The mere existence of these
tax treaties will foster an atmosphere of certainty and stability
for investors and traders that will only enhance Canada's
economic relationship with each country.
Annoyance and complexity in the operation of the tax system will
be reduced as the need to pay tax on certain business profits
where there is no substantial contact with the other country will
be eliminated and a mechanism to settle problems encountered by
taxpayers will be provided.
Reducing the burden of compliance will encourage more
international activity which will have a favourable effect on the
Canadian economy.
1220
[Translation]
I referred to withholding taxes as being one of the solutions to
the problem of double taxation. I also mentioned that countries
usually impose such taxes on income paid to non-residents.
Canada's network of tax treaties provides for several reciprocal
withholding tax rate reductions. Without a tax treaty or other
legislated exemption, Canada taxes income paid to non-residents
at the rate of 25%.
[English]
Reduced withholding taxes simplify the tax system and make it
fairer. The country where the income is generated can withhold
tax usually at a rate of 5%, 10% or 15% on dividends and 10% in
the case of interest and royalties. In some instances royalties
on copyrights, computer software, patents and know-how are exempt
at source.
I will not go into the detailed changes in the tax treaties.
They are fully outlined in the bill. They talk about the
withholding taxes that will apply to these treaties with respect
to dividends and other types of income. It is well laid out in
the act. In the interest of time I will move to other
provisions.
[Translation]
The treaties covered in Bill S-3 address other tax treaty issues
such as capital gains, non-discrimination based on a taxpayer's
nationality and pensions and annuities paid to non-residents.
Time does not permit me to discuss all of these provisions in
detail.
[English]
However, there is one issue in particular I must bring to the
attention of the House, and that is the proposed rules relating
to the taxation of emigrants' pre-departure gains. These rules
were proposed by the finance minister and will be included in the
1999 technical amendments bill when it comes before parliament.
The proposed rules are recognized in the conventions with
Luxembourg, Portugal, Lebanon and Jordan as they address the
potential for double taxation in such situations.
However, since the treaties with Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, Algeria
and Kyrgyzstan were negotiated prior to these rules being
announced, the proposed migration rules allow Canada to give a
unilateral foreign tax credit to emigrants until the year 2007.
This timeframe guarantees that there will be no double taxation
of pre-departure gains before these treaties have been negotiated
to take the new rules into account. Japan has asked to review
taxpayer migration in future negotiations.
[Translation]
Before closing, I would be remiss if I failed to mention another
benefit to double taxation treaties. The second objective in
designing these treaties is the prevention of fiscal evasion.
Double taxation treaties encourage the exchange of information
between revenue authorities to prevent tax evasion or avoidance.
Sharing information helps revenue authorities identify cases of
tax evasion or avoidance and act on them.
[English]
In summary, I urge my hon. colleagues to support the
legislation. The benefits of Bill S-3 are clear.
[Translation]
The thrust of the treaties covered in Bill S-3 is to provide
equitable solutions to the various taxation problems existing
between Canada and these nine countries.
[English]
These treaties will help to secure Canada's position in the
increasingly competitive world of international trade and
investment while ensuring that Canadian tax policy remains
consistent and Canadians are not subject to double taxation. Let
us pass the bill in haste and put it into effect.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Bill S-3, an act to implement an
agreement, conventions and protocols between Canada and
Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Algeria, Bulgaria, Portugal, Uzbekistan,
Jordan, Japan and Luxembourg, is a good bill in many respects.
1225
It leads to some of the things to which the parliamentary
secretary made reference. I have a bit of a problem with the
bill. Once again we have a bill before the House which
originated in the Senate, that unelected, unaccountable body. I
find that quite problematic.
The Canadian Alliance has always supported measures that might
in some way lower the tax burden for Canadians. Avoidance of
double taxation would be a very significant result in lowering
taxes. The government needs to remove impediments that
discourage trade and to foreigners coming to Canada for fear of
double taxation. The legislation also has the benefit of
reducing tax avoidance concerns.
One point is very clear. Canada is very good at collecting
taxes. We have almost as many tax collectors, somewhere around
45,000, as members of our armed forces. Our armed forces are
poorly equipped and overtasked. Our tax collectors can be
assured that this deterioration will not be allowed to occur in
their bailiwick.
The irony of the legislation is that we had a harmonization of
taxes in Canada that was almost complete. The GST and PST were
rolled into a harmonized sales tax in some jurisdictions but not
in others. Other phenomena happened with respect to income tax.
Quebec has had a separate collection of personal income tax for
some time. Other provinces are now moving in that direction. A
lot of this is occurring because we cannot lessen Liberal
dependence on a high appetite for taxation.
We were not reassured when the Prime Minister said recently at a
Liberal convention that the era of tax cuts was over. Most of us
had not realized that it had started. Was he talking about
Alberta or Ontario? He surely was not talking about the federal
arena.
It is sad to say that total personal income tax revenues in
Canada go toward paying the rough equivalent of interest payments
on the debt. We have no schedule to pay down that debt and we
need that discipline.
Another point I would like to make is that income tax treaties
such as the one we are discussing today contain rules that are
different from the Income Tax Act. As such, these treaties need
enabling legislation. They need an act of parliament to give the
treaty precedence over the legislation. That is ironic when most
of the treaties our federal government signs require no
ratification in this place whatsoever.
Some treaties are much more binding and much more consequential
to the nation as a whole. The first example that comes to mind
would be the commitments we made on greenhouse gas emissions at
Kyoto. That treaty requires ratification in our neighbour's
congress and that brings a different discipline to the exercise.
We do not have that in Canada but we need it. That will bring a
whole new discipline to our negotiators and their political
masters. We can be sure that when it comes to tax collection,
however, the Liberals will smooth the path in whatever way is
required to ensure it happens.
1230
Despite my comments, this bill has merit. The Canadian Alliance
will be supporting the legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
allow me to say a few words before I start my remarks on Bill
S-3.
On Sunday, we will be celebrating Mother's Day across Canada. I
would like to take this opportunity to wish a happy Mother's Day
to my mother, my wife, all the mothers in my riding, in Quebec
and in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will join me in
wishing a happy Mother's Day to your mother.
Let us now revert to less serious matters, namely Bill S-3. The
Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to income tax treaties between
Canada and other countries.
Therefore, we will support this bill, inasmuch as such treaties
are aimed at ensuring the just and fair tax treatment of
persons—I stress this word, which includes private persons and
corporate persons such as companies, trusts and any aggregate of
individuals—to encourage trade and investment in those countries.
Although tax conventions avoid double taxation on corporate and
personal income, in a number of cases they are a source of
problems and tax evasion.
Indeed, although the most recent treaties, which are based the
OECD model, are relatively standard, Canada does have some older
ones with countries considered tax havens because their
individual and corporate tax rates are low, or non-existent.
By signing tax treaties with these countries that are considered
tax havens, Canada is turning a blind eye. It treats these
profits as if they had been taxed at comparable rates abroad and
does not tax them when they are brought back to Canada.
I should point out that, since 1992, the auditor general has
raised this issue on several occasions. I want to give an
example of these tax havens and what they allow Canadians to do.
Let us consider the case of Canada Steamship Lines. We know
that, before 1981, that company operated solely in Canada and,
therefore, paid its fair share of taxes. In 1981, our dear
Minister of Finance bought CSL and opened subsidiaries in
Bermuda, Liberia and Barbados. We know that those three
countries have signed agreements with Canada and are considered
tax havens.
For instance, Liberia is described by people involved in
international trade as the safest tax haven, the best there is.
That is nothing to be proud of. Apparently, a Liberian company
can do anything as it pleases, and in total secrecy. Liberia has
no tax on profits from shipping. The government of that country
only requires shipping companies to pay an annual flat amount of
$350 U.S. That means that profits made in Liberia are subject to
$350 flat tax and nothing more.
1235
CSL, Canada Steamship Lines, also has subsidiaries in Bermuda.
Everyone knows that there is no income tax in Bermuda. A company
can, through a contract, be exempted of any taxes until the year
2016.
In Barbados, companies are subject to a decreasing local tax,
from 2.5% down to 1%. So, the higher the amount, the lower the
tax rate.
This brings me back to the fact that the government opposite
should continue to sign tax treaties with countries that are not
considered to be tax havens.
It should spend money and be serious, so as to be in a position
to readjust or change the contracts or agreements already signed
with tax haven countries, since these involve millions and even
hundreds of millions of dollars in tax losses for Canada.
We know how much that government has cut in social transfers to
the provinces. It could certainly recover these amounts and put
them back in the transfers to the provinces.
Tax treaties establish what is called reciprocal treatment
between countries with respect to income tax, provided that tax
rates for Canadian businesses and those in the countries with
which tax treaties are signed are equivalent or more or less
comparable.
I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois will support
Bill S-3, which seeks to ensure a fair and equitable tax
treatment for residents and non-residents, and to promote trade
and investments between the countries that are parties to these
conventions.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill S-3. This
bill lets Canada ratify income tax treaties with Kyrgyzstan,
Lebanon, Algeria, Bulgaria, Portugal, Uzbekistan and Jordan. It
also amends Canada's current treaty with Japan and replaces the
longstanding treaty with Luxembourg.
At present Canada is involved in over 60 tax treaties. These
treaties set out a framework for taxes on investment income
flowing between Canada and other countries. They provide
mechanisms to avoid double taxation and prevent tax evasion.
A tax convention is an agreement between two governments under
which each government agrees to limit or modify the application
of its domestic laws in order to avoid double taxation. Double
taxation can occur when the same person or business pays
comparable rates in two or more countries on the same taxable
income for the same period of time. For example, double taxation
would occur if a resident of Japan was taxed in both Canada and
Japan on dividend income received from a Canadian company.
Preventing this helps to facilitate investment which is something
that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada feels that the
government should further encourage. Furthermore, limits on
withholding taxes in the country where the income is earned are
established. Exemption is provided for certain income that would
otherwise be taxed in the country where it is earned.
Tax treaties also seek to minimize or prevent tax evasion. They
deal with tax evasion by providing for the exchange of
information between tax authorities in the signatory countries.
In some cases they provide for assistance in collecting taxes.
Most treaties are based on the model double taxation convention
prepared by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development, otherwise known as OECD countries.
In regard to Bill C-3, Canada did not previously have treaties
with Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Bulgaria, Portugal, Uzbekistan and
Jordan.
1240
The amendment to the treaty with Japan addresses a specific
issue pertaining to Japanese local enterprise taxes. Japan in
turn will exempt Canadian enterprises operating ships or aircraft
in international traffic provided that Canadian provinces do not
subject similar Japanese enterprises to similar taxes. There is
also a reduction in withholding taxes on inter-company dividends
to 5%.
Changes to the tax treaty with Luxembourg are intended to
clarify and modernize the convention's wording. Although the
Progressive Conservative Party is supportive of new tax treaties
which help to facilitate and encourage new investment, we do have
some grave concerns with the human rights abuses committed by
many of those countries.
What kind of message are we sending by ratifying such treaties
with those countries? For example, Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet
republic that gained independence in 1991 when the U.S.S.R.
collapsed, has been known for its rampant human rights abuses.
It is located in central Asia and has a population of about 4.5
million people. The government has limited its citizens' ability
to change the government.
There were serious irregularities in the October 1998
constitutional referendum. These included widespread cases of
police abuse and brutality, including arbitrary arrest and
detention before and after the referendum. Not a pretty sight.
I will quote from the Human Rights Watch. It said that:
...the government began with increasing vigour to obstruct the
formation, registration, and activities of groups of citizens
intending to organize support of opposition candidates or to
participate in the upcoming votes as monitors. Authorities
charged five prominent opposition leaders with administrative
offences—the equivalent of misdemeanours—for forming their
group called the Movement for Honest Elections.
Executive domination of the judiciary limited citizens' rights
to due process, although the judiciary is undergoing reform.
Furthermore, the government regularly infringes on freedom of
speech and of the press. Authorities at times pressured
journalists who criticized individual members of the government.
Lebanon is another example of a country with dismal human rights
abuses. For example, members of the security forces continually
use excessive force and torture. There have been hundreds of
arbitrary arrests and detentions of people who opposed government
policies. Lengthy pretrial detention and long delays in trials
are problems and the courts are subjected to an enormous amount
of political pressure.
The government also has limited press freedom by continuing to
restrict radio and television broadcasting in a discriminatory
manner. It has also banned the satellite broadcast of political
programming. Discrimination against women and Palestinians and
violence against women are also problems in Lebanon.
In Algeria, the security forces are responsible for hundreds of
disappearances, routinely tortured or otherwise abused detainees,
and arbitrarily arrested and detained many individuals suspected
of involvement with armed Islamic groups.
Human Rights Watch reported that on numerous occasions over the
last several years, security forces have failed to intervene to
prevent or halt massacres of civilians by armed groups and
terrorists. Armed Islamists continued their widespread campaign
of insurgency, targeting government officials and families of
security members, as well as persons whose lifestyles they
considered to be in conflict with Islamic values.
Human Rights Watch summed up the situation nicely by saying that
the government is involved in, and I quote:
...the gravest human rights abuses, including extrajudicial
executions, torture, forced “disappearances”, arbitrary arrest
and detention, failure to protect the right to life, and
restrictions on the rights of freedom of expression, association,
and assembly.
Finally, bombs left in cars, cafes and markets have killed and
maimed civilians indiscriminately.
It is estimated that over 7,000 civilians, terrorists and
security forces have died during the last year of domestic
turmoil. Close to 80,000 people have been killed during the last
seven years alone.
1245
In Uzbekistan the current government has not permitted the
existence of an opposition party since 1993, something maybe this
government would appreciate. Nonetheless in a serious sense
citizens cannot exercise their right to change the government
peacefully.
In a recent report Human Rights Watch stated:
—has independently documented a pattern of political arrest,
detention and harassment of family members of political activists
and religious dissidents during the past six months. There is
also a wealth of credible evidence that police routinely plant
small amounts of narcotics or ammunition on persons whom they
arrest for their political or religious affiliation.
Furthermore the executive director of Human Rights Watch for
Europe and Central Asia said:
The Government of Uzbekistan professes to be preparing for free
and fair elections but at the same time is locking up the
opposition's family members and throwing away the key. This is
no way to achieve democracy.
Currently Canada has only minor commercial interests in
Uzbekistan. Total trade in 1998 with this country was only $18
million and there are no major Canadian investments in the
country. Why are we then pursuing a tax treaty with a country
that has a dismal human rights record and a minimal amount of
trade?
In conclusion, although the Progressive Conservative Party of
Canada will be supporting the bill, it is important to highlight
the many gross and inconsistent patterns of human rights
violations in many of the countries Canada is entering into a tax
treaty with.
New tax treaties both help and encourage new investment and
should be looked at positively.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing
Committee on Finance.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think you might find that there is unanimous consent to see the
clock as being 1.30 p.m. to proceed to Private Members' Business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 1.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to Private Members' Business as listed
on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
NATURAL GAS
The House resumed from April 3 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to address the House on Motion No. 298 put
forward by the hon. member for Churchill River. I thank him for
bringing this matter before the House.
Indeed his concern for the environment and for the high cost of
energy in some Canadian communities is truly commendable. I
would however like to point the hon. member in a new direction to
achieve his worthy goals.
Let me explain why I cannot support the motion.
1250
First, I share our government's belief that market forces, not
government subsidies, should determine energy prices and supply
without undue government involvement or bothersome regulations.
This approach has served Canada well over the past decade
contributing to economic growth, new jobs, increased resource
royalties for provincial governments, and certainty and stability
for the energy industry.
The second point of my disagreement relates to the question of
federal-provincial jurisdiction. Energy distribution systems,
including natural gas lines, are the responsibility of
provincially regulated utilities, not the Government of Canada.
While it is true some provinces have seen fit to financially
support the expansion of natural gas distribution systems, others
have not, including notably the hon. member's home province of
Saskatchewan.
Finally, I cannot support the motion because it implies that
natural gas is the only alternative to higher prices and more
environmentally harmful fossil fuels. This is simply not the
case.
For the past decade communities across Canada have been
exploring new ways to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels,
either by using energy more efficiently or by displacing fossil
fuels with local renewable resources. More and more they are
looking to community energy systems, networks that link
environmentally sound sources of energy to space heating loads to
deliver on two imperatives: the need for affordable energy and
the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing
to the global problem of climate change.
Communities are being supported in this quest by Natural
Resources Canada of the Government of Canada which for several
years now has been working hand in hand with the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities to increase awareness and use of
community energy systems.
The results of this collaborative effort have been very
positive. Interest in community energy systems is on the rise
across Canada even in areas where natural gas is readily
available. In many cases it just makes more sense economically
and environmentally to develop a community energy system rather
than to expand our dependence on fossil fuels.
Natural Resources Canada encourages efficiency and the use of
renewable energy at all levels.
First, the individual can use current energy sources more
efficiently by adopting the most efficient furnaces and keeping
them well maintained and by making buildings more efficient by
measures such as installing better insulation and more energy
efficient windows. Individuals may also be able to use renewable
energy technologies such as solar energy, wind energy or small
hydro systems. The same principles can be applied at the
community level where the opportunities are more diverse.
By adopting community energy systems, waste fuel from local
industry or power plants can all be harnessed. By using these
types of heat sources, not only are greenhouse gases reduced, but
community pollution problems can also be reduced. Let me
elaborate on some real examples.
Some municipalities like Charlottetown, the site of Canada's
first community energy system, are burning waste wood to produce
energy. This not only eliminates a waste disposal problem, it
also takes advantage of a renewable energy resource. The first
nations community of Grassy Narrows is using a similar approach,
in this case burning wood chips harvested by band members. Other
communities in the Northwest Territories and Yukon are capturing
waste heat from diesel generators to provide space heating.
Another option is to use cogeneration technology to get more out
of existing fossil fuel systems by combining both heat and power
production.
1255
The cities of Windsor and Sudbury have community energy systems
that use this approach. Many more are jumping on the bandwagon
because the systems offer benefits that are hard to ignore. They
generate jobs through capital investments and keep money in the
local economy by reducing the need to purchase outside energy.
Moreover, they can greatly reduce or even eliminate greenhouse
gas emissions, which is critically important in light of Canada's
international climate change commitments.
There are many solutions to the climate change problem and all
Canadians have a role to play. It is absolutely essential for
governments to show leadership, including municipal governments,
if Canada is to meet its Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by the period between 2008 and
2012.
Hon. members will also be interested to know that community
energy system projects are being supported through the technology
early action measures initiative of the climate change action
fund which was announced in the 1997 federal budget to move
Canada forward in addressing climate change.
I confirm again that the federal government is very serious
about meeting this target. This was made abundantly clear in the
last federal budget which included more than $600 million to
further our search for effective climate change solutions,
including new funding of $125 million for two initiatives to help
municipalities take action.
The green municipal enabling fund is a five year $25 million
initiative to support cost shared energy audits and feasibility
studies of projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
improve air and water quality, and encourage the sustainable use
of renewable and non-renewable resources.
The second initiative, the $100 million green municipal
investment fund, will provide loans and loan guarantees for
municipal energy efficiency measures, such as building retrofits
that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Interest money that
accumulates from the fund will be used to provide grants to
eligible demonstration projects.
Together these funds will act as a catalyst for implementing new
community energy system projects as well as other energy
efficiency measures. They are expected to leverage concrete
investments from municipal, provincial and territorial
governments as well as the private sector.
The recent federal budget goes further by including measures to
make it more attractive for the private sector to become involved
in community energy systems. We have the manufacturing and
processing tax rate reduction, thus lowering the tax rate on
private businesses on the sale of steam. We have the capital
cost allowance for district energy systems and we will be able to
increase that from 4% to 8%, which means that private companies
can write off their investment faster. These new budget
provisions will add momentum to the growing interest in community
energy systems.
In conclusion, many parts of the country do not have access to
natural gas networks and the cost of bringing in distribution
lines is prohibitive. Community energy systems can ensure more
efficient and environmentally acceptable use of energy in these
communities, while helping to keep energy dollars in the local
economy.
In other areas, natural gas and electricity infrastructures are
overloaded. They simply cannot keep up with the demand.
Community energy systems can alleviate some of the pressure on
these networks by producing electricity locally, making
constructive use of rejected heat that might otherwise be wasted,
or using local mill wastes to displace space heating from
electricity, oil or gas.
I disagree with the motion but I commend the member for the
goals and objectives of his motion. I hope he will discuss the
initiative of the federal government with the leadership of his
community and thereby we can go in a common direction.
1300
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate this opportunity to speak and I appreciate your help
in arranging this time for me.
It is a pleasure to rise to speak to Motion No. 298, put forward
by the hon. member for Churchill River. The motion reads as
follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide
initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and
address environmental concerns and high energy costs.
The motion is extremely important to an area such as my riding
in northern Nova Scotia. There are all kinds of small
communities like Advocate Harbour, Parrsboro, Tatamagouche,
Pugwash and Stewiacke which are not in the mainstream and will
not get the benefits of natural gas as pipelines pass through our
area. If this initiative were successful, these small
communities would have access to natural gas and would be treated
equally, which is very important.
The PC Party and I support this motion for a number of reasons.
First, if natural gas is supplied to unserviced areas, then it
will spur regional economic development, always a challenge in my
region. Second, natural gas is considered to be one of the
cleanest energy sources widely available for public use.
Increased use of natural gas could help Canada meet its Kyoto
targets. In Nova Scotia, we have a very pristine environment.
It is very clean. We are very proud of it and we want to
maintain that environment.
Canada signed a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
6% from 1990 levels by 2010. However, according to what I have
been hearing, many of the industrialized nations of the world are
uncertain about their abilities to meet these commitments, and
Canada is one of those countries. Those commitments may have
been made in good faith, but, by all accounts, Canada is nowhere
near its targets. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions are now
rising in the country.
The dramatic rise in gasoline prices over the past few months
has shown consumers that dependence on a single energy source
places people in a very vulnerable position, forcing them to
either pay the price or forgo the service. Many people do not
have any options, however, since they may be dependent on
gasoline to travel to work or heat their homes.
There are a number of energy sources available, ranging from
fuel oil and diesel fuel to hydro-electricity, coal-fired
electricity and various other sources of energy, all of which can
be fairly expensive. If another energy source can help reduce
costs for industries or consumers, then I would support the
initiative to help make that source widely available, which is
exactly what we are talking about here today.
On the east coast there are some exciting projects that are
developing, supplying natural gas to the area and to the United
States, and there may be potential for many further developments.
Only a few months ago the Sable offshore energy project, through
the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, began supplying natural gas
to buyers in the New England states. This pipeline goes through
my riding, from one end to the other. A natural gas distribution
franchise has now been awarded to Sempra Atlantic Gas and the
construction of a natural gas pipeline will allow gas to flow to
households in the maritime provinces.
By coincidence, I talked to officials from Sempra Gas this
morning about routes for natural gas and the best way to get it
to the smaller communities to see if there is some way to address
those needs.
The pipeline is expected to service up to 300,000 households and
25,000 industrial, commercial and institutional customers.
There is also potential natural gas development in other parts
of Canada, including the far north, Alberta and British Columbia.
Recent newspaper articles have discussed the exciting prospect
of natural gas development in the Northwest Territories after a
10 year moratorium which shut down operations near the Beaufort
Sea.
The prospect of a 1,500 kilometre pipeline to link the Northwest
Territories with markets in the United States is again under
consideration. Future revenue from the $4 billion project makes
that project attractive to the Northwest Territories government,
which is willing to provide $100 million of the initial
investment. Federal assistance is being sought to provide the
additional $230 million needed over a four year period to see the
project established.
Like all natural gas projects, the potential for spinoffs to the
local economy could be great. Employment, infrastructure,
training and other benefits would all be a part of the larger
picture that would see the pipeline become a reality.
In my riding last year we experienced those spinoffs and
benefits. The pipeline company and workers literally brought
millions of dollars to our area and boosted our economy
dramatically.
1305
There is an estimated six trillion cubic feet of natural gas
reserves in the Mackenzie Delta region and the co-operation of
the aboriginal groups in the area who have given their approval
for development of these reserves means that oil companies are
again exploring options in the area. It will be very interesting
to see how this project develops and the economic spinoffs it
will provide to the northern region.
It is clear that natural gas delivery to unserviced regions
would assist regional economic development and improve the
overall economic well-being of Canadian communities. The
Progressive Conservative Party supports this motion because of
the need to help remote or rural areas develop economically and
also assist Canada in working toward meeting its Kyoto targets
for lower greenhouse gases.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No.
298 today which states that the government should provide
initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions.
I believe that, although governments can participate in the
delivery of natural gas or any other product, they cannot and
should not try to avoid basic and natural market forces. If a
government tries to ignore the marketplace it is asking for
trouble.
In my community of 30,000 people in Campbell River, one of the
justifications for bringing in natural gas over a significant
geographical hurdle was the considerable demand for the
commodity. This took much more than the normal business activity
and the normal residential sector would ordinarily demand.
There had been a proposal to build a natural gas/wood waste
electrical cogeneration plant. In addition to the usual
residential and commercial demands, this would be a potential
major consumer which would have a greater demand than the rest of
the demand combined.
In our case the provincial government played a pivotal and
essential role in ensuring that these two things happened in
tandem. Without its involvement and concurrence our community
would still be without natural gas service. Essentially it had
to guarantee, in one form or another, that the cogeneration plant
would receive approval and would be economic. That was enough of
an incentive to ensure that natural gas would come to the
community. That is what we could call a win-win situation for
all parties, and there is always room for a win-win situation.
There is also room for governments to regulate rates so that
averaging would make services and commodities more affordable and
increase total demand by making them more attractive for more
consumers. The provinces and the territories have a very
important regulatory role to play in these activities.
All of these things are already happening where they are needed,
where demand is sufficient and where they are not a burden on the
taxpayer. They are market sensitive, regionally sensitive and
they properly allocate our energy resources.
There is opportunity in the north and other remote areas for
natural gas exploration incentives that would place the source
close to unserviced communities. This would create a whole new
affordability index in terms of servicing remote communities. In
these situations there is opportunity for provincial or
territorial governments to put incentives in place to try to
expand the servicing area of natural gas distribution.
The Northwest Territories, as an example, has done that very
thing. The Inuvik natural gas project came about because in 1998
the Inuvialuit Petroleum Corporation, AltaGas Services Inc. and
Enbridge Inc. formed a partnership to bring natural gas from the
Ikhil field to supply the energy needs of the town of Inuvik.
The territorial Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic
Development funded a portion of the initial research for the
project. The department provided funding to assist residential
customers to convert to natural gas heating, with Inuvik Gas Ltd.
providing matching grants.
1310
This is all fairly recent. Last September the hon. Stephen
Kakfwi stated in the legislative assembly of the Northwest
Territories:
This program will result in the reduction of residential energy
costs in Inuvik. It also allows the Northwest Territories to
demonstrate its commitment to the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions.
There are some pretty good things to say on this subject.
However, this is an entirely different matter from what this
private member's motion contemplates today. This motion
contemplates federal spending when the jurisdiction is almost
exclusively provincial or territorial. In other words, the
motion contemplates a massive intrusion of federal government
into provincial and territorial affairs.
Canada is a major global natural gas producer and a major
exporter to the United States. Canadian companies are at the
forefront in developing natural gas alternatives to traditional
engine fuels. There are many people aware of this, as there has
been much attention paid to the stock market and publicly traded
companies recently.
Westport Innovations Inc. is a Vancouver based company which is
traded on the TSE. There is Calgary based Alternative Fuel
Systems Inc., which is also publicly traded. These are two
companies with which I am somewhat familiar, but I am sure there
are likely to be other Canadian based companies doing similar
things. These companies are working hard to use natural gas as a
primary fuel, with good results, all of which has a positive
impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
Westport Innovations utilized technology developed at the
University of British Columbia. It recently bought the rights.
This is a good example of a public-private partnership doing
research and development which has worked out very well for all
parties.
Environment Canada has publicly recognized the efforts of
Calgary based Alternative Fuel Systems. It has developed
products to convert diesel and gasoline engines to operate on
cleaner burning natural gas as well. AFS has received contracts
to sell its products and technology to Mexico and India, enabling
fleets of vehicles in those countries to be converted to run on
natural gas. This is all very good.
The major environmental benefit, of course, is that this reduces
vehicular pollutants. The economic benefits come from the
reduced fuel cost, as well as reduced maintenance costs and
increased engine life.
Natural gas is an excellent fuel source and Canada is blessed
with large reserves. It is very important that we do it right in
terms of how we develop, distribute, market and creatively manage
this legacy. I cannot support this private member's motion,
which is without vision and does not respect federal, provincial
and territorial—
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I listened to the member from the Canadian Alliance talk
about unfettered market forces, that he does not support this
motion and so on. I would seek unanimous consent to ask the
member a question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If we could let the
hon. member finish, before we go to the next speaker, we could do
it at that time, in what would be a pseudo-question and comment
period. Why do we not try that instead of interrupting him in
the middle of debate. That would not be something we would
normally do.
1315
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would have greatly
appreciated if that intercession had been when I had finished. I
think that is the way Private Members' Business is normally run
and operated.
Natural gas is an excellent fuel source and Canada is blessed
with large reserves. It is important that we do it right in
terms of how we develop, distribute, market and creatively manage
our legacy.
I cannot support this private member's motion because it is
without vision and it does not respect federal, provincial or
territorial respective jurisdictions.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I will be speaking on this motion, but at this time I
would like ask for unanimous consent to ask the member for
Vancouver Island North a question on his remarks.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not much we
cannot do through unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent
for the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre to put a question
to the member for Vancouver Island North?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the consideration from those members. I am
disappointed that the Liberal member from Ottawa, the upper
valley, did not provide unanimous consent because I wanted to ask
the member for Vancouver Island North a very important question
about the Liberals, which I will get to momentarily.
I am very pleased to stand in the House and support the motion
by my colleague, the member for Churchill River, who is also an
NDP member, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide
initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and
address environmental concerns and high energy costs.
I appreciate the Conservative members' views. They support this
motion because they too are concerned about the kind of high
energy costs that Canadians are being subjected to without any
kind of justification or regulation.
On the point of having some kind of regulatory agency for
energy, we have a regulatory agency for communications. We have
over 150 television stations. We have hundreds of radio
stations. We have all kinds of opportunities to choose whatever
kind of communications that we like in terms of getting
information.
Lo and behold, we have the CRTC which regulates communications
in the country. We also have a regulatory board for
transportation. There are many different ways to travel in this
country and we have a regulatory board for transportation, the
Canadian Transportation Agency. I support those regulatory
boards because we need some sense of order.
However, the underpinning of our economy is energy. Everything
we do, everything we consume and everything we move, whether we
are going to work or it is the goods and services we buy, they
all depend on the price of energy, be it natural gas, home
heating fuel, diesel fuel or gasoline. There is no backbone in
the Canadian Alliance Party or the Liberal Party to support a
regulatory agency for what is controlled basically by four or
five companies.
We have communications controls by the CRTC for hundreds of
companies. We have transportation controls for many companies,
50 or 100 companies at least. I do not know the number. We have
four or five companies that establish the price of energy and
there is no regulation. They set up the market forces to
determine what the prices are.
I ask the member for Vancouver Island North and the member for
Winnipeg North—St. Paul, if we have regulatory agencies for all
of these other things where there is pure competition, why not
for the underpinning of our economy, which is the price of
energy? Explain that one to me.
Maybe the reason they do not support that is that they get
substantial political contributions from the oil companies. Lo
and behold, surprise, surprise, surprise. Bite my tongue. I do
not understand what the reason could be. They receive hundreds
of thousands of dollars a year from the energy companies to do
what? To let the market forces determine the price of energy.
This is the underpinning of our economy. This is not a chocolate
bar. If we do not like the price of a chocolate bar for dessert
we can buy some other candy, a piece of cake, a piece of pie, or
we can choose not to have dessert. With energy, we cannot
choose. We have to buy energy to get to work, whether it is a
bus pass, or driving a car or a taxi. We need energy to pay for
transporting of goods on rail, air or by ground. Everything we
do depends on that.
1320
The price of energy in this country has gone up so high, at
record levels right now, because the government has no backbone
to regulate the gas industry, be it natural gas, diesel fuel or
home heating fuel.
I think Canadians see through these two parties. The former
leader of the Reform Party, who was a former oil company
executive, would not let this band of MPs from western Canada,
the Alliance members, talk about any kind of regulation for
energy because he was a former energy executive. Guess who
primarily funds the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance Party?
Primarily it is the energy companies, followed by the banks and
then Conrad Black. Conrad Black gives these guys more money. He
is actually becoming a bigger backer of the Reform Party than the
energy companies, which is really incredible because the energy
companies have lots of money.
I want to return specifically to this motion because it is
really important. I have been dealing specifically with the
motion in a very embracing way. We have heard the Liberal member
from Winnipeg North—St. Paul talk about market forces. Given
that kind of approach, members should know that government is
obligated to provide a balance in the country. Everyone knows
that the big corporations and the wealthy families run our
economy. However, the government's obligation is to provide a
balance to defend people and to provide a balance to the economic
powers that run our country. This is not the approach of
Liberals or the Alliance members. All they want to do is move
the weights and the power more to the wealthy who run our economy
now. That is wrong.
If we asked anybody whether or not the government should be the
balance to the powers that run our economy, or to give them move
power, I would venture to say that 90% would say that government
should be the balance. That is why we are asking in this
particular motion that government provide some balance.
Not all members live in the northern parts of Canada. I have
worked in northern Saskatchewan for many years. The price to
install a natural gas outlet in rural Saskatchewan, in the
southern part of the province, can go as high as $30,000 for one
installation. That is just the cost of the pipeline to the home
of the rancher or the farmer.
They think the market forces should determine this. If they are
so committed to Kyoto and the environmental concerns of millions
of Canadians, they would say that natural gas would reduce the
greenhouse effect and reduce greenhouse emissions, and that we
should move to natural gas so that people living on farms in
northern Canada could to use natural gas, which is our resource,
to reduce emissions and provide a more cost efficient way to heat
their homes, farms and businesses rather than burning home
heating fuel which has higher emissions in terms of pollution. We
could eliminate the use of wood or coal. Many people in northern
Canada use wood or coal. These have a very high degree of
pollutants compared to natural gas which is a very clean burning
element.
I want to outline as well that we, as a country, have a very
large reserve of natural gas and other forms of energy such oil,
coal, and so on. We are viewed as a net exporter of these
resources; that is, we produce more oil and natural gas than we
consume so we export the difference.
When the Minister of Industry stood in the House this morning in
question period and said that we are the second lowest gas priced
country in the industrialized world, I think he needs a little
correction here, because he is dead wrong. Of all of the
exporting nations in the world, Canada has the highest priced
gasoline.
I am not talking about the U.S.A. which is a net importer. It
has to import more oil because it consumes more than it produces.
Therefore, its prices are reasonably lower than ours when you
compare them. Its prices should be higher than ours because we
export our surplus to the Unites States.
1325
If we look at countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, the
Middle Eastern countries, all the countries that are exporters of
oil and natural gas, we see that their gasoline prices are way
below ours.
I think the Minister of Industry stands corrected. If he was
here I think he would feel quite ashamed that he said that Canada
had the second lowest price of gasoline. I wanted to correct the
record on that.
We have a motion that is a very important motion. My colleague,
the member for Churchill River, has told his constituents and
northern Canadians that they are important, that they are part of
Canada.
All we are asking in this motion is for the Liberal government
and the Alliance Party to recognize that we do have people living
in northern Canada who are Canadians too. We should provide a
balance in terms of programs to these people who live there,
settled in this country and defend our north in terms of
environmental and other situations.
I thank the Liberal member for commending my colleague from
Churchill River on his natural gas motion. I also think it is a
very important motion. However, the member stated that the
federal government does not subsidize natural gas pipelines. He
may not be aware but the federal government does indeed
participate in the industrial natural gas initiatives through the
tax regime. I wanted to correct the record on that.
I ask all members to reconsider our duty and obligation as
members of parliament to defend and support people living in
northern Canada. I ask them to revisit this motion and consider
supporting it so that we can bring northern Canadians into our
country as equal citizens.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to obtain unanimous consent to ask the member who
just spoke a question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Vancouver Island North has asked for the unanimous consent of the
House to put a question to the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): One question and one
response and the Speaker will determine the length.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it will be short and sweet. The
motion that we have before us and the speech that the member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre gave relate to two different things.
One is about incentives. The member was talking a lot to do
with price controls and other things.
If I read into that, is the member saying that price controls
and incentives are the same thing?
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, first, the motion says
that the government should provide initiatives, not
incentives—so I think he is not clear on that—to deliver
natural gas to unserviced regions and address environmental
concerns and high energy costs.
I maintain that the speech I gave was more than relevant. It is
really important to have a regulatory agency so that the most
important element in our economy, the underpinning of our economy
which is energy, should deserve some kind of regulation, as does
communications through the CRTC and as does transportation
through the Canadian Transportation Agency. Why not?
Maybe my response should end with a question to the member. Why
does he believe that the CTA and the CRTC should exist but not an
energy price review commission?
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am indeed delighted to participate in this very
worthwhile debate today.
With regard to the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre,
I am a little surprised. Although he does speak very eloquently
and very passionately for the cause in which he believes, I
noticed that throughout his dissertation he kept using the word
“think” many times: I think, I think, I think.
It might have been a relative of his for all I know, but there
was a famous king called Solomon who at one time said that people
use thought or thinking only to conceal their actions and speech
to conceal their thoughts. I know it is a little twist in the
words but I am just trying to figure out what he is trying to
conceal.
I believe that perhaps he is trying to conceal the real agenda
of his party, which is basically debt driven. His party is of
the belief that the government, the taxpayer of Canada, should,
in all circumstances, financially support any institution that
they believe in their own minds—and I disagree with him on
that—the people need. I personally believe that people need to
take responsibility for their actions.
1330
I would like to take this opportunity to address the motion on
natural gas put forth by the hon. member for Churchill River. It
is the government's current energy policy not to fund any
megaprojects but to leave the competitive market to decide what
goes forward and what does not. It is our firm belief that we
should not be an interventionist government with regard to
megaprojects. This is one reason, among a few others, that we
have difficulty in supporting the hon. member's motion.
I understand the hon. member's desire to ensure an
environmentally friendly and secure energy source for his region,
but that is what Canada's approach to the complex, evolving
global challenge of climate change is all about. We see it as a
challenge that is both environmental and economic. We on this
side of the House look upon challenges as opportunities in work
clothes to work for the benefit of each and every Canadian, to
work for the benefit of each and every province; in other words,
the opportunity to do the right thing.
The Kyoto protocol in December 1997 reaffirmed the conviction
among some 160 countries that six commonly identified greenhouse
gases were accumulating in the world's atmosphere to the point
that they must be altering the earth's climate. The majority of
global scientific opinion suggests that human conduct is
certainly contributing to climate change.
The protocol involved a commitment on the part of the
industrialized world to bring down greenhouse gas emissions. This
action is much like an insurance policy against those future
risks. Just like buying insurance, we cannot get the coverage we
should have had after the fact. We must do it before.
For Canada our Kyoto target is minus six, to get our emissions
down during the period between 2008 and 2012 to 6% below the
level they were in 1990. We are well on our way to that, but it
will not be easy. Nothing in the world is easy, unless we are
constantly critics. If we constantly criticize, that is easy,
but when we have to make definitive decisions that will have a
positive impact on the people of Canada things on occasion are
not easy.
The hon. member opposite spoke about Canada's northern climate.
I come from northern Ontario so I know of what she speaks, but
Canada's northern climate, vast distances, increasing population,
increasing production, and its resource based and energy
intensive economy make our commitment to that road much more
difficult to meet. If we can carry on from this point forward
with no changes and business as usual, by the year 2010 Canada's
greenhouse gas emissions will rise to about 26% above our Kyoto
target.
We obviously have to slow down that trajectory, to flatten it
out and then turn it downward to reach our target within this
decade. Where we will be when it ends will depend on how astute
we are at managing our domestic change challenges in relation to
the rest of the world. We need to marry strong environmental
performance with a strong economy. The Canadian public wants to
have both together.
About 79% of human made GHG emissions are related to the way we
produce, transport and consume energy. The more energy efficient
we become, the fewer emissions we generate. The more we achieve
in this regard through greater energy efficiency, the less we
will have to rely on other means to satisfy our Kyoto protocol
commitments.
Across our entire national economy in every sector, in every
individual behaviour, each and every one of us must achieve
energy efficient excellence. From a government policy
perspective we have thus far used a variety of tools to achieve
greater energy efficiency. For one thing we have tried to
improve our own operations within the Government of Canada. We
are on track to slash our emissions by more than 20% and to reach
that goal by the year 2005.
People can make informed decisions about energy use. The
EnerGuide label for equipment, houses and vehicles is a great
illustration.
1335
The third tool is peer group challenges like the VCR, the
voluntary challenge registry, where industries and business
pledge to improve their performances and report their progress in
a tangible and public way.
There are incentives like Natural Resources Canada commercial
buildings program which puts up some cash to encourage developers
and builders to incorporate best practices from the ground up.
Hand in hand with these tools we must achieve a faster rate of
new technology development and timely deployment of new
technology. This is the key underpinning for everyone's use.
Let us consider an innovation like Solarwall, for example,
developed by Conserval Engineering. It is a new solar based
energy saving technique for large building ventilation systems.
It requires modestly increased one time construction costs, but
it generates significant savings in ongoing operating costs year
after year. We get a more efficient ventilation system, fewer
greenhouse gas emissions and a growing market across North
American and around the world.
We must build our capacity for efficiency innovation in
government labs, in academic institutions and in the private
sector. We must put that knowledge to work quickly in the
marketplace. Federally we are moving in that direction,
specifically in each of the last four federal budgets. Within
Natural Resources Canada about $100 million each year are
normally invested in research for climate change solutions. Other
federal departments add another $50 million annually.
The bottom line in all this is that there is no one simple
answer. Regretfully, although I have great respect and
admiration for my colleague from Churchill, I cannot support the
hon. member's motion because it advocates a megaproject policy
for energy which has been replaced, as we speak, by a successful,
competitive market based approach.
The focus of the Government of Canada's policy is on providing
environmentally friendly and secure energy solutions for all
Canadians. This approach encourages energy solutions through
initiatives that address the complex global challenge. In my
great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke I have two of
Canada's greatest diversified energy producers: a hydro electric
dam at des-Joachims and the Atomic Energy of Canada Laboratories
in Chalk River.
We need to be the very best. We need to be the most
intelligent, innovative and efficient at finding, developing,
producing, delivering, consuming and exporting the world's most
sophisticated and diversified energy products, skills, services
and science. The Liberal government will be very ambitious in
this regard. The upper Ottawa valley is leading the way. My
great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is at the cutting
edge. I believe that is a worthy Canadian ambition for one and
all.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, like
the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre I am pleased to rise
today to support the member for Churchill River, Saskatchewan,
and his Motion No. 298. I will quote this very important motion
which bears repeating:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide
initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and
address environmental concerns and high energy costs.
We live in a very wonderful country. Canada is truly fortunate
to have an abundant energy resource that heats our homes and
fuels our economy. Natural gas is the cleanest burning and most
acceptable carbon energy source.
Canadian natural gas is distributed to more than four million
customers in six provinces, providing 26% of Canada's energy
needs. This number is increasing each year. Canada's natural
gas exports are experiencing exponential growth. Canada as a
whole is experiencing this tremendous growth in the natural gas
area.
1340
At the same there are entire regions of our country that do not
have access to natural gas. This places many communities at an
economic disadvantage. We can look at many of the communities in
the northern part of our country and many places in our rural
settings that are at a disadvantage. Natural gas presents an
opportunity for economic development in unserviced regions where
expensive fuel costs are a prohibitive factor in establishing and
maintaining or expanding an enterprise.
When my colleague from Churchill River was debating the motion
earlier this year, he put forth the need for a national vision in
relation to natural gas distribution. He provided for the House
examples of the social and economic benefits that natural gas
distribution could bring to unserviced regions.
Canada, as I have said, is blessed with tremendous natural gas
resources. Canada is the world's third largest producer and this
resource sector is growing tremendously. Fuelling this growth
and royalty revenue is United States demand which some day may
place Canada's domestic needs at risk. It is a bit disheartening
to think that many natural resources in Canada are quite often
placed at risk because of the needs and the demands of other
countries.
I remember growing up as a young lad in Nova Scotia always
wondering why I could buy an Annapolis Valley apple much cheaper
in other parts of Canada than I could in Nova Scotia where those
apples are grown. This is something we have to give
consideration to and it is something that becomes very relevant
when we look at the whole issue of natural gas production.
In Nova Scotia right now we are in the process of producing
natural gas. What is happening? This gas is being shipped to
the eastern states. They are getting the gas even before many
residents in Nova Scotia who live right around where the gas is
being produced. We have to think carefully when we talk about
the issue of having a national vision for natural resources.
When my NDP colleague from Winnipeg Centre was speaking to the
motion he described the fact that gas discoveries were once
considered a curse while drilling for oil. This is something
that is interesting too. If while they were drilling for oil
they discovered a pocket of gas it was a nuisance factor.
I think with respect to the fishing industry how many years ago
lobster, mussels and certain shellfish were considered to be junk
food. I hear many stories from some of the older people who talk
about how they were embarrassed to go to school with a lobster
sandwich. They would much rather have had a peanut butter
sandwich in the old days. Nowadays we know that the priorities
have shifted, the resources are looked at differently and lobster
is considered a delicacy. Mussels are considered a very fancy
meal in restaurants.
Mr. John Solomon: What does lobster cost?
Mr. Gordon Earle: I cannot say what it costs, but
certainly lobster is now considered a priority over and above
peanut butter sandwiches for many people. This is how our
resources change. We have to keep abreast of this vision and
look at how we can make sure that each part of the country
benefits from the wealth that exists in Canada.
Quite often we look at the idea of oil and gas companies
competing. This is another factor. The whole issue of
competition becomes an issue that sometimes prevents us from
getting the best use of our resources. I can recall that when
the Sable project was being discussed many oil companies came to
me and lobbied me by trying to point that they were very
concerned about the oil industry, that their prices remain
competitive, remain as cheap as or perhaps even cheaper than
natural gas.
It is almost like one company is afraid that if business goes
from one place it will lose out. It is unfortunate that we
cannot learn to work together and to realize that because one
thing is taking place which may enhance the lives of individuals
does not necessarily rule out the other industry continuing to
have a meaningful place in society.
Often we see it as one against the other and we always compete.
This is the problem we see particularly in the province of Nova
Scotia. For far too long the island of Cape Breton has suffered
because governments have felt that everything had to be focused
in the Halifax area. We did not spread things out across our
province. We quite often got the feeling that if something went
to one area it took away from another area instead of seeing the
idea that if we could facilitate another place growing as one
place grows then everyone benefits from it.
This is what we need to talk about when we look at natural gas
servicing Canada as a whole and providing opportunities for those
unserviced regions.
We need a real vision in this regard.
1345
The NDP proposes a national vision not a chequebook reference.
The Liberals talk about megaprojects as if it is going to cost
all kinds of money. I submit that it costs more money not to
have a vision, not to set initiatives and not to try to challenge
these resources in the most useful way for everybody. That is
what costs money. When people start looking at it from a
political perspective saying they will do only what is best for
their region, that costs money.
The NDP proposes a national vision. We are not proposing to
sponsor every pipeline or every branch line so every home is
linked to a cleaner energy source. We are asking the House to
recognize that there are unserviced regions in the country. There
are pockets of inefficiency and high energy costs. We are asking
the House to recognize these disparities and to correct them so
the situation across Canada is not one of have and have not
regions. Let us increase the potential for all parts of the
country to share in the resources and to take advantage of them.
We also have to think in terms of community input. Far too often
we forget about getting input from the communities that are most
affected. Quite often we forget about the people who have been
the natural stewards of these resources for years and years. I
am talking about our aboriginal communities.
Many times resources have been developed in these communities
but the benefits of the development bypass the very communities
in which the resource is located. This is quite often the case
in the north and various remote areas. We must have a vision
that is going to take into account the realities of this great
country and try to bring about equal opportunity for all to share
in the benefits that we have in Canada.
I would like to speak for a moment on the issue of emissions.
The Progressive Conservative member for South Shore spoke in
support of the motion. The member cited Canada's faltering
commitment to the Kyoto protocol to address climate change and
greenhouse gases.
The emissions continue to rise while the Liberal government
hides from its responsibilities to provide leadership and
direction and to ensure a cleaner environment and reduced energy
costs for future generations.
It is important that we think in terms of what we are doing for
the future generation, for our young people. We must ensure the
kind of environment for them that will enhance their future
rather than create more difficulties for them.
We in the NDP agree that not enough is being done by the Liberal
government to meet our international obligations to reverse the
damage to our atmosphere which all nations and people share. The
recent budget announcement will provide further studies and some
immediate action but falls short of the current opportunities we
could be implementing.
The NDP thinks this is a very important motion which is worthy
of consideration and support by all members of the House.
Ultimately by providing these kinds of opportunities right across
Canada, we will be enhancing not only the future of our young
people, but we will be providing economic growth and incentives
for the current generation. We will be doing what is right in the
eyes of Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the order paper.
It being 1.49 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.49 p.m.)