36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 102
CONTENTS
Monday, May 29, 2000
| PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS
|
1110
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-205. Second reading
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1115
1120
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1125
1130
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1135
1140
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1145
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1150
1155
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
| Suspension of Sitting
|
1200
| Sitting Resumed
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-16. Third reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1205
1210
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1215
1220
| Motion
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1225
1230
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1255
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1300
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1305
1310
1315
1320
| Mr. John Bryden |
1325
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1330
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1335
1340
1345
1350
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1355
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE LATE MAURICE RICHARD
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| MAURICE “THE ROCKET” RICHARD
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1400
| THE LATE MAURICE RICHARD
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| WALKERTON WATER SUPPLY
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
1405
| THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| JUSTICE JULES DESCHÊNES
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| STATUS OF WOMEN
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1410
| RIMOUSKI OCEANIC
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| BONE AND JOINT DECADE
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| ARMENIA
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| THE LATE MAURICE RICHARD
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| THE LATE MAURICE RICHARD
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1420
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1425
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1430
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1435
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| PREVENTATIVE WITHDRAWAL
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1440
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| MINING
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. David Iftody |
1445
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1450
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| NAFTA
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1455
| MOSEL VITELIC
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. John Manley |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
|
| Mr. Ted White |
1500
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| MICHEL DUMONT
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| THE LATE MAURICE RICHARD
|
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1505
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1510
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1515
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1520
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Industry
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Charitable Donations
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
1525
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Adoption
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| POINT OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Petitions
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1530
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-16. Third reading
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1535
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Janko Peric |
1540
1545
1550
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1555
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1600
1605
1610
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1615
| Mr. John Bryden |
1620
1625
1630
1635
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1640
1645
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1650
1655
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1700
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1705
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1710
| Division on motion deferred
|
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-33. Second reading
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1715
1720
1725
| Mr. John Herron |
1730
| Mr. John Herron |
1735
1740
1745
1750
| Amendment
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Divisions on Bill C-16 further deferred
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-33. Second Reading
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1755
1800
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1805
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1810
1815
| Mr. John Herron |
1820
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1825
1830
1835
| SUPPLY
|
| Designated Day—Canada Health Act
|
1900
1905
(Division 1322)
| Amendment negatived
|
1910
(Division 1323)
| Motion negatived
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1915
| Health
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1920
| Health
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 102
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 29, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS
1110
[Translation]
INCOME TAX ACT
The House resumed from March 30 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-205, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of
expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools required in
employment) be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been
consultations among representatives of all the parties, and I
seek unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the motion for the
second reading of Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act
(deduction of expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools required
in employment), all questions necessary to dispose of the said
motion shall be deemed put and a recorded division deemed
requested and deferred until Tuesday, May 30, 2000, at the expiry
of the time provided for Government Orders.
I remind the House that there have been consultations among the
leaders of all the parties.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have
unanimous consent to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to this bill presented by my friend and
colleague from Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
As my colleague has pointed out in his press releases, as well
as in his speeches, this is a non-partisan bill. Too often in
this House we have to debate bills on which our party line
obliges us to take a given position rather than another. Here,
we are dealing with a bill that directly affects taxpayers,
their budgets and their wallets or purses. It affects
Quebecers, and it affects Canadians, equally.
The bill in question is Bill C-205, an act to amend the Income
Tax Act (deduction of expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools
required in employment).
I will read the summary of the bill for the information of our
audience as well as those MPs who have not yet reached a
decision and who will, we hope, be favourable in a vote free of
party lines—this not being a highly controversial subject:
The purpose of this enactment is to permit mechanics to deduct
the cost of providing tools for their employment if they are
required to do so by the terms of the employment. The deduction
encompasses maintenance, rental and insurance costs, the full
cost of tools under $250 or such inflation-adjusted limit as is
set by regulation, and the capital cost allowance of tools over
$250, set by regulation.
1115
Some will say “Yes, but mechanics will be able pull a fast
one”. First, who is a mechanic? Are all of those who tinker a bit
with their cars in their garage mechanics? Are those of us who
can do a bit of maintenance on our cars from time to time
mechanics? Is this going to be a bit difficult to manage?
Not really, because a precedent exists in the federal
government's Income Tax Act. My colleague, the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, is not proposing
to create a precedent in the Income Tax Act.
A precedent exists in the case of forest workers, musicians,
doctors, dentists and certain businesses.
Today, a young person decides to become a mechanic—a trade in
which there is a shortage at the moment, but one that is vital
to Quebec and Canada where the number of family cars keeps
growing and maintenance is necessary for environmental and
financial reasons. They decide after finishing technical
training or high school to go and work as a mechanic in a
garage. The day after earning their diploma they have to pay out
somewhere between $15,000 and $40,000 in order to practice their
trade.
Very few young people have between $15,000 and $40,000 to spend
on equipment for their work. However, as a musician or a
dentist, I can buy equipment, and the government will give me a
tax credit when I buy the equipment I need for my work. As a
mechanic, I cannot. Often these young people, and the not so
young, are asked to spend considerable amounts in order to be
able to do their work.
So, in terms of the complexity of applying the law, there is
already a precedent. In financial terms, do we have the money?
How much will it cost and do we have the funds to enable these
young and not so young people to exercise their profession and
to get tax relief?
We have been told, to the thunderous applause of the Liberal
Party, that there will be a $95 billion surplus for the next
five years.
If we have such surpluses, we should not spend all our time
debating bills on endangered species, not because such bills are
not important, but because we must also deal with other issues
and take concrete measures for people in our communities. As I
said earlier, a bill such as this one can have a direct bearing
on people in our ridings.
The funds are available. In fact, the Minister of Industry even
wanted to use it in a preposterous fashion by offering owners of
professional hockey teams financial compensation to help them
remain in Canada, to help them increase their share of the
market. The minister's idea was so ludicrous that, for the first
time, we saw a minister backtrack within 24 or 48 hours and
withdraw his bill.
There are funds available in the government's coffers and
they must be appropriately invested, spent and earmarked.
Bill C-205 would allow each and every member of this House to do
something concrete for an important group of workers in their
communities, regions, ridings and cities, particularly since
these workers are often not among the most well-off. The average
hourly rate for mechanics is around $15 an hour. This may come
as a surprise, since it often costs us a little more than that
when we bring in our vehicle for repairs. Still, the hourly rate
for mechanics is around $15 an hour.
This is a bill which, and this is rare, would show the public
the concrete nature of our work in this place.
The public would see that we do not only ponder abstract
concepts, as it often believes is the case, but that we also
make decisions which, as was the case with forestry workers,
doctors, dentists and musicians, have a direct and personal
impact on people. I hope that the party line will not come into
play regarding this issue—although I do not know whether or not
this will be the case.
1120
The member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans has
asked that the division be deferred until tomorrow evening. I
hope that on something such as this, which does not involve
sovereignty or federalism, whether of Quebec or of Canada, or
globalization or any other such matter, but is nothing more than
an attempt to help honest folk enter the job market or prosper
there, we will not see party lines imposed on certain parties
and have unanimous voting against this non-partisan bill.
Naturally, if members were to vote unanimously in favour of this
bill, there would be no problem.
Passage of Bill C-205 would encourage the creation of jobs in the
automobile industry. It is clear from the number of high school
graduates, especially in trades programs, that there is a
serious shortage in this sector right now. Passing this bill is
one way of helping this important sector of economic activity.
With the prospect of a tax break, young people might be more
tempted to go into automobile mechanics.
Several Bloc Quebecois members attended a reception hosted by
the National Automotive Trades Association of Canada and, to our
great surprise, we were, if I am not mistaken, the only party
represented at this event, which was intended to bring this
issue home to MPs, who hold the fate of the bill in their hands.
I urge members to support this bill. I invite those who did not
attend this information session on the various aspects of such
legislation and hear the arguments put forward by the
association to take a hard look at the bill and its implications
for their respective communities before voting, I hope, in
favour of the bill.
[English]
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this private member's bill.
I commend my colleague from the Bloc for bringing it forward.
The bill was introduced in the last session by the member for
Lakeland. He did a lot of work on the background of this and I
am glad to see that it has been carried forward. The last time
it was debated it was a non-votable. This time it is votable.
I believe this is an issue of which everyone in the House is
aware. It has been brought to their attention that this is an
inequity in our tax laws that needs to be addressed. At a time
when we are seeing surpluses in our revenues, the government
needs to take a look at our tax laws and change the areas that
need to be changed, address the inequities and recognize a trade
that has been singled out to not receive the same treatment as
others.
I am glad the bill is before the House and that it is votable. I
hope all members in the House will support it.
The message is clear. The member for Lakeland has received
7,000 letters from mechanics from across the country who have
pointed out the shortcomings of this part of the tax laws and
that in this day of changing technologies it is becoming more and
more onerous, because of the amount of money it takes to buy the
tools, to get into the trade.
The trade is changing rapidly. The technology and equipment
these people have to repair, whether it is heavy-duty tractors,
large machinery, automobiles or whatever, is changing. It is
computerized now. There are fewer people who can even look under
the hood of a vehicle and do anything with it. It takes
specialized people and specialized equipment.
Some mechanics estimate they need to invest $20,000 to $30,000
into equipment just to do their jobs. Having their own tools is
one of the conditions of employment.
As recently as two weeks ago, I visited a young man in a shop in
my riding. He informed me that it was necessary for him to
supply $5,000 to $10,000 worth of tools to move into a
journeyman position. He told me that was a big hurdle to
overcome and that he may not be able to do that. This is an
example of a trained and eager young man who is interested in
getting into the workforce but because of the amount of money it
will take for him to invest he may not be able to do that.
1125
The government needs to look at the fact that this is happening.
It needs to offer these people a tax credit for the tools they
have to purchase as a condition of employment.
The last time this bill was brought forward there were a number
of issues raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance
Minister and some of the statements need to be clarified or
argued with. One statement that he made was that:
Of course not. There are many. However they are the ones who
cannot use this purchase of equipment as a deduction in their
business. What we are saying is that farmers and other
businessmen, as well as artists, musicians and chainsaw
operators, incur substantial expenses as a requirement of
employment but they are able to deduct these costs. Why can
mechanics not also be added to this group? The government could
then ensure that other groups that incur expenses as a
requirement of employment will be treated fairly by the tax
system.
We are now in a position where we can step back and have a look
at our tax system to see where we could improve it. There are
many ways to improve our tax system and mechanics' tools is one
area that needs to be looked at.
The policy is supported by the all party House of Commons
finance committee. In its last report it stated:
The committee recommends that the government provide targeted tax
relief for all those who must bear large expenses as a condition
of employment, such as is the case with mechanics' tools.
All opposition parties are supportive, and I hope members of the
government, when it comes time to stand to vote on this issue,
will support it as well. I am sure they are aware that this
situation exists and that it needs to be changed.
The parliamentary secretary also stated that:
This private member's bill would also provide tax relief to all
mechanics irrespective of the size of their expenditures instead
of targeting relief to those incurring extraordinary expenses.
That is a pretty poor statement. As we know, businessmen,
farmers, all people who are involved in a business, are able to
deduct their expenditures so why should mechanics be treated
differently? Not being compensated for small expenditures,
whatever the level, is a matter for regulation that could be
sorted out rather easily.
He also stated that:
That applies everywhere. If we are buying something to carry on
our business, that is separate from our personal lives. That is
minute nitpicking. The true issue is that we have people who are
putting out tens of thousands of dollars to get started and then
supplementing that every year by $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 per year
in purchases of specialized equipment to keep their jobs and they
are not able to deduct that expense. That is totally unfair.
When the bill was brought forward in 1998 by the member for
Lakeland it received overwhelming support from people in the
industry. I have quotes from mechanics, people who hire
mechanics and general managers of automotive dealerships who say
that this is something that would go a long way in helping to
improve the ability of their people to do a decent job.
The minor change in Bill C-205 from the previous bill is that
the amount of the deduction be changed to $250 from $200. It is
just a minor tweaking to bring it back. This time it was brought
back as a votable bill which will give it more debate in the
House and more time for people to put their ideas forward.
I had a private member's bill drawn last week, thank goodness.
It is like winning a lottery. The whole scheme of things here is
to get a private member's bill drawn and to have it made votable.
To bring it to the House to make members stand on the issue is
important. This bill has made that one hurdle and has gone that
one step further.
We will be supporting this initiative by the member.
We believe it is an inequity that needs to be addressed. The
overwhelming positive response by people in the industry to this
bill is a clear indication that it is needed. I hope that
government members of the House, when the bill comes to a vote,
will realize that, will listen to the people and will support the
bill.
1130
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to speak today to Bill C-205, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.
It is time this House reached a final decision in order to help
out the mechanics of this country, the workers, by reducing
their expenses when they start working.
To begin a career as a mechanic, a person has to go to trade
school, to community college, in order to learn his trade. He
graduates with a debt load. Then, when he arrives at his first
job, the first thing he needs is a tool set. He needs a great
many tools to do his job; otherwise he will not be hired.
People who are starting up a new company meet with government
representatives and tell them “We are prepared to create x
number of jobs”. As hon. members are aware, this involves the
transitional fund or some other such fund. Mention of this
brings out some nervous smiles in the House, but transitional
funds are necessary tools for economic development.
It is the same thing here. A mechanic who wants to work needs a
tool box and tools, and these are very expensive. It would not
be the end of the world if a mechanic were entitled to a tax
reduction. For example, a woodsman who needs a chain saw in the
spring in order to go out and work in the bush can get an income
tax reduction for it.
Mechanics are getting it on all sides. We have seen how much
this all costs. We are talking several thousands. I know,
because I have worked with mechanics myself, and they were
constantly having to purchase tools.
When we changed from the British system of weights and measures
to the metric system, two types of tools were needed, doubling
the costs. Because of changes in Canada, it cost them double.
Mechanics have asked me “Why are we as workers not entitled to a
tax credit for our tools? We pay taxes when we work. If we
need a tool for our work, why are we not entitled to tax
relief?” When companies have costs, they get tax breaks.
Workers pay their taxes but want help with the cost of their
tools, because they are expensive.
I am going to tell members about an experience I had last week.
I took my car to the dealer's for repairs. Two days ago, we
found two of their tools in the car as we were washing it.
We know where our car was, so we will return the tools to the
mechanic.
How often, however, with the number of tools they use in
repairing people's cars, do mechanics leave their tools in cars,
not because they want to leave them there of course, but because
there are a lot of tools and a person can forget them. Someone
working on an engine can forget a tool. That costs a lot.
These are not once in a lifetime purchases. A person does not
just buy a wrench to use forevermore. Regularly during the year
other tools have to be bought. They have to be bought all the
time, because they get lost or are not the right tools.
I think we will always need mechanics. I have a car, I am sure
you have a car, Madam Speaker, everyone has a car.
If we are going to help the mechanics we need in this country,
this would be the way to go about it.
1135
We are not asking for reductions on the price of their tools,
but that the government at least give them tax deductions. It is
normal for certain trades to get tax deductions. For example,
fishers are entitled to certain deductions.
Tools cost a lot of money, and mechanics lose many through no
fault of theirs. Let me give you the example of mechanics who
work underground, in mines. There is rock, water and mud. They
sometimes lose tools without even noticing it. They will never
see these tools again. Each year, these mechanics lose many
tools like that.
There was also the conversion to the metric system.
For our mechanics—I am repeating myself, but it is important to
stress that point—that change means that their costs have
doubled, since they now need two sets of tools: one for the
British system and another for the metric system.
We are talking about people who must spend between $10,000 and
$15,000 for their tools, depending on what type they need.
Mechanics need these tools, otherwise they cannot work.
Nowadays, companies that get started do not say “we will hire
people and pay for their tools”. It is a known fact that, in
Canada, mechanics must pay for their own tools.
Our party will certainly support this bill. There are mechanics
in every riding represented in this House, whether it is by
Liberal, Bloc Quebecois, Conservative, NDP or Canadian Alliance
members.
Service stations, mines or industry—they all have mechanics.
As the Canadian Alliance member said earlier, thousands of
people have signed petitions calling for a tax break for
mechanics. The government has surpluses right now. It is time
to help workers in this sector.
As I mentioned earlier, there is no need to worry about
companies. If something breaks or they need new equipment,
sometimes they do not even have to ask for help because the
government is only too quick to suggest one of its programs. I
do not know whether public servants need to hang on to their
jobs, but they are going after these companies and telling them:
“We have one program here and another there. We will work on
this program and we will be able to help you”.
We support the Bloc Quebecois member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. His bill is truly
important because it concerns a problem affecting all of Canada.
There are mechanics everywhere. These are not isolated jobs in
one part of the country. They are everywhere.
It is important that government members, and all members,
regardless of their party affiliation, take a stand and do the
right thing, in order to show that we believe in our workers and
that we can help them.
Young graduates have had to spend a lot on their training. Many
of them work in service stations at minimum wage. They work for
$5.75 an hour. In some provinces, they work for $7, $8, or $10
an hour until they get their mechanic's licence, and that takes
four years. But while waiting to get their licence, they need
their tools.
Once again, I urge members to vote tomorrow evening in favour of
the bill introduced by the Bloc Quebecois member, because it is
important for our Canadian mechanics.
1140
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I stand today on behalf of our finance critic, the hon.
member for Kings—Hants. I know that he has spoken passionately
on this issue. We support Bill C-205, which would amend the
Income Tax Act to allow the deduction of expenses incurred by a
mechanic for tools required in employment.
The tax system is very unfair to mechanics. As we well know,
many professionals can deduct the cost of the tools required to
perform their work. One of the exceptions is mechanics.
Mechanics are being supported by members on this side of the
House as well as by many members on the other side of the House.
This issue has been around for a long time. Ten years ago, when
I was sitting on that side of the House, I was approached by
mechanics. It was waved in front of the government then. Much
to my displeasure, the government which I represented at that
time did not give this issue the attention it deserved. It is
time the government did.
The politics of this issue are the politics of governing.
Governments are very reluctant to introduce tax measures which
would appear to cost the government revenue. Most of us would
argue that is not the case. If the economy is to grow and if we
are encouraging people to work, they must have some breaks along
the way.
It is interesting to note that representatives of the Canadian
Automobile Dealers Association support this move. They appeared
before the finance committee on behalf of mechanics to seek tax
deductibility of technicians' tools. They have appeared before
the committee many times. Since 1992 they have been onside.
They made this public and appeared before the finance committee
for the first time in 1992.
The committee stated in its 1997 pre-budget report:
The Committee recommends that the government provide targeted tax
relief for all those who must bear large expenses as a condition
of employment, such as is the case with mechanic's tools.
In its 1996 pre-budget report the committee stated:
The Committee recommends that the Government consider measures to
provide targeted tax relief for large expenses incurred as a
condition of employment, such as mechanic's tools.
Basically it is saying the same thing.
The finance committee, which is an all parliamentary committee,
supports the request.
There are over 115,000 mechanics in this country who could
benefit from such a measure; the measure being tax relief for
those who have to buy their tools in order to work. The average
mechanic spends approximately $15,000 on tools once they have
received their training just to begin working in the profession.
Some invest up to $40,000.
As we well know, mechanics need to replace worn out equipment,
and they must replace it at great expense.
The interesting statistic, from the point of view of public
sympathy, is that the average wage of a mechanic is only $29,000
per annum. What would be the cost to the Government of Canada if
it were to do this?
1145
The cost would not be high in the grant scheme of things, but it
would send a signal to our young professionals, and mechanics are
professionals and that we care about them, that we think their
services are important. They should be able to deduct the cost
of their tools as many other professional people can. This is a
case of fairness, and we want to see that fairness exercised by
the government of the day.
Leaving politics behind, I remind the House that this issue has
been before the House for at least 10 years. Given the fact that
the all party parliamentary committee and automobile dealers
across the country can agree, surely to goodness the Government
of Canada can do something to give our mechanics the tax relief
they deserve.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
rise to speak to Bill C-205, introduced by my colleague, the
member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans
and intended to enable mechanics to deduct the cost of
purchasing or replacing tools from their income.
I was fortunate enough to work as a mechanic for 15 years with a
North Shore mining company, IOC, in Sept-Îles. Fortunately, this
company sometimes replaced lost tools. If we had had to pay for
them out of our pocket, it would have been hard. Those not
familiar with the job of mechanic, especially, that of heavy
engineering, have no idea of the costs involved.
In 1980, a vernier used in measuring diameters cost a minimum of
$150. With inflation and the rise in costs of all sorts, I am
pretty sure that today it would cost $250. A mechanic's tool
box has several such tools in it.
Not always through negligence, sometimes through misfortune,
because of the location of the work and the conditions, tools,
which are vulnerable, can get lost. I worked on a ship loader,
on ocean going vessels, some 200 feet or 60 metres above the
water and I have dropped tools into the water. At the time it
represented several hundred dollars. It was accidental.
Fortunately, this company, which I have always respected and
which I was proud to work for for 15 years, replaced our tools.
I heard what the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst had to say about
cleaning his car after it had been repaired and finding two
mechanic's tools. I had the same experience last year. When we
are talking about Snap-On tools, they are quality tools, but I
have seen screwdrivers cut in two by the spark produced when a
mechanic touched two terminals, thus joining negative and
positive. There went $15. That may not seem like much, but it
adds up when the same thing happens a number of times in a year.
I think that it is doing justice to blue collar workers, to
people who work with their hands, to recognize certain rights
for them, the right to replace their tools and the right to
acquire tools in order to get a job. This is doing them justice
when other professionals of all kinds have obtained the right to
replace or upgrade their equipment without having to ask for it.
1150
Reference was made earlier to dentists. There are a number of
different self-employed workers and professionals who have to
replace their tools. When I was a notary, I bought pencils by
the case. I did not have to fight to get them included in my
operating expenses. This was taken for granted and no one
disputed it. In my case, it is just about the only thing that
was not disputed.
As for the mechanic, for whom the toolkit represents a major
investment, all the more so because the tools are subject to
loss or breakage, he is not entitled to this deduction, although
he is probably a long way down on the scale of earnings.
I believe that the hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans is showing respect
for workers. I believe his bill must be supported. I am
delighted that it was introduced here by one of us.
I am all the more delighted that the other parties, those in
opposition at least, seem prepared to espouse my colleague's
cause.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Considering that the debate will conclude in about four minutes,
as the sponsor of this bill, which will be voted on tomorrow, I
am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to conclude my
remarks, for a maximum of four minutes. I need the unanimous
consent of the House, since I already spoke on this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House to conclude the debate in
five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I thank members from all parties for agreeing to give
me the floor.
In conclusion, I wish to inform this House and those who are
listening to us that this bill transcends party lines. It is not
about diverging political options or diverging views on
Quebec-Canada relations, not at all.
In the course of their parliamentary activities in their
ridings, all 301 members of this House have opportunities to
visit car dealerships and to meet with mechanics in their riding
offices. We are already aware of this issue of deducting the
cost of providing tools for their employment.
As the Prime Minister said, we are perhaps 12 or 15 months away
from the next election. All members of parliament who decide to
run again will have to visit automobile dealers and will be
questioned on this issue.
I am therefore appealing to their common sense. Judging by the
three hours of debate, Canadian Alliance, Bloc Quebecois of
course, NDP and Progressive Conservative members are all in
favour of the bill.
I appeal to the Liberal majority. The Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Finance—perhaps he was expressing a personal
opinion—did not seem too inclined to vote in favour of the bill.
But I appeal to the Liberal members.
This will not be a vote along party lines, but what is called a
free vote. I am certain that they will follow their conscience
and vote in favour of the bill.
In closing, I remind the House that, in 1997, the Standing
Committee on Finance, composed of a majority of Liberal members,
made the following recommendation:
The committee recommends that the Government consider measures
to provide targeted tax relief for large expenses incurred as a
condition of employment, such as mechanic's tools.
1155
I remind my Liberal colleague from Vaughan—King—Aurora, who
was the committee chair, that he voted for the recommendation.
My Liberal colleague from Gatineau, my colleagues from
Sarnia—Lambton, Provencher, Niagara Falls, Kitchener Centre,
Mississauga South and Stoney Creek, who were on the Standing
Committee on Finance representing the Liberal majority, that
they voted in favour of the recommendation.
I think that automobile technicians expect us as
parliamentarians to recognize finally the importance of their
profession to society and to give it its true worth.
It is simply a matter of establishing some balance in relation
to other job categories that can deduct the cost of their tools.
It is also a matter of encouraging our young people who might be
tempted to join this profession, if we gave them a tax break. It
is also a matter of young men and women seeing that the
government is listening to their concerns and promoting the
development of this profession.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to the order made
earlier today, every question necessary to dispose of the motion
is deemed to have been put, and the recorded division is deemed
to have been demanded and deferred until Tuesday, May 30, 2000,
at the end of Government Orders.
[English]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam
Speaker, perhaps we could suspend briefly and commence Government
Orders at noon as usual.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:57 a.m.)
1200
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and I
think you would find agreement, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7),
to further defer the recorded division on Motion No. 30 scheduled
for Tuesday, May 30, to the end of Government Orders on
Wednesday, May 31.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent of the House to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed from May 17 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the
third time and passed.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to be able to take part in the debate surrounding Bill
C-16, our last and final opportunity to debate the bill before it
proceeds to its final vote.
The NDP caucus feels strongly that Bill C-16 has merit and does
meet the needs of Canadian citizens. We are comfortable and
satisfied that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration listened to numerous representations. In fact 37
groups and organizations came before the committee. We are
satisfied that the concerns brought forward by the experts in the
field and by the many advocates who made representations were
incorporated into the final bill. In other words the committee
heard Canadians. The committee listened to them and the
committee instilled what it heard into what we now know as Bill
C-16.
The bill started out in its first incarnation as Bill C-63. It
was dealt with, at length, under that name. We brought forward
many concerns and recommended amendments at committee stage. We
are pleased to say that the government when it reintroduced the
bill as Bill C-16 took into consideration many of the
shortcomings we pointed out with respect to the original bill.
The 37 presentations to the committee is an indication of the
broad interest in this subject. I have sat on other committees
and dealt with other pieces of legislation when we did not have
nearly as many groups coming forward. People feel strongly about
the issue of citizenship. Canadian citizenship is to be valued.
Canadian citizenship is to be treasured. Most of us feel very
passionate because most Canadians are fiercely proud Canadian
nationalists.
The reason the particular bill generated so much interest is
that many of us are looking at citizenship in a whole new light,
given the global economy we currently live in. We have been
forced to re-evaluate and revisit the whole concept of
citizenship.
Given the globalization of capital we are seeing borders
disappear. Many say we are probably witnessing the beginning of
the end of the concept of a nation state. Free movement of
goods, services, investment and capital does not pay attention to
international borders. These things are happening all around us.
The only way we can define ourselves and maintain our identity as
Canadian is to ensure that the nation state of Canada survives as
a entity and that the personification of that or the way it
affects citizens is by virtue of our citizenship.
We are very concerned when we see international trade agreements
that do not recognize nation state boundaries. For instance, we
saw the MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment, which
recently failed. The people of the world voted that idea down.
The people who were promoting the MAI were actually quoted as
saying that there was a surplus of democracy in the world which
was interfering with the free movement of capital, meaning that
freely elected governments were getting in the way of what
businesses wanted to do.
1205
This is why I raise the issue that people are concerned about
the concept of citizenship. They are concerned about the concept
of the nation state and ultimately about the future of democracy
if we have corporate leaders of the world saying that there is a
surplus of democracy in the world that is interfering with the
movement of capital. It makes us wonder what is the next step.
These are some of the reasons people are concerned with the idea
of citizenship and why we had so many groups come forward to the
committee. It is not just about the practical aspects of how one
achieves citizenship in Canada or how citizenship can be revoked
within the country. Those are the technical elements. There is
a larger more philosophical issue regarding the very concept and
nature of citizenship. Many of the groups that came forward and
made representations dealt with the much bigger picture of what
it means to be a citizen.
In being a citizen of Canada I believe the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts in many senses. It is a feeling of
camaraderie. It is a feeling of togetherness that Canadians
enjoy, being part of the greatest country in the world. It is
something we treasure and value but we take very seriously.
We have to take note that citizenship is not a right. It is a
privilege. With citizenship comes responsibilities. With
citizenship comes many benefits, but it also carries with it the
burden of responsibilities. We have to conduct ourselves in a
certain way or frankly our citizenship can be revoked.
There are parts of Bill C-16 that deal with the revocation of
citizenship. Some of those who made representation to the
committee felt very strongly that it gave the minister far too
much power in terms of the revocation of citizenship.
The NDP is satisfied that on that subject Bill C-16 is balanced,
in that there are options for appeal at every stage of the
revocation of citizenship. This can ultimately wind up in the
highest court of the land and we do not believe anyone needs any
more avenue of recourse than that. I am glad to see we have
broad acceptance of that idea.
We are comfortable that Bill C-16 gives the avenue of recourse
of appeal to the federal courts. We are satisfied that Bill C-16
is not too heavy handed in dealing with the revocation of
citizenship. We are comfortable now that the terms of gaining
citizenship are clarified. Some of the changes we asked for in
the early stages of Bill C-63 have been incorporated in Bill
C-16.
We found great fault with a change which recommended that when
people take their citizenship tests they would have to know one
of the official languages of the country. They would not have
access to translators. They would have no access to
interpretation. We did not think that knowledge of one of the
official languages and any kind of a test for what kind of a good
citizen a person would be related whatsoever.
We are glad to see that under the current incarnation of the
bill people will be allowed access to translation services if
their working knowledge of either of the official languages is
inadequate to carry them through what can be a very complicated
test.
Another issue we commented on and brought forward at the early
stages of Bill C-63 was the concept of being physically present
for a certain period of time in order to qualify for citizenship.
We pointed out that many landed immigrants, many new Canadians
who come here, still have interests offshore. Some may be
business people. We can use the example of a new Canadian from
Asia who may have a number of different business ventures
throughout that region. That person would have to travel to take
care of those interests. We also do not believe that physical
presence in the country is any kind of a test or an indication of
what kind of citizen the person will ultimately be.
We felt it was being unnecessarily rigid to demand that a person
be physically present for x number of days within a certain
timeframe in order to qualify for citizenship. We are
comfortable that the government listened to these concerns and
tempered those measures somewhat along the lines we asked.
A number of groups came forward and spoke about citizenship
rules as they pertain to disqualification due to criminal
activity. We believe we should not be providing safe refuge or
sanctuary for international criminals.
We have every right. We do not believe it is a violation of any
of our international obligations under human rights conventions
of the United Nations to say to some people that we will not
allow them to be citizens of Canada.
1210
We value our citizenship too much and it trivializes my
citizenship to allow people into this country who would abuse the
system or who would take refuge and sanctuary in order to carry
on criminal activity. We will not tolerate it. Canadians want
tough rules to make that abundantly clear.
Canadians are incredibly tolerant in terms of their attitude
toward immigration per se. We want the front doors opened even
wider when it comes to inviting new Canadians to come to this
country, but we also want the back doors shut soundly so that we
are not allowing any undesirables, international criminals,
terrorists or people of that type to take sanctuary or refuge in
Canada. We do not need them and we do not want them here. Bill
C-16 in a very soft way speaks to that somewhat when it deals
with the revocation of citizenship.
The New Democratic Party caucus is comfortable that Bill C-16
meets the needs of Canadians in terms of acquiring citizenship.
It sets fair rules for both the acquiring of citizenship and the
revocation of citizenship in the unlikely event that it becomes
necessary.
We are comfortable that the Standing Committee on Citizenship
and Immigration listened to the concerns brought forward by a
number of Canadians, by some 37 groups that made representations,
and by members of the committee like myself who moved amendments
at committee stage. We are satisfied now that those concerns
have been addressed under Bill C-16.
We will be looking forward to voting in favour of the bill to
move it through the House so that we can spend more time
addressing the larger issue of immigration and refugee protection
found under Bill C-31, another citizenship and immigration bill
that deals more with the meat and potatoes of the immigration
rules and how we attract and retain more people to come to Canada
to help us grow the economy.
We are looking forward to moving on from Bill C-16 satisfied
that it is adequate and to getting into the much larger debate of
immigration and refugee protection under Bill C-31.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, could the member tell us one of the many groups that
made presentations on revocation of citizenship which was
satisfied with not having a right to appeal a decision of one
federal court judge?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, people are satisfied that it
has been illustrated and demonstrated quite clearly that there is
a right to appeal at every stage of the revocation of
citizenship, all the way to the highest court in the land.
I indicated that people are satisfied and comfortable with that.
When it came forward that there may be an alteration in Bill
C-16, or an amendment to the act that would change the access to
the appeal process, a number of groups were concerned. The issue
was raised.
It was clarified by the department heads of citizenship and
immigration that nothing in Bill C-16 threatened the right to
appeal in the case of revocation of citizenship. In fact there
is a right to appeal at every stage of the process. It is an
exhaustive, some would say even ponderous, appeal process that
can take years. As we well know, there are classic cases in
Canada that went on five, seven or nine years before people were
ultimately issued a deportation order or had their citizenship
revoked.
Having looked at the charts, graphs and tables of how the appeal
process would take place, we are comfortable that there is an
exhaustive appeal mechanism inherent in Bill C-16 and inherent in
the citizenship and immigration acts. I do not think there is
any cause for concern. Those groups that did come forward with
those concerns have had them allayed.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will begin by saying that it is a great honour to speak today
to Bill C-16 and what it means not only for the country but
especially people who want to make Canada their country, and
certainly those who have been here.
1215
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Winnipeg
Centre. He made many valid points. Certainly the one which I
wanted to echo was that the committee, having listened to and
heard witnesses, has now been able to make decisions which are
appropriate to the matter at hand.
Citizenship, as all members of the House and all Canadians know,
is of great value to individuals and their families. It bestows
upon them great honour and responsibility as well as rights which
are inherent under the charter and the constitution of this great
country of ours.
I think back to my great-great-grandparents. They came to this
country in 1827 via Bucks County, Pennsylvania having first come
from Europe. Over the years we have cherished those things which
we hold near and dear, that is, being citizens of this great
country of ours.
By way of history it is amazing to think that prior to 1947
Canadians were still not Canadians as we know them but rather
were British subjects. It is interesting that the Prime Minister
himself was 12 years old before he actually had Canadian
citizenship given to him. We were British subjects until that
point. Having said that, citizenship and all that goes with it
is something which Canadians now value greatly in terms of what
it means to be a Canadian. It is important that we celebrate and
cherish that which we hold near and dear to us. In 1947 the
Liberal government of the day under Prime Minister Mackenzie King
ensured that Canadians would have a status which we cherish to
this day, being a citizen of Canada.
Citizenship is a concept in our culture which goes back to the
city states of the ancient Greeks. For them the life of a
citizen meant deep involvement in the life of a city. It meant
the widest possible rights and privileges. It was also a very
restrictive status, something which we no longer have. For
example, no woman or newcomer could hope to be a citizen in those
days.
While that restrictive status continued over the centuries, it
has finally been washed away. In a sense we still see it today
in countries which restrict their citizenship and those people
who are part of a traditional ethnic group. Unlike Canada there
are many countries where citizenship is not an opportunity to
welcome people. It is not an opportunity for newcomers to
declare that they are ready and willing to become a full part of
their communities as citizens.
The point is clear that Canada has been different in that
regard. We welcome newcomers. We grant full citizenship to all
our people in a manner consistent with the charter and the
constitutional prerogatives, as well as the rights that Canadian
citizens no matter where they live in this great country of ours
have come to expect and deservedly so. It is important that we
keep that in mind.
When Canadians travel abroad it becomes apparent how great our
citizenship is and what a great country Canada is. It is
important that we value and cherish all that goes along with what
it means to be Canadian.
Let me be clear in terms of what that 1947 act did. I offer
that by way of background because it is important. That act
treated men and women differently when it came to issues such as
marrying a non-Canadian and keeping Canadian citizenship if they
lived abroad, passing citizenship to their children if they lived
abroad, and finally, how soon the spouses of men and women could
become citizens. That was part and parcel of the 1947 act, yet
for all the faults we have seen in retrospect, that act was an
important starting point. It set us on the course which had led
us to where we are today with Bill C-16.
It is important to note that what has never changed is a sense
that citizenship is about joining the Canadian family, and a
great family it is. It is about sharing in the values,
traditions and institutions which define us as a people and unite
us as a nation and which have made us the finest country in the
world according to the United Nations Human Development Report
for six years in a row.
That is no coincidence. It is because of who we are and what we
represent and the citizenship of Canadians is part of that
greatness that is ours.
1220
When new Canadians take the oath of citizenship outlined in the
bill, they will speak about what it means to be Canadian. They
will pledge their loyalty and allegiance to Canada and to our
Queen. They will promise to respect Canada's rights and freedoms
and uphold the constitution. They will vow to uphold the
democratic values that allow us to debate some very important
issues in the spirit of openness, transparency and accountability
which we do in this great democratic system of ours in Canada.
They will promise to do what we should do, to observe our laws
and fulfil the duties and obligations of what it means to be a
true citizen of this country.
These are not just words. Those words get to the heart of what
citizenship is all about. They are about agreeing to accept the
basic rules of how our society operates. They are about agreeing
to play a full role in the life of our society in terms of what
it means to help others to care and to share and to use the kinds
of values in a meaningful way for Canadians wherever they are in
this country. It also means acting at the ballot box, on a jury
or just in the day to day debate among fellow citizens. It means
ensuring that we vote, that we fulfil our duties as citizens in
meaningful and tangible ways and in a way consistent with the
values that are part of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I want to indicate that I will be
splitting my time with the member for Cambridge.
There are countries in the world that essentially sell their
citizenship. People in parts of the world actually do that for
money. They buy passports which can be used to go elsewhere.
Some travel documents might be part of that as well. It is
selling hope, false hope in many cases, in volatile parts of the
world, and it is most unfortunate. But it will never, never give
a person what Canadian citizenship does, and that is what we have
here. Those passports of convenience that are sold never
announce to the world that a person is part of a great family the
way our citizenship does. A person is never linked to the men
and women from all over the world who regardless of birth share
in the pride of being citizens of this country.
That is what citizenship is all about. That is what it means to
be Canadian. That is what it means to have the kinds of values
that unite us as a people in that sense and ensure that we carry
on in a meaningful way consistent with that which our forefathers
and foremothers did, including that which newcomers to this
country also add. That is important so we can build on the
foundations of the past with vision, insight and foresight. We
project into the future with confidence knowing that we have one
of the finest, and I would argue the finest, country in the
world. We need to celebrate that.
In closing I state simply that Bill C-16 helps to reinforce that
which we take for granted so many times in this great country of
ours and especially our citizenship. Having said that, I move:
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the question I have is why would the hon. member pull
such a sneaky manoeuvre to try to ride over the former
parliamentary secretary of this particular portfolio?
The former parliamentary secretary put his position on the line
because he took a stand on principle. The government, by going
ahead and trying to pull some of the sneaky manoeuvres as it has
done, is punishing and restricting his ability to do the duty
that his constituents have given him.
1225
I would like the hon. member to tell us why he is sticking a
knife in the back of the former parliamentary secretary who has
been working very hard on this bill.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I need not take lessons from the
member opposite when it comes to being sneaky and sticking knives
into backs. He is the expert on the reformed alliance side of
the House. He is part and parcel of what those people over there
repeatedly do in terms of the kinds of things they are prepared
to do every which way. I am speaking of some of the egregious
things that I have witnessed the hon. member do. I think of the
debate about Mr. Thompson and the Senate when the member was
leading members of his party with mariachi bands and sombreros
and tacos were dripping in the marble halls of this great
institution.
When it comes to those kinds of things, I need not take a lesson
from the member opposite. He should hang his head in shame, quite
frankly, in terms of the kinds of things he has done.
This is the normal process in terms of the kinds of things we
are doing to expedite the government and what we need to do in
the great Parliament of Canada. We are moving the government
agenda along and I am pleased to be part of it.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out
that any of the commentary I have done in the past with regard to
the Senate is party policy and something which a lot of Canadians
support.
The hon. member has in a sense violated the privileges of a
member of this place, a member of his own party, someone who
stood up on a point of principle, someone who for the sake of his
constituents did what he thought was right in resigning his
position as parliamentary secretary. He is trying to do the best
he can for his constituents.
The member has gone ahead and done something to deprive the
former parliamentary secretary of acting on the will of his
constituents. This is one of the most lowdown, dishonourable
things the member could do. He deprived one of the members of
this place who has lost a position because of his stand on
principle the opportunity to put forward a question on this
issue. The member across the way can go ahead and make aspersions
on me, but how he can justify backstabbing one of his own on
something he has personally suffered for in order to advance the
cause of his constituents, is reprehensible.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is quite
simply wrong. There has been no violation in terms of what the
process is here today. It is a standard process. We are moving
along to expedite a very important bill that Canadians wherever
they live in this great country of ours feel strongly about.
When it comes to the reformed alliance people, those extremists
who sit opposite, they stir the pot and stab each other in the
back. Look at what is happening in the leadership race and the
extremist positions they are taking and the monkey business in
terms of voting and stacking votes. Look at what happened at
their convention not so long ago. I think 1,200 people were
registered yet 1,600 people voted.
When it comes to lowdown tricks, when it comes to egregious
mechanisms, those people opposite, those extremists, those
reformed alliance people, have not only written the book, but
they have kept chapter after chapter going for the rest of us.
Only they know the kinds of things they do repeatedly. It is
outrageous what they do and Canadians see through it every time.
Canadians see through those extremists for who they are and for
what they represent.
1230
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, certain words have been used to define certain
people on this side of the House, and those words are not
innovative. They have been used before.
The hon. parliamentary secretary is being denied the right to
speak. If this motion were to carry it would really be very
difficult because he would not be the only one prevented from
speaking.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has used similar words to
describe Canadian Alliance members on this side of the House. I
find it rather difficult, in a sense, to support the hon.
parliamentary secretary in the position he has taken. However,
he has taken it correctly and I support him in that. On the
other hand, the hon. member from Wellington should recognize that
he is going beyond the boundaries of truth and decency.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I must say that it has been rather unpalatable to see
the Liberal Party backstab its own members who stand on a matter
of principle. It is a sad thing to witness. Hopefully Liberals
watching in their offices will hang their heads in shame. I hope
the former parliamentary secretary has a chance to make his case
before caucus and that he is able to sway some opinion.
Today we are debating Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian
citizenship. Bill C-16 does not constitute a major or modern
reform as it says it does. It falls short and that is
unfortunate. Its critical areas have been neglected, while
others have been altered in a negative way.
The minister received recommendations from the government
dominated Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in
1994 and the government has taken over five years to prepare
legislation which still does not address the committee's key
recommendations. Once again we have a case of the government
writing the recommended reforms and not carrying them forward.
One of the areas I would like to deal with specifically is that
of citizenship at birth, which is referenced in subclauses 4(1)
through 4(4).
Canada is setting itself up for a problem. We have a provision
which allows citizenship at birth, which makes sense for people
who are born here of Canadian citizens. However, that provision
also applies to people who are visiting our country, landed
immigrants and others.
Australia has noted this problem. Because of this incentive
structure, parents who are not Canadian citizens will bear a
child in Canada and that child will become a Canadian citizen.
Then the child is, in a sense, used as a bargaining chip for that
family to remain in the country.
In the United States people cross the border from Mexico to
Texas via the Rio Grande. Pregnant women muster themselves as
best they can to cross the border because they know that if they
can make it across, even if they hurt themselves in some way, if
they bear their child within the boundaries of the United States
it will become an American citizen.
Canada, with all the boats carrying migrants that we are
expecting to receive on our shores this summer, is creating the
same scenario. Women from other countries will make the
assumption, because of this part of our law, that by hook or by
crook they will make their way, whether it is good for their
health or not, in rusty buckets of boats so they will have the
chance to bear a child on Canadian soil. That would give the
child Canadian citizenship and, therefore, it would give the
mother a bargaining chip to remain in Canada. The sick thing is,
that provides an incentive for pregnant women to make that
arduous journey in the worst of circumstances.
It is poor public policy for the government to set up an
incentive whereby pregnant women will put themselves and their
children at risk so the child may be born on Canadian soil. I
say shame on the government.
1235
Australia was responsible enough when it made changes to its
law. It deemed that at least one parent had to be a citizen of
Australia. As a result, there was not this use of children as
bargaining chips for the sake of immigration.
The bill has dealt with conditions for granting citizenship on
presence in Canada. Once upon a time, in and around 1977, a
residency period of five years was necessary to gain Canadian
citizenship. Then the Liberal government of the day reduced it
to three years. It used to be three years out of five. However,
the government has determined in its wisdom, even with all the
problems we have with refugee status, with people claiming things
illegally, with sham marriages and all the numerous things that
are problems with our immigration system, to move it to three
years out of six to make it that much easier for people to
qualify.
The problem is, there is no stipulation for what is residency.
In the law there is a provision which says that it is based on
physical presence in Canada. However, the problem is that it
does not provide any mechanism for determining when applicants
arrive in Canada and when they leave, and there is no plan to
develop one. There is no ability to check.
As a result, people will come to Canada and say “I am now
qualifying for my residency with my physical presence in
Canada”. They are then able to leave through one of the
unmanned border posts, catch a flight from Seattle to wherever
they are from and stay in that country. Meanwhile, Canadian
records report them as having been here. They can return, at
their convenience, after having lived abroad for a few years, at
which time they may automatically be granted Canadian
citizenship, even though they were not actually physically
present. The government says there is a provision for physical
presence, but in terms of actually delivering, there is not. It
does not have any way of checking.
I am aware of, for example, Koreans flying out of Seattle
because of unmanned border posts. They come to Canada, apply for
citizenship, the residency clock starts to tick, they leave
through an unmanned border post, go to Seattle, fly back to Asia,
do business, continue to conduct their affairs over there, many
times evading Canadian tax, and then come back at their own
leisure. After a couple of years, even though they are working
abroad, they are granted Canadian citizenship. That is a serious
problem which the government has done nothing to address.
With regard to clause 8 of the bill, concerning adoption outside
Canada, once upon a time if people were coming to Canada they
would have to undergo a medical. The government is watering down
this whole provision of giving medicals to people coming to the
country. As a result, people will be able to adopt children with
all sorts of ailments and illnesses, things that previously would
have been screened in medicals. Who pays for it? The Canadian
taxpayer.
Once again the government has opened Canada to more problems,
despite the fact that it has seen all of the problems we have
been dealing with so far and for which it has been taking a lot
of heat. What does it do? Rather than fix the problems it opens
us up to more.
There is blatant patronage in the bill. Clauses 31 and 32 deal
with citizenship judges and citizenship commissioners. The sad
thing is that patronage appointments were the problem when the
last changes were made. When Barbara McDougall was minister the
Progressive Conservatives created citizenship judges. Of course,
all sorts of loyal party hacks got these jobs and got paid good
money to sing the Canadian national anthem and have people take
the oath of office.
The Liberals recognized there was a problem. Parliamentary
committees reported that lack of merit in these positions was a
problem, so the government just changed the name. It is almost
like big brother 1984. Instead of calling them citizenship
judges, they will now be called citizenship commissioners. It is
still the same thing. The same party hacks are going to get the
jobs. Those patronage positions are still there. It was
probably just too juicy a plum to leave alone.
Clause 6 concerns the language requirements to gain citizenship.
Once again there has been a watering down of the language
requirements. The government only requires that people have an
adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada.
What is an adequate knowledge? It is very vague. The government
knows exactly what it is doing.
1240
I would like to refer to a recently published book by Charles M.
Campbell, entitled Betrayal & Deceit: the Politics of
Canadian Immigration. Mr. Campbell was a vice-chairman of the
Immigration Appeal Board for a number of years. He points out
that Australia had the political courage to deal with a number of
these situations and made the necessary changes. The Australians
recognized that there were people who were engaging in sham
marriages, who had poor employment prospects, and all the rest of
these things, just as we have in Canada today.
What were some of the provisions that Australia implemented?
One was that in order for someone to be deemed effective in the English
language they had to be able to demonstrate four things:
they had to be able to read English, speak English, understand English
and write English. Of course, in Canada that would apply
to both English and French.
In Bill C-16 the government has stipulated that people should
have an adequate understanding, an adequate knowledge. Adequate
in no way implies that they be able to read one of the official
languages, be able to speak one of the official languages, be
able to understand one of the official languages, or be able to
write in one of the official languages.
Australians knew they had a problem to fix. In Canada we have
not fixed it. As a result, we are spending all sorts of money to
teach people the language once they come here. That puts a
burden on Canadian taxpayers. It is something that could have
easily been remedied by actually having provisions for those four
skills with regard to understanding the official languages, but
the government failed to do that.
There are other things which Australia had the courage to deal
with which this government did not. The Australians also had the
skill level restricted to those occupations that require a trade
certificate, a degree, a diploma or an associate diploma. As
well, the qualifications must have been obtained at least three
years before the application to immigrate was filed. That is
very pertinent. In Canada we have a lot of people who are
immigrating who have particular skill sets, but when they come to
Canada, because they do not meet the qualifications here, they
cannot work in their area of expertise. As a result, we have a
number of well educated people driving cabs. That is part of the
problem with what the government has done.
Australia also dealt with age. We all know that we have a huge
aging population. We have a demographic bubble that is going to
burst in 2017, which will probably bankrupt and destroy the
Canada pension plan. Nonetheless, this government is continuing
to allow itself to take on more and more unfunded liabilities and
responsibilities with regard to social programs and pensions for
people who immigrate.
Australia had the courage to say that the ideal age criteria for
a new immigrant were people who were over the age of 21 and under
the age of 35. People over the age of 45 would not be
acceptable. Australia recognized that the pension and health
care obligations would be too burdensome. The Australians
recognized that it would be a burden to allow people from other
countries to immigrate without pension and health care systems
such as we have in Canada. It would a burden for them to enter
under an easy guise and receive those benefits without actually
having provided much of a benefit to the country in terms of
having worked there productively during their prime earning
years. Australia had the courage to deal with these things.
However, once again this government totally shied away from any
of those important considerations.
My party and I would support an immigration and citizenship
policy that would require children born in Canada to take the
citizenship of their parents. Children born in Canada to landed
immigrants, therefore, would assume Canadian citizenship.
However, people who come here, putting their child and themselves
at risk in order to bear their child in Canada, should not be
given citizenship. We are creating an incentive for those women
to put themselves at risk.
The citizenship oath, clause 34, had very little public input.
The minister, in a sense, prepared this oath on her own. There
was no debate and the citizens were not involved in creating the
new oath of citizenship. It would have been an ideal opportunity
for a nationwide patriotic debate on the matter but that was not
done. The minister decided to develop this on her own behind
closed doors. Now we will have whatever the minister deems fit
as a citizenship oath rather than what the country could have
decided.
1245
Once again I reiterate that there were many things the
government could have done and failed to do. For example, with
regard to spousal considerations, spouse will be a very loose
term. As a result, spouse will include not the idea of just a
marriage between one man and one woman but it will also include
common law relationships. Goodness knows, we have sham marriages
that are arranged already, but imagine if we allow people in on
common law relationships.
It gets even better. There is the allowance for the whole idea
of same sex provisions. For example, a person could pick up a
lover some place where they do not have the same type of medicare
provisions for AIDS research and whatnot. They could bring those
people back here and because they would be considered a same sex
partner they will be able to charge those medical bills to the
Canadian medicare system. When does the silliness end?
I want to wrap up with what I consider to be basically the
summation of the points. We used to have citizenship based on
five years of actually living in the country. It has now been
whittled down to three out of six. There is no provision
whatsoever for checking on whether or not they are physically
present.
On top of that, it took the government five years to come up
with what it has, which is very little compared to what it could
have had, and it was done behind closed doors. It kept in all
the provisions that dealt with patronage and continues to violate
the recommendations that were put forward by its own standing
committee and the recommendations that were put forward by the
CIC department, the official opposition and what many Canadians
themselves would support.
As a final point, I want to let the House know that as a result
of these things and because of what the former parliamentary
secretary was attempting to do with the bill, he believes, as do
many, that the government should not be acting as a prosecutor.
Right now we have people who are going before a political court,
that being the governor in council, and are being stripped of
their Canadian citizenship despite the fact that they have been
in the country 20, 30, sometimes 40 years.
I want to table the following amendment, “That after the word
“that” the following be substituted therefor: Bill C-16, an
act respecting Canadian citizenship be not now read a third time
but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration for the purposes of reconsidering clauses 16 and 17
with due regard for the fact that Bill C-16 continues the current
system of revocation which has been in place since 1920, allowing
the governor in council on a report by the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration to revoke a person's citizenship and,
the arguments put forward by groups and individuals, such as the
German Canadian Congress, the B'nai Brith Canada and the
former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, that citizenship should be a decision of the courts
and not be decided by politicians”.
I believe a subamendment will be coming forward as well. The
amendment basically deals with the whole idea that the government
can act as prosecutor against people who have been in the country
for decades.
While we want to be able to deal with these things
expeditiously, we cannot have the cabinet acting as the judge and
stripping people of citizenship despite the fact that they have
been here 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. That is not fair to them and
it is not fair to their families.
1250
Obviously, Madam Speaker, you can hear the catcalling across the
way. The Liberals know they have back-stabbed their
parliamentary secretary and I am sure are feeling guilty about
it, as they should. I have seen some rather dastardly things
pulled here today. Hopefully, they will take that into
consideration and in their caucus meeting on Wednesday they will
be able to debate it and figure out the right thing to do so they
are not depriving people.
I want to ask for unanimous consent to replace the motion by the
member for Waterloo—Wellington, which is now before the House,
with the following amendment, “That the motion be amended by
deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting
the following therefor: Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian
citizenship be not now read a third time but be referred back to
the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for the
purposes of reconsidering clauses 16, 17 and 18 with due regard
for the fact that Bill C-16 continues the current system of
revocation, which has been in place since 1920, allowing the
governor in council, on report by the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, to revoke a person's citizenship, and the arguments
put forward by groups and individuals, such as the Canadians
Alliance, German Canadian Congress, B'nai Brith Canada and the
former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, that citizenship should not be a decision of
cabinet, and those threatened with revocation of citizenship
should have access to full judicial appeal”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it seems to me that every group that appeared before the
committee and spoke on the issue of revocation of citizenship
said that there should be a right to appeal the decision of the
federal court judge, trial division. The problem with the way we
have set it up is that the federal court judge who makes that
very important decision is not accountable for his finding to any
other court. The bill does not touch on the judicial review.
I am sure I heard every witness and I read all the submissions.
Every group that made a comment said that there has to be a right
to appeal. The way it is puts the judicial process in disrepute.
Could the member comment on that?
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, the former parliamentary
secretary is right. Every group that appeared before the
committee cited problems with citizenship revocation and
recognized that allowing this to be a decision by the cabinet
would put it in political hands. They did not feel it was fair
that people who had been here for 20, 30 or 40 years could have
their citizenship stripped without what they considered to be a
fair process.
The parliamentary secretary listened well to all those people
who appeared before the committee. I know he has put a lot on
the line by going ahead and standing up for what he believes is
right in this case. He has listened to the will of his
constituents on this matter.
We had many groups appear before the committee. The Canadian
Alliance had representatives on the standing committee. We had
the former parliamentary secretary who has lost his position as a
result of his stand on this. I am sure his own constituents and
many people across the country have cited problems with the
citizenship revocation provisions in Bill C-16 which would go
ahead and unfairly strip citizenship from people who have been in
this country 20, 30 or 40 years without due process.
1255
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it would appear that we are having the real debate on
this legislation when it is too late to make substantial changes,
at least in the House of Commons.
I congratulate the hon. member on his speech. He pointed out
some very important things with respect to the bill. He also
touched very briefly on the oath of citizenship and the fact that
the amended version of the oath in the legislation was created by
the minister herself or some bureaucrat in her ministry.
However, he made an error in his presentation. He said that
there had been no public debate about the content that a new oath
of citizenship could take. He is wrong about that.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration considered
the citizenship bill in 1993 and 1994. I was part of that
committee at that time. We heard extensively from citizens and
new Canadians who wanted to talk about how wonderful it was to
come to this country and become a Canadian, and how they felt
very strongly that there should be some kind of declaration of
citizenship which expressed the values of being a Canadian and
the values of Canada in some manner that was more eloquent than
what exists in the present oath. They talked of values like
democracy, freedom of speech, equality of opportunity and the
rule of law, things that do not exist their countries.
What has happened, despite all that input, is that we now have
in Bill C-16 a revised oath and none of us know who wrote it or
where it comes from.
Would the hon. member opposite not feel awkward, as I will feel
awkward, to see new Canadians taking a new oath of citizenship
for which this parliament has had no debate? There has been no
debate in the standing committee about the content of the oath of
citizenship that is now before the House and to which new
Canadians will be required to swear.
What kind of country is it that would leave something so
important and so sacred as the oath of citizenship to some
unidentifiable bureaucrat and not have the courage to stand up in
the House and create a version of the oath of citizenship that
belongs to this House and this nation, and not to some contracted
out, invisible person?
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, like the hon. member
across the way who just spoke, I think it is a shame that we have
not been able to debate more of these things in depth. We were
not given the opportunity as Canadians to have a vote on this.
There was no great patriotic debate across the country.
I know the hon. member cares deeply about the oath of
citizenship and had his own thoughts on the matter.
Unfortunately, some members in his own party have pulled some
sneaky manoeuvres to go ahead and stifle the amount of debate on
this particular topic and the ability of the former parliamentary
secretary to make amendments as best as he could so that he could
try to make positive changes to the bill.
It is a sad day when we cannot have a fair debate on an oath of
citizenship and the revocation of citizenship. A nation that
does not control its borders and cannot have a serious debate on
who and who is not a citizen and what that requires, where is
that nation headed? That is a nation in big trouble. It is a
real shame when things like that are left to the bureaucrats
without any fair public debate.
I want to once again mention that I am splitting my time with
the hon. member for Calgary Centre. Did I mention that before?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that the
hon. member has spoken for much longer than 10 minutes. There is
no question at this point of splitting his time. Right now we
are in the 10 minute question and comment period and 8 minutes
have already passed. There are two minutes remaining for
questions and comments.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I certainly observe across
the way what is sometimes more a concern about the unseemly
internal Liberal manoeuvres than what really may be needed in the
country. Instead of what Liberals want, what do Canadians want?
What about a real political mandate to act? The parameters of
citizenship go to the heart of how Canadians define themselves as
a country.
1300
A question was just asked about what kind of a country Canada
is. In many respects it is a Liberal ruled country whose
governance is quite out of date in attitude.
When we talk about citizenship, immigration and those kinds of
things in general in my riding there is not a lot of confidence
in the system. People just wag their heads in disgust. They
throw their hands in the air and ask what can be done because it
is a bureaucratic system that is detached and out of touch with
how they would define their country.
We are looking today to restore some basic confidence in the
system that someone is minding the store. When people in the
community say they are immigrants, it should immediately bring
elements of respect because we know of the good system of credits
and merits they have come through. That attracts confidence in
the system rather than the direct opposite.
I would ask that we speak today of some points on how we can be
positive in fixing the system instead of always defending the old
status quo.
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, it is a fitting comment to
wrap this up and say that there is no better example of how out
of touch the Liberal government is. It will not allow a debate
on the oath of citizenship. It will not allow a debate on
citizenship revocation. It will not allow its own parliamentary
secretary, who sacrificed his job in order to stand up for his
constituents, to address these issues.
The government is so fearful of having public debate and even
scrutiny by some wise members on its own benches that it will
leave it all up to the bureaucrats, cover it over and hope it
just goes away.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, let me say to members of the House that the debate is
not over. The debate has just started. The issue is that the
government can put the bill through and probably will, but the
debate has started across the country within groups of Canadians
who are citizens by choice.
I talk to them about this issue. I am already getting some
complaints from members on this side. They are not very happy.
We have started a petition which is addressed to the House of
Commons. We will come back here with many petitions. I also
have a website set up under www.telegdi.org.
In the next year we will be having an election. I said to all
my colleagues in the House that before they vote on the report
stage amendments they should think of people close to them who
were not born in this country.
They should ask themselves if they would want them to have the
due process of law with the right to appeal. Would they want
them to have that right? Do they not believe it is the courts
rather than politicians who are in the best position to make that
determination?” I tell all my colleagues that they will be
asked those questions. Maybe at that point in time they will get
it.
1305
I have received many calls from people across Canada. I think
it is proper to put some of those communications on record. The
first one I received was from the Aboriginal People's Commission
of British Columbia which wrote to the Prime Minister with copies
to members of the citizenship and immigration committees as
follows:
The Aboriginal People's Commission of British Columbia has grave
concerns regarding the revocation of citizenship sections of the
proposed Citizenship Act, Bill C-16.
As members of Nations throughout Canada who trace their ancestry
to the creation of this land, we feel our generational
acceptance, welcoming and assistance to immigrants to our
respective homelands gives particular weight to our deliberations
and conclusions. We therefore respectfully submit the following
motion passed unanimously by the Executive of the Aboriginal
People's Commission in B.C. at our May 25, 2000 meeting:
“That we call upon Parliament to amend the proposed Citizenship
Act to guarantee that the courts, not politicians, will decide
revocation of citizenship, and;
That there is a provision for appeals from a decision of the
Federal Court Trial Division to the Federal Court of Appeal
and/or the Supreme Court of Canada, with the leave of those
courts, in both existing and new cases involving revocation of
citizenship”.
As descendants of the First People of this land who welcomed and
aided the ancestors of a majority of Canadian, and as Liberals we
pray that you will guide your members to revisit the clauses in
Bill C-16 with the same spirit and hope that founded this
Country.
That was signed by Kim Recalma-Clutesi, president of the
Aboriginal People's Commission of British Columbia.
I have already received communications from the Liberal Party of
Nanaimo—Alberni saying similar things. It is signed by Mr. Joe
Dodd, a Canadian citizen by choice. I have further received
communications from other Liberal members out west who say that
like me they are immigrants. The idea of not having the right to
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada if their citizenship were
challenged is, to say the least, frightening. They are dismayed
and disappointed that the government would take such a step. No
doubt this decision will haunt the Liberals in the next election.
The amount of information I get goes on and on and on. I can
tell members that this issue will not die with the passing of
this act because we are entering the new millennium with second
class citizens in this country.
One communication I received, and I have received numerous, was
from people who were in concentration camps and had been deported
from their countries. Members should think about a Sikh Hindu
living in Pakistan. Many of them were deported to India. They
came here from there. Members should think about all the
displaced persons after the war. They were shuffled out of
various countries in the world and came to this country. They
take their citizenship rights very seriously.
Part of my mother's family moved from Germany to Hungary about
500 years ago. My natural father was Hungarian. My stepfather
who adopted my brother and I was born in May 1919. He is a Jew.
The day he was born Hungary was passed over to Romania because of
the Versailles Treaty so he had a jump in his citizenship.
Surviving for a Jew in Transylvania in Nazi occupied Europe was a
horror, but survive he did. Since he was a Jew he could not
attend university in Romania. He went to the University of Paris
where he obtained a degree in architecture and town planning.
1310
He changed his name. I only found this out a couple of years
ago because I do not have a whole lot of family. I received an
e-mail from Texas giving the same last name as mine and wanting
to know if we were related. I quite excitedly phoned him to talk
to him about it. Then he told me the story. He changed his name
because he wanted to survive Nazi dominated Europe.
My sister, who is in the gallery with us today, did not know
that
she was part Jewish until she was 12 years old. We came out of
Hungary as refugees. We stayed in a refugee camp for Jews
because of the anti-Semitism that existed.
On my mother's side they suffered terribly under Soviet
occupation, as did my father. Things happened in Europe that
were just horrid. If there is any person who is guilty of war
crimes or crime against humanity, I want to be right there to
make sure he or she is brought to justice. It is wrong for us to
exclude more than five million Canadians from the benefits of the
charter of rights and freedoms or the due process of law in
defending something that is very valuable to them such as their
citizenship. It is something that will change.
I am disappointed in my colleagues in the New Democratic Party.
The New Democratic Party, its predecessor and the labour members
of the Winnipeg council led the fight to stop massive
deportations from the country for people who were not guilty of
anything more of a crime than being unemployed during the
depression or perhaps being involved in organized labour. The
process is called D and D: denaturalize and then deport. We have
done this to tens of thousands of Canadians.
The unveiling of the tomb of the unknown soldier yesterday
represents so much that many immigrants to this country come to
find. I read Mark Bonokoski's column the other day. He asked us
to imagine who the person could be.
I do not know if members of the House know that we had soldiers
in the first world war who were immigrants. They came back
wounded to this country and needed care in hospitals. Many of
them were deported because they were on relief. Let us think
about it. Many soldiers that fought for this country in the
first world war came back wounded and were deported because they
needed relief and hospitalization.
No wonder the veterans associations are very active in trying to
stop these deportations.
1315
I spoke about the dark period in our immigration history. I
recommend that all my colleagues read the book Whence They
Came written by Barbara Roberts which deals with deportation
from Canada. It contains a wonderful foreword by Irving Abella
He talks about how the department of immigration was controlled.
He talks about a small group of government officials who
desperately strove to send off offensive people operating to a
large extent outside the control of parliament and the courts.
I have sympathy with what my colleagues are putting forth with
regard to Bill C-16. It would have been a great millennium
project to have had contests in communities and schools across
the country to come up with an oath that we could truly call
Canadian versus having it done in the shadows by bureaucrats and
consultants.
This bill came out of the bureaucracy. If we think about it, it
is trying to wrest back control. How? The citizenship court
judges I know have done a fantastic job. I am thinking of Mr.
Somerville, a present judge, and Lorna van Mossel, a former
judge. The judges do a fantastic job but they are a problem to
the bureaucracy. They are independent and the bureaucracy does
not want too much independence given to judges.
The Liberal government got suckered when we came into this place
in 1993. Sergio Marchi, the minister at the time decided to get
rid of citizenship court judges. It was a big mistake. The judges
were replaced by the downgraded position of commissioner. I
suggested that perhaps they should be magistrates to give more
pomp and ceremony to the office, but that was turned down. This
was totally, completely, utterly driven by the bureaucracy, the
same bureaucracy that has fought any meaningful answer to
parliament and the courts.
Bill C-63 would not only take away the citizenship of the person
who arrived here fraudulently, but also the citizenship of the
person's dependants. Consider my case had that bill passed. My
mother is dead so I do not know what anyone could find on her,
but let us suppose that she arrived here fraudulently. At 54
years of age I could be deported. Think about that. My wife and
daughter were born in Canada. They have no great inclination to
go to Hungary, if Hungary would take me, German being part of my
ancestry. Think about what this does to families. That was
another area where the bureaucrats tried to extend their clutch.
Under clause 18 a person's citizenship can be annulled without
an appearance before a judge. It is bogus and not right. Clauses
16 and 17 are a disgrace and I believe they bring our sense of
justice in Canada into disrepute.
1320
I am a Liberal and I am ashamed that my party, the party that
brought Canada its charter of rights and freedoms, does not
believe enough in citizens by choice to let them enjoy the
protection of the charter of rights and freedoms for something
that is so valuable to them.
I admired the Progressive Conservative Party particularly under
John Diefenbaker and his bill of rights. I am surprised at how
the party voted on this issue. I am greatly disappointed in the
New Democrats. I am disappointed, because of my earlier
comments, of how they have led the battle for social justice, to
hear the member from Winnipeg, the party's critic, stand and
defend the right not to have appeals.
I was at the committee to hear all the witnesses and I read and
reread all their submissions. Every person said there needed to
be a right to appeal. There needs to be a right to appeal because
Canadian citizenship is important enough that we do not want to
rely on one judge who is not infallible, one judge who is not
judicially accountable. We certainly do not want revocation of
citizenship to continue in the star chamber of cabinet where the
people are not judges. The Prime Minister is not a judge; he is
a lawyer, but he is not a judge.
Think about it. A refugee claimant in our country has the
protection of the charter. A visitor to our country who commits
a serious crime has the protection of due process all the way to
the supreme court. But for Canadians by choice those options are
not available. This will go into the streets. It will go across
the country and many people will demand a change to this archaic
and draconian law.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the member for Waterloo—Wellington and I resonate on
this issue because my concern with respect to Bill C-16 is the
fact that the oath of citizenship has essentially failed to meet
its obligation to describe what it is to be Canadian. I proposed
as a result of input received from new Canadians to the standing
committee in 1993-94 that we incorporate in a citizenship oath or
a citizenship declaration the five principles of the charter of
rights, one of which was to uphold basic human rights.
What do the member of Waterloo—Wellington and I have to whine
about when we have a citizenship oath before the House now that
simply tells us to obey the laws of Canada and to faithfully
fulfil the duties of being Canadian but talks of nothing about
basic human rights or upholding them? It seems to me that we are
on the same wavelength because we have a situation, and it is not
just government, it is parliament, where we are missing an
absolute opportunity to say that as Canadians we are not about
simply obeying the law, whether it is a traffic law or the
criminal code, we are about upholding basic principles of human
rights, which is what the member for Waterloo—Wellington is
talking about.
But we do not say that. We say Canadians are simply people who
obey the law. I say to the member for Waterloo—Wellington the
government has decided that the law will be such and such, that
it will not provide an appeal process. With the oath that is in
Bill C-16, one can be a good Canadian and obey a bad law.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Madam Speaker, I ask my hon.
colleague not to do me the dishonour of calling me the member for
Waterloo—Wellington. I am the member for Kitchener—Waterloo.
1325
What the member just said is really the essence of what a
citizenship bill should be about. He talked about this country
being governed by law. About a week and a half ago, the Prime
Minister was in one of the neighbouring ridings to mine. He was
quoted in the newspaper as saying that the one key thing in the
life of a nation is to make sure that the rights of its citizens
are protected by the courts in the land and not subject to the
capricious elected. It was the recognition by the Prime Minister
that if a person is charged with an offence he or she would not
be judged by politicians but would have the due process of law.
I can say to my colleague that many new Canadians and Canadians
born here have a problem with this bill. The biggest problem
with the bill is the process that got it here. It is the closed
process that has operated in the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration for decades. It has got more restrictive. Parts in
the bill make revocation easier. Parts have been put into the
bill which will remove interference by such people as the
citizenship court judges.
I will tell the hon. member about a citizenship court judge a
number of years ago when I was on city council and president of
the multicultural centre in my community. We tried to have a
citizenship ceremony on Canada Day. We could not have it because
it happened to fall on a long weekend and the bureaucrats in the
department did not want to break up their long weekend. On
Canada Day there should be citizenship ceremonies right across
the country. We should tell new citizens that we value their
citizenship enough that if anyone tries to remove it they have
the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
they have the protection of the courts.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I could not help but notice that the hon. member
made reference to the disconnect between the bill and what went
on in the committee process. I am reminded of committees I have
been involved with, the joint Senate-Commons committee on custody
and access, the committee that was launched by the finance
minister on fair family taxation, and other committees that bring
forward a suite of pretty good recommendations. There is a
consensus among members in the House, witnesses are heard and
recommendations come forth. Yet we see either no action, as in
the case of custody and access, or policies that ignore the
recommendations based on the fair family taxation committee. This
seems to be what happened here.
I did not have the privilege of sitting on the committee that
examined this bill, but I am on a number of other committees.
When I look at the bill and read the short version of what came out
of the committee there seems to be a real disconnect. Would the
hon. member speak to the differences between what went on in
committee and how well this bill reflects the witness
presentations at committee?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Madam Speaker, it is sad for me to
say that on many occasions the recommendations of the witnesses
were not incorporated. The most telling one was on the right to
appeal. Not one person said that the status quo should be
maintained.
Everybody appearing before us wanted to put in their right to
appeal because they believed that would increase the value of
citizenship for people like myself and other Canadians by choice.
1330
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Madam Speaker, with
only a minute left I will not ask a question of the hon. member
for Kitchener—Waterloo. I will take this opportunity to commend
my colleague. Both he and I are so-called newcomers to this
country. As well as having similar pasts, being almost former
neighbours from Europe, we are neighbours now in the Waterloo
region. I want to commend him for his courageous stand, his
principles and his beliefs. I have been honoured to work with
him very closely on this important issue which is very close to
both of us as well as to over five million Canadians.
At the same time, I am disappointed that one of our colleagues,
whom I should call the delivery boy, would take that kind of
stand and position and talk in the House when he has no clue what
it means to be a new Canadian and what it means to get Canadian
citizenship.
I want to thank my colleague again.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Madam Speaker, my colleague and I
share many of the same views on this. I have often attended
citizenship courts. Having realized what this bill is about, I
go less often now because I do not want to stand up and tell
people that they are now third class Canadians and that in five
years they will be second class Canadians for the rest of their
lives.
However, when I did attend citizenship court and saw people from
Bosnia-Herzegovina coming to get their citizenship, there would
be Croatians, Serbs and Muslims. What I always said to them was
“Please, for God's sake, bring the best you have but do not
bring over your centuries' old grievances because Canada needs
the best you have. We cannot handle your strife”.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the earlier presentations of the
speaker opposite. He made a very impassioned and well
articulated commentary on the flaws in the bill. Even as well as
he did that, he could have gone further when we reflect on the
impact that the bill could have if it were used inappropriately
by the bureaucracy and those in positions of power.
The legislation, Bill C-16, will repeal and replace the current
Citizenship Act passed in 1977. The legislation makes several
changes to the current act with the intention of providing more
clearly defined guidelines, supposedly updating sections,
replacing current procedures with new administrative structures
and increasing the minister's power to deny citizenship. I think
that is the crux of what was spoken to in the previous speech.
Bill C-16 is touted as being “the first major reform with
respect to citizenship in more than 20 years—an attempt to
modernize the act in order that it might better reflect the true
value of Canadian citizenship”.
However, while some parts are more clearly defined than in the
previous act, Bill C-16 does not constitute a major modern reform
as they say it does. Critical areas have been neglected while
others have been altered in a negative way.
The minister received the recommendations of the
government-dominated Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration in 1994. The government has taken over five years to
prepare this legislation which still, as we just heard from the
previous speaker, does not address the committee's key
recommendations. The government took five years to put it in and
it still ignored the committee's recommendations. Tragic.
1335
There are a number of interesting provisions in Bill C-16. The
first provision I want to spend some time on is in clause 8 which
has to do with adoption outside Canada.
Bill C-16 will reduce the distinction between a foreign child
adopted by a Canadian citizen and a child born in Canada.
Currently a foreign child adopted by a Canadian citizen must
first be admitted to Canada as a permanent resident before
citizenship can be granted. The new legislation will make it
easier for adoptive parents to gain Canadian citizenship for the
child if adoption occurs outside Canada. This provision is of
particular interest to me as I recently had a private member's
bill of my own drawn for debate. It also has to do with
adoption, both domestic and international.
My Bill C-289 proposes to extend a tax deduction of up to $7,000
for the expenses relating to the adoption of a child. Adoption
is a gentle option that is under-appreciated and under-utilized
in this country. Couples who adopt from other countries face
extremely high out-of-pocket expenses. My bill would go a long
way in helping couples who want to offer a loving home to
children in need of parents. I look forward to obtaining the
support of all members of the House for this legislative
initiative. I believe we should encourage couples who wish to
adopt. In fact, in Canada many people are on waiting lists to
adopt. They go through considerable expense in order to adopt
and care for a child in need but we offer them no assistance.
They do it all on their own. When we consider the incredible
social contribution these couples are prepared to make, we should
recognize it and make easier not harder.
The next provision in Bill C-16 I want to spend some time
discussing is clause 43. Clause 43 is, I suggest, the most
disrespectful to this parliament and to Canadians. It would
essentially give the minister the power to define what a family
is in whatever manner the minister happens think on any
particular day. Under this clause, Bill C-16 grants the minister
power without any oversight or any guidelines. It basically
grants the minister the power to decide who may make an
application under this act on behalf of a minor. It is solely up
to the minister as to who may to make application for a minor.
Second, the bill allows the minister to define what constitutes
a relationship of parent and child for the purposes of
determining entitlement to citizenship under any provision of
this act. That is directly from the act.
Why in the world should the minister now be meddling in what
constitutes a relationship of a parent and child? Are we to
believe that parliament cannot or should not spell this out for
clarity, consistency or just plain common sense?
Perhaps, rather than having parliament define what should be
obvious what a parent and child relationship is in legislation,
the minister feels she knows better and should unilaterally
decide whether people are father, mother, son or daughter. It
does not make sense. It is the duty of the government to draft
legislation that is clear. It is the duty of parliament to
ensure that legislation is well structured and will stand the
test of time so that it can serve as a clear guide to those
tasked with implementing what is passed by this Chamber.
The government is insulting this place by putting forward such
muddled legislation which, by definition, will not be
consistently applied. One day she decides this is familial and
the next day something else. There is no guideline. It is
totally left to the discretion of bureaucrats in the minister's
office. This is unacceptable. These provisions in the bill need
to be revoked.
Regarding the ability to define a genuine parent-child
relationship, the member for Scarborough East, a Liberal on the
other side, on May 13, 1999 during a committee meeting, said “It
is a bit of an unusual circumstance where a regulation
is—allowing a definition of a concept—and, in particular,
going over the edge from a regulatory idea to a legislative idea.
I think, frankly, it is out of order, that it is in fact not
within the purview of a governor in council, or the minister or
the minister's officials, to define what constitutes a parent or
a child”.
1340
He went on to say:
I think these are, in technical language, ultra vires of a
minister, ultra vires certainly of the minister's staff, ultra
vires of the governor in council, and clearly show a willingness
on the part of the government to defer issues to areas where they
should not be deferred.
The Liberal member pointed out a particular flaw in the
legislation that I am also concerned about. He said “There are
several on the issue who felt that it is the prerogative of
parliament to enter into these definitions”. I would agree with
him.
He further stated “In my view, the only way in which these
things can be acceptable is if they are deleted so that the
ministry, the minister and the governor in council are bound by
the definitions that currently exist in law and in legislation.
There can be no freelancing on the part of the minister or
governor in council or staff officials to expand definitions of
spouse or parent or child beyond what currently exists in
legislation”.
These are wise words. There should be no freelancing but what
do we have? We have complete freelancing and deferral to the
bureaucracy and the minister's office to determine what is a
familial relationship.
We can rightly take issue with delegating such immense powers to
the minister alone. We can think of some other issues that have
given Canadians a great deal of unrest. The billion dollar
boondoggle, for example, in the Human Resource Development
Department, has given Canadians ample understanding of why we
should not just put total blind faith in any minister.
There we saw a bungling of epidemic proportions. Public money
was given out without any application on file and 80% of the
files showed no evidence of financial monitoring. Two-thirds of
the files did not even have a rationale for recommending the
project. Money was spent on things such as fountains in the Prime
Minister's riding, and on and on.
After all that broke and after the public outrage at the
incompetence of this particular ministry and minister for the way
it was handled, the Prime Minister turned a blind eye and that
minister is still sitting in cabinet. There has been no change.
In 1991, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, he said
“You take the blame when something is wrong and you do not
finger anybody else but yourself. That is what a person of
dignity does”.
I agree with him, but it has not happened on that particular
issue, and I wonder if it will happen on this bill.
In the context of this bill, let me say that Bill C-16 has
numerous insupportable elements that we are concerned about. I
briefly mentioned that it is far too reliant on regulations which
we have not seen. The regulations that will determine how this
bill is implemented have been drafted by bureaucrats with little
input from the House or the public and they can be changed
without consultations. As was so eloquently argued by members on
the opposite side of the House, the changes will affect people's
lives.
People in my riding have come to me concerned about this bill
and how it will drastically affect their personal lives. When
their citizenship in a country they hold up as their nation of
connection and speaks to who they are is cut out from under them,
it is very disconcerting for a number of very legitimate reasons.
We have left all that in the hands of regulation drafters with
no oversight by the people's representatives in the House of
Commons.
As I said, Bill C-16 allows too much discretionary unaccountable
power to be left in the hands of government. Even the Liberal
parliamentary secretary has spoken out against clauses 16 and 17
which deal with the revocation of citizenship. The legislation
as introduced does not provide individuals, who had been granted
Canadian citizenship, full access to the legal system if their
right to citizenship is challenged. Hon. members should think
about that.
All of a sudden our right to citizenship is challenged and we
are no longer Canadian citizens. In light of that, we do not
have access to full legal redress, an appeal process and the
proper due process of law to clarify. Even if there is some
mistake, we are cut out from that.
1345
The bill is very disconcerting to many of us in the House.
Although departmental officials insisted that this clause was not
a serious concern, the issue caused great concern to members of
the committee and to the vast majority of witnesses, all ignored.
We in the Canadian Alliance agree that once citizenship is
granted it must be assumed to be genuine. The revocation of
citizenship is not something to be taken lightly and must be done
only under the complete and thorough scrutiny of a fair and legal
process.
The Liberal member for Kitchener—Waterloo made his opinion
quite clear during the standing committee proceedings, during
report stage debate in the House, and most recently in the media.
He actually resigned his position as Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration because he felt so
strongly about his own party's unwillingness to listen to his
recommendations. Who is driving the ship over there? Is it the
elected minister and MPs, or is it the bureaucracy? The approach
to the legislation is telling Canadians who is really driving.
He believes the power to revoke citizenship should not be left
in the hands of the governor in council as it stands in the
legislation. The Canadian Alliance agrees. We commend the
member for Kitchener—Waterloo for his stance on the issue. This
goes beyond partisanship. This goes to what is right for
Canadians.
It is nothing new to see the Liberal cabinet not listening to
one of its backbenchers. We have seen that repeatedly. If the
Liberal cabinet had been listening to her backbenchers, I wonder
if the possession of child pornography, for example, would still
be legal in B.C. It has been almost a year and a half since the
courts in B.C. struck down the section of the criminal code which
prohibited the possession of child pornography.
I remember well that after the initial position, to their
credit, 79 Liberal MPs and senators wrote to the Prime Minister
urging him “not to wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision to
be heard but immediately act in defence of Canada's children and
consider the use of the notwithstanding clause to send a clear
message that Canada's charter of rights and freedoms will never
again be used to defend the sexual abuse of Canada's children”.
A number of members in the Liberal backbench signed that
document. We were glad to see it, but what happened? It is
something like what we are seeing with Bill C-16. It is being
ignored.
We in the official opposition gave the government a chance to
act, to protect our most vulnerable with a parliamentary motion
last year to do exactly what the 79 Liberals had called upon the
Prime Minister to do. We put forward that motion.
The backbenchers unfortunately wilted under the pressure exerted
I guess from the Prime Minister's Office to step away from it on
the promise that a federal government appeal would solve it
within two months and that it would all be put back in place. How
long has it been now? A year and a half, and we still have not
heard a decision on that issue. Those who possess child
pornography in B.C. today will face no penalty. It is impacting
on cases across the country.
In closing on that issue, the same Liberal backbenchers voted
against our motion that would have enacted exactly what they
called for in their letter. Unfortunately they did not follow
through on their position.
To get back to the revocation of citizenship issue, the Canadian
Alliance critic for citizenship and immigration put forward an
amendment that would have changed this clause during committee.
We have heard some commentary from members opposite. He put
forward an amendment that would have addressed the shortcomings
of the revocation of citizenship issue but the Liberals on the
committee voted against it.
Unfortunately we did not see the changes that many of the
witnesses wanted to see and some of the members opposite wanted
to see. While elements of the bill have potential and could
ultimately be beneficial to Canada, the flaws are so numerous
that the Canadian Alliance cannot possibly support the
legislation as it stands.
1350
A number of members opposite, if true to their convictions in
what they have spoken today, will join with us in voting against
the bill. These flaws will undoubtedly cause real problems with
the citizenship process in the future.
This party, the party with which I am proud to stand, cannot
allow it to pass without opposition. These problems will come.
We are hopeful that enough members opposite can personalize from
their own lives and experience as Canadians by choice the impact
of this legislation. Hopefully they will stand up, if not for
their own constituents and people in that situation, for their
own situations.
Canadian citizenship is an asset that many people would love to
have. I have frequently had the honour of attending citizenship
hearings for new citizens in my riding. There is such joy at
those ceremonies. People from all over the world are ecstatic.
There are smiles from ear to ear on the children, the mothers,
the fathers and whole families.
They have come from another nation, another history and another
personal set of experiences. They put it all aside to make
Canada their home. They go through the instruction and tests.
They are prepared to say “I am a Canadian”. When they go
through the process in Calgary, at the end we all say in unison
“I am a Canadian”. There are grins from ear to ear. It is
very meaningful to people.
The strong feelings I have about Canadian citizenship and my
love for this country were part of the motivation that caused me
to run as a member of parliament. It is a privilege to take part
in the debate on this bill in this special place. It is an
important topic. I hope we have the collective wisdom to hear
what has been said in debate today and to reflect our concerns
when the vote on Bill C-16 comes to the floor.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, once again I should like to ask a question of the hon.
member and raise the whole situation with regard to knowledge of
an official language.
Bill C-16 would basically stipulate that people should have an
adequate knowledge of one of the official languages. It strikes
me as awfully unusual that the bill lays out that people should
have an adequate knowledge of an official language but also goes
on to say that they would be able to have the use of interpreters
for part of their review process.
If people require an interpreters to understand questions about
Canada and respond to them, whether they be in English or in
French, the fact that they are given interpreters paid for by
Canadian taxpayers, or are allowed to use them, implies to me
that they do not have what I would deem to be adequate knowledge
of either language.
The Australians have dealt with this issue by saying that
immigrants require four different things. They have to be able
to read the official language, able to write the official
language, able to speak the official language and able to
understand the official language. If someone can read, write,
speak and understand there is no need for an interpreter. Yet
the bill still has a provision for the use of interpreters.
How is the use of an interpreter an adequate understanding of one
of the official languages?
1355
Mr. Eric Lowther: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for
Calgary West asked a question about how the interpreter fits into
the equation of adequate knowledge of official languages. That
is just one question of many to come.
The bill simply says that an applicant must have an adequate
knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada. The flaw
is that it does not provide any provision on how it is to be
judged, by whom, on what criteria, or anything else.
My hon. colleague for Calgary West asks a very astute question.
What does this mean? There are no criteria. It is all deferred
to the bureaucracy, whoever is sitting in the chair that day, and
whatever the interpreter is allowed to do. A person could
effectively come into Canada, get Canadian citizenship, and not
be able to speak, read, write or understand a word of French or
English. That is a problem. It needs to be much more clearly
defined in the bill, and they have missed it by a country mile.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I was rather impressed with my colleague who just spoke
and the ex-parliamentary secretary who spoke before him. These
gentlemen portrayed rather eloquently some of the shortcomings of
this bill.
Could the hon. member for Calgary Centre declare what exactly it
means to him to be a citizen of Canada? Is it something so
arbitrary that it can actually be determined by a judge? Is it
something so arbitrary that someone with unique political power,
political will or political ability can determine who is and who
is not a Canadian citizen regardless of what the Parliament of
Canada might think? Does the legislation actually permit this
kind of almost arbitrary—
The Speaker: I ask the member for Calgary Centre to give
us a brief answer or, if he would prefer, since there are six
minutes remaining he could think a bit more about his answer and
give it following Oral Question Period. What is the choice?
Mr. Eric Lowther: With respect, I would appreciate the
opportunity to answer after Oral Question Period, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Then that is what we will do.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
THE LATE MAURICE RICHARD
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the people of Abitibi, Baie-James and Nunavik were saddened to
learn of the passing of Maurice Richard, the man all hockey fans
idolized.
With his passing, Canada has lost a man who left his mark on the
history of his sport and who has inspired us all by his likeable
personality and his generosity.
Thank you, Maurice.
* * *
[English]
MAURICE “THE ROCKET” RICHARD
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, hockey is the tie that binds the country together.
Today we have lost a link that united all hockey fans. Maurice
“The Rocket” Richard was not only loved and respected by all
Canadians. He was a hero, a symbol of all that is great and good
about this spectacular sport. His No. 9 sweater has been woven
into the fabric of the Canadian conscience.
As a child growing up in a family crazy about the Montreal
Canadiens, Richard was an inspiration. When he touched the puck
his eyes glowed the Rocket's red glare. He was the first player
in history to score 50 goals in 50 games. His playoff record of
six overtime goals still stands today.
Most Canadians were not even born when Richard played. He
retired after the 1960 season, after another Stanley Cup victory.
It has been 40 years since the late Maurice “The Rocket”
Richard thrilled with his skills, but the impact he made has
spanned generations. His legend will never die.
* * *
THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker,
Whenever we embark
On a voyage of remembrance
We well expect that the trying time
Could exact more human toll
The expedition bringing Canada's Unknown Soldier
home from Vimy, France
Was a wonderful effort by President Chuck Murphy
and the Royal Canadian Legion.
Chuck was to see this millennium dream succeed.
He was to bring an Unknown Soldier home
To a final rest on Canada's soil; then he himself passed away.
Today we remember two soldiers,
One unknown, who represents all war dead
And the one who brought him home
Chuck Murphy,
Dominion Command President of the Royal Canadian Legion
Husband to Alice,
Father, grandfather and friend,
At the going down of the sun and
In the morning, we will remember him.
* * *
1400
[Translation]
THE LATE MAURICE RICHARD
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were all
terribly saddened to learn of the death of Maurice “Rocket”
Richard. He is mourned by his family and friends, and by hosts
of admirers.
This man who wore the Montreal Canadiens' sweater for so many
years was a symbol and an inspiration to many. He gave his
heart and soul to hockey during his entire career. He has left
an unforgettable mark on several generations of Canadians and
was their inspiration.
For 18 years, the Rocket roused the passions of fans with his
deeds, which rose far above the ordinary, and in his playing and
in his courage he incarnated the hopes and aspirations of French
Canadians.
His great qualities and his exceptional talent will reserve for
Maurice Richard an important page in our national history.
* * *
[English]
WALKERTON WATER SUPPLY
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
know I am not alone today in expressing my heartfelt condolences
to the people of Walkerton. In the past few days this small town
suffered tremendous hardship due to the E.coli bacteria in its
water supply system.
As a news story it has captured headlines across the
country. As a tragedy it has brought out the best in people
throughout the region. During this time of adversity the
community has risen to meet the crisis head on, showing both
strength and courage. Neighbouring towns, health professionals
and area residents are making invaluable contributions of water,
resources, time and support. They deserve our tremendous thanks.
I spoke to the mayor of the community. He asked me to express
his appreciation for the support of all my colleagues, of all the
towns across Canada, and of the Prime Minister. My prayers are
with those who have lost relatives to E.coli. I hope that the
people of Walkerton will rebound from this tragedy. I wish them
strength and a speedy recovery.
* * *
THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canada buried a soldier in
Ottawa yesterday. We do not know his name, his hometown or even
the circumstances of his death in battle. However we do know
that he was young and that he died fighting for all of us. For
this we pay tribute to the Unknown Soldier.
Yesterday thousands stood in solemn silence as a horse-drawn gun
carriage wheeled the casket draped with the Canadian flag to the
final resting place at the foot of the war memorial. Soil from
the original grave in France, as well as soil from all provinces
and territories, was spread on the casket.
This lad fought in a battle thousands of miles from home for all
to have freedom, a freedom we sometimes take for granted. Still
today tens of thousands of soldiers remain buried with no
identification. Though unknown they will always be remembered in
our hearts for what they did and why.
Brigadier-General M. C. Farwell, chaplain general of the
Canadian forces said it best in his closing prayer, “Lord, you
know him. You know him by name. And you keep him close to you
forever”.
* * *
THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Canada laid to rest the body of an unknown Canadian
soldier in a special tomb next to the national war memorial. This
soldier's body which lay for over 80 years in the Cabernet Rouge
cemetery in northern France was finally brought home last week
after a formal ceremony at Vimy Ridge.
I had the honour and privilege of joining the official
delegation in France last week which included the Minister of
Veterans Affairs, representatives of veterans organizations, a
few parliamentarians and members of the Canadian forces. It was
an experience I will not soon forget.
I would like to pay tribute to all of those responsible for
making the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier a reality. In particular,
I would like to single out Mr. Chuck Murphy, former president of
the Royal Canadian Legion who unfortunately passed away last
Thursday only hours after returning from France. Our deepest
condolences go out to his family and friends.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, a soldier who was returned to his native land after
more than 80 years, was laid to rest not far from here. We will
never know if he was a Canadian or a Quebecer, whether or not he
was an officer, how old he was or where he was born.
We pay tribute to him because he gave his life for freedom.
Because he is nameless, he represents the tens of thousands of
his compatriots—soldiers, aviators or seamen like him—who lost
their lives in the cause of freedom during the two great wars,
in Korea and during peacekeeping missions.
His presence among us is a reminder that the price of that
freedom was much suffering, the loss of thousands of lives, and
the tears of all those whose loved ones did not return.
Let us never forget these lines written by Victor Hugo, which
still ring true today:
Those who for their country gave their lives
Should hear the prayers of many at their grave
* * *
JUSTICE JULES DESCHÊNES
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Jules
Deschênes, who died on May 10, was a distinguished jurist.
He was appointed to the Quebec Court of Appeal in 1972, as chief
justice of the Superior Court from 1973 to 1983, and as one of
the judges on the special UN tribunal on war crimes in
Yugoslavia. But it is primarily for his constitutional rulings
that he will be remembered.
In 1976, he upheld the constitutionality of the Bourassa
government's Bill 22 establishing French as the official
language of Quebec; in 1978, he struck down a section of the
Lévesque government's Bill 101, in order to affirm the equality
of French and English in the National Assembly and in Quebec's
courts; and, in 1982, he struck down another section of Bill 101
limiting access to English language education.
A true federalist, Justice Deschênes understood the importance—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Red Deer.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
after spending this past week in my riding, on behalf of my
constituents I rise in the House today to express our concern for
the health care system in peril.
Canadians across the country are concerned about their health
care system and so they should be. The government's response to
date has been downright insulting.
The budget that gave $2.5 billion over four years to health and
education is an insult. A health committee that does not address
the health issues of importance to Canadians is an insult. A
health minister who is all talk and no action is an insult. A
federal government that chooses to antagonize the provinces and
refuses to work co-operatively with them is an insult.
Canada is the fifth highest spender and is in the bottom
one-third of OECD countries for health care. We have farmers,
educators, industrial workers and professionals concerned about
health care. So they should be.
A government that is unable to address this growing concern is
an insult to Canadians.
* * *
PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I want to take the opportunity to welcome the President of
the Hellenic Republic to Canada and to our capital city, Ottawa.
It is the first time since 1982 that such an individual has
visited Canada. I take this opportunity on behalf of all my
colleagues in the House to welcome the President of the Hellenic
Republic as 350,000 Greek Canadians are celebrating.
It is very significant. He was the first official foreign
visitor to visit the tomb of the Unknown Soldier the other day. I
applaud him and welcome him.
* * *
STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Terry Brown, the newly
elected president of the National Action Committee on the Status
of Women.
Ms. Brown is the first aboriginal woman to hold this post. On
behalf of the NDP caucus I want to take this opportunity to
welcome her.
Unfortunately, women continue to fight for access to health
care, child care and employment insurance. These are issues that
affect all Canadians but often have a greater impact on women.
Unfortunately for women, good health care, accessible child
care, decent employment insurance, violence against women and
equality issues simply have been ignored by the government.
We in the NDP caucus recognize that these issues are vital to
Canadian women and are a top priority. The question Canadian
women ask is when will the Liberal government make these issues
its priority?
* * *
1410
[Translation]
RIMOUSKI OCEANIC
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pride and great pleasure that I rise once again to draw
attention to the great and convincing victory of the Rimouski
Oceanic, the team that represented the Quebec Major Junior
Hockey League.
Yesterday, in Halifax, the Oceanic won the Memorial Cup, a feat
made possible by the quality of their play and by their
discipline.
I extend my warmest congratulations to the players and I take
this opportunity to stress the good work of their coaches and
the uncommon support of the community.
Bravo to the players of the Oceanic. Their numerous fans,
including myself, are elated and rightly so.
* * *
[English]
BONE AND JOINT DECADE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, January 2000 marked the beginning of the bone and joint
decade. The secretary-general of the United Nations has launched
this decade in collaboration with the World Health Organization
and various national and international organizations for people
with musculoskeletal disorders.
There are currently 21 countries whose national governments have
officially endorsed the decade but Canada is not one of them.
Fortunately however, Canada has put into place a national action
network which includes 18 organizations that are working on the
promotion of this issue. The Arthritis Society of Canada and the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research are both supportive of and
taking part in this initiative.
I would like to take this opportunity to bring attention to this
global initiative and thank all of the organizations that are
part of the efforts in Canada.
* * *
PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to welcome, along with over 300,000 Canadians of Hellenic
origin, His Excellency the President of the Hellenic Republic on
his official visit to Canada.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Greek]
[English]
This is the first time since 1982 that a head of state of the
Hellenic Republic has visited Canada at the invitation of the
Canadian government. Canada and Greece have historically shared
friendly relations founded on shared values for democratic
principles, respect for human rights and international law.
One of the greatest moments in my political career was when I
received, along with two colleagues of Hellenic origin, the
Golden Cross of the Order of Phoenix for our contributions to
promoting closer ties between our country of origin, Greece, and
Canada, which with our Prime Minister, has given me the privilege
of sitting in the House.
I wish to thank both the Ambassador of Greece to Canada who
proposed my candidacy and the President of the Hellenic Republic,
a great statesman, respected domestically and internationally, for
bestowing such a great honour on the daughter of two Greek
immigrants who chose what I consider to be the greatest country
in the world as their second homeland.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Greek]
* * *
[English]
ARMENIA
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today Armenia is a proud independent country controlling
its own destiny on the world stage. Unfortunately, Armenia has
not always enjoyed such freedom and independence.
Following 600 years of oppression, independence was first gained
from the Ottoman Empire on May 28, 1918. Tragically, freedom was
shortlived as the communist takeover on December 2, 1920 was
the beginning of 70 years of tyranny at the hands of the
communist leaders of the U.S.S.R.
Celebrated as an important milestone in Armenian history, the
1918 independence, though brief, freed Armenia from the oppression
of the Ottoman Turks and is the foundation of the new Armenian
state which regained its independence on September 21, 1990.
I would like to join my fellow members of parliament in wishing
Armenia a happy birthday.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE MAURICE RICHARD
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay
tribute to a great hockey player, Canadian and Quebecer.
[English]
In Canada there is a game
Where there is one that lit the flame
He played right wing and wore number 9
In the post-war era the greatest of his time.
He skated with his brother the fans called “the pocket”
The world knew him as the one we called “Rocket”
He played every shift with pride and desire
With the game on the line and his eyes on fire.
Untouchable he was from blue line to crease
And when he would score we would all shout “Maurice”.
There were only six teams in the old NHL
To future generations his legend will tell
Of how he could skate and never let up
So his beloved Habs could drink from the Cup.
He is now in Montreal in the province of Quebec
Where the fans will line up and pay their respects
To many of us Richard was the best
For now in God's hands we lay him to rest.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE MAURICE RICHARD
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Maurice Richard
was a talented sportsman who thrilled hockey fans for years. Now
he has gone.
1415
He not only led on his team, he inspired an entire game. He was
a symbol for an entire people. He was a man of Herculean
strength who became a legend in his own lifetime.
With Maurice Richard's death goes something of all of us. A
page of our history has been written. This is a tragedy for all
of us. All of Quebec is grieving. A giant has died, but his
strength of character, his exceptional talent and his unfailing
determination will long inspire us yet.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would like
to offer my condolences to his family and his friends and to the
people of Quebec.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the HRDC minister's big brother
database has collected Canadians' most private details. It has
information on family status, employment history, social
assistance information, immigration records. You name it, Mr.
Speaker, the minister's got it.
Today, after a cross-country uproar from the opposition and
Canadians, this minister has now turned tail and announced she
will dismantle her database.
Why does it take constant hounding from Canadians before this
minister will do the right thing?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier today I announced the dismantling
of the longitudinal labour force file. It comes less than two
weeks after the privacy commissioner tabled his last advice on
this file. At that time I indicated that I wanted to work with
him co-operatively to deal with our shared concerns. The
announcement today is an outcome of this very co-operative
working relationship and I would note that he fully supports our
undertakings.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would say it is an outcome of
getting caught. Day after day in the House the minister has
stood to assure Canadians that the big brother database was just
fine and dandy. In fact, she said it was totally legitimate. In
fact, she said it was encrypted. Now, after enormous public
outrage, she has decided to scrap the whole thing, and the
minister gives her little hand for it.
Why was her database essential last week but it is a security
risk this week?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the opposition is just
fearmongering. Let us remember what the privacy commissioner
said last week. He indicated that all laws had been abided. He
indicated that there had been no breaches of information, but he
identified a concern for the future. With the changing
technology and with the rapid advancements, I too am concerned
about that. That is why we have taken the prudent measure of
dismantling the longitudinal labour force file.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone buys that. In
fact, I do not think they trust the minister.
Her news release says that her department has returned the big
brother database information to the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency and that department will maintain all the information in
the future. However, the news release says “authorization of
future linkages with HRDC held data will be considered case by
case”.
That begs the question, just what kind of cases will trigger the
recreation of the big brother database?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at what the privacy
commissioner said. He said in a letter to the deputy minister on
May 27: “We accept and support these measures. They satisfy
all the recommendations and observations that were outlined in my
1999-2000 Annual Report”.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians were rightly outraged when they learned of
this government's big brother database. In the last week,
because of a lack of trust in this HRDC minister, over 30,000
Canadians have written asking for their own personal files, files
which they have every legal right to see.
Does the dismantling of the minister's database affect those
30,000 requests for Canadians' personal information?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will respond to the requests of
Canadians who have asked for this information. Clearly the file
has been dismantled, but we will facilitate the gathering of that
information from its separate sources so that Canadians who wish
it can have it.
1420
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Human Resources Development admitted
last week that it had no way of verifying whether the 30,000
requests for information were legitimate. How will the minister
ensure that highly sensitive and personal information about every
single Canadian will not end up in the wrong hands?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly, this is a very important
question. We have been working with the privacy commissioner to
identify a process by which individual Canadians can receive this
information, but do it with the confidence that it will be their
information.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, again
last week the government was staunchly defending its megafile,
explaining to us that its existence was essential to the
administration of government records.
The Prime Minister himself had rejected the idea of dismantling
this file, yet today, unexpectedly, it is no more.
What went on between last week and today's decision that would
explain this about-turn by the government?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, along with the privacy commissioner, we
understand the importance of good information so that we can
create good public policy. Along with the privacy commissioner
we understand that the privacy of Canadians has to be paramount.
Together we looked at the future of this file. We saw it coming
to its limit. Rather than add more information, the prudent
thing was to take it apart and create a regime of protocol so
that we can continue to access the information as needed, as
defined and as reviewed. This includes a review by the privacy
commissioner, so that we can not only continue to have effective
management of files, but also ensure the privacy of information.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
other words, the minister is telling us that, when requests were
made confidentially, this was of no importance. Now that it has
become public, it has become very important. Now we understand
it better.
In future, does the minister commit, before gathering any
information on any citizen, before using any information of any
kind on any citizen, to obtain permission, as is done on our
income tax returns, when we are asked for permission to use our
names for the voters' list? Does she commit to asking
permission before acting?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, without question, having good information
is part and parcel of building good public policy. We believe
that, the privacy commissioner believes that and I believe that
Canadians believe it.
In the context of issues around visibility, we will continue to
work with the privacy commissioner to determine the most
appropriate way to ensure that Canadians are comfortable with the
information they provide and the way it is used.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of National Revenue and the government House leader
gave section 241(3) as their excuse for being unable to share
tax information about CINAR with the RCMP.
Now that we have learned about the direct link that existed
between Revenue Canada and HRDC, how could the Minister of
National Revenue and the government House leader stand up
repeatedly in the House and make grand speeches about the
confidentiality of tax files, when quite the opposite was true?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said repeatedly in the
House that one of the cornerstones of the Income Tax Act, one of
the fundamental principles that the government will always
defend, is the element of confidentiality.
I have also said repeatedly that when information was
shared—specific information, not all the information on any one
taxpayer—this was done in accordance with the Income Tax Act,
section 241 in particular.
I would simply like to remind the opposition that the
much-discussed press release that we tabled today quotes the
privacy commissioner as saying that there was never any breach
of confidentiality in the past.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while
the RCMP was complaining that it could not pursue its
investigation of CINAR because of the lack of co-operation from
CCRA, it seems that, when it came to the average member of the
public, information went directly from CCRA to HRDC.
How can the minister defend the fact that information is
available on individual citizens, while companies that commit
fraud are apparently protected?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition question strikes
me as rather odd right now.
On the one hand, there has been an exchange of information
concerning the element of confidentiality when the Income Tax
Act allows it, more specifically section 241.
1425
I said that this government is going to protect the principle of
confidentiality as long as the Liberal Party forms the
government.
It strikes me as odd that, while my colleague is providing the
public with excellent service and increasing confidentiality,
the opposition wants us to share information and make it
available publicly. There is no question of doing any such
thing. We will protect the confidentiality of taxpayers for a
good long while.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg
Centre.
* * *
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, all
Canadians were horrified when 26 miners were killed in the
Westray mining disaster. They were even more horrified to learn
that, in spite of overwhelming evidence of gross negligence, the
crown prosecutors had to drop charges because under the Criminal
Code of Canada they could not make those charges stick. The
Westray officials got away with murder. In fact, they got away
with 26 murders.
Will the Minister of Justice assure this House that within this
parliament she will amend the Criminal Code of Canada to make it
a criminal offence to kill workers on the job?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is
probably referring to recommendation 73 of the Westray inquiry.
Let me reassure the hon. member that the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights is considering recommendation 73. I
look forward to receiving its report.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
justice committee is not dealing with recommendation 73, nor is
it dealing with Motion No. 79 which passed in this House. It has
been three years since Justice Richard of the Westray inquiry
made recommendations to amend the criminal code so that senior
management would be held personally accountable in cases of gross
negligence causing death. In those three years this government
has done absolutely nothing.
The justice committee is not seized of the issue. We doubt the
justice committee will be dealing with the issue within this
parliament, unless the Minister of Justice takes action.
Will the minister act within this session of this parliament to
make recommendations to amend the criminal code along the line of
recommendation 73?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon.
member that the justice committee is charged with the obligation
of reviewing recommendation 73. I look forward to its report.
As far as my department doing nothing, let me reassure the hon.
member that federal, provincial and territorial officials and
ministers have discussed this issue. We await the review of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. At that time,
hopefully we will have heard from all relevant parties and, if
necessary, we will move forward.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal government disbanded the ports
police in 1997 numerous organized crime investigations were
abandoned and files destroyed. Former ports officials were
investigating alleged connections between the Hell's Angels and
ports authorities in Vancouver and Halifax. Now that evidence
may be lost.
Shutting down these investigations is appalling and is
reminiscent of operation sidewinder, another investigation which
was shut down without explanation.
Will the minister tell Canadians why these active investigations
were not forwarded to other police agencies? Why have these
files gone missing or been destroyed?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the House,
the number one law enforcement priority of this government is to
fight organized crime. In fact, that is why this government gave
an extra $59 million to the RCMP to be sure that we can fight
organized crime.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I think the solicitor general is mixing up his
lines. I thought public safety was his number one priority.
The minister's supposed commitment to public safety runs
contrary to this government's disbanding of the ports police and
the continued underfunding of law enforcement agencies in Canada.
Despite the minister's hollow assurances, we know that our
overworked RCMP and CSIS officers already compete for scarce
resources and are now being tasked to take on illegal activities
in Canada's six major ports.
Will the minister admit that during his government's seven years
in office Canada's ports have become a welcome mat to organized
crime? Would he tell us what he is going to do about it?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member what we will not
do. We will not run a deficit, as my hon. colleague's government
did to make sure that there would be no funds to put anywhere.
Under the direction of the Prime Minister we were able to put
$810 million of new money into the solicitor general's department
so that we could fight organized crime. If we were to believe my
hon. colleague, there would be no funds left to do anything.
* * *
1430
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's department has said that the privacy
commissioner will monitor the dismantling of its big brother
database. This is an extremely important step given that the
existence of such a database was kept secret from the privacy
commissioner for years.
Canadians deserve to know what specific powers the privacy
commissioner will be given to ensure that HRDC's newest action
plan is really implemented.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let me clarify that the database
was never kept secret. In fact it was part of the InfoSource
information that was provided and available to all Canadians, and
the privacy commissioner made a reference in that regard.
Let us also look at what he said, however, and I want to quote
again:
I want to take particular note of the spirit in which our
discussions have taken place and the clear demonstration of your
determination to improve the supervision and management of your
information systems in ways that strengthen the privacy rights of
Canadians. I have no doubt that the public will welcome these
measures.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, nobody knew about it. In her news release the HRDC
minister said that there would be a new structure for future
social and labour market research. It will be modelled on the
practices used at Statistics Canada and be based on input by
officials from that department.
With its abysmal track record on data gathering, why does HRDC
not simply get out of the market policy research business and
leave it to the experts at Statistics Canada?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong again. I point
to the words of the privacy commissioner who said that the
database as it existed matched the laws of the land and that
there had been no breaches of information.
In looking to the future we agreed with the privacy commissioner
that the prudent thing to do would be to dismantle this file and
implement a new regime that would allow us access to information
in an appropriate fashion while respecting the paramountcy of the
privacy of Canadians and their information.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development recently said in this
House that the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service do not have direct access to her department's megafile.
Could the minister tell us whether or not the RCMP and CSIS have
had access, directly or indirectly, to Human Resources
Development Canada's megafile?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have had no requests from the RCMP or
CSIS for access to this file. As I mentioned before, and the
hon. member is right, they have had no direct access to this
file.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
will the minister recognize that today's show looks more and
more like what could be called a cover-up operation?
If it is not known, the principle of no evil seen, no evil done
applies, and there is no problem. But as soon as it becomes
public, the government opposite does its utmost to cover up its
inaction and its management of the megafile.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I point to the fact that the file
as managed to date has been managed appropriately, that the
privacy commissioner commended the department for ensuring that
there were no breaches of information.
As is the interest of the privacy commissioner, we are looking
to the future. We recognize the changing and rapid changes in
technology. We appreciate the concerns that Canadians have about
information and the chances that others have to receive it.
From our point of view what we want to ensure is that we take
the prudent road. That is why we have dismantled this program.
That is why we have returned the files to the Canadian customs
agency. That is why we will be—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
* * *
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, guess who is coming to dinner? It is the Canada Customs
and Revenue Agency.
The CCRA wanted airlines to collect private information on their
customers like their incomes and their travel agents. It even
wanted to know what people were having for dinner. Thank
goodness the privacy commissioner told the agency that it was out
to lunch.
How can the customs and revenue department justify proposing a
plan that is such an obvious invasion of privacy?
1435
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member
is wrong and I guess that the assertion in his question is part
of his dream.
I thank the member for his question because I am pleased to
report that the government has decided to move ahead with a huge
modernization plan for Canada customs over the next five years.
We will invest something like $100 million in order to make sure
that our community will be safer and to facilitate travel for
business across the border and in other countries. This will
make it easier within the global marketplace. I am pleased to
report that at the end of the process we will have a much better
risk assessment and increased security for all Canadians.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am wondering why that does not give me any comfort at
all. There is something inherently offensive about a government
that wants to know what we had for dinner last night. That is
what the government is up to.
It is simple common sense that sort of information should remain
private. Why does it take an intervention from the privacy
commissioner to shut down the government's attempt to spy on its
own citizens?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, basically the
information with which we will be provided by the airline company
is information that we are asking of the people when they show up
at the border.
In conclusion, if the hon. member would have dinner more often
with the Minister of National Revenue he would know that actually
his question is premature.
* * *
[Translation]
PREVENTATIVE WITHDRAWAL
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the unions
consulted, certain senior officials of Health Canada and Human
Resources Development Canada, and academics from Quebec and
Canadian universities have signed a document calling upon all
governments in Canada to follow Quebec's example and allow
preventative withdrawal from work, with pay, for pregnant women.
Can the Minister of Labour explain to us why she is refusing to
make such a provision part of her Bill C-12, thus going against
a consensus that has come from a vast number of Quebecers and
Canadians?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is available to pregnant and nursing women under section
132 of the Canada Labour Code Part II. It was negotiated for
seven years with employees and employers. The Bloc Quebecois
amendment concerning the definition of hazard is addressed by
part III of the labour code, and this will be discussed by
employees and employers.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear that women's issues are of no interest to the federal
government. It has abolished the Advisory Council on the Status
of Women and now it is reducing funding to the women's program.
How can the minister responsible for the status of women defend
her government when it has all the leeway it needs and yet
refuses to raise the women's program from $8.2 million to
$30 million, which represents barely more than $2 per woman?
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the
hon. member that there is no lessening in grants for women. In
fact over the next three years there will be an additional $10.5
million put into grants and contributions.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, leaked documents show that the foreign affairs minister
personally signed off on black market payments in Algeria. The
minister renewed a so-called “unconventional lease” for the
payment of 32,000 French francs per month for a Canadian staff
quarters in Algeria.
The problem is that the currency in Algeria is dinar, not French
francs, and it is illegal to pay rent in a foreign currency in
Algeria. How is it that the Liberal government could possibly
justify making these under the table payments in another country?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would say that if the hon. member wants to provide
me with information on which he bases what he alleges to be a
question, I would be prepared to provide a response without any
formal notice.
1440
The reality is that Algeria, a very close partner of Canada, is
also subject to a number of very serious security questions. As
a result arrangements have to be made to protect our staff and to
do so in a way that ensures their security.
I would like to urge the hon. member to present information
before he makes the kind of scurrilous allegations he has just
made.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised that the minister is not aware of what he
personally signs off on. The minister personally signed off on a
document from which I will quote that said “unconventional
leasing agreements for staff accommodation in Algeria”.
In addition, a 1997 departmental memo explained that “the
unconventional portion of the lease consists of a foreign
currency payment of 32,000 French francs per month”.
Why does the Minister of Foreign Affairs sanction breaking the
law in another country by personally approving black market—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I find the question out of
order.
* * *
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Russian
MOX will soon be arriving by ship in Sept-Îles, Quebec, and will
go from there to Chalk River, Ontario, by plane.
One hundred and sixty-one municipalities and MRCs in Quebec and
the Montreal urban community commission on the environment are
opposed to Canada's importing plutonium.
How can the Minister of the Environment reasonably ignore the
formal notice by elected officials in Quebec who reject Ottawa's
decision to import plutonium?
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, any transport of any
sample from Russia will be transported in accordance with
Canadian law and international law. There is no danger to our
citizens with this plan, and the hon. member should be aware of
that.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Cooperation. War
has many devastating impacts but perhaps the most tragic is the
impact it has on the thousands of young boys and girls who live
through conflicts.
This morning Canada announced a new partnership with an
international organization to help protect war affected children.
Could the minister tell the House what the plans are for the near
future?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I are
co-sponsoring an international conference on war affected
children in the fall. UNICEF has agreed to cohost a meeting of
world experts at the conference for us and that is what this
morning's announcement was about.
As hon. members know, children are affected by war in many
different ways. In Sierra Leone and many other places of
conflict there are child soldiers and young girls who are
abducted and turned into sex slaves. There are also the children
who are displaced or who end up being heads of households as a
result of conflict, as we have seen in Rwanda. This conference
intends to bring together world experts.
* * *
MINING
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, economic activity by the mining
industry in Yukon has declined by nearly 70% over the last four
years, down from $316 million to only $90 million a year. In
contrast, Alaska right next door is booming.
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
mismanagement is largely to blame. On average it takes four
years to get a mining project approved in Yukon, while in
contrast it takes only three to six months in Manitoba. Why is
the minister supervising the destruction of the mining industry
in Yukon?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is not true at all. With respect to the mining interests in
Yukon, I have had the opportunity to meet with the affected
parties. I answered this same question last week in the House.
The hon. member should have read the response.
We are working very closely with those internal lists, and the
interests of first nations, parks and Canadians generally with
respect to that.
1445
As a Manitoban, I can tell hon. members that the Manitoba mining
community is doing very well, even in my riding.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from the Yukon
Chamber of Mines:
The collapse of the economic activity is a direct result of the
interference and mismanagement of the government.
Is it this department's policy to drive out business and make
Yukon totally dependent on government handouts?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is absolutely untrue.
The Speaker: I would ask members to please stay away from
words that trigger responses. Stay away from the words true and
untrue.
Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I can give the House an
assurance that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development is representing the interests and fiduciary
responsibilities of those first nations people in the Yukon and
elsewhere in the north. We are taking them seriously.
We are also very aware of the mining interests in and around
those areas. I have personally met with those representatives
from the Yukon, heard their case and heard their argument. We
want a negotiated settlement with all parties so that it will
work well, not the confrontational style of the hon. member and
his party.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the health minister.
The Walkerton tragedy should be a wake-up call for the
government. On so many fronts, whether we are talking about
environmental health, food security or drug safety, the
government has taken a hands off attitude.
The precautionary principle is out the window. Scientific
capacity has been gutted and industry, not the consumer, is the
preferred client of the government.
When will the federal government acknowledge that deregulation
at all levels in terms of food, water, drugs and blood is having
catastrophic consequences for its citizens? When will it
reconsider this dangerous, outdated policy?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am glad the member has given me the opportunity to point out to
the House and to Canadians that this government extends its deep
sympathy to the families and the community of Walkerton which
have suffered so grievously over the last 10 days.
Health Canada has been very happy to work with other governments
in providing expertise and surveillance, as well as emergency
access to an experimental drug to help some of the people who are
particularly ill.
If the hon. member is looking for some place where deregulation
has caused issues to arise, she ought to look not here but at the
Government of Ontario. That is where the questions are being
raised.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, all of us in the House extend our sympathy to the
families involved in the Walkerton tragedy.
The lesson from that tragedy is in fact that when our safety
systems are weakened then we all pay a price.
Back in 1997 this Minister of Health eliminated our drug
research bureau and gutted our food research labs. He promised
at that time to restore food research and to recommission some of
those labs. To date none of that has happened.
Will the minister act immediately to strengthen food safety
research in the health protection branch so that we have the
scientific capacity to head off the kind of risk that resulted in
the tragedy in Walkerton?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member should know that water safety and related issues are a
provincial responsibility. If she has issues to take up with the
level of regulation in Ontario, she should do that with the
appropriate government.
I am surprised. The member is a hard working member of the
health committee. She should know that from our estimates it is
clear we are reinvesting some $256 million in the health
protection branch of Health Canada.
That is in addition to the $65 million last year for food safety
at Health Canada. That is exactly the opposite direction that
the Government of Ontario is going with its 30% tax cuts which
are having a real affect on people.
* * *
1450
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the proposed boundary changes to the EI system could
impose tremendous hardship on our seasonal workers in New
Brunswick.
Could the minister tell us how etched in stone these proposals
are and what data her department used to establish these new
boundaries?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may or may not know,
we are in a 30 day review period where all Canadians can respond
to the gazetted proposals for the changes to the economic
boundaries.
Local economists have worked with the communities and have used
data on employment figures to build the modern boundaries. The
hon. member certainly has every chance to make reference to and
comments on the proposals over the next remaining days.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer in terms of
responsibilities of members of parliament. I will ensure that I
do that.
I am hoping that she will bring in not only the employees but
the employers as well from that region. It is a very important
and big issue. Many of our workers are seasonal and older
workers. The difficulty is that some of these people are going
to fall between the cracks. I am not convinced that the
minister's information on historical unemployment rates in that
area are accurate. In fact some of the unemployment records go
back as far as 1996 and range from 23% to 45%. I hope the
minister takes this into account over the next number of weeks.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, that is why we have undertaken the
process that I have identified. Proposals have been made,
gazetted and the public has 30 days in which to comment; that
includes employees, employers and members of parliament, anyone
who has advice that should be taken into account by the
employment insurance commission. It will take that advice before
it makes its final recommendations.
* * *
NAFTA
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for International Trade.
The number of lawsuits being initiated by corporations against
Canada under the provisions of NAFTA appears to be on the rise.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell us what efforts are being
made to amend chapter 11 of NAFTA to protect Canada against
frivolous claims?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the
hon. member that Canada takes very seriously the concerns
expressed on all sides of the issue about chapter 11. We have
consulted widely with the provinces and stakeholders to make sure
that the process is more open and fair.
We have met at the deputy minister level with the Mexicans and
Americans, and continue to so, to make sure that the
investor-state mechanism reflects what the original parties to
the agreement agreed on.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance and the Minister for
International Cooperation recently attended a $60 per person
cultural event organized by the Federation of Associations of
Canadian Tamils. I do not know exactly what the minister's
thought they were co-operating with when they attended this
event, but the FACT has long been identified by both CSIS and the
U.S. state department as a front for the Tamil tigers.
This week the Tamil tigers in Canada will be celebrating, in
their words, “the unceasing, unstoppable waves” of attacks on
Sri Lanka. Will the Minister of Finance be attending this
cultural event as well?
The Speaker: Order, please. I do not know that this
deals with the administrative responsibility of the minister. If
he wants to respond to it he may, if not, he will pass.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a $60 evening fundraiser at a major hotel is hardly a
major fundraising event. This was a cultural event where a young
Tamil Canadian teenager stood and talked about what this country
meant to her.
One of the things that she was saying is that we are a country of
tolerance and understanding. We understand that when people from
other parts of the world come here, become Canadian citizens and
want to celebrate their cultural heritage, we will celebrate it
with them.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
MOSEL VITELIC
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Montreal is
competing with cities in Ireland and Germany for a new Mosel
Vitelic plant.
Investments of over $3 billion and the creation
of 1,500 direct jobs are involved.
As the decision is to be made within the next two weeks in
Taiwan, could the Minister of Industry confirm for us that he is
100% behind the project and that he will soon announce his
government's contribution?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
visited Mosel Vitelic and started things rolling for its
establishment in Canada.
We certainly support such a significant investment and will now
work with the group representing the Government of Quebec and
the City of Montreal to obtain it. This is a very good thing
for Canada, for Quebec and for Montreal.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, today the CBC board announced that it will cut back
on all local television newscasts and will lay off hundreds of
people to boot. This means the death of local CBC news by
stealth, by a thousand cuts and by clear political design. The
president has admitted publicly that the CBC is not a priority
for the government but it is a priority for millions of
Canadians.
Will the Prime Minister finally commit to reinvesting adequate
and long term money so that local television news can be
protected and improved?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said last week that we are giving a very substantial
amount to the CBC. It has received almost $1 billion from the
government.
However, it is the responsibility of management and the board to
decide how to allocate the money. It announced today that it has
to make some changes to make the CBC more efficient. We have to
respect the decision of the president of the corporation and the
board.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, can the
Prime Minister tell us if today's announcement by the CBC
regarding regional suppertime news is an attempt to
systematically dismantle regional news programming? Does he
support this type of downscaling?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, the situation a couple of weeks ago was to
close down everywhere. The CBC has now come to the conclusion
that it will keep them open. It will be in a different way but
they will still be open. It is because of the intervention by
members of parliament on this side that it has the confidence to
do that.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
This morning's national newspapers report that there is now
clear proof that for decades the tobacco industry has been
targeting children in the marketing and promotion of cigarettes.
What is the government's strategy to respond to the tobacco
industry's relentless attack on our children and youth?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
little by little and month by month Canadians are coming to
understand the agenda of the tobacco industry to get new
customers by focusing on young people. The documents released
today indicate that has been going on for some time; that it was
a deliberate strategy.
It makes it all the clearer that we have to continue, as we have
done, with a strategy against the tobacco industry and against
smoking through higher taxes as soon as possible and as much as
possible, anti-smoking messages especially for young people and
changes in labelling so that we have the attitude that smoking is
not cool, smoking kills.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, all the blustering in the world by the finance minister
will not change the fact that CSIS and the U.S. state department
have identified the Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils
as associated with or a front for the Tamil tigers.
Instead of blustering, will the government promise a full
investigation into the activities of the Federation of the
Associations of Canadian Tamils? Will the government promise
that not a cent more of taxpayer money will go into grants and
contributions to that organization, not even for tickets for
ministers to attend the so-called—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister for
International Cooperation.
1500
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is
an event that the Minister of Finance and I attended. The fact
that he is equating the Tigers with the whole of the Tamil
community including the young woman that was thrown—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Maria Minna: Yes, that is what he said. Mr.
Speaker, it is pure racism.
We attended a cultural event with Canadian born citizens who
were celebrating a cultural event. I resent the kind of
connotation and the amalgamation the hon. member is putting
together. The Tigers are not—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Repentigny.
* * *
[Translation]
MICHEL DUMONT
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for three
years now, the Minister of Justice has had in her hands the file
of Michel Dumont, a resident of my riding, who has been unjustly
imprisoned.
Is the Minister of Justice aware of the distress such situations
cause and is she prepared to make public her decision on Mr.
Dumont's application for pardon before the summer recess?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I
have worked with him on a number of different occasions in
relation to this file. This file is progressing normally through
our section 690 process. As soon as there is a final decision I
will be in contact with the applicant as well as the hon. member
if he so chooses.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw to your
attention the presence in our gallery of His Excellency
Constantinos Stephanopoulos, President of the Hellenic Republic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE MAURICE RICHARD
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the Government of Canada and of all Canadians, I
wish to extend my most sincere condolences to the family and
friends of the great Maurice Richard.
I also want to pay tribute to this proud French Canadian who
inspired generations to surpass themselves.
If it is true that some people are born to do a specific type of
work, then Maurice Richard was born to play hockey. But talent
alone would not have been enough to make him one of the best, if
not the greatest hockey player in history.
1505
He had to have more than talent. He had to have heart, pride,
determination, courage and perseverance. These are all qualities
displayed by Number 9 on each shift on the ice. These are also
qualities that Maurice Richard, the man, displayed throughout his
life.
[English]
I remember sitting with my friends around a makeshift radio in
the college dormitory on Saturday nights and hearing the
descriptions of Maurice Richard as he skated to the net, being
pushed and shoved, being thrown on the ice, and he kept going.
He got back up and gave it everything he had non-stop until the
puck was behind the goalie.
No one ever wanted to win more than he did. That is what made
him great. That is what all Canadians will always remember about
him.
[Translation]
Maurice Richard was a fierce competitor, but he was also an
unassuming man who did not like great honours and endless
tributes.
This is why I will only add, to conclude, thank you, Maurice. We
will never forget you.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am always moved too when I see the
amazing passion we Canadians share for the great game of hockey.
I see it in the House of Commons today. Certainly we witnessed
it across the country this weekend with the passing of Maurice
Richard.
Canadians are reflecting upon and paying tribute to perhaps the
greatest player that ever donned a Montreal Canadiens uniform,
Maurice “The Rocket” Richard. There is no question that the
Montreal Canadiens, the Habs, is one of the greatest hockey
franchises Canada has ever produced. It is still the most
championship winning team in any professional sport and as an
avid Edmonton Oilers fan, that is tough for me to say.
When I think of a player who epitomizes that championship spirit
more than anyone else, I think of Rocket Richard. I must admit
that I can be passionate about very many things, especially
hockey, but I have always felt that my French Canadian brothers
and sisters can put me to shame with their passion, zest and
enthusiasm for hockey and Maurice Richard.
The Rocket was an unparalleled legend in playing the game he
loved. His fiery eyes, his blazing speed, his stamina, his
determination and that barely controlled temper just beneath the
surface demonstrated that passion for the game he loved. “No,
Rocket, you are not supposed to hit the linesmen”.
I do not think there will ever be another player just like him.
He is a one of a kind legend, a unique hero. In 1944-45 he was
the first player to score 50 goals in 50 games and it would be
another 37 seasons before anyone would do it again.
I pay tribute to him today on behalf of all of my colleagues. I
extend our sincere condolences to his entire family. I want to
thank them for sharing him with all Canadians.
Hockey and politics are a lot alike. When we have given it our
best shot, when we have scored our best goals, when we have taken
our penalties, hopefully we can all do what the Rocket did. That
would be to shake hands and say that hockey is a better game, or
politics is a better occupation, or life is a better experience
because we have all played well. We owe this to the name and the
memory of Maurice Richard.
[Translation]
Thank you, Maurice. We will never forget you.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of all my colleagues, I wish to offer my condolences to
all of the family members of Maurice Richard, particularly his
children, who had to share their father with all the people of
Quebec, of Canada even.
Maurice Richard was not the fastest skater. He did not have the
hardest shot. He was not the most elegant player or the best
stickhandler. What he was, quite simply, was the best player.
1510
His entire life, he worked at being the best. His only goal was
winning. He concentrated all his energy, strength, skill and
determination on winning. He taught his generation that it was
possible to reach the top. He showed future generations that
they had to set their sights high, to aim at perfection.
I saw Maurice Richard play at the Forum, and of course on
television. Those are moments that will remain etched in my
memory. When he skated full-out, we were there skating with him.
When he flew down the ice with the puck, we were with him.
When he scored, it was a goal for all of us.
He has left us the example of a simple and generous man who felt
that success could be achieved only by doing one's utmost, by
surpassing oneself. For that alone, thank you Maurice Richard.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my
party and on my own behalf, I wish to offer my sincere
condolences to the family and friends of the honourable Maurice
Richard.
Without diminishing Maurice Richard's stature in Quebec, he was
a hero for all Canadians.
[English]
For example, to show his longtime adoration, admiration and even
friendship for Maurice Richard, a constituent of mine who lives
in Pense has a licence plate that simply reads “NHL-9”.
[Translation]
He was considered a second class player during the second world
war, and sceptics were saying “Let's wait for our real stars to
come back home”.
But during the next decade, not only did Richard break Nels
Stewart's record, but he exceeded it by more than 200 goals. As
others mentioned earlier, Richard was one of the greatest hockey
players in history. His opponents always talked about his glare,
especially from the blue line to the net.
The Rocket always insisted on saying that he was just another
hockey player.
[English]
After his father's death on Saturday night Maurice Richard Jr.
said, “My father was a simple man”. That may be true, but for
a generation of Canadian hockey fans, Maurice “The Rocket”
Richard was simply marvellous.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Right Hon. Joe Clark and all
members of the Progressive Conservative Party, I would like to
express our sadness over the passing of Maurice “The Rocket”
Richard.
[Translation]
The Progressive Conservative Party wishes to offer its sincere
condolences to the whole Richard family.
[English]
Born on August 4, 1921 and throughout his 78 glorious years,
Maurice Richard was a symbol of excellence and a source of
inspiration for many generations of Quebecois and Canadians. The
Rocket will go down in history as more than a hockey legend. He
was truly a great Canadian whose on ice skills inspired a
generation of hockey fans.
Although he was not deemed the most physically gifted athlete,
it was his will to win that set him apart from all others. His
sheer force of will was something to behold.
Nicknamed “The Rocket” for his blazing speed and hard shot,
Richard developed a reputation as an electrifying player from the
blue line in. Wearing the number 9 jersey the Rocket dominated
the NHL for 18 magnificent years as the centrepiece of
professional sports' most successful franchise. His storied
career stats combining regular season and playoff goals include
626 goals, 465 assists and 1,091 total points. He was also the
first player, as mentioned, to score 50 goals in 50 games in the
1944-45 season, a feat not duplicated until the 1980s.
But it was his performance in clutch situations and his ability
to respond in the big games that really distinguished him from
those who have played the game of hockey. During his stellar
career Richard led the Montreal Canadiens to eight Stanley Cups,
including five in a row between 1956 and 1960.
After his career his popularity and legend grew. He continued to
be one of the most recognized and beloved figures in Canada. As
his health began to decline, the NHL recognized his contributions
to the game by creating the Rocket Richard trophy given annually
to the league's top scorer, a fitting tribute.
1515
[Translation]
Maurice Richard died on Saturday, losing a ferocious battle
against abdominal cancer. His body will lie in state at the
Molson Centre on Tuesday, and a state funeral will be held on
Wednesday at Notre-Dame Basilica.
[English]
There has been an outpouring of public sympathy and condolences
from across the country for Maurice “The Rocket” Richard. He
transcended the game. Canadians consider themselves honoured to
lay claim to the man affectionately known as “The Rocket”, a
great hockey player, a great ambassador for the game and country.
Canada and the Richard family have lost a true national treasure.
Au revoir, Rocket.
The Speaker: I am going to permit myself a few words
about Rocket Richard. I pass on this story to you.
Those of you in the House who are of my vintage might have been
around at the time when at Christmas we would get a hockey
sweater for whatever team. In my neighbourhood we were mostly
French-speaking kids. Invariably we would get a hockey sweater.
In those days, and I do not know if they did not have enough
money or if they just made them like that, they never put numbers
on the sweaters. There must have been four or five of us who
received a Montreal Canadiens sweater. Our mothers all sewed on
the number that we wanted. We all showed up with No. 9 on our
backs.
If today one or all of you had come into the House of Commons
with a Montreal Canadiens sweater with No. 9 on the back, I would
not have said that you cannot use props. With that sweater, that
number and the memory of Maurice Richard, it would have been
parliamentary.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to
table a copy of the draft bill, entitled an act to amend the
Canada Transportation Act, which will put in place legislation
for the grain transportation reforms that I announced with my
colleagues the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food and the
minister responsible for the wheat board some weeks ago.
It would be my intention to formally introduce the bill in the
House later this week.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the standing orders, I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the sixth report of the
Canadian-NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada
at the annual meeting of the standing committee held in Brussels
on April 8, 2000.
* * *
1520
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
INDUSTRY
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth
report of the Standing Committee on Industry. The committee has
considered the votes under industry in the main estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, and reports the same.
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third
report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Pursuant to its order of reference dated December 2, 1999, and
provisions contained in article 233 of the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, a subcommittee of the Standing Committee
on Justice and Human Rights was established to conduct a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
[Translation]
In accordance with its mandate, the subcommittee held public
hearings in Ottawa and in many other cities in Canada. It also
visited all levels of correctional facilities in various
locations in Canada and attended conditional release hearings.
In the course of these visits, in camera, it heard management
teams, correctional officers, conditional release officers,
members of program staff, members of the parole board, inmates,
members of citizens' advisory committees and other witnesses.
The subcommittee presented to the standing committee the
following report entitled “A Work in Progress: The Corrections
and Conditional Release Act”. The standing committee adopted the
report.
[English]
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 32nd
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
regarding its order of reference from the House of Commons of
Tuesday, February 29, 2000.
In relation to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2001, and in regard to vote 20 under Privy Council,
chief electoral officer, the committee reports the same, less the
amount voted in interim supply.
* * *
PETITIONS
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
present a petition signed by constituents who want the government
to remove the $500 charge for those who apply for permanent
residency or refugee status in Canada.
CHARITABLE DONATIONS
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petitions signed by over
25,000 Canadians who call on the government to pass legislation,
such as my private member's Bill C-474, to ensure that registered
charities, not for profit groups and federal political parties
would receive the same tax credit on the first $1,150, and that
for any amount above $1,150 the tax credit for charitable
donations would revert to 29% of the donation, up to a maximum of
a tax creditable donation of 50% of taxable income.
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to table three separate petitions that all concern the
same issue and are signed by 286 Quebecers.
The petitioners are quite simply calling for the abolition of
section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which was voted
on in the House and nearly passed in a vote of 114 to 110.
Taxpayers want rural letter carriers to be able to bargain
collectively with the government.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to table a petition signed by a number of Quebecers concerning
the Canada Post Corporation Act.
The petitioners are calling upon parliament to revoke section
13(5) of that act, which denies rural route delivery persons the
right to collective bargaining.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms stipulates that
freedom of association and the freedom to engage in collective
bargaining are among every individual's fundamental freedoms.
Denying that freedom constitutes a discriminatory practice toward
rural workers.
Parliament must therefore revoke section 13(5) as promptly as
possible, in order to comply with its own charter and to respect
the right to unionize and to engage in collective bargaining.
1525
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
like my two colleagues, I have a petition signed by the people of
my riding calling for the revocation of section 13(5) of the
Canada Post Corporation Act, which interferes with the
fundamental right to association, the right to unionize. It is a
denial of a basic right.
I am pleased to table this petition and to state that I support
what the petitioners are demanding, 100%.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm has
a great deal of experience in this House. He is well aware that
the standing orders do not allow comments about one's support or
non-support of a petition. I am sure he will not make the same
mistake again.
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table a petition on the price of gasoline. Many people
throughout Quebec and outside it as well are greatly concerned by
the very rapid increase in the price of gasoline. In my region,
over 3,500 people signed a petition, which I table in part today.
This petition asks the government to act quickly against this
increase. It also asks the government to take steps to develop
alternate sources of energy.
[English]
ADOPTION
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I present several hundred names in support of a
call by adoptive parents who face significant adoption related
costs and out of pocket expenses applicable to adoption.
The petitioners request that parliament pass Bill C-289, which
would recognize a deduction for the expenses related to the
adoption of a child.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Mr.
Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
POINT OF ORDER
TABLING OF PETITIONS
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to draw the House's attention to something that concerns the
tabling of petitions.
Very often individuals or lobby groups signing petitions forward
them to us for tabling here in this House.
However, in today's context, with the development of new means
of communication, petitions may come in different forms. This
has happened with me.
One individual has presented an electronic petition, on CD-ROM,
with over 17,000 names.
Mr. Goyette, a resident of Montreal, in Quebec, collected,
through electronic means, 17,000 signatures. That petition, like
the one I tabled earlier, asks the government to take action
regarding the gasoline pricing issue. This type of petition does
not quite comply with the current rules of the House, more
specifically with Standing Order 36.
I am asking the Chair whether it would be possible to get a very
broad interpretation of this provision of the standing orders or,
if it is deemed more appropriate, to have the standing orders
amended or updated so that in the future Canadians can use such
means.
In some ways an electronic petition is better than a
traditional one. It is much easier for the person who is
collecting signatures to make sure that someone did not sign the
petition more than once. By using an electronic address, it is
possible to limit the number of signatures. In any case, an
increasing number of people have an electronic address. We are
likely to see others follow the example of Mr. Goyette who, to my
knowledge in the first one to submit a petition in this format.
There are also advantages in terms of the storing of archival
information. This simple CD-ROM has 17,000 signatures but it
could have 50 times more. Storage capability for petitions would
be greatly enhanced.
Considering that people can now file their personal income tax
return by using the Internet, it seems to me that the House of
Commons should review its standing orders to make it possible to
table petitions in that format.
I respectfully submit this issue to your attention and I am
anxiously awaiting your ruling.
1530
The Deputy Speaker: Do any other members wish to speak on this
topic?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: As the hon. member for Témiscamingue
pointed out, the Standing Orders are fairly clear on this point.
I refer to Standing Order 36(2)(f), which states:
36. (2) In order to be certified, pursuant to section (1) of
this Standing Order, every petition shall:...
Under these circumstances, it is difficult for the Chair to do
other than insist that petitions be presented in the form
required under the standing orders of the House of Commons.
However, if the hon. member himself, or through his colleagues
who are members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, wishes to raise the matter with the committee, perhaps
it can recommend changes to the standing orders which can be
passed by the House, thus helping the hon. member with the
problem he has so ably described.
I urge the hon. member for Témiscamingue to find a way to raise
this issue with the committee I have mentioned. I am sure that
the committee chair, who is now in the House, has listened
carefully to the point raised and to the Speaker's ruling under
the circumstances.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
While we are waiting for the House of Commons to enter the new
millennium with respect to electronic petitions, is there
unanimous consent to allow the member for Témiscamingue to table
this CD-ROM with 17,000 signatures on this issue, particularly
since he had tabled a duly completed petition on the same issue
before setting out to table the CD-ROM?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon.
member to table this petition?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that
because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be
extended by 11 minutes.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-16, an
act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the third time and
passed.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House broke for question
period the hon. member for Calgary Centre had the floor. He has
six minutes remaining in the time available to him for questions
and comments.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, before question period I was responding to a question
which had to do with what it meant to me and others in my riding
to be a Canadian and how Bill C-16 addresses that.
I can quickly say that the meaning of being a Canadian cannot be
captured in a brief comment. For me it means that I have to
respect the laws of the land. I have to participate as a
citizen. There are a tremendous number of rights, but there are
also a tremendous number of responsibilities which we have as
citizens, to work to improve our country, to represent our
country and to obey the laws of the land.
My concern about some aspects of this bill is that although it
deals with citizenship, it appears to move us in the wrong
direction. It does not make it clear, in my estimation and in
that of many members of the committee, as to exactly who
qualifies. That seems to be watered down and left to regulation
and bureaucrats to determine.
1535
The language requirement is not clear as to how proficient a new
citizen needs to be in either or both of the official languages.
It is very unclear. In fact, one could argue that a new citizen
under this bill might not even need to understand much, if any, of
either languages, because it allows for interpretation
assistance, et cetera.
Under citizenship-type certifications and assessments with
regard to family, it is unclear who qualifies under familial
relationships, whereas it is clear in Canadian law. This bill
moves in a different direction and leaves total discretion to the
minister and her bureaucrats.
Then there is the very grievous concern about potentially
revoking citizenship for those who have chosen to be Canadian
citizens, leaving them to appeal. There is no real appeal
process available through the bill for those who may have had
their citizenship challenged. Of course, the citizenship judges
have been gutted of any real responsibility and are really window
dressing. We have again deferred to the bureaucracy to make
assessments on people's lives, who they are, their nationality
and their citizenship.
Yes, it means a lot to be a Canadian citizen. Unfortunately,
this bill moves a lot of the significance, the administration and
the firm statements as to how important it is out of law and into
the hands of the whims of a bureaucracy and regulation.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly defining who is a Canadian when we are so
diverse as a people would be a very complicated task. But on the
face of it, and allowing for the fact that just in the question
and comment period the hon. member will not have a lot of time to
think of his response to the question I am going to put,
nevertheless, would he not feel, though, that the one thing that
does unite us all as Canadians, no matter where we are from,
whether we are new Canadians or Canadians here by birth, is a
mutual respect for the principles of the charter of rights?
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I would say that is
accurate. I think the hon. member has done some work in this
regard and I think that is accurate. Where there might be need
for a greater discussion is how those principles are applied and
administrated in the land. However, in general I would say yes.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the member for Mississauga West.
I am pleased and honoured today to speak to Bill C-16, an act
respecting Canadian citizenship. There is a handful of members
in the House who could probably share the same life experience as
myself and the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo. This issue
is very close to me and I would like to share my experience with
my hon. colleagues and the nation.
As a young boy in Croatia I dreamed about Canada. I dreamed
about a huge country. In 1968, in Vienna, when I applied and
went through the process to come to this country, I was honoured
and I was privileged. I was only 18 and a half years old at that
time.
I chose this country. I came by myself, on my own. Three years
later I applied for Canadian citizenship and I received Canadian
citizenship two years after that.
1540
In that citizenship courtroom in Waterloo, which was held in an
old post office building on King Street, I still remember
watching the faces of many people similar to myself, their
special feelings and the smiles on their faces.
When I go to citizenship courts today as an elected member of
parliament the judge usually asks me to make comments. When I
make these comments I tell new Canadians that they are equal
members of the greatest society, the Canadian family, and equal
to anybody who was born here or those families who came 300 or
400 years before them. Just recently, I found out that I was
wrong.
I do not know if I could go again to that same citizenship court
and tell new Canadians that they are equal. According to Bill
C-16, they are not, which is really sad. It is really sad that I
am not as equal a member of Canadian society as my own children.
Over five million Canadians are in the same position.
The Canadian government and the Canadian parliament promote
equality, especially abroad. Under this legislation there is no
equality. Under this legislation I am treated as a second class
citizen. In no other department does the minister have the right
and the power to overrule the Supreme Court of Canada, but this
legislation would provide that power. That is wrong.
I know many new Canadians who probably did not tell the whole
truth for many reasons. Perhaps they came from a country where
their lives and their freedom was not protected by the laws of
that country, so they used every means available to get out and
become members of the greatest family.
Canada is a party to the international convention on civil and
political rights adopted by the UN general assembly on December
16, 1966. This United Nations covenant says that a person who
has lived in Canada for 20 years or more, whether or not he or
she is a citizen of Canada, can consider Canada to be his or her
own country. For the purposes of articles 12(4) and 13 of the
covenant, such a person cannot be expelled from Canada. If the
person leaves the country on vacation, he or she cannot be
prevented from re-entering. It is clearly stated in these
articles that even non-citizens under the UN convention have more
rights than what is proposed in Bill C-16.
Let us say that a person, of whatever nationality, somewhere in
Moscow, is stepping on the property of the Canadian embassy, and
someone else is stepping on the property of the Canadian embassy
in Beijing. Those two individuals are protected by the charter
of rights.
They are not even landed immigrants and they are not even
citizens, but Canadian citizens under Bill C-16 are not equal
members of Canadian society. That is wrong.
1545
Can we imagine how many different nationalities there are in my
riding of Cambridge? I could start with Croatians, Serbians,
Portuguese, Indians, Punjabis, English, Irish, Scottish,
Hungarians and Poles. All those people came to this country by
choice but are not equal members of our society.
I was surprised on listening to the member from Winnipeg this
morning to learn that he and the NDP caucus are fully supporting
Bill C-16. Let me quote Alistair Stewart, an MP from Winnipeg, a
CCF member, in debate on April 3, 1951. The debate was similar
to this one today. He said:
The minister has the right to decide, and it is no reflection on
the minister when I say that all of us who are elected members of
parliament know what it is to be the victim of political pressure
and political urges. While I am content to leave this right with
the minister, I am not content to leave with him the right to
have the last word. We suggest for the earnest consideration of
the minister, partly as a safeguard for himself and partly as a
safeguard for those who might be accused, that the individual
should have a final right of appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada...That court is impartial. Let that court decide whether
or not the individual should suffer the most grievous penalty of
losing his citizenship. Were we to do that, then I think we
would be restoring some of that equality for all which we desire.
I hope that the minister will give this suggestion his most
earnest consideration.
We are giving that same power to the political side to make that
decision instead of to the supreme court in our judicial system
which should be and is impartial. That is completely wrong.
It is not right for five million Canadians who by their own
choice adopted Canada as their homeland. I am one of them and I
am proud of Canadian society. I hope members of the House will
realize how dangerous it is to leave that power in the hands of
the politicians instead of our judges.
1550
I do not know what my feelings will be next time when I am
called to participate in the citizenship courts. I should not
say no but I cannot mislead or lie to people. I cannot go over
there to congratulate those who just became second class
citizens. I do not know how my colleagues will feel about that,
but I feel disappointed and dishonoured as the member
representing Cambridge riding. I hope my colleagues will do the
right thing when we vote at third reading.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, first let me commend the hon. member on his speech.
I also want to commend the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo on
his commitment to honesty, transparency and to ensuring that we
are treated as equal Canadians.
Today has been a very educational day for me. I did not realize
that the legislation would create two classes of Canadians. I
like my former colleagues who have spoken have chosen this
country as my homeland. I have been here for 45 years. Little
did I realize that all of a sudden we are at the brink of the
possibility that I will no longer be a first class Canadian like
the rest of my colleagues who were born and raised in this
country. If what I hear is true then I believe the government
needs to examine the legislation a lot closer and to ensure that
Canadians across this great land are not divided, whether they
were born here or immigrated here by choice.
My question is for my hon. colleague. If amendments are not
made to the bill, does he anticipate any backlash to the
legislation from Canadians?
Mr. Janko Peric: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member as well as
other members in the House and I who chose Canada feel the same
way as any of the five to six million Canadians. It is a sad day
for us because we are not as equal as our own children.
We have to strive to improve that and to create legislation that
will unite us as Canadians regardless of what seniority we have,
whether it be five days or 500 years. If we want to create an
even stronger and better society we have to be treated as equal
members of our family.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleague. He
expressed his sincere sentiments and I congratulate him for that.
It is indeed a tribute to our democracy in the country,
epitomized in the House of Commons.
He spoke about second class citizenship because of his feeling
that there is not enough of a judicial role when citizenship may
be revoked. Let me remind my colleague that citizenship at birth
may not be revoked.
Therefore we cannot compare citizenship by birth with citizenship
acquired. By definition, what is given may be taken when the
basis for it being given is proven to be false, fraud or illegal
under the laws of Canada.
1555
The reason citizenship by birth may not be revoked is that he or
she is not a citizen of any other country. The naturalized
citizens of Canada who have been shown, on investigation or
determination by the Federal Court of Canada on the
recommendation of the minister, to have violated the very laws of
our country may have their citizenship revoked because there was
no basis to grant it to begin with. It was done under false
representation and under fraud. We must not lose sight of the
presumption and the basic tenet of revocation that is based on
fraud and false representation.
One cannot say that it is second class only because the process
starts with the recommendation of the minister. I am a
naturalized citizen of Canada and I thank Canada for the benefits
given to me personally and to my family. I have four sons with
my wife and they are all Canadian citizens by birth.
I would like the hon. member to consider this and comment on the
fact that there is a distinction between citizenship by birth and
citizenship that is acquired. In terms of treatment by the court
system, the leave to appeal should be available right up to the
level of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is a question of trust
and I will not belittle the noble calling of politics.
Mr. Janko Peric: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right
when he says that we should have the right to appeal. I do not
see that in Bill C-16. That is the problem with the bill. I
would be the first one to deport those who obtain citizenship
under false statements or by hiding some criminal history, but we
should let the individual have the right to appeal the process
directly to the supreme court. We should not leave that in the
minister's hands.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul for his
intervention dealing with the issue of equality.
This should actually be a celebration. I am vice-chair of the
committee and sat on the committee when we dealt with the
controversial Bill C-63. A lot of people appeared and talked to
us about their concerns. All issues were raised and put on the
floor. Unfortunately the bill was ready to go as Bill C-63 when
the House prorogued and it fell off the agenda. When the House
came back the bill was brought back in as Bill C-16.
This should be a celebration of the fact that the committee had
tremendous input and impact with the minister and the ministry to
convince them that there are some things which should be done to
increase the value of Canadian citizenship. Instead of
celebrating we find ourselves embroiled in a debate over the
issue of supposedly creating two classes of Canadian citizens.
I absolutely respect the passion and the strongly held views of
my colleagues, but the danger is that we are sending a message to
the new Canadian community, to immigrants. When they stand in a
citizenship court along with their families, let us say on Canada
Day, not too far in the future, and receive their Canadian
citizenship which they believe is of tremendous value, we are
sending a message that somehow it is devalued compared to someone
like me who was born in this country.
It is not fair to send that kind of negative, frightening message
to people who look forward to celebrating what is for many a
rebirth.
1600
I heard that earlier today statements were made in this place
that people cannot know what this is about unless they are
immigrants to this country. The implication is that those born in
this country do not understand the value of Canadian citizenship.
In a former life I stood as a parliamentary delegate to monitor
free elections in Croatia for the first time since the war. I
saw people with tears in their eyes lining up on the streets to
cast their ballots. I could feel their pain. I could feel their
enthusiasm, their excitement. I could feel their fear that
somehow by the time they got to the ballot box the right would be
stripped away, that Tito would jump down from the picture over
the ballot box or that the soldier with a gun would prevent them
from casting that ballot. The right to vote is one of the
benefits of citizenship. I saw firsthand how important it was to
those people who had gone through war and terror and hate. I
think I can understand that, even though I happen to have been
lucky enough to have been born in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario,
Canada.
My wife is an immigrant who came to this country from England.
It was not under duress, although she might say she was trying to
get away from her parents. She came
here to seek a better life. She came here as an 18 year old
girl, wide eyed and excited about coming to this great country
she had heard about. She became a Canadian citizen by choice.
If anything, people who choose this country are more special.
If we want to talk about two classes of citizens, it is a little
like the statement parents make to their adopted children when
they find out that mom and dad are not their biological mom and
dad. The statement is always “We chose you. You are very
special”. To new Canadians coming to this country, whether
from wartorn societies or from places like the U.K., I say thank
you for choosing Canada. It is what has built this country.
The bill says that those who come here under false pretences,
those who lie, those who knowingly withhold information to whom
we in Canada have given this citizenship right, our appreciation
of its acceptance and the help to build our society, if we are
deceived we must have a mechanism to take back what we consider
to be a document and a place in the world of utmost importance
and value. Is that a double standard? As my friend has
mentioned, we cannot take away a right of birth. To compare the
two is not fair.
There are some horrible people. Think about it. Paul Bernardo
is still a Canadian citizen. Who would not want to strip that
evil person, if we had the power to do so, of Canadian
citizenship? But we cannot because he was born here. There are
countless others such as Clifford Olson, and we could go on.
There are countless people who are bad people and who remain
Canadian citizens.
The only option we have is if someone arrives here who it turns
out was a war criminal or had committed crimes against humanity.
I can imagine the outcry of the Canadian public if the government
were held powerless to revoke that person's citizenship, if the
government had to rely on a judge to make the decision instead of
the duly elected people who represent the people who bestowed
Canadian citizenship on the individual in the first place.
Canadians give citizenship. Canadians must have the ability, if
they have been cheated, to revoke that citizenship.
1605
The second thing that is unfair and which sends a frightening
message to the immigrant community and to those applying for
Canadian citizenship is the idea that there is no appeal. Let us
be clear. The process has five different steps and provides at
least three opportunities to ask the federal court to judicially
review the decisions being taken during these steps.
I do not want to play semantics but a judicial review is
different from an appeal. Here is how it works. The minister
issues a letter because the minister has evidence and is
satisfied with that evidence that the person has fraudulently
obtained Canadian citizenship. The minister will serve notice on
the individual. That individual then has an immediate right to
ask the federal court trial division to appeal the minister's
letter. That court will call witnesses. That court will listen
to evidence. That court will not just look at whether or not the
minister has erred in some legal way.
That is the difference. Judicial review tends to look at the
process and the specifics of the process, whether or not there
was an error in law, whereas one could argue that an appeal
basically appeals a decision, making it wide open, introducing
new evidence and everything else. Clearly when the federal court
trial division holds a judicial review of the minister's letter
and notice to the individual, it must and will call witnesses,
look at all the evidence and attempt to decide whether or not the
decision is a fair one.
This is very interesting because if the court decides that the
letter should not have been sent and that there is no problem
with the individual, in other words if it finds that the
individual did not commit fraud, then the process is over. I
hear members opposite and a few on this side saying that is not
fair either and that the government should have the right to
appeal. We want to walk both sides of the street on this deal.
If the government continues to have the right to appeal, there
could be a very strong case for harassment.
I just do not understand how one can argue on the one hand that
one wants to protect humanitarian rights, and I will come to the
humanitarian and compassionate issue, and then on the other hand
that we should give the big bad government the right to appeal
the decision of a judicial review by the federal court trial
division that says there was no fraud. If that happens it is
case over, door shut and that person stays as a citizen. It
seems to me that is protecting the rights of that individual.
I find it more interesting to have the alliance reform party, or
whatever it is called, in opposition to this for these stated
reasons. Its members think the power belongs more appropriately
in the hands of the judges and not the politicians. We all know
that when one wants to denigrate a particular issue the best
place to start is by denigrating those who are politicians. We
are all a bad lot. We all make decisions with ulterior motives
and we cannot be trusted. We hear that.
But I ask those members, what was the position of the opposition
in this place when the supreme court in B.C. ruled in favour of
that individual who was promoting child pornography? My
goodness, how could a judge make such a decision?
How could a judge make such a decision? What is their solution?
Their solution is simply to invoke the notwithstanding clause,
smack the judge over the hand and reverse the decision. By the
way, none of us like that decision. In fact we decided to appeal
that to the Supreme Court of Canada.
1610
I did not realize I was out of time. I hope we can have further
debate on this in a positive, substantive way which will allow
for the positive benefits of Bill C-16 to be put forward to the
Canadian people.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no one is asking for anything special. What is being
asked for is the protection of the charter, for the right to
defend one's citizenship. What is being asked for is the due
process of law.
My friend may not like it but the due process of law is having
the right to appeal a finding of fact to the supreme court. It
happens in our courts each and every day. The problem with the
bill is it denies Canadians by choice the charter. It denies
them the due process of law.
We do not want political decisions on citizenship revocation. We
want the courts to make those decisions because they are not a
political body.
A week and a half ago the Prime Minister was visiting a
neighbouring riding to my own. He said that the one key thing in
the life of our nation is to make sure that the rights of the
citizens are protected by the court in our land and not subject
to the capricious elected. The Prime Minister had it right. The
principle being referred to was holding the judges politically
accountable.
When someone's rights are involved it should not be a popularity
contest because justice is blind. That is how the law is
applied. It is not how powerful one is, how weak one is, but we
try to treat everyone equally as much as possible.
Every legal group that came before us, including the B'nai
Brith, including Mr. Narvey from the coalition of synagogues from
Montreal, concerned about war crimes, crimes against humanity and
the Holocaust, said that there should be a right to appeal. Is
my friend saying to me that he is going to tell Canadians by
choice that they do not have a right to appeal the judicial
decision? That is exactly what he is saying. If he does not
know the difference between judicial appeal and the review of
that decision, then he has a problem.
There is a memo in my friend's office from Mr. Kenneth Narvey
taking the six reasons that have been given by the government and
debunking each one of them.
Surely to God the member does not want to deny the due process
of law and the charter of rights protection to people who are
citizens by choice. If he does, let me tell him I will debate
with him in his riding.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, that is the most
disgusting threat I have ever received. If the member wants to
come to my riding any time, any place, anywhere and debate me on
anything, I would be delighted to have him do so. This should not
be about personal attacks, that member trying to intimidate or
threaten me.
I did receive Mr. Narvey's memo but I did not receive it from
Mr. Narvey. I received it from the member for Kitchener—Waterloo
telling me that I should simply agree with everything Mr. Narvey
said. Well, I have read it and I do not agree with it.
Let me also say these are the facts. Does the member want to
talk about appeal? Does he want to talk about protecting rights?
Someone is over the top on this. The process has five different
steps and provides at least three opportunities to ask the
federal court to judicially review the decisions that are being
taken during these steps. The decisions that come out of these
judicial reviews can themselves be appealed to the federal court
appeal division and to the Supreme Court of Canada with
authorization, with leave.
That represents a possible total of nine reviews and appeals to
the courts, not including the initial judicial review by the
federal court at the very beginning of the revocation process.
1615
Some members are over the top because they are allowing emotion
and irrationality to influence what they are doing on this bill.
As I said before, this should be about celebrating not about
personal attacks, threats or intimidation by any member on any
side of the House against anyone.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, oh what an opportunity has been lost, because, as the
member for Mississauga West has just said, here it is the year
2000, here we are debating a new citizenship act for the new
millennium and here we are in a debate that has fallen into
discord on some very fundamental issues. We have lost a golden
opportunity and I really do feel sad about it.
My problem with the legislation has to do with the oath of
citizenship. I would first like to comment very briefly on the
issue raised by the member for Kitchener—Waterloo. After all
the debate and the rhetoric are over, what we are really dealing
with in this issue from the member for Kitchener—Waterloo is one
set of due process for one group of Canadians and another set of
due process for another group of Canadians.
I agree with the member for Kitchener—Waterloo that there is
something fundamentally wrong with that, and it can be tested. As
the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul said, he justified the
difference in due process to the fact that some Canadians are
born here and their citizenship cannot be revoked because they
have nowhere else to go to. He then made the assumption that new
Canadians, who have come from other lands, can have their
citizenship revoked because they can go back to their original
land if it is found that they have entered Canada and sought
citizenship under false pretences.
What I would point out to the member for Winnipeg North—St.
Paul is that if people from India, where they cannot have dual
nationality, come to Canada and take out citizenship in Canada,
they lose their citizenship in India. What we are basically
talking about here is that if citizenship is revoked from this
category of new Canadian who is from India, then they cannot go
back.
What I suggest is that Bill C-16 does not provide for that, and
in fact should provide for that, but if it is going to provide
for that it will have to create a new category of Canadians who
will have to be treated under a different due process. That,
fundamentally, is what is wrong with the legislation as it stands
now with respect to setting up a different regime for revocation
of citizenship, a different judicial regime than would exist for
other Canadians faced with similar contraventions of the law. I
think the member for Kitchener—Waterloo has a very important
point.
My difficulty with the legislation though, Mr. Speaker, is
different but very closely related. My problem with Bill C-16,
the citizenship bill as it is presented, is that it proposes a
new oath of citizenship that has never been debated in the House.
It proposes a new oath of citizenship that I do not think
reflects what it is to be Canadian, that does not reflect the
principles of being Canadian.
It is a new oath of citizenship, Mr. Speaker, that has been
created in the shadows of the government. It has been created by
a bureaucrat or a bureaucracy somewhere. For that matter, Mr.
Speaker, for all we know it may have been contracted out. We do
not know the pedigree of the oath of citizenship that is now in
Bill C-16. On something so absolutely, vitally important as the
oath of citizenship, we should know and we in the House should
have participated. Unfortunately we did not.
The debate on the oath of citizenship has a real history that I
have actually been involved in. When I came to parliament for
the first time as a new MP in 1993, the very first committee that
I served on was the citizenship and immigration committee in 1993
and 1994 in which we were analyzing what needed to be done to
upgrade the citizenship legislation to make it current to the new
millennium.
Every witness who came before the committee as a new Canadian was
asked to express what it meant to be a new Canadian. Of all the
committees I have served on that was the most inspiring.
1620
We heard from people from Croatia, like my friend from
Cambridge. We heard from people from southeast Asia, the
Caribbean and the United Kingdom. They all said essentially the
same thing. They said that Canada was admired the world around,
that it was a magnet for people all over the world because of its
principles.
Canada is admired the world over because of the principles that
are enshrined in the charter of rights, the rule of law, our
adherence to democracy, our freedom of speech and our adherence
to basic human rights. We heard this theme time and again.
When it came down to our report, the committee decided that
there should be a declaration of citizenship. We thought it
would be really wonderful to enshrine these principles that are
basically expressed in the charter of rights in a declaration
that would go in the preamble of the citizenship bill.
As far as the oath was concerned, and I should actually mention
the oath, the committee unanimously agreed that the oath needed
to be revisited. I want to read the oath that exists today and
that will be amended in Bill C-16. The oath that was before our
committee in 1993-94 simply said:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of
Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and I will faithfully observe
the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
I think just about every new Canadian who came before the
committee said that oath was inadequate. They said that when
they came before their citizenship hearings they were
disappointed, not just because of the reference to a foreign
monarch but because they felt the oath did not captured what it
was to be Canadian.
The committee came out with its report called “Belonging
Together”. I stress that we heard from new Canadians and from
people who were born in Canada. The recommendations of that
report were, first, that a declaration of Canadian citizenship
should express the vision Canadians share for their future and
the importance they attach to their citizenship.
Second, that the declaration should reflect the core values of
our concept of citizenship.
Third, that the government should consider calling on the
writers of Canada to contribute to the drafting of this
declaration. We wanted the poets. We wanted everyone in the
country involved in expressing what it was to be a Canadian in
terms of a few lines that could capture that spirit.
The fourth recommendation was that the declaration should be
drafted in a language that is noble, uplifting and inspires pride
in being Canadian.
What happened? Five years later Bill C-63, now Bill C-16, was
tabled in the House of Commons. I was here at my place when it
was tabled. What we got was no declaration of what it is to be a
citizen. There was no change in the preamble of Bill C-16. What
we got instead was a warmed over oath of citizenship that bears
no relation whatsoever to what new Canadians were telling us when
they came before our committee. The amazing thing is that we did
not even know where it came from. It suddenly appeared in the
legislation without prior debate, without debate in the second
citizenship committee. I will read it. It says:
From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to
Canada and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of
Canada. I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms,
to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws
and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.
Who wrote that? Who had the temerity to write those words
without consulting Canadians? Who had the temerity to write
those words without actually fielding them in parliament where we
could debate them. What words are they, from the very beginning?
The words are “I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada”.
That is a redundancy. Loyalty and allegiance, in English anyway,
mean the same thing. If we analyze the history of the oath we
can see where that came from. It came from was the French
version of the current oath which says “Je jure fidélité et
sincère allégeance à Sa Majesté la reine”. It is a direct English
translation of the French version of the existing oath,
and it is a bad translation. Any English or French teacher would
reject it at the public school level.
1625
It goes on to say “I promise to respect our country's rights
and freedoms”. We are bigger than that. It is not
just our country's rights and freedoms. We as Canadians respect
everybody's rights and freedoms. This is a fundamental
difference and this is what makes us Canadian. This confines it
selfishly to Canada alone, and that is unacceptable.
It then says “to uphold our democratic values”. Democratic
values are a matter of perception in terms of the country in
which we happen to be living. People from East Germany will
recall that the name for East Germany was the German Democratic
Republic. The full name for the Congo is the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, where they are busily killing one another as fast
as they can. Right now there is a little civil war going on in
Fiji and the government is being held hostage. That is the
Sovereign Democratic Republic of Fiji. And so it goes. The
Democratic Republic of Korea is really North Korea.
In other words, we cannot simply pledge allegiance to the
democratic values of the country to which we belong. We have to
pledge allegiance to democratic values in the abstract because
the danger is, as we experienced in Germany during the 1930s,
which led to the second world war, that a dictatorship is very
fond of perverting democratic values and becoming a dictatorship
under the guise of democracy. No. If we are going to pay
respect to democratic values it must be democratic values in the
abstract.
The final words are “to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil
my duties and obligations as a citizen”. That applies to every
country in the entire world. Of course a citizen is required to
obey the traffic act, the criminal code or whatever. That does
not make us different as Canadians.
When that oath appeared before the House of Commons, I and
several of my colleagues reacted very negatively. We tried very
rapidly to capture the essence of what we heard in that committee
in 1993-94. What I proposed in the House at that time—and I
seem to be about the only one debating the oath of
citizenship—was that the oath of citizenship should be rewritten
in a way that would capture the five principles of the charter of
rights, which is what makes us unique as Canadians. Those five
principles are equality of opportunity, freedom of speech,
democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law.
The reason the member for Kitchener—Waterloo is agonizing over
in his place is that he feels that the rule of law is not being
respected because we have two different sets of due processes for
two different sets of Canadians. I would suggest that the member
for Kitchener—Waterloo probably has it correct; we cannot have
two standards for Canadians. Canadians must always be treated
the same way.
I just want to make a quick comment on those five principles. I
have to say that when I proposed that in the House I did have
some positive response but there was no opportunity to debate it
other than me standing here and speaking for the length of time
that I had.
However, what I will point out is obvious: Equality of
opportunity is really what being Canadian is all about. We are
all different in many ways. What is essential for every one of
us individually is to have the chance to compete equally for the
good things in life, so it is a matter of providing those
equalities of opportunity. That is why we as Liberals believe in
medicare. We believe that people cannot begin to compete unless
they have equality in health.
The second point is freedom of speech. Many of the new
Canadians who came before us came from countries where there is
no such thing as freedom of speech. The first thing that is done
in a democracy that wants to be a dictatorship is to suppress the
press. Even though it is sometimes very hard for us on the
government side to bear the attacks that we see almost daily now
in our national press, it is nevertheless part and parcel of
democracy and it is absolutely vital. Freedom of speech is
absolutely essential.
1630
I have already commented on democracy.
Basic human rights are not just things we stand for as Canadians
for ourselves; they are things which we stand for around the
world. We are genuinely concerned about what happens in Sierra
Leone. We were genuinely concerned about what happened in Bosnia
and Rwanda. That is what being Canadian is all about.
Finally, there is the rule of law. It is not obeying the law
that is so important; it is appreciating the law. One of the
reasons we have such a strong democracy is that we have, sitting
opposite of me, members of parliament who are separatists, who
believe the country should be broken up. Yet I am proud of the
fact that they see that outcome only by means of the rule of law.
They are as good parliamentarians as I am on this side of the
House. I am proud to be in the same Chamber with them, even
though I reject their fundamental premise. The fact is, they
believe that if it is to be achieved, it can only be achieved by
due process, by the rule of law. I am proud to be in the Chamber
with people who feel that way.
I proposed that oath. Not too surprisingly it was rejected by
the House. One of the things that disappointed me was, when I
proposed my version of the oath that contained these five
principles, I asked that there be a free vote in the House, and
there was not. I noticed that not just my side, but the NDP, the
Conservatives and certainly the Bloc Quebecois voted as a group.
There was obviously no attempt to consider the possibility of a
made in Canada oath; an oath that, whatever its merits or
demerits, at least expressed the principles of the charter of
rights. If they did not like anything else, if they did not like
the fact that it dropped the Queen, or if they did not like the
reference to God, fine. But it captured what it is to be Canada
in terms of the charter of rights, which is freedom of speech,
democracy, rule of law, equality of opportunity and basic human
rights. That is what it is to be Canadian. Any new Canadian who
comes to this country knows that.
To say I am disappointed hardly captures it. I hate to use the
word, but I think it was basic cowardice on the part of the
government and even parliament to allow an oath of citizenship to
go out that does not reflect the spirit of being Canadian, at
least in terms of the House. It has not been debated in the
House. We have an obligation. This House is the repository of
everything that it means to be Canadian. This is the focus. We
should have debated that. To not have done so is reprehensible.
Like the member for Cambridge, what am I going to do when I go
to my citizenship courts, when these starry eyed new Canadians
come before the citizenship court commissioner now, instead of a
judge, put their hand up and quote an oath of citizenship that
the government and parliament never debated or never had the
courage to even consider the content of?
In my view, this is the time when we need the Senate. I believe
that the House of Commons failed in its duty when it allowed an
oath of citizenship to go out that has no heritage, no patrimony,
no connection to what it really means to be Canadian. It is
simply an oath that was created somewhere behind the curtains.
We do not know where. We are expecting newcomers to Canada to
use that oath, not only to understand Canada better, but as a
commitment to being part of Canada. That is unacceptable.
I propose that the Senate very carefully look at this
legislation. If it cannot come up with an oath that captures the
principles of being Canadian, then please reject the oath that is
here. It is absolutely unacceptable to have a new oath, an
elaborately revised oath, go before new Canadians when we
ourselves have never been a part of its creation; when we
parliamentarians, when we Canadians have never participated in
the creation of that oath. It is now up to the Senate.
1635
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments and congratulate
the member for expressing with passion his belief on the
legislation before us.
I have a copy of a press release from B'nai Brith Canada which
says that if we adopt Motions Nos. 4 and 5 they “would make the
bill more just”. B'nai Brith Canada is very careful. It
believes that there is justice in this bill and that if these
motions were adopted the bill would be given additional strength.
I congratulate B'nai Brith Canada for giving that kind of
reasoned argument and leaving the vote on this issue to the
honest belief of members of parliament. There is no threat
whatsoever.
I call to the attention of the House another press release from
a group headed by Mr. W. Halchuk, which states that Bill C-16 is
discriminatory and is based on race. It further states that if
support is given to Bill C-16 consequences will be suffered and
losing our seats will be more expensive than “having your
nomination papers not signed”. Press releases like this from
people proclaiming to champion Canadian citizenship and at the
same time risking the freedom and liberty of democracy in debate
could make us afraid to think. That is the very threat to
Canadian citizenship.
I am an adopted citizen of Canada. I am a naturalized Canadian.
My loyalty to Canada is undivided. But I believe that the
proposed citizenship act, if passed, as the member for
Mississauga West indicated earlier in this debate, would be a day
to celebrate.
I cannot help but comment on this threat to members of
parliament made by Mr. Halchuk. I would like members to listen
to one more comment: “Citizenship is too important to be left
up to the politicians”. What does this individual think of
politicians? Like it or not, the Government of Canada and the
country itself will continue to be run by politicians and we had
better believe in our profession, the noble calling of politics.
Threats infuse fear and they have no role in the Chamber of
democracy, the House of Commons.
The member for Kitchener—Waterloo said earlier that if there is
a charter violation a cost must be paid if a provision of the
charter of rights and freedoms is violated. This law already
exists and is subject to review by the Supreme Court of Canada.
We cannot take it away. No act of parliament can take away the
right of the Supreme Court of Canada to hear argument on a
violation of the charter of rights and freedoms. To inject fear
that it may happen is just that. It is creating a slavery of
fear.
It has been argued that there is no room for appeal. Subclause
18(4) at page 8 of the bill states:
On making an order under subsection (1), the Minister shall
inform the person who is the subject of the order that the order
has been made—
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul is addressing his
comments entirely to the earlier speech given by the member for
Kitchener—Waterloo. I spoke just prior, and if he has some
constructive things to say about my speech, would he please do
so.
The Deputy Speaker: The point of order is well taken.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul is on questions and
comments on the speech of the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington. I know he will want to make his comments
relevant to that speech.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, because the member
alluded to that issue as well, it is in order that I address that
component of the debate.
Since I have not finished my debate, he was premature in judging
that I would not address the other component of his debate. Only
time may limit me in addressing that issue, but I intend to do
it.
1640
Let me continue my speech, Mr. Speaker. Before I was
interrupted—
The Deputy Speaker: I must remind the hon. member that he
has gone on for almost five minutes of the ten minutes available
for questions and comments and there may be other members who
want to ask a question or make a comment. I think he ought to
terminate his remarks quite soon.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to make comments, which is part of our parliamentary
procedure. In fact, I am not even compelled to ask a question.
Be that as it may, I respect your advice, Mr. Speaker.
Subclause 18(4) states: “On making an order under subsection
(1), the Minister shall inform the person who is the subject of
the order that the order has been made”—and I would like to
underscore this—“and advise them of their right to apply for
judicial review under section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act”.
The rule of law is fundamental, as the member from Wentworth has
alluded to. That rule of law requires that no immigrant wanting
to be a Canadian citizen may knowingly breach that rule of law.
There is a breach of the rule of law if there is false
representation and there is fraud. That is the very essence of a
breach of the rule of law, not to respect the law itself. The
member from Wentworth said, yes, we must have not two standards
but one standard for citizenship. I agree that the bill has only
one standard. That is the standard for revocation of
citizenship. Therefore, we cannot imagine another standard for
Canadian citizens born in Canada because we do not create another
standard for a situation where there will be no instance for
revocation of citizenship, which is citizenship by birth.
Therefore, to compare the two is definitely against logic.
To the point that the member from Wentworth alluded to about his
proposed amendment to the oath, I support in principle his
amendment that we are united as a people under the supremacy of
God. That statement, may I remind the Chamber, is already in the
statement preceding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I feel, while it may be reiterated in this instance, to me it is
already in the highest fundamental law of the land. That is my
position on that point.
On the position of taking away the allegiance to the Queen, in
all sincerity, honesty and forthrightness, I believe in the
heritage of Canada.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, there are two things. On
the member's first point, it is still one set of rules for one
set of Canadians and another set of rules for another set of
Canadians. I do find that it does seem to contravene the whole
basic principle of equality before the law and I have a lot of
difficulty with that. When it boils down to that, then I think
the member for Kitchener—Waterloo has a very important and
compelling point, and I hope the Senate will look at that as
well.
As to the other, I thank the member for Winnipeg North—St.
Paul. I appreciate the support he has given for what I am trying
to do with the oath. I will make the point that the Queen is not
the real issue. The real issue is that the oath should actually
capture for newcomers to this land what it is to be a Canadian
and what are the basic principles of the charter. That is the
more important thing.
Whether the Queen is in a new oath or not, I think in the long
run it does not matter half as much—and I believe there should
be a reference to God certainly—but more than anything else, we
should enunciate for those newcomers to our land the basic
principles of the charter. I will say them one more time because
I really do believe they unite us, we Canadians, as a people.
They are: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy,
basic human rights and the rule of law. They are not just for we
Canadians. We should be upholding those principles for the
world. That is what it is to be Canadian.
1645
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that the member for
Kitchener—Waterloo is certainly correct that this country cannot
tolerate two classes of citizenship. He is correct to say that
we all need to be equal.
It is astounding that I would sit here in the House today and
listen to this debate as we begin a new millennium. The United
Nations for years has indicated that Canada is the country to
which others in the world want to come, to become Canadians and
to live here in prosperity, in peace, in harmony and to be
treated equally which they may not have had from where they came.
To sit here today and listen to the debate among members of the
government side has really opened my eyes.
As I indicated earlier, I immigrated to Canada from a wartorn
country in 1955 when I was six years old. After living here for
45 years, to debate whether my status as a Canadian citizen is
the same as that of my son or my wife who were born in this
country is almost unbelievable.
Just this debate alone is grounds to do something about this
bill, for the committee to look at it and to make the appropriate
amendments. I do not think the country can tolerate the point
that was raised by the member for Kitchener—Waterloo that in
essence we will differ because of the due process that is to be
followed by Canadians that are born in this country and Canadians
by choice. If it differs, then we must do something about it. I
believe it will certainly not unify the country.
We applaud and brag about this being a multicultural nation.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is going to be a very
divisive issue. As I say, I cannot believe I am sitting here
today hearing this debate on citizenship and what the bill means
to our citizenship.
I would like to quote from the Canadian Alliance policy on our
respect for the equality of all citizens before and under the
law. Policy number 61 states:
We affirm the equality of every individual before and under the
law and the right of every individual to equal protection and
equal benefit of the law without discrimination.
In other words, if we attain the status of a Canadian even if we
were not born in this country, then we are treated like Canadians
one hundred per cent. There are not two classes. We are all
first class Canadians who all get the same rights. This is the
debate that this occurring in the House today.
The legislation will repeal and replace the current Citizenship
Act passed in 1977. Bill C-16 has been tabled with very few
changes from previous Bill C-63. The legislation makes several
changes to the current act with the intention of providing more
clearly defined guidelines, updating sections, replacing current
procedures, adding a new administrative structure and increasing
the minister's power to deny citizenship.
Bill C-16 has been touted as the first major reform with respect
to citizenship in more than 20 years and an attempt to modernize
the act in order that it might better reflect the true value of
Canadian citizenship. However, while some parts are more clearly
defined than in the previous act, Bill C-16 does not constitute a
major modern reform. As I said earlier, if it were a modern
reform, we certainly would not be debating the status of
citizenship as indicated in the bill. Critical areas have been
neglected while others have been altered in a negative way.
The minister received recommendations of the government
dominated Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in
1994. Again I reiterate from former debate and as members of this
House have indicated, the witnesses that came before the
committee made many recommendations that were not taken up in the
drafting of this bill.
In fact the government has taken over five years to prepare this
legislation which still does not address the committee's key
recommendations.
1650
On citizenship at birth, clause 4(1) of Bill C-16 states in
effect that all children born in Canada, except children of
foreign diplomats, will continue to automatically acquire
Canadian citizenship regardless of their parents' immigration or
citizenship status.
On that point, there are many countries which Canadians come
from that have only one status. They do not have dual
citizenship. On a personal note, I asked China whether it had
dual citizenship and it does not. In other words, if I ended up
getting booted out of this country, where would I go? Actually I
do not know.
On the conditions for granting citizenship, the presence in
Canada is covered in clause 6(1)(b). Bill C-16 defines the term
permanent resident more concisely than does the current act. The
existing legislation may be loosely interpreted. Some
individuals have been found to be residing in Canada because they
had a bank account or owned property in the country without
having actually resided on Canadian soil.
Further to that point, in the debate we heard about people who
were unwanted, who perhaps had criminal records and came into
Canada in a dishonest manner. I do not think anyone objects to
getting rid of those people. That is not really the issue here.
The question being debated is citizens, outstanding citizens,
law-abiding citizens who have made a contribution to this
country. Their rights need to be respected.
Bill C-16 calls for 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada in
the six years preceding application for citizenship. Bill C-16
does not provide any mechanism for determining when applicants
arrive in Canada and when they leave nor is it planned to develop
one.
Penalties for bureaucratic delays are found in clause
6(1)(b)(i). The current act allows individuals whose claims for
refugee status are approved to count each full day of residency
in Canada from the date of application as a half day toward the
total needed for their citizenship application. Bill C-16 removes
this provision so that applicants will now be penalized for the
system's bureaucratic delay even when delays are no fault of the
applicant.
On the issue of adoption outside Canada, clause 8 of Bill C-16
will reduce the distinction between a foreign child adopted by a
Canadian citizen and a child born in Canada. Currently a foreign
child adopted by a Canadian citizen must first be admitted to
Canada as a permanent resident before citizenship can be granted.
It is currently ensured that the child is sponsored and
undergoes medical, criminal and security checks. This bill will
remove these requirements. The new legislation will make it
easier for adopting parents to gain Canadian citizenship for the
child if the adoption occurs outside Canada.
Bill C-16 stipulates in order to allow citizenship to be granted
to the minor, the adoption must create a genuine parent-child
relationship, be in the best interests of the child and cannot
have been intended to circumvent Canadian immigration or
citizenship law. Under clause 43(1) defining the terms of this
relationship are left to the minister's discretion. The clause
“in the best interests of the child” was added to Bill C-63 at
the last minute, although it had not been recommended or
requested by any witness and retained in Bill C-16.
On the issue of redefining the family, clause 43 of Bill C-16
grants the minister the power to specify who may make an
application under the act on behalf of a minor and to define what
constitutes a relationship of parent and child for the purposes
of determining entitlement to citizenship under any provisions of
the act.
1655
On the issue of patronage, clauses 31 and 32 of Bill C-16
maintain the tradition of patronage appointments. All
citizenship judges will be reclassified as citizenship
commissioners, however, all but their ceremonial duties and other
duties as requested will be taken over by departmental officials.
On the issue of language requirements to gain citizenship,
clause 6 of Bill C-16 states that the applicant will have an
adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada. No
provisions are included on how this is to be judged or by whom.
Clause 34 deals with the citizenship oath. There appears to be
little public input on the content of the new oath in Bill C-16.
The minister prepared the oath on her own. This could have
provided an ideal opportunity for a nationwide patriotic debate.
I agree with many of the members who have said that it is a very
significant, historic family occasion when people make their
oaths of allegiance to the country. This is probably the biggest
thing that will happen in their lives outside of getting married
and having a child. It is very, very important and Canadians
need to have input.
The minister's first legislation should have been aimed at
fixing a failed immigration system rather than citizenship,
especially considering that the Citizenship Act refers to the
Immigration Act in several places. More than five years after
the Liberal controlled standing committee made its
recommendations on citizenship, the minister re-tabled legislation
which delivers little of what was recommended.
The legislation reconfirms that any child born in Canada, except
to a diplomat, is automatically a Canadian citizen. This is
contrary to what the standing committee, the CIC department, the
official opposition and many Canadians support. The minister has
shown arrogance and lack of respect for parliament by proposing
that critical changes be made by her behind closed doors and by
retaining patronage appointments even after job positions are
eliminated.
Bringing this piece of legislation before the House at first
reading when it had reached report stage in a previous session is
an admission on the part of the government that Bill C-16
requires further examination. However, the minimal changes that
have been made to the bill easily could have been made during
report stage. The minister should focus on fixing our
immigration system.
In conclusion, the debate I have heard today certainly tells me
that a lot of work needs to be done on the bill. The big point
which I need to re-emphasize, and the member for
Kitchener—Waterloo made this a key point, is that this country
cannot tolerate two classes of citizenship. We all want to be
first class. There is only one status.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to
Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Vancouver East, Health; the hon. member for New
Brunswick Southwest, Health.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me congratulate the member for Dauphin—Swan River
on his speech. I can tell him that the legal issues we are
dealing with are fairly difficult and it took a while to get
through them. At some point when I saw the charts and was trying
to put them all together I identified the lack of appeal process
that is available everywhere else ends at the Supreme Court of
Canada. We make that available to visitors who come to this
country and commit a serious offence because we believe in due
process.
The member and I have had some similar experiences coming from
different countries. No one argues that if someone commits
serious offences coming to this country, or is a war criminal, or
has told major lies to get here, we recognize that people who
apply for refugee status to get to Canada often have to do it by
stealth. We recognized that when we had the policy of none is
too many for Jews. People had to misinform to get into this
country. We applaud that they got through and wish that more had.
1700
It seems to me the member had it right. The charter of rights,
the due process of law and the presumption of innocence should
apply to everyone. What scares me in this whole process is that
we can slander people by saying they are guilty of this or
that and then fail to prove it in court. If someone is being
accused, we have a due process for defending the accusation which
should apply to everyone, certainly to citizens by choice.
Mr. Inky Mark: Madam Speaker, citizenship and other
issues of the day need to be done right with absolutely no
mistakes. If we look back to the bleak moments of Canadian
history there have been times when we have done the wrong things.
Certainly in terms of my own ethnic background, there was the
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923.
I will not say that we should compare this to it. That is not
the point. The point is that we cannot make a mistake in terms
of how we deal with Canadian immigrants from all over the world
who come to this country. We have to do it correctly. People
have to be treated on an equal footing. Long gone are the days
when politicians can decide who they can discriminate or not
discriminate against.
We have set ourselves up as a country to be the model for the
world. Citizenship is one of the keys in becoming the model
society for the world. If we are to do the talk then we need to
do the walk. Doing the walk is making sure that this legislation
is correctly done. We will all be happier for it as will the
rest of the world. It will not only be people in this country
because other people look to us for guidance.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, would the hon. member consider referring the
matter to the Federal Court of Canada Trial Division for the
ascertainment of allegations of fraud, false identity and
illegality; notifying the person involved that the order is about
to be made by the minister; inviting the person who is the
subject of the potential order to make representations to the
minister; and then, if the decision has been made, advising the
person of his or her right to the judicial review, parts of the
due process of law? That is my first question because they are
very good safeguards for the due process of law.
The member alluded to his fear, a feeling of fear, and he has
been here since the age of six. I imagine the member would say
that he has been here more than five years. I would like to call
to his attention that subclause 18(5) with respect to the
annulment order on citizenship says:
The minister may not make an order under subsection (1) more than
five years after the day on which the citizenship was granted,
retained, renounced or resumed, as the case may be.
In other words, there is the safeguard of the limitation period
so he has nothing to fear.
The last point is that since 1920 the current system has been in
effect. Under the provision of that system citizenship is
revocable by the governor in council, in effect by cabinet, on a
report of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the
member aware of any one instance in the history of Canada since
1920 where we have somehow treated in so far as revocation of
citizenship is concerned naturalized citizens as second class?
1705
Mr. Inky Mark: Madam Speaker, if we go back through the
history books we will not have a difficult time finding where
many different ethnic backgrounds were discriminated against.
Just because they were naturalized citizens does not mean they
had full citizenship status.
We have the same question today on the whole issue of females
when it is said that they are not full participating members of
society. On the issue of law, I am not worried about myself. I
am only saying that what is good for Canadian born citizens is
just as good for adopted Canadians who came here and put in their
time, whatever the number of years required to become a full
status Canadian. They should be treated the same way. It should
be no different.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Even if it is fraud?
Mr. Inky Mark: If it is fraud, as I said earlier, then
get rid of them. That is not the problem. The problem is the
process. The process should be the same and equal for all of us.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like
to say a few words.
The member who just spoke asked us if we could give one example
of discrimination in Canadian history. I remind him of the
situation in which Japanese Canadians found themselves during
World War II. Without questioning the member's ethnic origin, I
could tell him that the Chinese have also faced discrimination in
this country.
I would like to point out that being born in Canada does not
mean that one does not have to worry about democracy. For reasons
that only they know, some people think they have a monopoly on
truth. The Prime Minister is one of them.
As for democracy, we could relate that to Bill C-20. This is an
example of what democracy can be in a country where it is never
challenged, where it is taken for granted. That is the danger.
A member wants to change the oath of allegiance. One way or the
other, it makes absolutely no difference to me. Members will
notice that Quebecers are not taking part in this debate, and
that is quite significant. I would like those who say these
things to give us an answer.
[English]
Mr. Inky Mark: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member of
the Bloc for raising an excellent point on the whole issue of the
Japanese internment.
Another example of internment in this country was from 1914 to
1918 when over 5,000 Ukrainian Canadians were interned and over
80,000 were made to register with the government like common
criminals. There are a lot of examples in our history that
should teach us the lesson that if we are to pass legislation in
this day we should do it the right way.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1710
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The vote is deferred
to later this day at the end of Government Orders.
* * *
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species
at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak today to Bill
C-33, the species at risk act. It is always a pleasure to rise
in the House, but I must say on this piece of legislation that my
NDP colleagues and I are keenly disappointed for reasons which I
will detail in a few minutes.
First, it is appropriate that we begin debate on this
legislation soon after the list of species at risk of extinction
in the country has grown to an all time high. Recently 14 new
species were added to the list, which in Canada has been produced
each spring for the past 23 years. The number of wild animals,
plants, insects and marine organisms at risk of disappearing from
Canada now stands at an all time high of 354. This is a stark
reminder that our country's natural heritage is under threat. The
rate at which species disappear from our planet speaks volumes to
the overall health of our environment and ultimately our own
human health.
The disappearance of these species serves as a warning sign,
much like the canaries that used to be taken down mines shafts.
It is a warning that something is happening to habitat. Often
that something is directly related to the activities of our own
species.
Worldwide we are experiencing the largest extinction epidemic
since the time of the dinosaurs. Historically an average of
about two to three species a year went extinct due to natural
cause, but currently about two to three species go extinct every
hour. This is alarming. Almost all of this is due to human
causes.
Scientists believe we could lose 25% of the earth's species
within the next 30 years if we stay on our present course. We in
Canada have serious endangered species problems of our own and
things are not getting better.
If I may detail these, 27 species have already gone extinct in
Canada in the past 150 years. We now have a total of 354 species
known to be at risk, and this list is growing every year. In
fact 43 species have recently been added to the list.
I am talking about some of our best loved birds and animals such
as the beluga whale, the woodland caribou, the burrowing owl and
even the great grizzly bear. All these species could vanish from
the wild in coming decades unless we take strong steps to protect
them, and not only them but the places in which they live.
Legislation is long overdue. Canadians have been waiting for
almost a decade for the federal government to come up with
something meaningful to protect species from becoming extinct.
The Mulroney government, I must say, demonstrated political
courage when at the earth summit in 1992 it committed Canada to
the creation of laws aimed at protecting these vulnerable
species. Canada was one of the first countries to sign the
accord.
In that respect it is disappointing that after such a long wait
Bill C-33 is the best the government can do. Nobody should be
more disappointed than the hon. Minister of the Environment who
has staked his political reputation on this legislation.
I mentioned that the NDP caucus is disappointed with Bill C-33
because the bill is fundamentally weak. This is in spite of the
government's lofty claims of national protection and harsh
penalties for those who would do harm to a plant, animal or fish
that is in risk of being lost forever.
1715
Canadians want and endangered species need a law that says it
will protect species at risk, not a law that says it may protect
those species. All the protection this bill claims to provide is
left to the discretion of the minister. The only thing that the
bill requires the government to do is to consult, although it
does not require the minister to listen or to even follow up on
those consultations.
Bill C-33 is riddled with political discretion, so much so that
if passed without some substantial changes it will be the weakest
bill of its kind in North America. I knew there would be a day
when Mexico's environmental laws were just as strong as those in
this country, I just did not expect it to happen so quickly.
Only a year ago a survey commissioned by the International Fund
for Animal Welfare told of Canadians' desire to see strong laws
passed by their federal government to protect species at risk of
extinction. I will give a few of the numbers involved in that
survey: 91% of Canadians believed that the federal government
should protect endangered species on all land in Canada; 98% of
Canadians surveyed recognized that the protection of habitat was
an important element if we were going to protect species at risk;
80% of Canadians preferred to have federal laws that would
protect the full habitat of an endangered species; 72% of
Canadians believed it was up to the federal government to take a
lead in protecting these endangered species; and finally, a full
97% of Canadians surveyed said that it was important that
endangered species that migrate across borders were equally
protected in all North American countries.
A vast majority also indicated that they were willing to accept
at least some economic consequences in order to see endangered
species protected. It is important to note that eight in ten
Canadians advocated placing restrictions on industries that posed
a threat to endangered species. These people were willing to
accept some limitation of activities such as forestry, mining and
even tourism.
The government clearly has a mandate from Canadians to bring in
comprehensive and meaningful legislation to protect these
vulnerable species. Instead, the minister has presented us with
legislation that is both weak and discretionary.
I want to talk for a few minutes about listing. Today a species
is considered endangered when the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, the scientific body
responsible for tracking species, decides to list the species as
endangered. This committee has a mandate to make its decisions
based on the best, up to date, scientific information available.
However, if this bill becomes law, a species will be considered
endangered only when the Minister of the Environment says it is.
In typical Liberal style, Bill C-33 formally establishes COSEWIC
as the ultimate authority for determining which species are at
risk of becoming extinct. At the same time, the bill prevents
COSEWIC and its science based findings from having any bearing on
which species are actually protected under the law. It
determines which species are endangered but it is not allowed,
under this legislation, to go ahead and protect those species, to
list them.
In spite of the bill's fine words about community knowledge,
best available information and its claim to protect our most
vulnerable wildlife, everything, as we see, hinges on the opinion
of the Minister of the Environment. The bill does not require
the minister's opinion to be learned. It does not have to be
based on science. It may be based on the list produced by
COSEWIC or it may not.
As I mentioned, today there are over 350 species on the
endangered list. The important question is: Will they be
protected immediately upon the passage of this bill?
Disturbingly, the answer is, no they will not.
The day this bill becomes law there will not be any endangered
species in Canada, at least not officially. Not a single
species at risk today will be protected under this law until the
minister gets around to making his list. The existing list of
species at risk, the result of a full 23 years of work by
COSEWIC, is not grandfathered or automatically included in the
legislation.
I ask the question, when is an endangered species endangered, and
it seems that the answer is, when the minister decides it is.
1720
The single greatest threat to species is the loss of habitat,
the places where they live, breed and feed. Habitat loss is
responsible for 80% of species decline in Canada. Passing a law
that does not protect habitat is really a waste of parliament's
time. Again, Bill C-33 fails in this regard.
While other countries, including Mexico, have made the
protection of critical habitat mandatory, Canada is proposing to
make it discretionary. Once again a species will enjoy
protection under the provisions of this law at the pleasure of
the environment minister.
If a species is deemed worthy of protection there remains a
period that can be as long as 30 months before the habitat is
actually protected. Only the residents, the nest or the den is
protected in the interim, and we feel that is not good enough.
All of what we are talking about occurs only on federal
government lands. Provincial lands and privately owned property
have not been factored into this formula.
As we discuss property issues, I want to say that I come from a
riding that contains a mix of urban and rural people. I want to
address the very real concerns that these people have about a law
which if passed would affect them.
I want to make it clear that we in the NDP believe that people
should and must be compensated if their lives are affected by a
federal government plan to rescue an endangered species.
Landowners must be assured that they are not facing personal
losses in order to protect habitat. If land is purchased it has
to be with the consent of the owner and at fair market prices.
Workers whose jobs are lost or whose paycheques shrink also have
to be compensated. The same goes for communities. The last
thing we want to see is compensation for big companies and
nothing for the employees of those companies.
We understand that Canadians want to stop more of our wildlife
from disappearing forever. We also understand that the cost of
protecting those species must be shared by all of us, not just
the people on whose land endangered species happen to live.
As we talk about property rights, I noticed in some of the
speeches made by my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance that they
seem to be telling farmers and ranchers that this bill threatens
their very way of life. Some suggest that farmers might have
their land seized by the federal government with no guarantee of
compensation. Comments like that play on people's fears, and I
want to assure the House that we in the NDP will oppose that kind
of tactic, the use of half truths or scaremongering in an attempt
to frighten and divide people. We want a reasoned and a factual
debate.
The greatest disappointment I have with Bill C-33 is its failure
to protect species at risk on lands where the federal government
has a clear and an undisputed jurisdiction. This may come as a
surprise to some people who have been listening to the news and
to comments by the Minister of the Environment. The federal
government is not even willing to protect species and habitats on
all of its own land.
Organizations, such as the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association
and the Mining Association of Canada, think that the federal
government should be doing more to protect wildlife on the lands
that it owns and oversees.
As well, Bill C-33 provides protection only on federal lands
south of the 60th parallel. This means that the act gives
federal habitat protection on only a small percentage really of
Canada's lands.
The act also fails to offer protection for species or habitat
which clearly fall under federal jurisdiction, and I am thinking
now specifically of migratory birds, cross-border species and
fish. Over 70% of Canada's species at risk migrate or range into
the United States. Many of these species, because of Bill C-33,
will lose the protection they enjoy in the United States simply
by crossing the Canadian border. In fact, the White House and
many senators have written to urge Canada to protect the habitat
of these so-called shared species.
1725
We might ask ourselves why there is this lack of protection. I
would suggest that in large part it is due to the government's
departmental turf wars. The department and the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, for example, do not want officials from
Environment Canada telling them how to protect endangered species
in our parks. Officials at the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans have no intention of letting officials from Environment
Canada tell them how to protect fish habitat. The same goes for
the Department of National Defence and the lands which it
controls. This is a serious internal problem.
In political terms, the bottom line is that the Prime Minister
is very determined to have a law on the books before the next
election. The only way to make that happen is to come up with
legislation that serves as a guide for the federal government
whenever and if ever it feels obliged to protect a species from
becoming extinct. It serves as a guide but there is no necessity
written into the bill.
I want to talk for a few moments about the government's
environmental record. I was rather startled to read a book
review in the Globe and Mail last weekend by a writer named
Andrew Nikiforuk. He was reviewing an important new book written
by Maurice Strong, an environmentalist. The book described
Canada environmentally as Mississippi north, a truly startling
statement which bears only too much truth.
We have had tough talk about air pollution but we have yet to
ratify the Kyoto protocol or to meet our emissions targets set
years ago. We have talked about cleaning up the Great Lakes,
which used to be the world's largest environmental initiative,
but today it has fallen off the federal government's agenda. As
we know, a key agreement with Ontario to work together to clean
up the lakes was allowed to lapse earlier this year and has still
not been renegotiated.
While the government talks about the value of community based
knowledge and the important contributions Canadians can make on
their own, it is leading the charge to muzzle the commission for
environmental co-operation. That is the NAFTA watchdog whose job
it is to help citizens blow the whistle on their own governments
when they fail to enforce environmental protection laws.
I could go on but I will give one more example. Our national
parks are in crisis due to years of financial cutbacks and a
complete lack of direction from a government that likes to talk
about environmental initiatives but too often falls short.
As I have mentioned, I and my colleagues in the NDP are
disappointed by this bill. Because there was an earlier bill,
Bill C-65, we thought the second run at this bill would be a vast
improvement. However, it is turning out not to be the case. The
mail and phone calls that have come into our offices indicate
that Canadians and environmental organizations are also
disappointed.
The bill is weak on the protection of species at risk and their
habitats. It invites political consideration, political lobbying
and ministerial discretion at every turn. It fails to include
compensation provisions for workers and communities who are
affected economically by action plans to rescue and recover
species at risk. I know this is being looked at but it will only
be looked at after this legislation is passed, if indeed it is
passed.
I hope it is not passed. I urge my colleagues in the House to
defeat the bill, send it back to the minister and tell him to
propose a law that will really protect species at risk of
becoming extinct, a law that will protect habitat from being
destroyed, a law that does not mix science with politics and a
law that will ensure a just and fair distribution of the costs
involved with saving species at risk.
In final summary, Canada deserves and can certainly afford a
better law than this to protect species at risk of becoming
extinct.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, it
will be my distinct pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to
this bill in a few moments. I want to compliment my NDP
colleague for recognizing, in terms of the scientific listing for
species at risk legislation, that it should be a matter of
science and not of political choice.
I would like the member to comment on why the government would
not take the advice and the consensus that was built upon by
industry groups, whether it be the Canadian Pulp and Paper
Association, the Canadian Mining Association or the environmental
groups.
1730
Why does the member think the government missed that opportunity
to build up the consensus when industry was willing to recognize
that maintaining our biodiversity was one of science and not of
political choice?
Mr. Dennis Gruending: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague
for his question. The short answer is that it bewilders me. I
do not know why the government would choose a political route
rather than a scientific route to describe and list species at
risk.
As my colleague mentioned, private industry, which one might
think would be opposed to listing species in any way which would
interfere with business and ultimately profit, is telling the
government to go further. I do not believe the pressure came
from the private sector. I am only speculating, but I mentioned
in the text of my remarks that I believe part of the problem is
internal. There is pressure from various government departments
that do not want somebody else telling them how to run what they
consider to be their business, if I may put it that way. I would
suggest that it is not just their business; it concerns all of
us.
We really must act on this because time is running out. It is
not only these species that are at risk. As these species
disappear, we are learning some stark lessons about our own
mortality on this planet.
To summarize for my hon. colleague, I do not know the answer to
his question. I do know it is fundamentally important that these
decisions be science based and not political in nature. The
reason for having scientists make scientific decisions is clear.
I fear the ability of lobbies to say that species are on land or
water used by humans and, therefore, they should not be protected
because it would interfere with us. I would not want to open the
door to that kind of lobbying and I do not think we need a larger
lobbying industry in Ottawa. Our species would suffer from that
kind of development.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
my pleasure to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on
Bill C-33. I want to introduce an amendment to the bill a bit
later, but at this time I would like to make some introductory
remarks.
Perhaps no political party in the House of Commons knows more
about species at risk legislation or endangered species
legislation than the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
Members may remember back in 1993 when the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada was reduced to just one breeding
pair. We were able to develop our own type of recovery plan to
encourage Canadians to invest in the environment stock we had
elected in 1993. I am very pleased to say today that the
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada still may be extirpated
from certain regions temporarily, but we are looking to restore a
habitat in other regions of the country. From that particular
perspective, we have returned a very fine breeding stock to the
House of Commons. A testament to that is the fact that Rosemary
Kathleen Herron was born just six weeks ago. The Tory species is
indeed growing in leaps and bounds as we head into the next
election campaign.
Canada has 351 species that are recognized as endangered or at
risk. There is no federal law to protect these species. The
government's proposed species at risk act, known as SARA, is long
overdue. It is a long overdue promise, but it is very
disappointing. This legislation is even weaker and less
effective than Bill C-65, the 1996 federal endangered species
bill, which died before the 1997 election. This new bill is
unacceptably ineffective in several key areas, particularly
habitat protection.
The main threat facing endangered species is the destruction of
their habitat, the places where species breed, where they feed
and where they raise their young.
1735
Habitat loss has been identified as the root cause for over 80%
of species decline in Canada. Yet, in Bill C-33, saving species
is discretionary, even in areas—and I will bet, Mr. Speaker,
that you will find this quite shocking—under federal
jurisdiction. The bill does not require protection of endangered
species habitat. It merely says that cabinet may protect it.
This is one of the key weaknesses of Bill C-33.
Perhaps the most evident of the weaknesses in this legislation
is that the federal cabinet will decide which species to list as
endangered and not the scientific committee known as COSEWIC,
which is the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada. The Progressive Conservative Party believes that the
decision on whether a species is at risk is a matter of science;
a scientific fact and not a political choice. Even an all party
committee report, including Liberal government members and Reform
members, agreed that scientific listing should be the most basic
of guiding principles.
The government has argued that if COSEWIC's list is
automatically adopted it would open up scientists to intense
lobbying. This point we know to be irrelevant, since nothing
would preclude them from being lobbied under the proposed bill.
Building successful legislation requires input and support from
the affected stakeholders. The Progressive Conservative plan
calls for more carrots and less sticks. We believe that it is
imperative to encourage, recognize and reward stewardship by
offering more carrots, which in the end will result in fewer
sticks.
A Progressive Conservative program would be incentive based and
not punitive in nature. Merely making criminals out of Canada's
best stewards of our lands, the Canadian farmers and our woodlot
owners, would not precipitate the positive behaviour that we are
looking to create. We believe this can be accomplished by
listening to the concerns of stakeholders, working in
co-operation with them to build a consensus on effective
legislation, and, most importantly, engaging stakeholders in the
recovery process.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes that without the
support of the provinces, the nation's principal partners,
private landowners, resource users and communities, the
endangered species legislation will be impossible to institute
and will lead to what is commonly known by the people who are
following the legislation as a shoot, shovel and shut up
mentality.
Members may be aware of a coalition of major environmental and
industry groups known as the Species at Risk Working Group, which
includes the Canadian Nature Federation, the Mining Association
of Canada, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Canadian
Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club of Canada. They have all
agreed on the need for strong legislation.
As Hugh Windsor pointed out in The Globe and Mail just a few
weeks ago, following the failure of Bill C-65, these stakeholders
joined forces two years ago in an attempt to build a common
position for an outline of a new endangered species act.
The Progressive Conservative Party has always been a party that
builds consensus by working with stakeholders, uniting Canadians
and developing sound legislative policy. That is why we chose to
support the work of this coalition.
It is also why our position paper, produced last December, two
weeks before the government's, has been graded by members of this
coalition to be an A, while the government's position paper was
graded a mere D. We are working from a position where industry
and environmental groups have argued that our position warrants
an A, and the basis that formed this legislation is of only D
quality.
These stakeholders agreed that, at a minimum, a bill designed to
protect species at risk should require habitat protection in all
areas of federal jurisdiction and a science based listing of
endangered species. These are key components of our Progressive
Conservative plan that are absent from the government's Bill
C-33.
One has to ask: With a joint industry-environment consensus
handed to the government, how is it possible that it ignored this
consensus, this work that was done on behalf of the Department of
the Environment?
The simple answer, I am sad to say, is that the government is
just not listening.
1740
In response to the government's proposal, Pierre Gratton of the
Mining Association of Canada said, “We certainly think it could
be stronger”. Robert Decarie of the Canadian Pulp and Paper
Association said, “We think the federal government could have
been much stronger, at least within its own clear
jurisdictions”.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the
solid corporate citizenry of the mining association and the pulp
and paper association for their efforts in developing a broad
Canadian consensus.
Over 70% of Canada's species at risk migrate or range into the
United States. Even the White House and many senators have
written to urge Canada to protect the habitat of these shared
species. Imagine that. The Americans are now challenging Canada
to protect the environment. How things have changed over seven
years. Long gone are the days when Canada led environmental
battles against the United States.
It was the Progressive Conservative government which took on the
Americans and negotiated the country's acid rain protocol in
1987. Now we have the Americans lobbying Canadians to clean up
our environmental act. It is important to note, however, that
the United States has tough endangered species legislation, but
we do not support their all stick and no carrot approach, and
neither does the species at risk working group.
Most of the key improvements needed concern internal federal
issues which would not be opposed by the provinces or industries.
However, a lack of political will to listen continues to hamper
any progress on building a better bill.
Provincial endangered species laws make habitat protection
mandatory, and thus are stronger in this proposed species at risk
act. The Progressive Conservative Party has always believed in
co-operative federalism. The Progressive Conservative Party
believes that a federal law should act as a safety net. This
means that a federal act would only apply in provinces where no
equivalent protection exists. This was made clear under the
terms of the national accord for the protection of species at
risk signed in 1996 by all governments. We maintain our
commitment to this plan.
Equivalent legislation would be defined as including, at a
minimum, scientific listing and the protection of critical
habitat through agreements, laws, permits and effective
enforcement using the federal-provincial framework. In addition,
other elements of equivalency would be established and negotiated
on a species by species basis, utilizing the framework of the
national accord for the protection of species at risk.
It is easy to prove that the government is clearly not committed
to co-operative federalism. When I went to Calgary for the
announcement of the government's position paper in December, I
contacted the hon. Gary Mar, who is a very learned environment
minister in this country. Government officials never took the
courtesy to contact Minister Mar to let him know that the federal
government was making the announcement on the position paper at
the Calgary zoo. In fact, no members of parliament from Alberta
took the courtesy to inform Minister Mar.
If the government wants to build co-operative federalism, if it
wants to work with its provincial partners, it should have at
least let the provincial ministers know when the position paper
was coming out and given them a political heads up.
Overall the bill was a chance for the Liberal government to
improve its poor environmental record. It was another chance for
the Prime Minister to improve his poor, dismal environmental
record. Perhaps the only thing more endangered than the 351
species at risk on the endangered species list is the
government's environmental record. Bill C-33 indicates that the
environment is still a low priority for the government. In fact,
I might add that it is not even on the radar screen.
To illustrate, the Liberal Party has now been in government for
seven years and has yet to pass one piece of environmental
legislation of its own.
Last year it pushed through amendments to the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, revisions that were also widely
criticized for their key weaknesses. While the original CEPA
introduced by the Progressive Conservative Party was a pioneering
bill, the revised edition contained modest improvements.
1745
This is a good example to show what a good environmental record
is. It was our party when we were in government that negotiated
an acid rain protocol with the Americans. It was our party that
delivered the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It was our
party that led the world community in developing the Montreal
protocol on ozone depleting gases. It was our party that
actually helped to make our landfill sites even more
environmentally friendly with the national packaging protocol. We
worked with industry in a co-operative fashion. In contrast, in
seven years the Liberal Party has had no bills of its own from
the legislative framework.
While our environmental record is solid, this bill fails to even
live up to the government's promise in the throne speech. It
promised legislation to ensure that species at risk and their
critical natural habitat are protected.
What is the good news here? The good news is that the federal
government is finally introducing long overdue endangered species
legislation. The bad news is that the rest of the bill does not
have very many positive things in terms of protecting species at
risk, especially in relation to stewardship.
Bill C-33 attempts to recognize the need to encourage and reward
stewardship. However the funding provided, about $10 million to
$15 million a year, is only a fraction of what is needed to help
recover existing species at risk, which is about $50 million a
year.
Again the tax and spend Liberals do not know what incentives
are. Tax incentives could be brought forth which would actually
help stewardship. They would help the stewards of our land, the
farmers and woodlot owners, in terms of actually encouraging
their positive behaviour through their own goodwill.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes that Bill C-33
should not be another Kyoto where the provinces are forced to
implement a plan imposed on them by the federal government. The
provinces should be provided with sufficient resources to address
recovery plans and ensure effective enforcement. In order for
this legislation to work, the federal government must work
co-operatively with all stakeholders, the provinces, private
landowners, industry and environmentalists alike, to ensure that
no single party bears the burden of the recovery on its own when
there is a clear shared reward for species recovery.
Finding endangered species on one's land should not mean that
all development stops. The key is to manage the lands to ensure
that the species can continue to survive.
In addition to those rare cases where protecting endangered
species could impose costs on the landowner, the government
should provide direct financial assistance.
I was talking with the hon. member for Lethbridge about this
issue a while ago. One weakness is that the bill is too vague.
It is not clear and it breeds more anxiety about the compensatory
regime that is going to be required to reward positive
stewardship to protect species at risk.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes that when designing
the recovery plan with stakeholders, social and economic
considerations must be accounted for and a balance can be
achieved that both encourages stewardship and saves endangered
species.
In addition, Bill C-33 does not use Canada's existing endangered
species list as an initial list for this new act, even though the
1996 bill did. The government is going backward. A better
approach would be to start with the existing COSEWIC list and
then allow future changes if necessary, as was done in the 1996
bill.
I would like to take this opportunity to move an amendment. This
is my rationale. When the bill was tabled in the House of
Commons in April, the minister warned that if the committee made
changes, the bill would meet a similar fate to the previous one
which died on the order paper three years ago. It was reported in
the Montreal Gazette on April 12 that the minister said,
“If you destabilize this legislation, it is probably gone, just
as the previous legislation was gone”. With these threats, the
minister is effectively telling the committee not to do its job.
The minister is insulting the democratic process of the House.
I urge the government to take the bill back and listen to the
stakeholders who have come up with a collaborative and workable
compromise.
I might add they are very close to reaching a very workable
compromise. Listen to the Mining Association of Canada, the
Canadian Nature Federation, the Canadian Pulp and Paper
Association, the private woodlot owners, the farming community,
the Sierra Club and ranchers alike. Canadians want a bill that
works. This bill will not.
1750
The bill can be saved with the necessary changes I outlined. If
the committee will not be permitted to make changes, then I urge
the government to make them. Therefore, I move:
That all the words after the word “That” be deleted and the
following be substituted: “Bill C-33, An Act respecting the
protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada, be not now read
a second time but that it be read a second time this day six
months hence”.
There is overwhelming public support to have this legislation.
In fact, poll upon poll states that Canadians want—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member
having moved an amendment is now precluded from further speech.
We will have to deal with the amendment he has proposed. Debate
is on the amendment.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken
place between representatives of all the parties and you will
find there is agreement pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) to
further defer the recorded divisions on Bill C-16 scheduled for
later this day until the end of Government Orders on Tuesday, May
30, 2000.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
as proposed by the hon. chief government whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, an
act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in
Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and
of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Davenport.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
was going to speak.
The Deputy Speaker: I have already recognized the member for
Davenport. I believe it is usual for a government member to follow a
Progressive Conservative member.
[English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford.
As we have already been told by speakers preceding me, Canadians
are placing high expectations on the government to protect
endangered species habitat. We must deliver. This bill if
strengthened could provide a fine legacy if it were effective in
preserving Canada's rich nature heritage. The survival and
protection of endangered species is one way of turning words into
action when we speak about leaving a legacy, about what we owe to
future generations and the like.
We are facing an emergency as has already been indicated by the
hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. I have been told
that over the last year the list of endangered wildlife in Canada
has grown from 340 to 353. I have been told also that a
comprehensive and complete list would have to consist of
thousands of species because many categories of Canada's wildlife
have not yet been assessed.
1755
Bill C-33, the species at risk act, is intended to put an end to
the loss of our rich natural heritage. Can this bill reverse
this trend?
According to scientists, the loss of habitat is responsible for
over 80% of species decline. Therefore the only way to stop the
tide of extinction is to protect the habitat of endangered
species. Canadians know this. In fact, there are many people
already working to protect endangered species habitat through
various conservation projects across the country. Moreover, 91%
of Canadians recently asked said they believe a law to protect
endangered species should ensure that habitat is protected. This
level of support is consistent across the country among both
rural and urban Canadians.
The government in recognition of the conservation efforts of
individual Canadians, communities and organizations, will provide
$90 million over the next three years to fund conservation
initiatives. This is a major step forward. The provisions in
the bill aimed at offering a safety net should provinces fail to
act are also encouraging.
Finally, the bill prescribes in detail what measures must be
included in the recovery strategy in order to ensure that all
threats to the survival of the species are addressed. However,
because Canadians strongly support the role of scientists and
because Canadians believe in legislation that will protect
endangered species habitat, we must make sure that the bill
reaches these objectives.
In my opinion, the bill in its current form falls short of
reaching these objectives. Let me explain.
Members may recall that last year 640 prominent Canadian
scientists signed a letter to the Prime Minister urging him to
introduce an effective endangered species bill. First, they
urged that the listing of endangered species be transparent,
science based and free from political interference. Second, they
urged that the critical wildlife habitat of endangered species be
protected wherever it occurred. Unfortunately, these two
elements are missing in the bill.
As Bill C-33 is now drafted, the onus is on the minister to
convince cabinet of the desirability of establishing the list of
wildlife species at risk. The minister must do so for species
that have already been scientifically determined as endangered.
This approach is not satisfactory as demonstrated by provincial
data and experience. Only in Nova Scotia does the scientific
list of species automatically receive official protection under
its laws. Some argue that political responsibility is needed at
the listing stage.
However, Bill C-33 already allows ample political discretion on how and
whether to save an endangered species, from the establishment of
a recovery strategy to action plans and through the issuance of
agreements and permits. Still, should the government of the day
decide not to save a species, there are provisions in the bill
allowing the competent minister not to act. I am referring to
clause 41(2).
Another problem pointed out by Canadian scientists relates to
habitat protection. As currently proposed in the bill,
prohibitions against destroying the critical habitat of an
endangered species will only apply where specified by the entire
cabinet. I refer to clauses 59 and 61. Imagine the entire
cabinet having to determine the extent of the critical habitat
required, for instance by the maritime ringlet butterfly. The
minister alone does not have the authority to pass regulations
required to protect the critical habitat. Again they are left to
the discretion of the entire cabinet.
Then we come to the recovery strategy. Under the bill three
competent ministers are required to develop a recovery strategy
for listed species, including action plans. However, the strategy on
paper will not be adequate to protect the habitat of endangered
species. When implementing a strategy, one of the three
competent ministers may make regulations only with respect to
one, aquatic species, two, species of birds protected by the
Migratory Birds Convention Act, and three, species on federal
lands. I refer to clause 53.
When it comes to critical habitat, regulations within federal
jurisdiction will become the domain of the entire cabinet.
1800
There are good reasons to fear that the minister responsible will be
so busy pleading with cabinet for every measure he or she wishes
to implement that serious delays in protecting the species will
become inevitable, delays we cannot afford because without prompt
action extinction will be the fate of endangered species. However
a good bill will make sure habitat is protected before it is too
late. Therefore I would like to make four suggestions in
conclusion.
First, there should be one and only one final list of endangered
species, the scientific list. Second, within federal
jurisdiction critical habitat protection should be made
mandatory, to which other speakers have already referred. Third,
the minister responsible and only the minister responsible should
be given power to pass regulations to protect critical habitat.
Fourth, the federal government should promptly provide an
adequate safety net in case a province fails to act.
As can be seen, without improvements this legislation will not
stem the perpetual slide toward extinction of Canada's endangered
species. If improved, this bill will offer great potential for
thoughtful stewardship of our land and wildlife. It is my hope
our legislative process in committee will be flexible enough so
as to allow for necessary changes to strengthen the bill. It
could become the cornerstone of the federal government's
comprehensive approach for protecting endangered species in
Canada on behalf of all Canadians and in conformity with our
international commitments.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I agree with
the hon. member's comment that there should be one list and it
should be a scientific list.
I would like to give an example and get his comments on it. I
just went with the Gwich'in, the first nation people of Yukon and
Alaska, to Washington to lobby with them to get protection for
the calving grounds of the porcupine caribou herd. The people of
Canada depend on that herd yet they calve on the Arctic coast in
Alaska. Canada has protected its side but the U.S. has not.
We have a people who are working to protect the habit of the
caribou herd on which historically for over 20,000 years they
have depended. They have been lobbying for 20 years but year by
year the oil drilling creeps closer and closer to the actual
calving grounds of that herd. Without that habitat protection
the herd will become extinct, and the Gwich'in people who have
depended on that single herd for thousands of years will
themselves become extinct. I would like the member to make some
comments on that.
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Yukon has outlined the issue very well. There is not much I can
add.
We are all familiar with the issue of the porcupine caribou herd
which moves across the border between Canada and the United
States into the north slope. That issue has been with us for
several decades with changing portions, so to say. In part the
future of that herd will depend on the determination of the two
governments to control and possibly discourage the exploitation
of petroleum and other sources of fossil fuels in the Arctic.
There was at a time of high oil prices tremendous pressure to
develop the Arctic petroleum resources a way up north, even north
of Tuktoyaktuk. At that time, I am referring to the early
eighties, the Government of Canada made representations to
Washington in order to protect the porcupine caribou herd.
It may well be that representations are again needed. I would
encourage the hon. member to make her presentations on the
occasion of the Parliamentary Arctic Council meeting which will
take place next August in Rovaniemi, Finland. That is a very
appropriate parliamentary forum in which representations of this
kind can be made.
1805
I am sure that the leader of the Canadian delegation, the member
from Lachine, will be quite sensitive to the representations of
the hon. member for Yukon.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member has heard of and supports a
policy called shoot, shovel and shut up.
In the United States, as a result of its endangered species
legislation, people are punished for somehow changing habitats.
As a result many ranchers and farmers in the United States have
gone on a process of what they call shoot, shovel and shut up.
They get rid of the animals before the authorities can find out
about them because there is no incentive structure whatsoever,
just punishment. In other words, there are only sticks and no
carrots for preserving these animals.
Does the hon. member intend to put forward a shoot, shovel and
shut up policy in Canada and wind up with his incentives
encouraging Canadian ranchers and farmers to get rid of the
animals rather than providing incentives or carrots rather than
sticks in terms of dealing with endangered species?
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for
Calgary West had taken the trouble to read the legislation we are
debating this afternoon, he would not have asked that silly
question. That is certainly not the intent of the legislation at
all. As he is raising this question I would have to urge him to
read Bill C-33 before he starts spreading fears among his
constituents that are totally unfounded.
The hon. member should know that the bill as presented refrains
entirely from adopting the American model. Therefore the system
of carrots and a carefully balanced legislation has been devised
and developed by the Minister of the Environment. In addition
the hon. member should know that an allocation of some $90
million has been made to stewardship for the next three years,
which will then be followed by an allocation of $45 million every
year in order to encourage stewardship initiatives.
To conclude, there is no intention whatsoever to adopt a shoot,
shovel and shut up approach. That is the American approach. The
Canadian approach will be very thoughtful and hopefully very
effective.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to be a member
of the government that is introducing endangered species
legislation in the House. It is a pleasure as well to debate the
proposed legislation today.
In bringing in the legislation the government is responding to
its own stated priorities as outlined in our red book and as
included in the throne speech and in our international
commitments. Likewise, we are aware that there is overwhelming
support from Canadians from coast to coast for strong federal
legislation to protect endangered species in our country.
In so doing they recognize perhaps that Canada has stood alone
from its American and Mexican neighbours in not having this
legislation. This is more than an exercise in comparative
politics since 70% of Canada's species at risk are shared with
those two countries.
In pressing the government for strong endangered species
legislation, Canadians are reflecting their general concern for
environmental issues and are demanding that governments at all
levels respond to their concerns and make environmental
priorities synonymous with government priorities.
Above all environmental concerns, Canadians place endangered
species legislation as number one.
More Canadians have written to us on this issue than on any other
environmental issue combined. They demand a courageous and
assertive response from us to protect species much threatened by
the infringement of urbanization and expansive economic growth.
While they recognize the need to balance the other dimensions
which are inherent in well developed government action, they will
not be satisfied with half measures and will be unrelenting in
their judgment of what they perceive to be half measures.
1810
Polls are indeed a helpful tool in asserting Canadian views and
priorities, but nothing compares with spending the day listening
to our constituents and having them tell us exactly what they are
thinking. Friday of a week ago gave me just such an opportunity
as most Fridays do. Not only did I escape the rarefied air of
our fair capital, but I escaped as well the sometimes constrained
atmosphere of my constituency office to meet with grade 5
students at Portage View Public School in the morning and with
grade 8 students at Maple Grove Public School in the afternoon.
Both schools are in Barrie.
We talked about our environment. We talked about SARA. More
than all the details of protecting endangered species and their
habitats that we discussed, what I heard most in their voices and
saw most on their faces was the trust they had placed in me to
look after their future, to guarantee that their future would be
one where the wildlife and the biodiversity necessary to sustain
that wildlife would be ensured by a government that had been true
to its word, by a government that had taken all the necessary
legislative steps to ensure that our precious species, nature's
heritage to us, would not be driven to extinction but would be
protected and thus thrive for future generations and future
times. There is nothing like the faces of children to remind us
what our real priorities are and of the commitments we are bound
to fulfil.
We have before us an environmental bill that has much to commend
it. Vital to this or any act that has as its purpose the
protection of species at risk is the listing agency and the
listing process. The Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada, known by its acronym COSEWIC, is a national
scientific committee that has been operating for 20 years and has
developed an international reputation as a credible, objective
scientific body.
The new legislation will provide the legal basis for COSEWIC and
it will continue to operate at arm's length from government. This
is essential and it will allow us to continue what we have been
doing right in Canada, which is executing an excellent listing
process.
Just a few weeks ago COSEWIC increased the number of entries on
its list of endangered species or species at risk of extinction
from 340 to 353. There is no doubt that the long wait for
legislation at the provincial and federal levels has seen the
situation become critical, which compels us to act promptly but
with legislation that clearly meets the bar. The listing process
will be key to that test.
The new act includes two other components among many which are
worth our attention and approbation. The government strategy
will emphasize stewardship and will provide compensation.
The stewardship program will include agreements among
landowners, managers and governments in the implementation of
species recovery plans. It will include private land acquisition
programs to purchase land for species habitat and provide
economic incentives for better land management. Our stewardship
approach will help conserve wildlife species not at risk to
prevent them from becoming so.
The proposed SARA provides compensation for individual
landowners in the event that protection of a species critical
habitat significantly restricts the use of one's land.
Compensation differs from stewardship incentives since it would
only be considered when stewardship and other safety measures
have been insufficient to protect critical habitat and therefore
where the critical habitat safety net is required. It is
important to note that compensation should not exceed the value
of incentives that were made available through stewardship
programs.
1815
There are many aspects to this bill that deserve our attention
but it is not possible to discuss all of them today. As a newly
returned member of the environment committee, I am anticipating
the opportunity to do just that at committee hearings and to
learn at that time the views and concerns of witnesses who will
meet with us to discuss this vital piece of legislation.
It bears noting however at this opportunity for opening debate
that many well informed and discerning groups have already
studied the legislation at its draft stages and lent us the
benefits of their experience and analysis. I make particular
reference to the species at risk working group's paper that
entails the composite wisdom of a somewhat disparate and eclectic
alliance encompassing, as it does, members of the Canadian Nature
Federation, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Mining
Association, the National Agriculture Environment Committee, the
Canadian Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club of Canada. I am
impressed when I see un mélange comme ca work together and
develop common ground. It is I believe exactly the kind of
commonality that will make or break the success of this bill.
Unfortunately I have concerns when I read that they too have
concerns that the bill does not go as far as they recommended,
especially when I consider that they often proceeded from very
different vantage points and still came to an agreement as to
what this new legislation must incorporate to protect Canada's
species at risk. Their contention appears to be that we might
need to go further than what is currently under consideration.
The working group strongly supports scientific listing of
species at risk rather than the cabinet approval process outlined
in the bill. It recommends that the existing COSEWIC list be
recognized as the initial list of species at risk. The act
recently passed by the Nova Scotia government includes both of
those recommendations. The group is concerned that there is no
proposed compensation for communities of workers who may be
displaced as a result of actions to protect species at risk.
While I, like all of us engaged in the public policy making
process, realize that the fruits of the consultative process
cannot meet the criteria of each and every interested group or
party, still one considers carefully the advice of such a group
representing as it does both industry and environmental persons
and interests.
Consequently, if I may return to the initial bar which I set for
myself, to listen carefully to the next generation who have
entrusted us to ensure the survival of their wildlife, I believe
it is incumbent on us to listen carefully to all such thoughtful
wisdom and, as the committee studying this proposed legislation,
to ensure that we are accessible by what means are available to
us to the people and places requisite to this very vital piece of
legislation.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
two questions for my hon. colleague. I was a bit concerned when
she mentioned a couple of times the necessity to have a
compensatory regime. One of the things bothering landowners,
woodlot owners and farmers across the country is the government's
commitment to developing a good stewardship, compensatory regime.
How does the hon. member square with what the minister said on
September 23, 1999 as reported in the Vancouver Sun? The
minister said “Responsible behaviour is something we expect, not
something we need to buy”. Could my colleague comment on that?
The other question I have is, why would she not support an
amendment at the committee stage for a legal scientific listing
as opposed to a discretionary regime left to cabinet?
1820
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the
minister's statement in mid-1999, that he did not believe there
needed to be a compulsory factor to legislation such as SARA, I
made reference to an ongoing consultative process. For ministers
who are new to their positions, as well as backbenchers who are
part of the process, we sometimes begin from a certain vantage
point and as we consult with Canadians and take into account what
they say, we are open to maybe adjusting our original premises
and do not want to appear rigid nor indeed to be rigid. If there
has been movement on the part of the government, as represented
by the Minister of the Environment, that shows a flexibility and
not a retro approach.
With regard to the second question as to whether or not I was in
favour of an amendment at committee, in all honesty, I do not
believe I was a member of the committee when that amendment was
put forward, but I am open to be corrected in that regard.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Davenport also talked about the listing
process and the fact that it should be a scientific process. I
believe that is something we all agree with.
However, I do not quite understand what the member for
Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford is proposing. Once the list is
established, who then would be responsible for the funds that
would be applied to a project to protect an endangered species?
Is the member suggesting that the COSEWIC group be responsible
for allocating dollars toward a specific project?
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, my statements with
regard to listing pertain to the recommendations that were made
by the species at risk working group. This group recommended
that the listing process be under the control of the scientific
community. Its suggestion was not that it be left to the
political process.
I did not make reference within my opening remarks today to the
funding or the appropriate resources and infrastructure that
will be required to accomplish the protection of that species. I
have no difficulty with our role as a government to be pivotal in
that regard.
I believe that the recommendation that the listing be left to
those who have studied and are learned in the process is where it
should most likely be left. To put together the kind of program
that is necessary once the scientific community has triggered the
government is very much within the purview of government to make
an assessment of how best to move forward and to do so within the
costs that will entail. The listing itself is a different
process.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-33.
It was an issue that was on the table during the last election
campaign in 1997 and it has now finally been tabled. It is much
needed and it is about time.
Listening to some of the earlier debate, it seems that most
people are concerned with what is in the bill but for very
different reasons. We in the Canadian Alliance are concerned
with some of the things in the legislation, and I will try to
outline some of those in my presentation.
After many years and almost as many cabinet ministers, it gives
me great pleasure to finally be able to speak to legislation
protecting species at risk in Canada. I want to stress how
important wildlife and nature is to Canadians and the Canadian
Alliance.
Canadians value nature for many different reasons. In the past
many of our forefathers depended on nature for their very
survival. Today we value wildlife for different reasons.
Economic dependence has been largely replaced by the view that
wildlife should be treasured for its own inherent worth. The
affluence of our society is reflected in the 1996 nature survey
which found that Canadians and visitors to Canada spent $11.7
billion on nature related pursuits in that year alone.
1825
Wild species are an integral part of our heritage and our
identity and attract tourists from around the globe. Indeed, we
as humans are dependent on the diversity of species on earth for
our own survival.
The Canadian Alliance recognizes this significance in its policy
declaration, which states:
We are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural
environment and endangered species, and to sustainable
development of our abundant natural resources for the use of
current and future generations. Therefore, we will strike a
balance between environmental preservation and economic
development.
It is that critical balance that is the only odd issue out in
many of the debates from both sides of the House. It is how that
balance will be created and how it will be implemented.
Unfortunately, in its last attempt to introduce endangered
species legislation, the Liberal government failed to find this
balance.
Private property rights were a major concern in the last bill,
Bill C-65, which completely ignored the rights of landowners. It
was a heavyhanded bill that relied on government regulation
instead of co-operation with landowners to protect species. Due
in part to the efforts of Reform MPs at the time, the bill never
passed. This was the bill referred to earlier as being similar
to the one developed in the United States which has not worked,
uses a heavyhanded approach and does
exactly the opposite for endangered species than what it should.
The Canadian Alliance recognizes that landowners are an integral
part of the species at risk equation and, at its founding policy
convention earlier this year, the Alliance recognized and
affirmed the historic common law right to ownership and enjoyment
of private property.
Since the 1997 election, Canadian Alliance MPs have been
advocating the creation of responsible endangered species
legislation that seeks out co-operation not confrontation, and
compensation not confiscation in an effort to protect species at
risk. Not surprisingly, the government did not share this view
and it shows in this legislation.
The preamble of the bill begins innocently enough, recognizing
the need for co-operation among various orders of government and
encouraging the stewardship efforts of individual Canadians, but
quickly becomes clear that it actually relies more on a heavy
hand than on a helping hand.
On the issue of private property rights and compensation, the
true environmentalists and the true stewards in this country are
the people who deal on a daily basis with the land: our
ranchers, our farmers, our natural resource people, people who
enjoy the outdoors and realize that nature is as beautiful and as
fragile as it is. No one knows more about the fragile aspect of
our environment than the people who are on the land every day.
When we look at compensation, considering that this is a key
concern for landowners, it is disappointing that the government
has only chosen to pay lip service to compensate landowners. In
clause 64, it states that “the minister may”, not must, “pay
compensation to any person for losses suffered as a result of any
extraordinary impact that this legislation may create”.
We heard earlier from the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar
that he was concerned that our party was not dealing with the
full facts when we talked to landowners and property owners. I
would like to ask if it is possible for him to go forward and say
to them that there is nothing in this legislation that they must
fear and nothing in Bill C-33 that would affect their livelihood.
We cannot do that because there are things in here that are of
major concern to Canadians. We need to be diligent in dealing
with them.
There are no details as to how this compensation will be paid
out, only a nebulous reference to a provision which grants the
governor in council authority to make the necessary regulations.
That in itself leaves a lot of concern in the minds of Canadians.
If there is going to be compensation, it should be defined
exactly how that is going to take place. The government says
that will be in the regulations but it is something that should
be in this bill. If it was in the bill then we could have a look
at it and look at it in a favourable way. If it is market value
and if it will help people when their land is expropriated or
taken away, that is something we could consider. The way the
bill is structured now, we cannot support it.
The procedures to be followed when claiming compensation must be
determined, the methods used to determine eligibility of a person
for compensation and the terms and conditions for the payment all
need to be mapped out.
Again I say there is absolutely no reference to fair market value
anywhere in the legislation.
1830
The lack of compensation has been the single biggest barrier to
the success of the endangered species act in the United States.
The problem with the U.S. ESA boils down to the fact that it
creates a perverse incentive for landowners to view species at
risk on their properties as a liability. That is exactly what we
have to avoid.
We cannot put legislation in place that will in any way be
defined or looked at as causing an endangered species to be a
liability. We have to structure it in a way that makes it
exactly the opposite. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
finds that there is an endangered species on one's land, one
cannot in any way alter the land and there is no compensation. It
is not surprising to observe how landowners have responded.
What can Canada learn from the American experience with regard
to compensation? Clearly fair and just compensation is essential
to ensure the success of any legislation. Landowners must not
see wildlife on their properties as a liability. It must be
viewed as exactly the opposite.
Compensation will assist the government in securing the
co-operation of landowners in fostering a climate of co-operation
that will enable private associations to continue on in their
work. Many organizations have been very successful in working
with landowners to conserve natural habitats and depend upon the
continuing good will of landowners to be successful.
I mentioned the Alberta Fish and Game Association and Operation
Burrowing Owl. Last summer it was my pleasure to go up to Brooks
on a tour with the member for Medicine Hat. The eastern
irrigation district invited us to go. Tom Livingston, a member
of the board, and some of his staff took us out and showed us the
burrowing owl's tremendous wetland that has been developed all of
their own will.
It was very impressive. The land is grazed. It has oil
exploration and production on it. The land close by is actively
farmed. All these things are going on at the same time that
burrowing owls are flourishing in this area. They do it all
because of their natural love of the land.
Mr. Livingston explained to me that even travelling across the
prairies in a vehicle, just driving across the grass at 10 or 12
kilometres ruins one acre of grass. They are very careful about
how they drive on it and how they use it. They manage it very
well.
Ducks Unlimited is another organization with purchase and
conservation agreements. Nature Conservancy of Canada does a lot
of good work and needs to be encouraged in stewardship roles.
Compensation also forces the government to be accountable by
taking into consideration the social and economic effects of its
decisions. That aspect of it alone is very key. If we are to
look at reclamation programs and the protection of habitat
programs, we have to take into account the social and economic
effects of any decisions to do that.
The concern over private property rights extends into other
sections of the bill. When we look at property rights we must
look at not only the possibility of losing one's land but at the
possibility of people encroaching without just cause.
This comes up in the application for investigation. Although
the government wisely removed the civil suit provisions contained
in Bill C-65, it retains a section in this bill which would allow
any person to initiate an investigation by the government. Any
person could go to the government and say he or she suspects
something is happening and an investigation would have to be
started by the government.
Clause 95 requires the minister to report back to the applicant
every 90 days during the investigative period with details of the
investigation. This provision is taken into account with clause
90 which gives enforcement officers the right to enter on and
pass through or over private property without being liable for
trespassing. Added to clause 34 which authorizes the federal
government to extend its authorities over lands which are not
federal lands in a province if the minister is of the opinion
that the laws of the province are not strong enough to protect
the species, a frightening scenario is created where the private
landowner has very few resources at his or her disposal for
protection against vexatious actions.
Those are some of the concerns we hear from landowners and
people in the resource sector. When these concerns come forward
they are legitimate. They have a legitimate concern that their
lands are in jeopardy.
1835
I want to talk about some of the things we would like to see
proposed. The Canadian Alliance rejects the type of heavy handed
approach in this bill. In the little time I have left today and
in the debates that lie ahead of us I will outline how we will
hold protected species at risk.
Like most Canadians we have always supported the development of
endangered species legislation, but we know that in order for it
to be successful it must respect the fundamental rights of
property owners. We believe that co-operation and not
confrontation will achieve the greatest results. We also believe
that governments must be accountable for their actions. To this
end we believe that the final listing decision should remain with
parliament. It alone has a democratic mandate to balance the
competing interests of economic and environmental needs.
That is the key. If we have a fully scientific body that does
the listing, we must have the accountability of parliament to
recognize that list and to enact any actions that are deemed
necessary to protect endangered species. We cannot take
parliamentary accountability out of the equation or it gets into
a whole other area.
Another opportunity I had a little over a year ago was to tour
the old growth forest on the west coast with some people who took
us there for two or three days. We flew in helicopters and had a
look at the logging practices going on there that are
environmentally sensitive. We saw some of the changes that had
been made and some of the practices to protect endangered
species, to protect the land itself from erosion and to protect
the watersheds. The industry is more aware of what needs to be
done. It is working hard toward that.
We see new coalitions being developed with environmental groups,
industry and land users coming together to try to find a solution
to this problem. The legislation put forward by the government
has to be such that it encourages that co-operation and that it
brings these people together in a way that will truly help
protect endangered species and our environment in a very
substantial way.
If we include all the stakeholders in the process then we can
come up with some meaningful legislation, not only in the
endangered species area but in all environmental issues, to make
the country sustainable in the long run and to preserve what we
have for generations to come.
The Deputy Speaker: There are three minutes remaining in
the day's proceedings. Does the hon. member for North York want
to call it 6.41 p.m. and avoid cutting up her time? I would be
happy to recognize the hon. member, but she will get only three
minutes and then she will have another seven or seventeen, as the
case may be, the next time the bill comes before the House.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, as long as I can be
assured of my opportunity to speak on this very important
legislation, I would be happy to call it 6.41 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for York North will
be the next speaker, assuming of course that she is here the next
day the bill is called.
* * *
SUPPLY
DESIGNATED DAY—CANADA HEALTH ACT
The House resumed from May 18 consideration of the motion and of
the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.41 p.m. the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the
amendment relating to the business of supply.
Call in the members.
1900
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The first question
is on the amendment.
1905
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Blaikie
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Earle
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gruending
| Hardy
|
Laliberte
| Lill
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Nystrom
| Proctor
| Riis
| Stoffer
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 17
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Cotler
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Maloney
| Manley
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| Ménard
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Obhrai
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Turp
| Vanclief
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wood – 156
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the
amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1910
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived
on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Blaikie
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Earle
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gruending
| Hardy
|
Laliberte
| Lill
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Nystrom
| Proctor
| Riis
| Stoffer
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 17
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Cotler
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Maloney
| Manley
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| Ménard
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Obhrai
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Turp
| Vanclief
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wood – 156
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
lost.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1915
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEALTH
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
May 16 when I rose in the House of Commons to ask the Minister of
Health how many more lives would have to be lost because of drug
overdoses before his government took action, the minister
professed to be very concerned and he responded that he would
address this “complex and tragic problem”. He said if I had
specific suggestions he would be happy to receive them. Well, I
do.
Indeed, I sent the Minister of Health a very detailed letter on
April 13 outlining precisely what needs to be done to make our
community safer. I have done a lot of research and spoken with
many community members to determine what needs to be done to
lower the crime rate and to help injection drug users regain
their sense of dignity and health. I subsequently wrote the
Minister of Health on May 19 and asked for a meeting to which I
hope he will agree.
We need to know unequivocally if the Minister of Health is
prepared to implement the array of recommendations put to him by
numerous medical and scientific experts and reports to help this
community come to grips with this devastating crisis.
While the drug resource centre is a very necessary step, it is
simply not enough. If the minister is serious, as I am, in
reducing the incredible harm to individuals and the community as
a whole, then he must be willing to take comprehensive action
that must include education, better treatment, expanded
methadone, programs for drug maintenance, safe injection sites
and housing and social supports.
I believe the minister knows the facts. I believe he knows in
his heart what needs to be done medically in his department. The
question is, does he have the political will to act on the
irrefutable evidence he has? What is the minister's response?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the
question the hon. member has asked concerning the serious
situation in Vancouver's downtown east side.
I would like to remind the hon. member that the purpose of the
Canada's Drug Strategy is to reduce the ill effects of alcohol
and other drugs. In addition, the National HIV/AIDS Strategy and
the hepatitis C disease prevention, community-based support and
research program are working with injection drug users, and the
organizations providing them with support, to prevent the
transmission of blood-borne pathogens.
Federal-provincial-territorial committees representing the drug
industry, the HIV/AIDS community, correctional services, justice,
and public health have pinpointed injection drugs as a priority
problem. These committees are working together to determine the
best ways of addressing this situation in Canada in a
co-ordinated and multi-jurisdictional manner.
[English]
Health Canada has contributed to the development of a resource
centre for drug users in Vancouver's downtown east side and is
participating in a partnership under the Vancouver agreement
among all three levels of government.
1920
Health Canada will also be providing support to the Downtown
Eastside Women's Centre and to community activities with a
particular emphasis on aboriginal women who are at risk of
contracting HIV and those who have AIDS.
[Translation]
With respect to what has been done in Europe, I wish to assure
the House that Health Canada is looking at the experiences of
other countries in order to consider the possibility of applying
their conclusions to the Canadian context.
In conclusion, Health Canada will continue to encourage,
facilitate and increase public participation in a dialogue based
on objective information concerning the best ways of addressing
this health problem and serious social issue.
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am on my feet again on the hepatitis C issue. It is
an issue that simply will not go away. Obviously the reason it
will not go away is because the government has failed to deal
with it in a manner that would be acceptable to Canadian people.
What I am speaking of is the settlement with our hepatitis C
victims. Not one nickel of compensation has been received by the
victims. It is hard to believe. It has been going on two years
since the settlement was reached and not one victim has received
a nickel. The only people who have received compensation are the
lawyers for the federal government. I know members find that
hard to believe, but only the lawyers for the federal government
have received payment. My question to the minister a number of
weeks ago was why? Why can the government not resolve this
issue?
One of the parallels I drew that day is that the province of
Ontario has again compensated those victims left outside the
package. The package the federal government announced leaves out
the victims prior to 1986 and after 1991. The premier of Ontario,
although he comes under criticism from the House from time to
time, had the courage to stand up and say, “Listen, we are going
to compensate those victims regardless of when they became
infected. They deserve compensation”.
The Liberal government opposite has not compensated one victim.
The only people who have received compensation from the Liberal
government are the lawyers representing the federal government in
the suit.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party are asking the
government to move on this issue and compensate the victims.
Canadians want them to be compensated because they truly are
victims. We want some action on the part of the federal
government. The issue has dragged on now for a number of years.
It has been two years since the compensation scheme was
announced. People are still on the outside looking in. They
need help. We want action. Will the government move on this
issue?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has committed
approximately $1.4 billion to compensate and assist those
infected with hepatitis C through the blood supply system.
Of this amount, our government has already spent $875 million in
order to meet its financial obligations to victims under the
1986-1990 hepatitis C settlement agreement. Under this agreement,
which was approved by the courts, we have probably succeeded in
avoiding ten years of litigation. An independent administrator
was appointed by the courts. A process for handling
applications has been put in place and applicants' cheques
should soon be issued.
In addition, in the case of those infected before 1986 and after
1990, the government has agreed to pay some $525 million towards
care, rather than in hard cash. For it is care that people are
greatly in need of when they are sick.
We consulted people throughout Canada. We listened to what they
had to say and we took action accordingly, putting $50 million
into hepatitis C research and the creation of community support
programs. We have also set aside $125 million for improved
safety and monitoring of the blood supply system.
[English]
I would also like to add that an important component of our
contribution is an agreement with the provinces and territories
to pay half the costs, up to $50 million, to identify and notify
all individuals who have been infected with hepatitis C through
the blood system so they can receive the care and treatment they
need. We have offered a $300 million transfer to the provinces
and territories. Our plan is sensible, it provides the care that
people living with hepatitis C need and it is a compassionate
plan.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.25 p.m.)