36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 133
CONTENTS
Friday, October 20, 2000
1005
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1010
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
|
| Bill C-15. Second reading
|
| Hon. David Anderson |
1015
1020
1025
1030
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1035
1040
1045
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| URBAN LAUGHLAN
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| LIBERAL PARTY POLICIES
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1100
| UNSAFE DRIVING
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| EQUAL RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| ECONOMIC POLICY
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| ECONOMIC POLICY
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1105
| LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| MEMBER FOR CHARLESWOOD ST. JAMES—ASSINIBOIA
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| MEMBER FOR CYPRESS HILLS—GRASSLANDS
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| PERSONS DAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1110
| ECONOMIC POLICY
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| PICTOU-ANTIGONISH REGIONAL LIBRARY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| ELECTION CAMPAIGN
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
1115
| The Speaker |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1120
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1125
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1130
| Hon. David Anderson |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1135
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ECONOMIC POLICY
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1140
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| SOCIAL HOUSING
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| SEASONAL WORKERS
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1145
| INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. John Manley |
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Mr. Ian Murray |
| Hon. John Manley |
1150
| MINISTER OF INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ECONOMIC POLICY
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1155
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| DIGBY WHARF
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1200
| INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Speaker of the House
|
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1205
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| STANDING COMMITTEES
|
| Public Accounts
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| PETITIONS
|
| Health care
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Food labelling
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1210
| Importation of Plutonium
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Pornography
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| STARRED QUESTIONS
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1215
| INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
|
| Bill C-15. Second reading
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1220
1225
1230
1235
| THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
1250
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
|
| Bill C-15. Second reading
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1255
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1300
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1320
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1325
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1330
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CANADIAN FORCES DAY
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Motion
|
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1350
1355
| Mr. René Laurin |
1400
1405
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1410
1415
| Mr. George Proud |
1420
| Amendment
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1425
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 133
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 20, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation
among all parties in the House and I believe you would find
unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice, the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts shall meet this day at
12.30 p.m. for the purpose of hearing evidence from the Auditor
General of Canada and that, if the chair or vice-chairs of the
committee are not present—
Although I understand one of the vice-chairs is available now.
For the information of hon. members, the room that has been made
available is Room 237-C if members wish to note it.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have another motion that
I want to bring to the attention of the House. I ask hon.
members to pay close attention to this one. It relates to the
fact that I received a communication from the other place late
yesterday evening indicating that if by 10.30 this morning we
refer Bill C-44 to it, the bill will be passed this day.
Therefore, I would move that Bill C-44 shall be deemed to have
been read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole,
reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage and read
a third time and passed now.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, we could pass a motion at
any time to do anything in this place, it seems, but I believe
the motion really is not in order.
We have rules in this place that say there are ways to handle
bills and motions. It includes a second reading debate, a
referral to committee where witnesses could be brought in to
answer any questions we may have, report stage amendments and
debate, and a third reading debate.
To say that we are going to proceed with this bill, a bill that
involves billions of taxpayer dollars, without debate and at all
stages in order to get it to the Senate and into law just because
there will be an election call on Sunday, is not wise use of
House time. It circumvents the rules in a way that was never
intended.
We are more than prepared to debate it. We are more than
prepared to put forward our amendments and our ideas on it.
However, we are not prepared to proceed, nor do I think this
motion should even be accepted that we circumvent the rules of
the House because an election is imminent on Sunday.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by the
House leader for the official opposition, there are certainly
some problems with the method by which the government is
attempting to move this legislation forward.
That said, the lesser of the evils here is that many seasonal
workers, many Atlantic Canadians and Canadians right across the
country who would be the beneficiaries of this legislation, will
not be able to avail themselves of the support that would be put
in place.
All Canadians know and all members of the House realize that
this legislation, were it really a government priority, could
have been brought forward in a much more timely fashion.
What was alluded to by my friend is quite true. The government
is in the death throes before an election. It is attempting to
get this legislation through in a very cynical fashion. It is
attempting to hold this in front of the faces of Canadians and
tell them that this is fixed, that this is a done deal, just as
it has with medicare. That of course is not the case, as we all
realize.
What we do not want to do is hold up this legislation. If there
is any way procedurally that we can proceed with this legislation
to the benefit and greater good of Canadians who would therefore
be eligible and able to avail themselves of this support system
through the EI changes, we in the Progressive Conservative Party
would be prepared to co-operate with the government to see that
it happens.
The indication that the other place would also be open to
receipt of this legislation to see that it would pass through
before the end of the day is welcome news. I do not think any
member of the House should throw up roadblocks to try to prevent
that from happening.
1010
It is with a very jaded view that the government is doing this.
It is obviously doing so as more pre-election goodies, but we do
not want to see this legislation held up any further if at all
possible. It does circumvent rules. It does not allow us to
have sufficient time to look at the content and the true inner
mechanisms that would be brought about by this legislation, but
it is done with the best of intentions, we hope, and therefore
the Progressive Conservative Party would support passage of that
legislation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Bloc
Quebecois will not give its support to this motion and the
leader of the government knows why.
The bill includes a clause that legalizes the diversion of the
employment insurance fund, and the Bloc Quebecois can never
allow the government to set the rate by itself. This
responsibility must be assumed by the commission. We conveyed
the message to this government that we would not support the
motion, even though it really saddens us to do so, considering
all the positive measures, however temporary, that the bill may
provide for, among others, seasonal workers.
We would have loved to support this legislation, but once again
the government has shown its arrogance, cynicism and disregard
for democracy. No matter how we put it, this sad week is still
unfolding, even today. Unfortunately, we will not give our
support.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, the NDP echoes some of the
concerns expressed by my hon. colleague from the Progressive
Conservative Party. We also are not completely satisfied with
some aspects of this legislation. However, we are prepared to
co-operate because we realize that employment insurance is very
important for people in the Atlantic provinces. Even though this
is being done, as has been indicated, as an election fulfilment
or an election promise, we feel that in the end if the people
benefit that is the important thing. We would be prepared to
co-operate to allow it to be passed today.
The Speaker: We are faced with a very big decision but a
fairly straightforward one. Is the House prepared to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, there was a motion just
put before the House that was denied unanimous consent but
perhaps the House would consent to debate the bill if it were
renamed the Liberal vote buying bill.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
Hon. David Anderson (for Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-15, an act to amend the International
Boundary Waters Treaty Act, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset what a
pleasure it is to speak to this particular bill. I thank the
Minister of Foreign Affairs for allowing me the opportunity of
doing so.
I would also like to mention that the hon. member for
Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has been of great support to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs and myself on this legislation and has indeed
followed the issue of water quality in Canada with great care.
Two other members I would like to quickly single out among the
many are of course the member for Mississauga South and the
member for Leeds—Grenville, who have been extremely supportive
and helpful in the work of bringing forward policy in this
particular area.
[Translation]
I am pleased to address the House on second reading of Bill C-15,
an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.
1015
In May 1998, a company proposed a project to export water by
tanker from Lake Superior. This sparked a debate among Canadians
on the future security and preservation of Canada's freshwater
resources. However, this is not a new issue.
[English]
Anyone who has followed the deliberations of the House over the
past 40 years will remember the grandiose continental schemes
dreamed up to transfer water out of Canada. The views of
Canadians and the Government of Canada on this have not changed.
Canada's water is not for sale. Our freshwater resources are too
precious to allow bulk removal or diversion. They must be
protected for future generations of Canadians who will follow us.
Successive Canadian governments have opposed the diversion or
bulk removal of Canadian water. However, to date this has been
little more than declarations. The time has now come to deal
through legislation with the issue, and that is why we are taking
action.
[Translation]
Bill C-15 will protect boundary waters, including the critical
resource of the Great Lakes, from bulk water removal under
federal law.
The act implements the 1909 Canada-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty.
This is one of our oldest treaties and a landmark in Canada-U.S.
relations.
With over 300 lakes and rivers along the Canada-U.S. border, the
drafters recognized the critical role played by water and the
importance of providing a structure and mechanism to prevent and
resolve disputes between the two countries. Ninety-one years
later we are using the same mechanism to ensure that these
waters will be protected for future generations of Canadians.
[English]
The amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act
in Bill C-15 are based principally on Canada's treaty obligations
to the United States not to take action in Canada which affects
levels and flows of boundary waters on the United States side of
the border. I would note that the United States has the same
obligation to Canada, that is, not to take action in the U.S.
which affects levels and flows of boundary waters on the Canadian
side of the border.
[Translation]
These amendments also have a second objective; to protect the
integrity of boundary water ecosystems. The amendments have
three key elements: a prohibition provision; a licensing regime;
and sanctions and penalties.
The prohibition provision will give the Minister of Foreign
Affairs the authority to impose a prohibition on removals of
boundary waters out of their water basins. Exceptions will be
considered, such as ballast water, short-term humanitarian
purposes and water used in the production of food or beverages,
for example, bottled water.
While there are many boundary waters along the Canada-U.S. border
affected by the prohibition, its most significant effect will be
on the Great Lakes. This will provide to Canada the ability to
stop any future plans for water removal out of the Great Lakes.
Separate from the amendments dealing with the prohibition, there
will be a licensing regime. These licences will cover projects
such as dams and obstructions in boundary and transboundary
waters. Under the provisions of the treaty, these types of
projects must have the approval of the International Joint
Commission and the Government of Canada.
1020
I would like to stress that the process of approving such
projects has taken place over the past 91 years without any
problems under the general authority of the treaty. In essence,
the process is not changing, except that it will be formalized
now in a licensing system. Also, the licensing regime will not
cover bulk water removal projects. These, if they are proposed,
are covered by the Act's prohibition.
[English]
Bill C-15 will also allow for clear and strong sanctions and
penalties. This will give teeth to the prohibitions and ensure
that Canada is in the position to enforce it.
[Translation]
I would also like to set Bill C-15 in the general context of
Canada's strategy announced on February 10, 1999 to prohibit
bulk removal of water out of all major Canadian water basins.
Why did the Government of Canada take this initiative? The
removal and transfer of water in bulk may result in irreversible
ecological, social and economic impacts. We want to ensure, for
future generations of Canadians, the security of our freshwater
resources and the integrity of our ecosystems.
However, to be effective, any approach must take account of two
factors. First, no single government has the ability to resolve
this question. Flowing water does not respect political
boundaries.
In the case of the Great Lakes system, two federal governments,
eight state governments, two provincial governments, and a
number of regional and binational organizations are involved in
managing and protecting freshwater resources.
[English]
Furthermore, it would be a gross oversimplification to view the
issue only from one angle. It is a multidimensional issue
involving removals, diversions, consumption, population and
economic growth, the effects of climate change, and last but not
least, the cumulative effect of all those factors.
[Translation]
All levels of government must act effectively and in concert
within their respective jurisdictions. Hence, Canada announced
in February 1999 that the Government of Canada would be acting
within its jurisdiction. Bill C-15 fulfils this commitment.
Canada also announced a reference from the governments of Canada
and the United States to the International Joint Commission to
investigate and make recommendations on consumptive uses,
diversions and removals in the greatest of our shared waters,
the Great Lakes. It said that it recognized the primary
responsibility of provinces and territories for water
management. My colleague, the Minister for External Affairs,
and I proposed a Canada-wide accord to prohibit bulk water
removal out of major Canadian water basins.
As of today, all provinces have put into place or are developing
legislation and policies to prohibit bulk water removal.
[English]
The International Joint Commission delivered a landmark report
on March 15 of this year, that is, the protection of the waters
of the Great Lakes. I would like to reflect briefly on the IJC's
conclusions and its recommendations. They are consistent with
and supportive of the broad environmental approach adopted by
Canada on the issue of bulk water removal.
The International Joint Commission concluded that “water is a
non-renewable resource” and the vast volumes of the Great Lakes
are deceiving. Less than 1% of the water in the Great Lakes
system is renewed annually. The other 99% is a gift of the
glacial age. Taking water out of the water basin is in fact like
mining. Once taken it will not return.
1025
[Translation]
The report also stated that if all the interests in the Great
Lakes Basin are considered, there is never a surplus of water.
Every drop of water has several potential uses. Forty million
Canadians and Americans depend on the waters of the Great Lakes
for every aspect of life: day-to-day living, industry, recreation,
transportation and trade.
On top of this, the ecosystem of the Great Lakes has its own,
equally important, demands on the water. As we are dependent on
the future health of the Great Lakes, the future health of the
ecosystem is dependent on our action.
The IJC concluded that the Great Lakes require protection, given
all of the present and future stresses and uncertainties.
Recommendations for action were made to all levels of government
in Canada and the U.S. These recommendations provide the basis
for developing a consistent approach to protecting the Great
Lakes on both sides of the border.
The Government of Canada agrees with the IJC's conclusions. The
prohibition provisions of Bill C-15 will provide the protection
to the Great Lakes called for by the IJC.
[English]
The Great Lakes are the largest reservoir of fresh water in the
world. If the IJC, the International Joint Commission, considers
caution is the watchword for the management of waters in the
Great Lakes basin, is it not equally so for other smaller bodies
of water and ecosystems across Canada wherever they are located?
[Translation]
I would also like to take this opportunity to address the trade
implications of Canada's policy approach. A number of persons
and groups have called on the federal government to use an
export ban.
There is a consensus among Canadians that our water resources
need protection. The issue before us, then, is not whether to
protect the water, but how best to accomplish the goal.
Canada's approach, embodied in Bill C-15 and our overall
strategy, is to protect water in its natural state in water
basins. It is better than an export ban.
Water is protected and regulated in its natural state, before
the issue of exporting arises and before it has become a
commercial good or a saleable commodity. It is the most
comprehensive, environmentally sound and effective means of
preserving the integrity of ecosystems and is consistent with
international trade obligations.
[English]
The critical point is that the Canadian government and Canadian
governments of the past have full sovereignty over the management
of water in its natural state and, in exercising this
sovereignty, they would not be constrained by trade agreements.
Canada's view of this matter has been supported by a wide range
of expert opinion. The International Joint Commission, which is
an independent binational Canadian-U.S. commission, came to
similar conclusions in its final report after exhaustive public
hearings and submissions that included government and independent
experts representing every point of view.
The deputy United States trade representative, in a written
submission reproduced in the IJC report, indicated that under
customary international law, non-navigable rivers to a
watercourse, including the right to control or limit extraction,
belong solely to the country or countries where that watercourse
lies. He further indicated that the World Trade Organization
“simply has nothing to say regarding the basic decision by
governments whether to permit the extraction of water from lakes
and rivers in their territories”.
[Translation]
In this light, I am puzzled by the insistence of those who
continue to recommend that we institute an export ban. It comes
from people who apparently share our desire to protect Canada's
water resources; however, it is clear their approach would make
our water more vulnerable to trade challenge, not less, and make
it harder to protect, not easier.
1030
Unlike the Government of Canada's approach, which is focused on
comprehensive environmental objectives in a manner that is trade
consistent, an export ban does not address the environmental
dimension, has possible constitutional limitations, and may be
vulnerable to trade challenge.
An export ban would focus on water once it has become a good and
therefore subject to international trade agreements, and would
likely be contrary to Canada's international trade obligations.
[English]
Canadians are looking to all levels of the government to act.
Bill C-15 will provide protection against the bulk removal of
water from the Great Lakes and other boundary waters. Joined
with the efforts being made in other parts of the federal
government's strategy, including the Canada-wide accord on water
and the Canada-U.S. reference to the International Joint
Commission, it will provide the best protection possible for
Canada's freshwater resources.
This is the best way to protect Canada's freshwater. It brings
together a comprehensive, environmentally sound approach that
respects constitutional responsibilities and is consistent with
Canada's international trade obligations.
[Translation]
For all of these reasons, I urge members to support Bill C-15.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank you for giving me a lot
of advice when I came into the House as a rookie. You pointed
out a lot of things to me, and I highly appreciated your help. I
learned a lot from you. I guess when I do come back I will have
graduated from being a rookie to second term MP. I take this
opportunity to wish you all the best in your future endeavours.
I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to
speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the 80 year old International
Boundary Waters Treaty Act. I will begin by explaining why we
are compelled to debate this issue. Water is an issue that
touches the lives of all Canadians. It is part of Canadian
heritage. Canadians are very concerned at the thought of losing
control of the country's freshwater resources.
It is a legitimate concern. Canada will face an increasing
demand for this precious resource in the new millennium. I
remind members and all Canadians of the failure of the Liberal
government to protect Canada's freshwater resources.
Canadians also deserve to be informed of the past mistakes made
by the government on this issue. The export of water was never
supposed to be an issue in Canada. Various federal politicians
in the early 1990s claimed that Canada had a right to manage its
own water and that water would never be challenged under any
international agreement. Unfortunately this is not the case. The
water issue is back on the table.
On May 28, 1993, a few days before the election, the member for
Winnipeg South Centre, who happens to be the minister who
introduced Bill C-15, expressed his concerns about NAFTA and its
implication for Canada's freshwater resource.
1035
The government is on record as saying that NAFTA should be
amended to prohibit bulk water exports. Had Liberals kept their
promise, Canadians would not have to worry about the issue of
bulk water exports and we certainly would not be discussing this
matter today.
The 1993 Liberal red book said that NAFTA would be an
opportunity to correct any flaws that existed with the free trade
agreement with the U.S.A. and Mexico. Liberals promised
Canadians we would retain control of our water. They promised to
review the side agreements of NAFTA to ensure that they were in
Canada's best interest. Regardless of these promises, the
government signed the NAFTA deal without a side agreement on
water.
Raw logs and unprocessed fish were exempted from NAFTA, but the
best arrangement Canada could get on water was the following side
deal signed by Canada, the U.S. and Mexico on December 2, 1993:
“The NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of
any party of the agreement”.
Ultimately this side deal is of little legal value. Unless
water in any form has entered into commerce and has become a good or
product, it is not covered by the provisions of any trade
agreement including NAFTA. Nothing in NAFTA obliges any NAFTA
party to either exploit its water for commercial use or begin to
export water in any form.
Water in its natural state in lakes, reservoirs, water basins
and the like is not a good or a product. It therefore is not
traded and never has been subject to the terms of any trade
agreement. The side agreement worked as long as Canada never
allowed water to enter into commerce and become a good or a
product.
With the exception of international boundary waters, the vast
majority of water in its natural state is owned and managed by
the provinces. It is a provincial responsibility to manage the
resources carefully, just as the provinces manage their forests
and oil and gas. If one province enters the business of
tendering contracts to export bulk water, then according to
chapter 11 of NAFTA it must treat Canadian, American and Mexican
companies in a similar fashion.
National treatment provisions give all corporations of our NAFTA
partners the right to help themselves to our water the moment any
Canadian company is given an export permit. In fact, water would
not be exempt from NAFTA once we started shipping water. The
government would be powerless to stop it. If it did, the
government would have to compensate for lost income under the
investor state provisions.
The government did not have the foresight to think that some
provinces may one day look into the possibility of licensing the
export of water, but recent examples show us the opposite.
First, the province of Newfoundland granted an export permit to
McCurdy Enterprises Limited to export water from Gisborne Lake.
Second, in Ontario the Nova Group received a licence to extract
water from Lake Superior.
Finally, in British Columbia, the California company Sun Belt
wanted to export water from B.C. It is now demanding up to $10.5
billion in damages from the federal and B.C. governments alleging
that its rights under NAFTA have been violated. Sun Belt is
demanding restoration of the water export licence the B.C.
government cancelled in 1991 and compensation for lost business
opportunities.
Although the provinces eventually pulled out of these proposals,
the agreements renewed fears about water export and the impact of
our trade agreements.
Let us now look at the government's strategy that it believes
will ensure Canada's control over its freshwater. This
government, having failed to protect Canadian sovereignty over
water during NAFTA negotiations, is now proposing a backup
solution.
1040
Liberals had six years to propose legislation since the
ratification of the NAFTA but preferred to wait and be pushed to
the wall before they reacted. This does not surprise me, since
Liberal strategy can be defined as a wait and see approach.
Bill C-15 proposes to prohibit bulk water removal from boundary
waters between Canada and the U.S.A. That covers only 15% of
Canada's water resources. The provinces manage the remaining
85%. The government's water strategy includes a Canada-wide
accord to prohibit bulk water removal. However, five provinces
have refused to endorse the accord, leaving the country's water
vulnerable to exportation.
The federal strategy was designed in the belief that all
provinces would agree on a national ban. It is quite obvious
after the two day debate in Kananaskis in late November 1999 that
the government has failed to achieve this goal.
Bill C-15 legislates authority to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs to impose a prohibition on the removal of boundary waters
out of the natural water basin. It provides clear sanctions and
penalties for violations. This means a licence will be required
from the Minister of Foreign Affairs for any activity that would
have the effect of altering the natural level or flow of water on
the U.S. side of the border. Clearly another level of
bureaucracy will be added. The government has shown in the past
that it is exceptionally good at adding levels of bureaucracy
when it is not needed.
Nowhere in the bill is the word export used. The government
feels, and with good reason, the term will imply that water is a
commercial good. What the absence of the word export really
means is that water was part of the negotiations during the NAFTA
talks. That is one thing the government should admit. The fact
that the government is taking the route to ban bulk water export
shows how little faith it has in the December 1993 side deal it
signed after promising Canadians it would protect our sovereignty
over water.
As it stands now we can say yes or no, but we have lost the
right to say yes to Canadians only. Perhaps the government
thinks the bill will somehow magically remove Canada from our
international agreements on water. Unfortunately the bill is far
from closing the door on the water export issue.
Several Liberal MPs, including the member for Davenport, have
stated in the House that the proposed accord will lead to a
patchwork of provincial initiatives making Canada vulnerable to
trade challenges. He said:
It seems quite clear that a meaningful protection of our water
resources requires the federal government to face the reality of
international trade agreements.
Does this mean the member thinks NAFTA should be renegotiated to
exclude water? The former foreign affairs minister thought that
way when he was in the opposition. I quote the member for
Winnipeg South Centre:
We should be making a direct proposal to the United States
administration that in looking at the new environmental accords
as part of NAFTA we include the exclusion of water as part
of that accord.
He had the power to implement in government what he had said in
opposition. Why did he refuse to do so?
The core issue up for debate today is the protection of our
sovereignty and rights over water. Bill C-15 does not resolve
that issue. The failure of the government to protect our
resources leaves the impression that the government is using the
issue of water export as a political tool, one that should give
it enormous leverage as a future trade cash cow.
What should be done?
In 1993 while the government was busy signing away our
sovereignty over water, the Canadian Alliance made a specific
statement on the protection of our fresh water. The Canadian
Alliance stated that exclusive and unrestricted control of water
in all its forms should be maintained by and for Canadians.
1045
Canada possesses about 9% of the world's renewable water
resources and 20% of the world's total freshwater resources.
This includes water captured in glaciers and in the polar ice
caps. Protection of our sovereignty over this valuable resource
is critical to Canadians and to our national identity.
The Canadian Alliance believes that Canadians should retain
control over our water resources and supports exempting water
from our international agreements, including NAFTA. An outright
ban on water export would run contrary to our NAFTA commitment
because water was not exempt from that agreement.
A side agreement would have to be negotiated that would exempt
water from NAFTA before a ban on water exports could even be
considered. Until an exemption is achieved, we encourage the
provinces to place a moratorium on commercial water licensing so
that water in bulk form never becomes a good governed by NAFTA
rules.
Once an exemption from NAFTA is in place, the decision to export
water in bulk should rest with the provinces that own the
resource. Natural resources fall under provincial jurisdiction
and international trade is under federal jurisdiction. As a
result of this constitutional division of powers, any water
export scheme can only succeed with the support and co-operation
of both levels of government.
In the absence of exempting water from NAFTA, the Canadian
Alliance will support the proposed bill as it represents the only
viable approach that the federal government can take and the only
constitutionally valid NAFTA compatible ban on bulk water export.
However, I would like to see the government propose real answers
to this issue and show some leadership in exempting water from
our trade agreements.
It would have been preferable to exempt water from NAFTA but
failing that, Bill C-15 will have to do as second best. The
Canadian Alliance is not asking the government to back out of
NAFTA as has been proposed by my colleague from the NDP, but we
wish the government had kept its promise for a side agreement.
Water is likely to become one of the hottest commodities in the
21st century. Because the government did a poor job of managing
this resource, we will have to pay the price one day. Canadians
should realize that we are no longer sovereign over our water.
Neither will our future generations be if something is not done
to change this reality.
Bill C-15 or not, the bottom line is that Canada's water
resources are vulnerable to export. While I am a strong
supporter of free trade, I believe it should not come at the
expense of our sovereignty over water. Decisions about bulk
water export should rest in the hands of Canadians only, not with
Americans, NAFTA or WTO.
Perhaps one day Canada will decide to export water if it is
proven environmentally sound. If that ever happens, and I
strongly stress if, the tap should belong to Canadians only.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
first of all I would like to extend my thanks to my colleagues in
the Bloc for making it possible for me to speak on this bill.
Members will know that I do have a longstanding interest in this
issue.
1050
On February 9, 1999 I was the mover of an NDP supply day motion
which called for a national ban on the bulk export of water from
Canada. At that time that motion received the unanimous support
of the House. It is in that context I would like to speak to
Bill C-15 today.
Bill C-15 is not, as the Liberals are trying to suggest, a
national ban on bulk water exports. It is not a piece of
legislation one would have expected if they were actually trying
to live up not just to their promises, but to the commitment they
made to parliament that day when they supported the NDP motion.
This is a bill which aims to prohibit bulk water removals from
boundary water basins only. This is a retreat from banning bulk
water exports and this retreat is clearly, although the
government will not say so, because of the North American Free
Trade Agreement. The very language of removal tells the story.
The Liberals refuse to use the word export because if they talked
about water exports as opposed to water removal, then they would
have a test case with respect to NAFTA because NAFTA deals with
exports.
If the Liberals were as confident as they say they are that
water is exempt in NAFTA, then why would they be afraid to use
the language of exports? They themselves say they want to deal
with the water question in the context of an environmental issue
because otherwise, if they dealt with it in any other context, if
they dealt with it as an export, this would, and I will use the
government's language here, trigger its international trade
obligations. International trade obligations is code for NAFTA.
The fact is that the Liberals are unwilling to admit that NAFTA
is as inadequate as it truly is when it comes to water. If the
Liberals did admit that, they would have to explain to Canadians
why they are not actively seeking to either get out of that
agreement or to change it, if in fact it leaves our ability to
determine whether or not we want to export water completely
subordinate to the agreement.
It is doubtful that even Bill C-15 is NAFTA proof. International
trade tribunals have been more than willing to overturn
environmental laws as disguised trade barriers. We have
seen that happen. This is what has happened before to some of
Canada's key fisheries conservation measures. The bill is
therefore vulnerable to trade challenges even if the government
claims it is taking an environmental rather than a trade
approach. What is really being protected here is not so much our
water but a certain part of the government's anatomy when it
comes to its position on NAFTA.
Even on the more modest goal of prohibiting bulk water removals,
Bill C-15 fails. It does not really ban bulk water removals or
exports from watersheds, it only says it cannot be done without
a licence. Bill C-15 is actually more of a licensing scheme for
bulk water removal than a prohibition and it applies only to
waters covered by the International Joint Commission.
The bill allows for huge exceptions to be provided for in the
regulations. The government says these regulations will not
deviate much from current practice. Indeed, but current practice
allows for industrial withdrawals within a basin and many of
these basins straddle the border.
The power to give out licences for bulk water removal is given
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, not to the Minister of the
Environment. Again we see that water is ultimately a matter of
relationships, fundamentally between Canada and the United States.
If we think that is not covered by NAFTA, we have another think
coming. The very fact that this power is given to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs and not to the Minister of the Environment
gives that away.
At a time when the activities of the Department of Foreign
Affairs are being increasingly dominated by commercial concerns,
one is not left feeling confident that environmental concerns
will govern the licensing scheme.
1055
Ultimately therefore, there is nothing really new in Bill C-15.
It just formalizes in legislation what the International Boundary
Waters Treaty already says and what the federal practice in these
matters has been for more than 90 years.
The fact that the bill will die on the order paper means that
yet another key part of the federal government's strategy on
water is in tatters. Not only do we now lack protection for our
water, we do not even have a serious plan to get one.
The government devised a hasty three-pronged strategy the day
after the NDP motion was passed in the House. One of the prongs
called for a national ban on bulk water exports. That never
happened. One prong dissolved when the federal government's
proposed voluntary federal-provincial water accord collapsed.
Now another prong, Bill C-15, will dissolve when it dies on the
order paper. Perhaps that is as it should be because this never
was a response to the motion that was passed in the House on
February 9, 1999. This is a case of the Liberals continuing to
deceive Canadians with respect to the reality of NAFTA.
One has to wonder though, in all these years with respect to water
and NAFTA, were the Liberals deceiving themselves or deceiving
Canadians? I think the cat is now out of the bag; they were
deceiving Canadians and Bill C-15 is part of that deception. It
is another broken Liberal promise. It is another example of
federal inaction in terms of dealing with this issue. I regret
very much that we are on the eve of an election and we do not
have a chance to pursue this matter further.
If the government had been serious about keeping some of its
promises not just with respect to banning water exports, but also
with respect to health care, pharmacare, home care and you name
it, we would not be here, Mr. Speaker, with you wanting to rise
to cut me off. We would have a lot of time and a government
program before us that actually kept the government's promises.
Instead we have the pathetic emptiness that we see before us,
broken promises and an election that should not be happening.
We should be having the government fulfil its promises on water
as well as on many other things.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
URBAN LAUGHLAN
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take
this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of my fellow
islander, Urban Laughlan, to Canada's farm community over the
past 40 years. If anyone can truly say they have contributed the
better part of their lives to the cause of farmers and their
community, then Urban certainly can.
Beginning as founding president of the Sherbrooke 4-H Club,
continuing as president of the P.E.I. Junior Farmers Federation,
and chartering NFU Local 102 in 1969, Mr. Laughlan fought
strenuously for farm rights, rights based on sound principles.
His dedication and activism grew and were fostered in others
during his 21 years as district director of District 1 NFU.
Urban played a strong role at the national level as well, as a
national director, as policy chair and as the strongest of
advocates for the family farm.
Urban and his wife Mary are to be congratulated for their life's
work on behalf of the farm community.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY POLICIES
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Liberals opposite will soon discover that their worst
nightmare is about to come true. Canadians will not be fooled by
the Prime Minister's last minute attempts to buy votes.
When the Canadian Alliance called for tax cuts, the finance
minister laughed. When it became evident that Canadians wanted a
tax break, the government said “We can't afford it”.
Now on the eve of an election, the Liberals have taken their
hands out of the taxpayers' pockets long enough to open the
goodie bag. Do they really think Canadians will forget the
deficit was eliminated through excessively high taxes? Do they
really think Canadians will believe that the Liberals will
actually deliver on any of these promises?
After all, it was the Liberals who promised to eliminate the
GST. It was the very same Liberals who promised open and
accountable government and then boycotted a committee.
Canadians will remember these and all the other broken Liberal
promises. When the Liberals pass out red book three on
Halloween, Canadians will recognize that there are no treats,
just more Liberal tricks.
* * *
ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian government will have to pay $40 million to decommission
one plutonium contaminated building at the Chalk River nuclear
facility.
How much will it cost to decommission other nuclear facilities
operated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited? Future
decommissioning costs could be very high and AECL expects the
federal government to cover the costs as they arise.
1100
Therefore, the auditor general has expressed concern about
AECL's poor accounting practices. He estimated the total
decommissioning bill for the federal government to amount to $850
million. An amount of this magnitude calls into question the
credibility of this crown corporation.
One appreciates the Minister of Natural Resources' difficulties
in intervening, yet ways must be found to make AECL adopt, as a
minimum, sound accounting principles, and I ask the minister to
urge AECL to comply with the auditor general's recommendations.
* * *
UNSAFE DRIVING
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every year in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore and
across Canada the health and safety of hundreds of Canadians is
being compromised due to unsafe, impatient driving on our
streets.
Unsafe driving hurts us all through death, injuries and
tragedies and costs for health care, property damage and law
enforcement. Hundreds of Canadians lose their lives either
through drunk driving or by being hit while crossing streets in
their communities. The problem is becoming more acute as more
and more motorists are driving with the added distraction of cell
phones.
Many seniors live in Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Mr. William Lea
spoke for all of them when he argued that they need to feel safe
when they are crossing the streets.
In the name of all pedestrians, especially slow moving seniors,
I call upon all motorists to exercise due care, especially at
pedestrian crossings and stop signs.
* * *
EQUAL RIGHTS
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
has been an historic week for women's rights, from the women's
march against poverty and violence to the commemoration on
Parliament Hill of the Persons case and the Famous Five, the
whole inspired by notions of equality and justice for all.
The lessons globally and domestically are clear that women's
rights must be a priority on our public agenda as a matter of
principle and policy, that women's rights are human rights and
that there are no rights if they do not include the rights of
women. As Nellie McClung and the Famous Five put it, “no nation
can rise above its women. The degradation of any woman is a
degradation of us all”.
The struggle for human rights, for
women's rights, for equality, is the struggle for ourselves.
In what we say and, more importantly, in what we do in this case
and the cause for equality in general and women's rights in
particular, we will be making a statement about ourselves as a
people. We will be making a statement about ourselves.
* * *
ECONOMIC POLICY
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is very smug
about his mini-budget election platform. As always, he is trying
to be all things to all people. However, for the seventh
straight year he has knowingly discriminated against the people
of Mackenzie, British Columbia.
When the northern residents' deduction was changed in 1993, the
district of Mackenzie was unfairly excluded. Mackenzie is a
small, remote community more than 100 kilometres from a major
urban centre. Much larger communities in the region, such as the
cities of Grande Prairie, Fort St. John and Dawson Creek,
qualified for the deduction and deservedly so, but why the
continued discrimination?
Over the past seven years I have repeatedly asked the finance
minister to correct this. Each time he has studied the issue and
then refused. I guess if the Prime Minister's office believed
the change would increase his election chances, then it would
have been announced last week.
How sad that this Liberal government only believes in buying
votes rather than doing what is right.
* * *
ECONOMIC POLICY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Wednesday was one of those days in political life when the truth
could not be hidden any more, and the truth is, there is very
little difference between the Canadian Alliance and the Liberals.
Despite what the leaders of the parties would have us believe,
we are in a situation where, as it used to be with the Liberals
and the Conservatives, we have two elitist parties catering to
the same well-heeled corporate crowd while trying to trick their
supporters and the Canadian public into believing something else.
When the Liberals bring in an Alliance budget, and when the
Alliance holds a $25,000 a table dinner in Toronto, both left
wing Liberals and the right wing populace that is the backbone of
the Reform Party must know that they have been sold out by their
leaders.
Canadians, many of whom earn less in a year than it takes to buy
a table for one night at such fundraisers, and who do not want to
be sold out by either of these two corporate henchmen, know they
have a true friend in the NDP.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada in an historic agreement last
month pledged to add $21.1 billion to the Canada health and
social transfer to ensure the quality of health care for all
Canadians.
1105
The government also pledged $2.2 billion to help promote healthy
pregnancy and infancy through prenatal nutrition,
preschool, child care and family support programs.
The government further pledged that it would help students and
decrease taxes for businesses and for all Canadians.
The economic statement and budget update announced two days ago
delivers on this collective pledge, adding $1 billion into the
hands of students and delivering the largest tax cuts in Canadian
history, $100 billion.
In 1993 Canadians entrusted to the government their hopes to
save the country and citizenry from national bankruptcy and
despairing social conditions.
Together we confronted this national challenge. Now we harvest
the faith of our trust and the fruits of our labour. The
economic statement and budget update fulfils our collective
Canadian dream.
* * *
[Translation]
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what a sad end to
this mandate. The cat is out of the bag at last and the reports
by the information commissioner and the auditor general have
brought in their verdicts: the economy is fine, the government
is not.
Throughout its mandate, this government has systematically
blocked information, held back documents and refused to
co-operate with the information commissioner.
The commissioner has just released over his signature a damning
report making unprecedented charges against the Prime Minister,
his office, and a number of departments.
As for the auditor general, he has roundly criticized the sloppy
management of public funds by Human Resources Development
Canada and the fact that there are a number of files under
police investigation.
What a sad end to a mandate: a government that is under the
burden of criminal investigations, and a Prime Minister who has
no fewer than four of these going on in his own riding. This
is unheard of.
On the eve of an election campaign, I say to the government “We
can hardly wait to get out on the hustings to start talking
about Liberal values”.
* * *
MEMBER FOR CHARLESWOOD ST. JAMES—ASSINIBOIA
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
inform this House that the Government of Canada has approved the
awarding by the Government of Iceland of a distinction of
honour, the Order of the Falcon, to the hon. member for
Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia.
This is an award in recognition of the hon. member's activities
involving his fellow Manitobans of Icelandic origin.
The hon. member has been involved for some years in bolstering
cultural and trade links between Iceland and Canada.
We congratulate the hon. member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia on this well deserved honour.
* * *
[English]
MEMBER FOR CYPRESS HILLS—GRASSLANDS
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this will probably be my last day in
the House.
I will not regret leaving what has become, under Liberal
management, a totally dysfunctional institution. I will not miss
the thrill of making well researched speeches in a virtually
empty room. I will not miss working long hours on irrelevant
ministerially guided committees. I will not miss the posturing.
I will not miss the emasculated government members howling
because they do not understand the difference between intelligent
heckling and boorish noise.
Perhaps it is their subconscious recognition of their own
political impotence that drives them to act like hyperactive
children. I do not know what I will be doing for the next few
years, but whatever it is I expect that I will be dealing with
grown-ups. I am sure that it will be more useful than this past
seven years that I have spent in this rubber stamp parliament.
I shall not look back.
* * *
PERSONS DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 18 the inauguration of the Women are Persons
monument was an unique opportunity to stage a nationally
significant event to commemorate the important contribution of
the Famous Five and Canadian women as nation builders.
More than 71 years ago, groups had repeatedly requested that a
woman be appointed to the Senate, naming Judge Emily Murphy as
their candidate. Three consecutive prime ministers were advised
not to appoint her on the basis that women were not persons
within the meaning of the British North America Act.
Judge Murphy invited four Alberta leaders, Henrietta Muir
Edwards, Louise McKinney, Nellie McClung and Irene Parlby, to
join her and petition the supreme court for clarification of
section 24. The Persons case of 1929 was a celebrated and
landmark victory in the struggle for equality of Canadian women.
Today, to mark this historic date on behalf of the Secretary of
State for the Status of Women, I am pleased to declare October 18
Persons Day.
* * *
1110
[Translation]
ECONOMIC POLICY
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday at 3.30 p.m., the House passed a ways and means
motion. Once again, arrogance and disdain were the order of the
day, because this motion served simply to implement the tax cuts
announced in the minister's economic statement, including the
child tax benefit and the heating allowance.
The statement of the Minister of Finance, duly amended by the
Alliance and subamended by the Bloc, never made it to a vote and
was therefore not passed.
All of the other measures contained in this statement will be
null and void with the dissolution of parliament.
In two words, this government has used parliament to mislead the
public. It has used this House to launch its election platform.
Respect for the House is the hallmark of the quality of
democracy. At the end of this mandate, the government must
recognize that this quality is lacking.
With Halloween 10 days away, the Minister of Finance has turned
into a pumpkin full of saccharine candies. The winds of autumn
are at our door, and the public will not be fooled by the
Liberal deception—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
* * *
[English]
BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians
that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Breast cancer is
a major health problem for women in Canada. It is estimated that
19,200 new breast cancer cases will be diagnosed this year and
that 5,500 women will die from this disease.
The federal government is concerned about the physical and
emotional burdens of this disease for Canadians. In 1992 the
Government of Canada launched a five-year $25 million initiative
to combat breast cancer. In June 1998 the federal government
renewed its commitment to the Canadian breast cancer initiative
with the announcement of stable, ongoing funding of $7 million
per year.
Through federal leadership and with the help of a committed
network of partners across the country, we are working to reduce
the incidence and mortality of breast cancer and to improve the
support and quality of life for these women who are affected by
breast cancer.
* * *
PICTOU-ANTIGONISH REGIONAL LIBRARY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today and
congratulate the Pictou-Antigonish Regional Library for recently
being selected to be part of LibraryNet Best Practices 2000,
recognizing innovative use of the Internet in Canadian public
libraries. This is a much deserved honour for many of the people
who work so diligently to keep this library strong.
Libraries are playing a key role in connecting communities
across Canada and around the world. The information age is upon
us and the importance of being connected has never been greater.
Providing public Internet access in libraries ensures that all
Canadians have access to the knowledge based economy and it will
result in economic and social development.
Libraries are using websites to deliver services electronically,
build community partnerships, support local economic initiatives
and, of course, encourage literacy and education.
The Pictou-Antigonish Regional Library is being showcased as one
of the very best in the world for using and integrating
technology efficiently and making Canada the most connected
nation in the world.
Congratulations to chief librarian Eric Stackhouse and to Fred
Popowich of New Glasgow. Their exemplary practices and
commitment serve as models for other libraries across Canada and
around the world.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as it is
becoming increasingly obvious that an election will be called
soon, I would like to take these few minutes to ask my
colleagues, and everyone carrying the colours of any political
party whatever, to be models of civility and courtesy in the
days to come.
Personal attacks and insults produce nothing. When ideas
collide, understanding ensues.
[English]
Over recent months we have witnessed the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs being targeted. In more
recent days, the Leader of the Opposition has been the subject of
unsavoury behaviour. This is uncalled for and unwelcome, and in
the end I believe it weakens our democratic traditions.
[Translation]
Let us try together, in the coming days, to behave in a manner
worthy of this great House, this Parliament of Canada.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the top 10 planks
of this Liberal government's legacy. They are: $25 billion
ripped out of health care; EI surpluses scooped and put into
general revenues, and God knows where they went; the civil
servant pension surplus savaged; HRDC grants and giveaways, with
half of 1% of files investigated leading to 11 criminal
investigations; complete disregard for all hep-C victims; the
APEC inquiry and the Somali inquiry stonewalled and interfered
with constantly; Bill C-68, the firearms registry, with a cost of
half a billion dollars so far, which would be better spent on
real policing and real public safety;
promised reform of the Young Offenders Act dies again; criminal
justice that holds criminal rights above victims rights; and
priorities in law making that put the safety of poodles ahead of
the safety of our children from pedophiles. Any of these top 10
would make a fitting epitaph for the Liberal government come
election day.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
1115
[Translation]
The Speaker: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the
House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall
Ottawa
October 20, 2000
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Louise
Arbour, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her
capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate
Chamber today, the 20th day of October, 2000, at 12.30 p.m., for
the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Barbara Uteck
Secretary to the Governor General
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP continues investigations
into government dealings in the Prime Minister's riding.
We have the auditor general, with the most scathing report in a
decade at least, being shut down by the Liberals from giving that
report.
We have the information commissioner saying that the government
routinely appears to be threatening public servants, and the
Prime Minister says “We will see you in court”.
Now we have the former clerk of the privy council saying that
there is a huge concentration of power in the Prime Minister's
Office, away from cabinet and away from the democratic process.
Democracy itself is being threatened by all these moves. I
would like to hear from the Prime Minister. Are all these
responsible individuals wrong in what they are saying and if they
are not wrong, will the Prime Minister—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we get good advice, as we have from the auditor
general or the information commissioner, we look at it seriously
and we act on recommendations.
The auditor general made very clear that we are acting
effectively to deal with the kinds of problems that we first
uncovered and that he has confirmed. We are taking these
recommendations seriously. We are acting in the best interest of
Canadians and in due course I am sure Canadians will agree with
us.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the question was not answered, but
that is fairly characteristic. I will pose it again.
These individuals are saying that democracy itself is being
threatened. The former clerk of the privy council is a very
responsible individual. The information commissioner is a very
responsible individual. They are alluding to the fact that
democracy itself is being threatened by the Prime Minister and
his office.
We would just like to know if these responsible public servants
are wrong. I am not talking about the auditor general right now.
We will talk about him in a minute. Are they wrong? If they are
not wrong, will the Prime Minister apologize for being a threat
to democracy?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, proof of the fact that we have a democracy is that
people can express their opinions, which do not have to be shared
by everyone in question.
I am not passing judgment on the opinions of the people he has
quoted, but proof that democracy works in Canada is that we are
here today in the House of Commons exchanging ideas, debating
ideas.
Proof of the strength of our democracy will come before too long
when Canadians will make their decision on who should govern the
country. That is democracy, not the empty words of the Leader of
the Opposition.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we cannot get an apology for those
other officers. How about for the auditor general?
Yesterday there was supposed to have been a report given, the
most important one in a decade, by the auditor general. We have
just heard that there is some kind of respect for democracy here.
Yet Liberal members did not go to that committee meeting so there
was no quorum. The committee had to shut down. The auditor
general could not give his report. The Liberals said they could
not find the room.
1120
Is the Prime Minister sticking to the excuse that they could not
find the room when all the opposition members could make it? Or,
is it that he just cannot find the time for democracy? Is he
sticking with—
The Speaker: Before the Deputy Prime Minister answers,
the government is not responsible for the work of committees. If
the Deputy Prime Minister wishes to answer he may.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member forgets that we undertook and carried
out the undertaking to make sure the House was sitting to receive
the auditor general's report and to make it public. We made sure
the House continued sitting so that the Leader of the Opposition
and the other opposition party leaders could question relevant
ministers, starting with the Prime Minister.
This shows our commitment to taking the auditor general's report
seriously. This shows our commitment to openness. We are not
trying to suppress any report. The record shows that the Leader
of the Opposition is totally wrong in making that allegation. He
should not refuse to put on the record that there will be a
meeting of the public accounts committee to hear the auditor
general.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a very important question and
it was not answered.
Liberal members said they could not find the room. That is the
issue. As with so much of what the Liberal government does, only
in the face of public outrage did it inch toward doing something
responsibly, only in the face of public outrage time after time.
Is the Liberal excuse standing? They could not find the room.
That is what we heard last night. Yes or no. Is that the excuse
you are sticking with, or was there another reason for which you
should apologize for disrespecting the auditor general?
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members to direct their
questions to the Chair.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone who should
apologize right now, it is the hon. member for making these
allegations when he knows that the facts are otherwise, when he
knows that his own deputy House leader was told by myself
yesterday when his staff was phoned by myself to schedule a
meeting today, which we have now done.
An apology is in order and it is from the feeble attempt of the
Leader of the Opposition to try to make Canadians believe
something which he knows is incorrect.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, maybe Liberal members should have
showed up yesterday instead of calling for another meeting today.
The 1993 Liberal red book of promises said:
If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must,
honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be
restored.
Yet this week, seven years later, the auditor general said:
Our audit examined four of the grant and contribution programs by
HRDC. We found breaches of authority, payments made improperly,
very limited monitoring of finances and activities, and approvals
not based on established processes.
Given the government's dismal failure to restore public
confidence, why should Canadians trust it with their votes?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should be, shall I say, complete in his
language, because the auditor general said:
HRDC has initiated quite extraordinary corrective action to
address these serious problems. We concluded that the department
is on the right track.
Why does the hon. member not put that in his question and give
us credit in the same way that the auditor general has done?
* * *
[Translation]
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this week was the darkest and most shameful one for
this government.
The government demonstrated its arrogance and its contempt. Not
only did it muzzle the information commissioner, it also tried
the same trick on the auditor general by not showing up at the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
The government was so arrogant as to present a virtual
mini-budget, with many measures that will not be implemented
because of the dissolution of parliament.
Does the government really believe that all its schemes will
allow it to escape the true judgment of voters?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member surely knows that
the facts are different.
With regard to the measures included in the budget, yesterday we
adopted a ways and means motion with the support of two parties
in this House. The hon. member is well aware of that. In fact,
yesterday, all the parties except hers understood what this ways
and means motion meant. All the other members of parliament
understood that.
As for the auditor general's report, there will be a televised
meeting today, at 12.30 p.m., to show that the government acted
in good faith and was accountable in this issue.
1125
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the actions taken this week by the government have
nothing to do with the values that it claims to be upholding,
but they have everything to do with the political agenda of the
Prime Minister, who did not hesitate to use the House to launch
his election platform and who, according to TVA, even paid
$2 million to cancel the rooms reserved for the trip to China.
Does the government realize that by giving priority to its own
agenda, it is showing its contempt for public institutions,
which must first serve the public, not a political party?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is rather strange.
On opposition days, the hon. member opposite promotes the ideas
of her party. When the government presents its agenda, it
obviously promotes its ideas, as it did in the excellent
economic statement presented by my colleague a few days ago and
adopted in this House yesterday, which has been very well
received by the overwhelming majority of Canadians.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
no one is going to be taken in, neither the general public nor
the members of this House.
This is the second time, on the eve of a general election, that
the Liberal government is trying to muzzle the auditor general.
The government has gone so far as to dare to try to convince us
that its MPs could not find the meeting room. This just shows
the arrogance and disdain of this government.
Does the Prime Minister think that his attempts to muzzle the
auditor general are really going to prevent the truth about the
Liberal government's administrative scandals from breaking out
into the light of day?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no muzzling going on.
First of all, this government is the one that made the change to
having the auditor general report to this House, not once a year
as in the past, but four times a year. That was an initiative
of this government.
Second, the committee in question is meeting today. This is its
second meeting this week to discuss the auditor general's
report.
This government is totally transparent, totally accountable to
the Canadian public.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we are glad the committee is meeting today, but it took the
intervention of the Bloc Quebecois and all the opposition
parties to get the government to act.
Does the Prime Minister seriously believe that his crisis
management techniques, which are nothing more than damage
control, will prevent him from having to answer for all the
scandals and criminal investigations he has hanging over him?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the matter of the auditor
general's report is being discussed in a committee room a little
later today, the hon. member knows very well that this is not
because of intervention by the Bloc Quebecois. I myself
proposed this initiative—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Don Boudria: —to all party leaders, last night and this
morning.
Moreover, I thank them, as I have informally already, for
accepting my suggestion.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government was elected because it promised to get tough on
pollution. It promised to clean up our environment. It did not
promise to sit on the sidelines while 20 million tonnes of
Toronto garbage pollute the water in Ontario and Quebec,
threaten the water that first nations and a great many other
communities depend upon.
Why is the government so stubbornly and persistently refusing to
launch a full federal environmental assessment into the Adams
mine madness?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the situation with respect to the Adams mine is
this. The province of Ontario has carried out an assessment. It
has come to a certain conclusion, which is that it is
environmentally safe to carry out the use of the mine site for
Toronto garbage.
On the other hand there are two aspects of federal jurisdiction.
One is the transboundary aspect with Quebec, between Ontario and
Quebec. The other is the transboundary aspect between the
Ontario jurisdiction and the federal Indian reserve in the area.
As I have said in the House time after time, and the hon. member
knows it, that question has been put to the environmental
assessment authority. When it comes up with scientific
conclusions I will make a decision on whether to proceed with a
fully inquiry.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 80
billion litres of water are at stake. The health of people in
thousands of communities is at stake.
The government did not campaign on dumping 20 million tonnes of
Toronto garbage into a lake and it did not campaign to let Mike
Harris do whatever he darned well pleases with our environment.
1130
Canadians expect the federal government to protect our water, so
that when people turn on their taps they know that their kids are
safe to brush their teeth.
Canadians do not want another Walkerton. Why is the government
refusing to put an end to the Adams mine mess?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the tirade of the hon. leader of the New
Democratic Party there is one element that is totally absent, and
that is the fact of the Canadian constitution. The federal
government does not have the power to walk into every problem in
the country simply because the problem exists, whether it is at
the municipal level or the provincial level.
Why is it that she thinks that simply because there is a problem
the federal government should take over? There is a problem with
illiteracy. That does not mean that this government should set
up educational programs for every child in the country.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Toronto airport authority was granted a $185 million rent
reduction just after it signed its lease agreement. The auditor
general said “The department could not provide us with the
rationale”.
I have two questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. First, why
was the rent reduced by a whopping $185 million? Second, was any
minister directly or indirectly advised of or involved in
discussions that led to that decision?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, I am obviously
not in a position to express personal knowledge of the subject
matter. However, because of the interest of the leader of the
Conservative Party, I will undertake to find a detailed response
for him and provide that to him, if possible, later this day.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
that raises a very interesting issue about how this parliament is
able to function and get at facts that need to be known and
conduct public business that needs to be carried out.
There was obviously a range of questions raised by the auditor
general. The government has agreed to a special meeting at 12.30
p.m. today. That obviously will not allow the House to pursue
the questions that arise from the report.
Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister, will the government agree
right now to a second meeting of the public accounts committee on
Monday to allow the House of Commons to have a full examination
of the—
The Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can assist the right
hon. member in answering the question about the Toronto airport
authority.
The airport was treated in a comparable manner to other
airports. However, in the case of Pearson airport, the financial
projections could not be updated immediately prior to the
transfer because of ongoing legal actions involving terminal 2,
and three major projects had to be completed by Transport Canada
prior to the transfer. That required a one time financial
adjustment to the lease to take into account the three unfinished
projects to which I have just referred.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government House leader can huff and puff, but
everybody knows that the reason a second meeting with the auditor
general is being scheduled today is that the Liberals got
caught trying to sneak away from their scandalous record.
They snub the auditor general—
The Speaker: Order, please. We are going a little bit
far here in our language. We are not to impugn motives in any of
our questions or in our answers. I will ask the hon. member to
please to go his question.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, given the track record of
arrogance, incompetence and mismanagement on behalf of this
government—
The Speaker: Order, please. Put the question right now,
please.
1135
Mr. Grant McNally: The question, Mr. Speaker, is, how can
Canadians possibly trust the government to govern the country?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question could be put to the Alliance, after we have
the facts now about the $440 million Alberta Conservative
government boondoggle involving the Swan Hills plant at a time
when the Leader of the Opposition was part of that government.
How can anybody trust the Leader of the Opposition and the
Alliance Party when they seek the mandate of Canadians?
Canadians will know that it is this government and this party
that deserve their confidence, not the Alliance or any of the
other opposition parties.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians will not be fooled by another diversionary
tactic by the Deputy Prime Minister.
The truth of the matter is the Liberal record. Their record is
one of arrogance and mismanagement, obviously things that do not
stand well with Canadians. I am wondering how they can possibly
ask Canadians to put their trust in them when they have not
earned it here in this place.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject completely the totally unfounded premise of the
hon. member's question.
When it is a matter of trust, I suggest that whenever Canadians
are asked to make their judgment at the ballot box they will
agree that this government has earned the trust of Canadians, not
only on its good record but its forward looking plan to bring
Canadians successfully into the 21st century and not move them
backward in a mean-spirited way as the Alliance would do in the
unlikely event it was given the chance.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC POLICY
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
Wednesday's economic statement, the Minister of Finance chose
clearly to favour the well off over the middle classes and the
disadvantaged.
He admitted in this morning's Citizen that dollar for dollar,
his economic statement gave more money back to wealthy
taxpayers.
Does the Minister of Finance think that the people will not
understand the move intended first to lower the taxes of the
rich, when the middle class and the poor are the source of the
incredible surpluses they are swimming in?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not true.
In our projection, the vast majority of our tax cuts are for low
and middle income Canadians. This is exactly what we did in our
budget. We concentrated tax cuts for Canadians who need them
most.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
Wednesday we have been criticizing the election goodies and
electoral cynicism of the Minister of Finance.
We realize today that when the House dissolves on Sunday many
of these goodies, including the funds for the environment, will
vanish.
Does the Minister of the Environment realize that the public
will not look kindly at all on this manipulation of
parliamentary institutions?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think the hon. member has understood that in
the budget for 2000 we set aside some $640 million in new
dollars for the environment, especially for the greenhouse
gases. In addition, we added $500 million to that in the speech
the Minister of Finance gave a few days ago.
The figure has increased by $1.2 billion in the past eight
months, something the hon. Bloc Quebecois member should be proud
of.
* * *
[English]
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
occasionally rooms for committees get changed. When that happens
members of parliament make a quick phone call to the clerk's
office to find out where the committee is. In this particular
instance, we have not one, not two, but eight Liberal members all
of whom, coincidentally, failed to phone the clerk's office to
find out where this meeting was being held.
How can the government ask Canadians to believe its explanation
that it could not find the room?
1140
The Speaker: I am having a hard time making a connection
here with the responsibility of the government. I would judge
the question to be out of order. If the government House leader
wishes to respond he may.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will gladly respond. As I
indicated, this was not intentional on the part of the
government. I will not hide behind the fact that this question
is probably as close to being out of order as anything that has
ever been said in the House.
Notwithstanding that, yesterday, immediately upon discovering
this, the chief government whip rose in the House of Commons
moments later to indicate his disapproval of what happened. We
immediately commenced corrective actions. Consultations were
held with all political parties in the House. Their help was
appreciated. It was done and of course the debate will take
place this afternoon in a committee room.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to please go to the
administrative responsibility of the government in his question.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I will put it this way then. Clearly the work of the
committees is a very important role of members of parliament, and
members of parliament on this side of the House were prevented
yesterday, when they were prepared to do so, from dealing with this
issue.
In view of the fact that exactly the same thing happened in
1997, a week before the election, the probabilities, to me as an
amateur mathematician, just seem outrageous. I would like
to know from the government why it would deliberately boycott a
committee meeting like this.
The Speaker: I rule the question out of order, but if the
hon. government House leader wants to answer it, he may do so.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again this impugning of motives
I do not think is helpful. I can state here that many committee
meetings are held without Alliance MPs ever showing up, and that
happens all the time.
The Speaker: Order, please. You are out of order on both
sides.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL HOUSING
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
Liberals came to power, social housing needs have almost doubled
for the most disadvantaged.
On Wednesday, billions of dollars in electoral goodies were
distributed to the wealthy, but there was nothing for the
families most affected by poverty.
How does the Prime Minister have the nerve to talk about values
and compassion when he has simply abandoned the poorest families
in our society?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not true. For
example, the child tax benefit was increased by $4 billion a
year. The tax rate has dropped to 16%. Taxes over the next
five years for families with children will drop by 27%, and the
heating oil tax credit for tenants and landlords has been set at
$1.3 billion. These are measures for low and middle income
families.
* * *
SEASONAL WORKERS
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
while the rich are well looked after by the government, seasonal
workers will have to make do with a few temporary crumbs for one
year only, and will have to get through the winter on nothing
after using up their paltry 21 weeks of benefits.
How can the Minister of Finance justify ongoing and generous tax
breaks for the rich while seasonal workers must make do with
crumbs, and temporary ones at that?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the
member mention seasonal workers because the Bloc Quebecois has
finally discovered them.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Don Boudria: Approximately one and a half hours ago in the
House, the Bloc Quebecois, through their deputy House leader,
refused consent for passage of Bill C-44.
* * *
1145
[English]
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister's officials are
stonewalling investigators from the Office of the Information
Commissioner. When the investigator examined the department's
firearm registry project finance files there were no financial
spreadsheets or budget projections for this fiscal year. This is
highly unusual, if not illegal.
Does the minister really want parliament and the voters to
believe they are running a $300 million program without any
budget? Why have the true costs of the gun registry been hidden
from Canadians, or is the Liberal government just plain out of
control?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what we know on behalf of the Minister of Justice about
the point of view of members of that party is not that they are
seeking numbers, but that they oppose fundamentally the
protection of Canadians through a comprehensive system of
registration of firearms. That has been their point all along.
We on this side are prepared to go to the people saying we
support gun control, effective gun control. It is important for
Canadians. It is important for the safety of people in the
country. We are for it. They are against it.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we will support effective gun control
as well, but let me ask this question. In Yves Lavigne's book,
Hell's Angels at War, he says this about the Liberal gun
registration scheme:
Police and politicians knew Bill C-68 was just a ploy to strip
guns from law-abiding citizens with a grossly overbudgeted
financial sinkhole of a bureaucracy...This is why the law was
never mentioned during talks about a biker war—
Why has the justice minister wasted more than half a billion
dollars on her useless gun registry, instead of helping the
police and the provinces in their fight against organized crime?
How many more hundreds of millions will she waste before she does
the right thing and repeal Bill C-68?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows that already more than 1.3 million
individuals have complied with the licensing requirement. We know
that since the beginning of December 1998 over 10,000 potentially
dangerous gun sales were sent for further investigation, that
almost a thousand licence applications have been refused, and
that over 1,200 licences have been revoked.
We know that this gun control law will bring about a safer
society. We know they are against it. What price do they put on
the lives of Canadians who are threatened by illegal guns?
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the past
18 months, Cargill Limited, of Baie-Comeau, has been plagued by a
labour dispute that hurts the region's economy and makes it very
hard for the workers who have been locked out since March 28.
Will the Minister of Labour pledge to take all necessary actions
to settle that dispute quickly and to everyone's satisfaction,
and to put a stop to unfair practices such as the hiring of
subcontractors for the mooring and sailing of ships, which
violates section 87(7) of part I of the Canada Labour Code?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am told that the parties will
resume collective bargaining on October 24, 2000.
An officer of the federal mediation and conciliation service is
currently in contact with the parties and is available to help
them in their negotiations.
As for the interpretation of the provisions of the Canada Labour
Code, to which the hon. member alluded, including section 87(7),
it is the responsibility of the Canada Industrial Relations
Board.
* * *
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. There is some concern
in rural Canada that provisions in Bill C-17 relating to cruelty
to animals will allow for prosecution for such normal activities
as farming and hunting.
Will the minister please clarify the actual intent of the
measures in Bill C-17?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have always wanted to act as Minister of Justice. Let
me say that Bill C-17 is good, solid law reform. It is an
attempt to recognize cruelty to animals as a form of violence and
to encourage the justice system to treat it seriously.
However, some have misunderstood the intent of Bill C-17. These
amendments make no changes to the way the law applies to
currently lawful activities involving animals. In fact, to make
that clear, the Minister of Justice would support changes to the
bill that clarify the law and provide assurances that humane
practices will not be affected.
* * *
1150
MINISTER OF INDUSTRY
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the new Minister of
Industry, but since he is not a member of the House of Commons,
can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what kind of signal
the Prime Minister is sending to Canadian businesses and workers
by appointing an industry minister who, as premier of
Newfoundland, managed to scuttle a billion dollar mining project
and 1,300 jobs at Voisey's Bay in his own province?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the new Minister of Industry when he was premier of
Newfoundland led his province to record growth and record
prosperity. I understand that of all the provinces, Newfoundland
under his leadership has the best growth record in the country.
I am sure he will work with the rest of his colleagues to ensure
that type of record of growth and achievement continues to be the
case for all Canadians, both in terms of investment and in terms
of low unemployment, high employment, high investment and
prosperity for Canadians in every part of our country, working
together as part of the Liberal team.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is some record.
We know of Mr. Tobin's vast political record and experience, but
what I am questioning is his economic record and experience.
After all, his last provincial budget in Newfoundland finished
$35 million in the red.
The Prime Minister has demonstrated an extreme arrogance by
appointing this non-elected friend to a key economic post. Why
does the Prime Minister not admit that this appointment is just
to enable Captain Canada to become the new prince of pork in the
House?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the province of Alberta, when the Leader of the
Opposition was part of that government, lost $441 billion on only
one company. I think the Alliance ought to have some modesty in
trying to raise these kinds of questions without sound premises.
By the way, so far the official opposition members have given
the government a vote of confidence on its economic record and
its economic policies, because they have not asked one question
about the provisions of the economic update of the Minister of
Finance. That economic update brings in lower taxes for lower
and middle income Canadians, pays down the debt, and also adds to
our programs to help Canadians have better lives.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC POLICY
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
The Liberals were not elected to give $500,000 to the president
of the Royal Bank. They were elected to ensure a just society
for each and every Canadian family.
Why reduce the $34 billion employment insurance surplus by
making a big handout, giving the jackpot to the president of the
Royal Bank?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is what we have done
with employment insurance.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Nothing is what you have done.
Hon. Jim Peterson: There has been a reduction from $3.07 to
$3. Then it dropped to $2.95, and $2.80, and $2.70, and $2.55.
Today it is down to $2.25. That is eight drops in a row. This
means $6 billion a year for workers and small and medium
businesses. Those are real tax cuts.
An hon. member: You have robbed the workers.
The Speaker: This is the last day, dear colleagues, but I do not
want to hear the word robbed in the House of Commons. It is not
acceptable.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with a $15
billion surplus, there is not one cent for the unemployed. The
Liberals were not elected to cut the capital gains tax rate by
40% for the rich earning in excess of $250,000 annually. They
were elected to reduce the gap between rich and poor.
Why give billions to the banks, while leaving the country with
70 new food banks that have had to start up in the past five
years?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): The hon. member across the way—and I thank him
for it—gave his agreement this morning for passage of Bill C-44
to help the unemployed.
I know, of course, that he wanted to see that bill pass. He
knows very well, however, that after four attempts by the
government to get the bill passed, both the Canadian Alliance
and the Bloc Quebecois this morning refused to allow this
legislative measure of such importance to workers to proceed.
* * *
1155
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, last year I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
to have an environmental impact assessment on the impact of Metz
Farms in Sainte-Marie-de-Kent. That was denied. Last week the
same department ordered water testing. Has anything been learned
from Walkerton? It has acknowledged it made a mistake last year.
The people of Sainte-Marie and the surrounding area are
requesting that the government compensate Metz Farms, a hog
factory, and close it down and make sure that these communities
can survive.
We cannot have hog factories with tourism and the health
problem it is bringing. We need it closed now.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, monitoring is currently taking place to determine
the situation at the Bouctouche River. If it is indicated that
there is a deleterious substance entering the water as a result of
the pig farm, of course it will be instructed to take remedial
measures. If it does not, then appropriate measures will be
taken.
I would remind the hon. member that initially this was analyzed
by DFO. It said there was no impact on habitat directly and that
it was inappropriate to put in a restriction on the use of land
within the province which would have affected farming in the
province and the provincial jurisdiction.
* * *
DIGBY WHARF
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Department of Transport gave a cash lump sum payment of over
$3.2 million to a not for profit corporation to run the Digby
wharf in Digby, Nova Scotia. Now there is an accusation by a
government official that the board of directors of this not for
profit corporation held a board meeting at taxpayers' expense in
Disneyland.
Will someone in this Mickey Mouse government shut this Goofy
operation down before all the money is gone?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is confident that its administrative
procedures are sound. Where errors are discovered either in the
administrative processes of the government or through the
activities of review agencies such as the auditor general, the
appropriate corrective action is taken.
We are a responsible government, responsible Canadians. Where
there are issues to be addressed, we address them to ensure that
the public administration of the country is solid.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since the inception of this great country, farmers and
farm families have provided good quality, safe food at a fair
price to Canadians. Over the last five years, through no fault of
their own, due to poor commodity prices and bad weather
conditions, they have looked to governments for help.
Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House
exactly what he intends to do in terms of the income disaster
program to help in additional funds for our farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of years alone the
government has increased the support and the safety net to
farmers by 85%.
I am pleased to announce today that those who have applied and
met the criteria of the 1999 AIDA program, the agriculture income
disaster assistance program, will have the initial payment
increased on the federal portion from 50% to 80%.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question concerns the residential school issue. We welcome the
Deputy Prime Minister's involvement. We understand that since
his involvement there have been several productive and positive
meetings.
However a problem persists. Government lawyers in the field
have been actively and aggressively countersuing the churches,
engaging in litigation causing immense legal fees and driving the
churches toward bankruptcy.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, have orders gone out or will
orders go out to the Department of Justice lawyers to cease such
action so that a resolution may be found which will be fair to
the victims of abuse and the churches?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
First, I have been looking into this further. It is my
understanding that more than 70% of the cases which involve
churches involve them because the claimants, former students in
residential schools, sued not only the federal government but
also the church organizations.
It is not correct to say that in all the cases, or even in most
of them, churches have been added because of federal government
action.
1200
I am looking into this matter further. In the meantime, I am
glad he is confirming that the discussions I have had so far with
the church leadership have been useful.
* * *
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a brief quote from the
infamous 1993 Liberal red book indicating that people are
irritated with governments that disregard their views or that try
to conduct key parts of the public business behind closed doors.
Mayday, mayday, in the year 2000 information commissioner's
report it says that the Prime Minister's Office denied the
information commissioner's request to review files. No other
minister in 17 years has refused to co-operate.
When the government will not live up to its 1993 promises why
should anybody treat seriously the promises that it is making
now?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have great respect for the Office of the Information
Commissioner and the rules under which he operates.
At times a difference of opinion will arise on how these rules
are to be interpreted and sometimes we have to ask the courts to
interpret these rules. There has just been a court ruling which
seems to go in the direction of the government's point of view.
I can assure my hon. friend that we will continue to respect the
work of the information commissioner in a very constructive
fashion.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before you leave the chair,
I hope, in the light of my position over the years in the House,
that I can add to the comments made yesterday.
I want to express my personal appreciation for your work as
Speaker and for your support of the institution of parliament. I
think I reflect the views of parliamentarians and Canadians who
wish you well in future endeavours.
[Translation]
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, during the course of Oral Question Period, the
government House leader said that our party was the only one to
not understand what happened yesterday.
We may not have understood, but I would like to tell you what I
have understood so you can tell me whether I have indeed. It is
important—
The Speaker: Yesterday I indicated that a decision on the
matter was required.
I made it after asking the House leaders of the government and
the Bloc Quebecois to approach for an explanation. I am told
this took place today. It is not for me, Madam, to explain it
to you, but you may ask the clerk.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: But there is a problem, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Order, please. The member for Mercier.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the end of
oral question period I considered I had been deprived of my
right. The order agreed on among the parties and with you was
that there was no NDP. There were the Progressive Conservative
Party, the Liberals, the Reformers and the Bloc.
You recognized someone from the NDP. Perhaps there was a delay
and you had to recognize him, but it seems to me that that
should not have occurred to the detriment of the Bloc Quebecois.
The Speaker: You are right. When I looked at the list, I saw
that the name of the hon. member was there but I had missed the
other member. I apologize; I do not know how to fix that.
Perhaps we can correct things at the next question period.
* * *
1205
[English]
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the
honour to inform the House that a message has been received from
the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed
certain bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions.
* * *
[English]
STANDING COMMITTEES
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
* * *
PETITIONS
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present several petitions. The first concerns the
Canadian public health care system. It is signed by many
Canadians concerned about the fact that the government has
reduced its contributions to the health care system.
The petitioners are calling upon the federal government to
increase Canada's share of health care funding to 25% immediately
and to implement a national home care program and a national
program for prescription drugs.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition I have the honour to present concerns employment
insurance and the fact that changes were made to assist parents
in the extended parental leave which will apply to children born
on or after December 31, 2000.
This petition is signed by a number of people who are concerned
that the parents of children born before that date will not have
the same privileges.
The petitioners are calling upon parliament to make extended
parental leave come into effect immediately so parents of
children born before December 31, 2000, can benefit from it.
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
third petition concerns saving the local public broadcasting
system. A number of people have signed this petition. They are
concerned about the massive cuts that have been made to the CBC.
The petitioners are calling upon parliament to take measures to
restore adequate funding to the CBC and to allow the maintenance
and the improvement of current local television news while
improving the network for all Canadians.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
last petition concerns the public health care system. It is
signed by a number of people who are calling upon the federal
government to increase its share of funding to 25% immediately
and to implement a national home care program and a national
program for prescription drugs.
FOOD LABELLING
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I was interested to hear that the government has just
answered 11 petitions.
I am pleased to present a petition signed by the good people of
Nanaimo—Cowichan which I am presenting on their behalf at the
request of their member. There are approximately 2,700
signatures on this petition.
1210
The petitioners draw the attention of the House of Commons to
the genetically modified organism issue. They talk about
allowing these foods into Canada, non-labelling, no independent
testing, and incidents occurring that indicate genetically
modified foods are causing problems. The petitioners are calling
on parliament to enforce labelling.
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House today, the last day of this
session, to present a petition.
It contains the signature of 2,000 petitioners from my region of
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. They join with the thousands of Quebecers
who, over the last few months, have asked parliament to make all
the arrangements required to consult the people and their
representatives on the principle of importing MOX fuel.
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition containing
about 250 names with regard to the new EI boundaries.
Unfortunately the people in the villages of South Branch,
Hillsborough and Elgin in my riding have been kept with the
Moncton zone, which means they will need almost twice as many
hours to qualify for only 15 to 17 weeks compared to 32 weeks in
other regions. This is very unfair.
It is unfortunate that they still have to fight to get what is
just. They should be zoned with the rural area and not with
the urban. Hopefully within time that very unjust situation
created by the Liberal government will be corrected.
PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition from several hundred Newfoundlanders all over the
province. They are expressing concern about the ungoverned use
of Internet in public libraries where the participants in
research and so on have access to degrading pornographic
material.
They are asking that their tax dollars not be used in this way
and that the government bring in legislation to govern the use of
such materials in the public libraries of the province.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question No. 110
will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 110—Mr. Greg Thompson:
With respect to employment insurance benefit applicants in the
Restigouche—Charlotte, employment insurance region, for each of
the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 fiscal years: (a) how many
workers qualified for employment benefits with the minimum number
of required hours; (b) how many of these workers were female;
(c) how many were male; (d) how many were female and over 60
years of age; (e) how many were male and over 60 years of age;
(f) how many employment insurance benefit applicants did not
qualify for benefits; and (g) what was the average number of
hours worked by those who qualified for employment insurance
benefits?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): With respect to employment insurance, EI benefit
applicants in the Restigouche—Charlotte employment insurance
region, for each of the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 fiscal years:
(a) During the fiscal year 1998-1999, 124 claims were
established with the minimum number of hours required to qualify
for employment benefits in Restigouche—Charlotte. This represents
0.18% of the 70,666 claims established in that period.
During the first nine months of the fiscal year 1999-2000, the
latest available data for that period, 93 claims were established
with the minimum number of hours required to qualify for
employment benefits in Restigouche—Charlotte. This represents
0.16% of the 56,766 claims established in that period.
(b) During the fiscal year 1998-1999, the number of claims from
women, among the total amount of claims that qualified for
employment benefits with the minimum number of required hours,
was 47 in Restigouche—Charlotte.
During the first nine months of the fiscal year 1999-2000, the
number of claims from women, among the total amount of claims
that qualified for employment benefits with the minimum number of
required hours, was 49 in Restigouche—Charlotte.
(c) During the fiscal year 1998-1999, the number of claims from
men, among the total amount of claims that qualified for
employment benefits with the minimum number of required hours,
was 77 in Restigouche—Charlotte.
During the first nine months of the fiscal year 1999-2000, the
number of claims from men, among the total amount of claims that
qualified for employment benefits with the minimum number of
required hours, was 44 in Restigouche—Charlotte.
(d) During the fiscal year 1998-1999, the number of claims from
women over 60 years of age, among the total amount of claims that
qualified for employment benefits with the minimum number of
required hours, was 2 in Restigouche—Charlotte.
During the first nine months of the fiscal year 1999-2000, the
number of claims from women over 60 years of age, among the total
amount of claims that qualified for employment benefits with the
minimum number of required hours, was 6 in Restigouche—Charlotte.
(e) During the fiscal year 1998-1999, the number of claims from men
over 60 years of age, among the total amount of claims that
qualified for employment benefits with the minimum number of
required hours, was 3 in Restigouche—Charlotte.
During the first nine months of the fiscal year 1999-2000, the number
of claims from men over 60 years of age, among the total amount
of claims that qualified for employment benefits with the minimum
number of required hours, was 7 in Restigouche—Charlotte.
(f) Administrative data is primarily geared toward those who
qualify as many claimants self access and do not apply for
benefits. An alternative source is the employment insurance
coverage survey, conducted by Statistics Canada on behalf of
Human Resources Development Canada, HRDC. This survey provides
information on the unemployed who do not qualify for benefits.
However, these data are not available by local EI region.
(g) During the fiscal year 1998-1999, the average number of
required hours worked, according to all the claims that qualified
for employment insurance benefits in Restigouche—Charlotte, was
1,111.
During the first nine months of the fiscal year 1999-2000, the
average number of required hours worked, according to all the
claims that qualified for employement insurance benefits in
Restigouche—Charlotte, was 1,106.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if Question No.
54 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled
immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 54—Ms. Christiane Gagnon:
With respect to each of the programs for children (from infants
to youth) delivered by federal departments and agencies, can the
government indicate: (a),the year the program was introduced; and
(b) since 1989: (i) a complete breakdown of the funding allocated
for each fiscal year; (ii) the mechanisms established to evaluate
the program's effectiveness; (iii) the follow-up and changes made
to the program as a result of these evaluations; (iv) the annual
administrative costs for the program's management; and (v) the
mechanism(s) that the federal government has established to
ensure these different programs are coordinated?
Return tabled.
* * *
[Translation]
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would you be so
kind as to call Starred Question No. 89.
.[Text]
*Question No. 89—Mr. Jim Pankiw:
With respect to the Canada Foundation for Innovation, what has
the government through Industry Canada determined to be the
amount of additional funding attracted from: (a) provincial
governments; (b) universities; (c) private sector; and (d)
voluntary sector?
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I ask that it be
printed in Hansard as if read.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The following table lays
out the sources of matching funds by category. These figures
apply to projects where final agreements have been concluded.
This represents 470 projects for a total CFI share of $164.5
million. Many larger projects are still being brought to the
final agreement form. The total project dollars, CFI plus
matching, amounts to $431.9 million so the CFI share is 38.1%.
All cash values are in millions of dollars as of April 2000, the
most recent figures available.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the
House to revert to motions for the purpose of moving concurrence
in the 36th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs. I believe that all parties are in agreement and
that we can proceed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1215
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, an
act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, be
read a second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-15, an act to amend the
International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.
Water is a most precious resource for humankind. It has become a
cliché to say that. Water is the very basis of life on earth.
However, despite what we have believed for a long time, we could
run out of water as a resource. Recent studies show that in some
areas water is practically non-renewable.
For instance, the report of the International Joint Commission,
released last August, says that precipitation and underground
water barely contribute 1% to Great Lakes water renewal every
year. This is cause for concern.
Under the circumstances, we must recognize that even if the
Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River account for one fifth of
all freshwater reserves on the surface of the planet, it is not
a limitless resource.
Moreover, in recent years discoveries and research on greenhouse
gases and the potential risks of rising temperatures have shown
the acute fragility of resources and the threats facing them.
The membership and duties of this commission are defined further
on. Because of climatic risks, desertification on a planetary
scale, limited resources of freshwater throughout the world and
energy development on the basis of that resource, the idea of
exporting large quantities of water by tanker or of diverting
rivers has been seriously considered in the last decade in
Quebec and Canada.
Therefore, a serious threat has now been added to the
environmental threats already facing our water resources, and
that is the bulk export of water and diverting lakes and rivers
on a large scale.
Obviously, the bulk export of water opens up tremendous economic
opportunities. Acknowledging that fact, some provinces examined
the feasibility of issuing licences allowing companies to study
bulk water export projects.
Following a drought in California at the beginning of the 1980s,
British Columbia issued export licences to five Canadian
companies and one American company. Over time, the province
became concerned about the possible impact of such exports on
its natural resources and passed legislation to forbid the bulk
export of water.
We know that other provinces have considered issuing export
licences. We recently saw some headlines about Newfoundland in
this regard.
The province quickly changed its mind but the possibility of
issuing licences still exists. This, coupled with recent legal
action by Sun Belt Water Inc., a California company, against the
Government of British Columbia creates fears and raises once
again the issue of commercial risks associated with the export
of that resource.
This is the context in which the federal government has been
promising to legislate for a year now. This is the background.
1220
Now I want to talk about the federal government strategy to
date. Early this year, the federal government announced that it
intended to take more direct action with respect to water
exports, and to present a three-point strategy.
This strategy is a follow-up to a motion passed in the House of
Commons on February 2, 1999, with respect to the protection of
water. It was a New Democratic Party motion, which received the
support of the House, and read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in
co-operation with the provinces, place an immediate moratorium on
the export of bulk freshwater shipments and inter-basin transfers
and should introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater
exports and inter-basin transfers and should not be a party to
any international agreement that compels us to export freshwater
against our will in order to assert Canada's sovereign right to
protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for
future generations.
That was the New Democratic Party motion introduced in the House.
The federal strategy consists of three elements.
The first is an amendment to the International Boundary Waters
Treaty, which would give the federal government authority to
regulate bulk water removal from boundary waters.
The second is a reference with the United States to the
International Joint Commission to investigate the effects of
consumption, diversions and removals, including those for export
purposes, in boundary waters.
The third is a proposal to develop, in co-operation with the
provinces and territories, a Canada-wide accord on bulk water
removal so as to protect Canadian water basins.
On February 10, 1995, Canada and the United States created the
International Joint Commission, following implementation of the
1909 boundary waters treaty.
Its primary mandate is to ensure co-operation between the United
States and Canada in the management of storm drainage systems
along the border.
Six commissioners sit on the commission, three from Canada and
three from the U.S. It is their responsibility to study the
various problems arising in the management of basins. The
shores of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence system are borders to
eight states—Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York—and two provinces—Ontario and
Quebec.
After noting a growing number of proposals to export water from
the Great Lakes and other areas of the U.S. and Canada, the two
countries agreed to ask the commission to study the question and
make recommendations within the next year. The final report is
expected in February 2001.
On August 18, the International Joint Commission submitted a
preliminary report. Briefly, it recommended that, during the
next six months it will need to complete its report, the federal
and provincial governments and the American states not authorize
any removal or large scale sale of water. It pointed out a
number of things that warrant mentioning.
1225
It indicated that there was no surplus in the Great Lakes
system, that large scale removal of water could limit the
resilience of the system and that information on the removal of
underground water is inadequate.
This point causes problems, because underground waters can have
a considerable effect on the integrity and quality of
ecosystems. The report pointed out as well that we do not
know—and this is a very important point—what the demand will be
for water in the future. We must never forget that other
generations will follow us and we have the job of ensuring these
future generations are not penalized by our decisions.
Also, because of the possible climate change and other natural
considerations, it is impossible to assess with any degree of
certainty what the level and the flow of the Great Lakes will be
in the years to come.
Last week, the federal environment minister submitted to his
provincial counterparts a Canada-wide agreement banning bulk
water removal from watersheds. The response was rather timid,
since Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan
indicated that they would make their position known at a later
date. Quebec withdrew from the discussion, stating that it found
that the agreement was premature and that its Bill 73, the Water
Resources Preservation Act, provided temporary measures
prohibiting the transfer outside Quebec of surface water or
groundwater taken in Quebec until December 31, 2000.
Quebec, however, kept the right to divert large quantities of
water to produce electric power, keeping in mind the Churchill
Falls project where it is looking at diverting the river to be
able to produce electric power in the Labrador region.
The Quebec government considers that its legislation is
adequate. It also stated that it will wait for the results of
the public hearings of the BAPE and of the Quebec environmental
assessment panel, before developing a comprehensive water
strategy. New Brunswick, Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories,
Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Prince Edward Island, Ontario and the
Yukon have all endorsed the agreement.
The only missing element of the three-pronged process is the
changes to federal boundary waters legislation. Bill C-15
completes the federal strategy announced last February.
I will give a brief summary of Bill C-15. Bill C-15 derives
directly from the federal government strategy announced in
February 1999 and it fulfils its desire to regulate the removal
of water from transboundary waters. According to the federal
government, the purpose of this bill is to pave the way for the
implementation of the treaty relating to boundary waters and
questions arising along the boundary between Canada and the
United States.
As such, the proposed amendments prohibit bulk water removal
from boundary waters out of their natural water basin. The
proposed amendments will also require persons to obtain licences
from the Minister of Foreign Affairs for water related projects
in boundary or transboundary waters that would affect the
natural level or flow of water on the United States side of the
border.
1230
Thus, the federal government wishes to add clauses 10 to 26 to
the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. Clauses 11 and 12
deal with the licences that have to be obtained for any project
which uses, obstructs or diverts boundary waters in a manner
that affects the natural level or flow of the water. Both
clauses indicate that the licences do not apply in respect of
the ordinary use of water for domestic or sanitary purposes.
Clause 13 of Bill C-15 seeks to prevent the removal of water from
the boundary waters to take it outside the water basin,
notwithstanding clause 11.
General clauses 14 and 15 of the bill provide that sections 11
to 13 do not apply in respect of projects in existence
immediately before the respective coming into force of those
sections, unless their impact lasts after their coming into
force.
Clauses 16 to 20 list the powers of the minister and summarize
his capacity to issue and revoke licences and to impose
penalties. Clause 21 deals with the regulations that can be made
under the legislation and that will be a guide for ministerial
decision making. The bill indicates, for example, that the governor
in council, on a recommendation by the minister, will be able to
define the concept of water basin, under paragraph (b) and
identify exemptions to sections 11 and 12 under paragraph (c).
Under this paragraph, the department has already raised possible
exemptions like humanitarian uses over a short period of time or
the use of water to produce food and drink. An example that
comes to mind is bottled water. Paragraph (d) deals with the
prescription of classes of licences and paragraph (j) with the
prescription of cases where no licence can be issued, and so on
and so forth. Clauses 22 to 25 determine the punishment for
offences.
The general public recognizes that our water resources should be
protected, but it is far from obvious that Bill C-15 will result
in better protection. In fact, a legitimate question concerning
Bill C-15 is whether the Liberal government is taking advantage
of the panic over water resources created by events in Ontario
to grab powers outside its jurisdiction.
Again this government is showing that it wants to interfere in
areas under provincial jurisdiction.
I am forced to say today that the government never changed its
tune during the three and a half years of this mandate, which
will soon come to an end. It always declared that it respected
provincial jurisdiction. But when the time came to put those
words into action in the bills it introduced, we saw the true
nature of this Liberal government. Liberal values were not
reflected in the bills.
The Liberals said that they respected
Canadians from all provinces, from Ontario, from Manitoba, from
Saskatchewan, from British Columbia and from the maritimes.
But that kind of language can be very deceiving because, when
they introduced bills, we saw the opposite. They are two-faced:
they say one thing, but their actions day in and day out go
against the interests of the people and the provinces. They
should provide services to allow individuals to have real
courses of action and they should give some money back to the
provinces for the environment, because it is a very important
issue.
1235
I have noticed that what the government and the Minister of the
Environment say, beyond the rhetoric, is a drop in a sea of
indifference.
The minister ought to have put billions of dollars more in his
mini-budget. He gave us crumbs. The government has ignored the
environment.
We had ministers who were not able to stand up to their cabinet
colleagues and say that it was time to take action.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General
desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the
chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
1250
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the
honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the
Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give,
in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism
Commission—Chapter No. 28.
Bill S-26, an act to repeal an act to incorporate the Western
Canada Telephone Company—Chapter No. 29.
Bill C-24, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, a related Act, the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Budget Implementation Act,
1997, the Budget Implementation Act, 1998, the Budget
Implementation Act, 1999, the Canada Pension Plan, the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and
Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment
Insurance Act, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court
of Canada Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act—Chapter No. 30.
Bill S-25, an act to amend the Defence Production Act—Chapter
No. 31.
Bill C-27, an act respecting the national parks of
Canada—Chapter No. 32.
Bill C-14, an act respecting an agreement with the Norway House
Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the
flooding of land, and respecting the establishment of certain
reserves in the province of Manitoba—Chapter No. 33.
Bill C-41, an act to amend the statute law in relation to
veterans' benefits—Chapter No. 34.
Bill C-45, an act respecting the provision of increased funding
for health care services, medical equipment, health information
and communications technologies, early childhood development and
other social services and to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act—Chapter 35.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, an
act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during
the hiatus, the people watching our debate may have forgotten
what I was saying about Bill C-15.
I would like to recap and remind the House what the purpose
of this bill is. I also want to describe the government strategy
I was referring to when we had to leave for the other House.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois for appointing me critic for the environment. I think
that we held some very important debates during the last three
years and a half and that we considered some major issues.
One need only look at the legislation on the environment and on
endangered species. The government wants to pass a bill to
protect endangered species, but apart from the environment
minister's fine words, what is it doing? I do not disagree with
the minister's words, but we are still waiting for him to act.
It is too bad, because I reached out to him on a number of
occasions, including the endangered species bill, the
Environmental Protection Act, and even the debates on
pesticides. There was no unanimous report, since Reform
dissented because they are pro-business.
Currently, there are two different visions in this parliament:
the ordinary people's vision, represented by the Bloc Quebecois,
and the vision of the Liberal Party and Reform. I still call
them Reform because they have not changed; it is still the same
old Reform Party. They have not changed a whit. Their vision is
still short-sighted. According to their vision, big business is
to be in charge of everything that has to do with the
environment.
I have denounced with all my strength this vision of the
Alliance and the Liberal Party, which is to highjack provincial
jurisdictions.
Once again we caught them red-handed, this time with Bill C-15.
This government cannot help trying to control everything, be in
charge, be the king of the castle, as it were.
I am proud to report that, today in Jonquière, a minister of
this government, accompanied by the member from Chicoutimi who
crossed the floor—we call them turncoats—was to announce an
investment. Earlier the government House leader talked about
Bill C-44, an act to improve the Employment Insurance Act.
Twice in two weeks, workers in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean told the
revenue minister, the minister who represents our area, that we
were quite capable of looking after our own administration.
1255
Government members do not represent their constituents properly.
It is going to blow up in their face, as we say.
This morning, the revenue minister was unable to give his press
conference. He was told by people in our area to go back where
he came from, through the Parc des Laurentides. We have been
having quite a debate in our area. We would like to invest in
the infrastructure, but the federal government has made cuts in
road upgrading programs.
We have taken part in every debate, saying that 26% of the money
they hold is Quebec's. A substantial portion of this money
should go to my area.
The minister was told to go back where he came from, because the
kind of change he made to the employment insurance program is
not worth the paper it is written on.
I applaud those people. They have shown all of Quebec and all
of Canada that they were capable of standing up for themselves,
of stating that the fund is theirs. The government has no
business using it as it pleases; it is for us to administer,
with the workers and the employers. We are the ones to have the
say, as the gap keeps widening for seasonal workers thanks to
the government.
The government makes the directives, but makes no financial
contribution. It has been raiding the fund. Bravo to the
people of the Saguenay and Lac Saint-Jean. I hope that all
Canadians will stand up for themselves like the people in my
area did this morning, and will continue to do so throughout
this election campaign.
I will conclude my speech by saying that, although the Bloc
Quebecois is well aware of how vitally important it is to
protect our water resources, the bill as it stands strikes us as
useless and is not in keeping with the division of
jurisdictions.
It has a huge potential for encroachment onto provincial
jurisdictions, without providing any additional protection
against massive water exports.
We ought therefore to be opposed to the principle of the bill.
I wish the Minister of the Environment, and whoever his
successor is after the election, to know that we, the
representatives of the Bloc Quebecois, will never accept
interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to salute
you and to thank you for all your well-chosen words and for the
professionalism you have brought to the House as deputy speaker.
I will always have very pleasant memories of you. I wish you
the best of luck in the future.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I thank the hon. member for
her kindness.
[English]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to discuss Bill C-15 with reference to
one of Canada's most precious natural resources, water. Canada
owns most of the freshwater resources in the world. Almost 9% of
the world's soft water is on Canadian territory and 60% of
Canadian water flows into the Arctic Ocean.
The exportation of bulk water is not a new issue. It is
actually a major issue that the Conservative government in 1984
was very much concerned with. We believe it is imperative to
protect the interests of Canadians with reference to the export
of bulk water. It is why we made sure that water was protected
under NAFTA.
Bill C-15 introduces amendments to the International Boundary
Waters Treaty Act in order to prohibit bulk removal of water from
Canadian boundary waters, including the Great Lakes. The
prohibition on removals will apply principally to the Great Lakes
and other boundary waters.
Apart from prohibition, the amendments will also set in place a
licensing regime for boundary waters projects such as dams,
obstructions or other works that can affect water levels and
flows. The International Boundary Waters Treaty Act was passed
in 1911, implementing the Canada-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty of
1909. Its main objective was to establish the International
Joint Commission, a binational organization.
Canada's border is the longest in the world, with over 300 lakes
or rivers that either form, cross or straddle it.
It is the Canadian government's responsibility and duty to
protect that border.
1300
NAFTA and the WTO generally prohibit restrictions on the
exportation of goods subject to certain exceptions, none of which
are likely to be applicable to the present purpose. The
difficulty lies with the absence of a legal definition of goods.
Obviously water in its natural state is not considered a good.
Subject to trade agreements, bottled water is.
The purpose of Bill C-15 is to protect water which in its
natural state would not then be subject to international
obligations concerning trade in goods. From this perspective any
possible precedent from a water export project would be limited
to the province involved and would arise from the particular
legislation that permitted removal for export and not from trade
agreements.
If one province's legislation permitted removal of water and a
project were to be approved, other provinces could still have
legislation that prohibited removal of water. The point is to
illustrate that water, in its natural state, is not a good and
therefore not subject to international trade agreements.
Water is an integral part of Canada's boundaries. This most
precious resource has to be protected and managed in the best
interest of Canadians. I can assure the House that the bill will
be supported by us.
I want to speak about the importance of communities having good,
safe drinking water. That is why I asked the minister today
about the safety of water and talked about the federal
government's role of ensuring that in this great country, where
we have so much water, we are doing everything to make sure
Canadians in all parts of the country can drink water safely. We
do not want another Walkerton.
Even in my riding every month or two a small community has a
boiling order. Do we have an infrastructure problem? Is enough
money going to the communities and municipalities to make sure we
have the facilities so that our children, seniors and all of us
do not get sick from drinking water?
We cannot take it for granted any more. We did that in
Sainte-Marie-de-Kent before getting that pig factory installed.
We asked for an environmental impact assessment. The federal
government had both the responsibility and the obligation to do
an environmental impact assessment. It had the obligation. The
Liberals lured Metz Farms to Sainte-Marie-de-Kent. It is clear
the Liberals in Ottawa were told an environmental impact
assessment was not wanted, and that is what happened.
What is happening today? We have communities and families not
speaking with each other. On top of that we have a federal
government that has realized that maybe we have water problems.
Maybe we have communities with health risks. Maybe the drinking
water is not safe any more and tests should be done.
We have 30,000 pigs being processed over there. That could have
been prevented. Metz Farms invested a lot of money to install
this. It was told it could. The federal government said it did
not need to do an assessment, that Metz could go ahead and set up. It would
not intervene. It would not use what was available to make sure
the people of Sainte-Marie would not be at risk.
Definitely the department is on autopilot. It is not even in
neutral but going in reverse. We did not have the technology in
the past to identify why there were contaminations. We have it
now, but we have a federal government that continues to close its
eyes to it. This is not acceptable.
1305
The federal government said last week it would do some water
testing in Sainte-Marie. The government is now recognizing that
it should have done an environmental impact assessment. I say
the government should do what the manager of Metz Farms said to
do: buy it out.
There is a problem here. Communities are not happy with this.
We have our farms. Nobody is against farms. Our leader spoke on
farms this week. Our critic spoke on farms and on how the
federal government is abandoning our farmers. We do not mind
farms, be it cow, pig or sheep. We are not talking about farms
here; we are talking about factories. There is a difference.
The difference is that before we had Metz Farms in
Sainte-Marie-de-Kent both the farmers and the non-farmers would
actually eat together in the morning. They would have coffee
together. They liked each other. They would help each other.
What do we have because of this factory? We now have family
divisions. There is no more harmony. That is what
bothers me. No one is against farmers.
Where was agriculture in the mini-budget to make sure our
farmers would survive? They do not survive. They are eaten up
by the big factories. That is what the Liberal government is
pushing for now, the megafactories. They did it with fishing as
well. We have to protect our farmers. We have to help our
farmers. Our farmers are saying they need what Metz is giving
them because that way they get free fertilizer for their lands.
That means our farmers are in difficulty. They might need
financial help. What does the government do for our farms be
they small, medium or big but still not factories?
A farm is not 30,000 pigs. I lived next to a farm that had pigs
and one that had a milk dairy. They were great people. It was
nice to hear the cowbells in the morning. My fence was electric,
so I had no problem buying a home among farms. I like farms. A
factory, it has been proven, is an environmental disaster.
Can hon. members imagine that we have actually put a pig factory
in the middle of a region where we have invested millions and
millions in tourism, aquaculture and fisheries? Let us try to
mix the two together. There was a smell over the summer from the
piggery. It was not supposed to smell during tourist season, but
the pigs could not figure out how to hold it back during the
summer months. What happened? We had a bad smell during tourist
season.
What about the health risks? Today I was on a call-in show.
There were calls from Carmelle, Maria, Lisa, Rhéal, Richard,
Raymond, Edmond and more. They called because they were very
concerned, and with good reason: they were not consulted. Nobody
knew about it. It was a secret deal. Nobody knew this factory
would be set up. That is not right. Let us allow communities to
talk to about it.
There is legislation in place. I know farmers are worried that
if we put forth too much legislation it would hurt the farmers. I
believe we have the legislation in place now. We had a minister
of DFO who could have requested an environmental impact
assessment to make sure that what we are seeing now would not
have happened. The mechanism is in place. We do not have to add
any extra burden to our regular farmers. This is not what we are
talking about. We are talking about a pig megafactory that has
tremendous potential impact in terms of health, economics and the
environment.
Even this week the Liberal government announced $19.5 million in
tourism for Atlantic Canada. That is nice, and we will take it,
but how do we balance it off with developments like the pig
factory?
1310
It could have been put somewhere else. It was a terrible
location. There are other areas. The two just cannot be mixed
together. At some point there will have to be a decision made on
whether the government will keep investing millions in tourism
and aquaculture or keep investing in pig factories. I do not
think they blend.
Right now people are saying we cannot risk thousands of jobs in
the fishing and tourism industries for a few jobs in
Sainte-Marie-de-Kent. We cannot gamble that.
I believe we needed both an environmental impact assessment and
a socioeconomic assessment. We needed to have this studied
before it happened, but no, it looked as though it just went
through. All of us in government have to sit together right now
and fix this.
The people of Sainte-Marie-de-Kent, Saint-Paul, Saint-Lazare,
Sainte-Anne, Fond-de-la-Baie, Bouctouche, Saint-Antoine and
Saint-Joseph deserve better. All levels of government need to
sit down and look at the situation. People deserve it.
I believe the solution is to compensate Metz. Metz has told me
that if it gets the money it will close its doors. Let us
compensate. For the few millions it will cost to close Metz we
will save millions in the fishing and tourism industries. That
is not counting the health bill. The health of the people of
that region is at risk.
The government has to look at that option. People from the
communities are telling me they want it closed. People working
in Metz are telling me as an MP to find the money and it will
close its doors. At the end of the day that will be the only
option.
It was wrong from day one. The government does not know where
it started or when it started. We know all of this started
several years back. As was said on the radio talk show today, it
really does not matter who brought it. We are stuck with the
problem. We are stuck with a health problem, an environmental
problem and an economic problem. This has to be addressed.
I do not agree that communities have to take it upon their
shoulders the way they are doing. They have no choice. One
politician alone cannot solve this problem because one politician
alone did not bring it there. To be honest, it was two.
They need help and support. They need to know that the
government will recognize that it failed big time when it could
have intervened, when it could have requested an environmental
impact assessment because of the possible impact on our fish
habitat. It could have, but it closed its eyes to it.
That is not right. The government recognized it this week by
requesting testing. What will it do if it finds the water is
contaminated? What will the minister do? Will he close it then?
The assessment would have proven that the water would eventually
be contaminated and would affect the fish habitat and all the
money we have invested in aquaculture, in our fishing
communities. We have communities that are practically totally
dependent on the fishing industry and tourism.
At one end we have a government that says it will cut EI and
people have to be working all the time. At the same time it is
bringing in facilities going against what we are trying to do,
which is work as much as we can. As usual there is no plan.
We need a regional development plan. We need environment
ministers to agree to it and abide by it. Communities need to be
consulted. No longer can we have facilities like this one. There
are 30,000 pigs being processed per year in a community.
The one thing we do not talk about, and maybe one of the least
important things for a lot of people, is the value of the homes.
What about the value of the family? Many families have told me
about being outside for barbecues and all of a sudden smelling
it. They have to get into the house, close their windows and
shut everything tight. That is not right. What about the value
of their homes?
1315
Sainte-Marie-de-Kent is a place where everybody would like to
live. I remember going for drives there all the time and saying
to my husband, “My God, it's nice in Sainte-Marie”.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are not saying that any more. It
is not because we do not have nice people. We have great people
in Sainte-Marie.
Sainte-Marie is not the only place that has the smell. I live
in Buctouche and the smell is there too. How about the golf
course? How many millions does it take to build a golf course?
We did not even look at the impact on the golf course but we are
putting money in there too into pays de la Sagouine. It just goes
on and on. It is a decision I will never understand.
I will never understand provincial politicians apparently
lobbying to have this factory set up there, the same politicians
who invested money in both tourism and the fishery. I will never
understand why they believed that bringing in this factory would
benefit our region. I hope someday that they will participate in
the call-in, such as the one we did this morning where they
refused to comment. I believe it was because they could not
explain it or did not want to. However, I would like to see the
day when they will explain that decision. It was a terrible
decision. I have to say I do support the community and I do
understand their frustration.
[Translation]
They talk of communities working very hard to develop their
region, but not of the private sector. How many people have
invested their own money, in a campground or in cottages, in
starting up a fish plant or in many other things? Did anyone
consult these entrepreneurs and ask them “Is this going to hurt
your business?” No. No one consulted them. Everyone has to be
consulted. The government cannot go on making decisions for
communities at the expense of the people living there.
I had a call from a man who had to leave his work to go and care
for his children because the spreader had gone by his house. It
makes no sense for this man to leave his work for such a reason.
This week, a truck was taken off the road. But were the people
who did the inspection not within their rights? The truck was
taken off the road. It was not allowed on the road because it
failed to meet the requirements of the Department of Transport.
How many other things are not right? I congratulate the
committee. I congratulate the pool patrol for all their work.
It is true that all the communities, with our help, and all
levels of government must sit down together and reach a
solution. I hope that other people will insist that the
government compensate Metz Farms, and close it down to save jobs
in the tourism sector and to protect the health of our families,
children, seniors and young children, who often have asthma, as
Maria said when she called me.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you. It has been a pleasure for me to sit
here these past three years, five months and few weeks. I know
you will not be coming back to the House, and I want to wish you
not only good luck, but success in your future endeavours.
Thank you again for your patience, knowing that those of us who
had arrived recently needed a little advice. I look forward to
our next meeting.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
speech of the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac was so full
of inherent contradictions that I felt I had to stand up and ask
for some clarification. The most noticeable contradiction was a
glaring omission. She failed to mention the fact that, even
though she was a member of the NDP caucus and should know better,
it was the NDP that moved the opposition day motion back in
February of 1999 which called for the government to do something
to ban the bulk sale of water and the interbasin transfer of
water and to protect that precious natural resource.
I am wondering if that was a deliberate omission, because,
frankly, it could be taken as being rude to fail to at least
acknowledge that in a lengthy speech.
1320
There is another contradiction that exists. Now that the member
is in fact a member of the Progressive Conservative Party and a
sitting member of the Tory caucus, she did not mention
anything about the real nature of the Tories' attitude toward the
bulk sale of water and the interbasin transfer of water. I use
two examples because I only have a few minutes. I could mention
many more, but these are two glaring examples. One is the right
wing Tory premier, Wacky Bennett. They did not call him wacky
for nothing because his big plan was to flood the Skagit Valley,
divert the great northern rivers of British Columbia and sell the
water to Washington State.
As if that was not crazy enough, other Tory premiers came along
with similar ideas, like Gary Filmon, the former premier of
Manitoba, who wrote his engineering thesis in school with a plan
to use nuclear blasts to blast a trench from Lake Winnipeg into
North Dakota, then divert the water further into the Columbia
River system and into the United States.
All throughout history right wing Tories have had this plan to
commercialize Canada's water and turn it into a marketable
commodity. When they went into the NAFTA deal we
begged and pleaded—the opinion of the NDP is that we should not
have entered that deal at all—“Make
sure that water is off the table. Do not commercialize our
water. Do not make it subject to these liberalized trade
agreements”. It was the Tories who put the future of our
freshwater supply at risk by doing that very thing.
It is Tory prime ministers and premiers who have said “Water is
the oil of the next decade”. Can we believe anyone who would
view a substance that is so essential for life itself as
something that should be subject to the profit motive?
I guess I am asking the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac
when she was lying. Were you lying when you were a member of
our caucus or are you lying now that you are a member of the Tory
caucus?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Winnipeg Centre knows full well that to put such a question in
such a way is unparliamentary and will not be permitted. The
hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will have one opportunity to
retract with no other words, one opportunity and one opportunity
only.
Mr. Pat Martin: I apologize for the comment and I retract
any statement to do with lying. I was taken up in the heat of
the moment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will go on to the
next question or comment. We are not going to have a response.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to speak for a few minutes to this very important
topic. We all know the importance of water. I suppose some of
the occurrences in the province of Ontario in the last couple of
months have really underlined that for us.
I remember that when my son was in Africa he reported to us that one
of the greatest problems and challenges in the continent of
Africa is to provide a plentiful and a safe water supply to the
people on that continent. There is nothing that is more
important than an adequate supply of water that is safe, free
from contamination and free from anything that would harm us.
We are also aware of the fact that water is a renewable
resource. I often marvel at the different engineering cycles
that have been designed into our planet. One of the most amazing
ones when we stop to think about it is the design of the water
cycle, which goes up into the clouds. We fly through it with some
bumps when we are on an airplane. The water precipitates, comes
down and is so necessary.
I remember when I was a farm kid in Saskatchewan that if we did not
get rain we did not get food because the very plants required
that water. That was all part of the big cycle.
That water of course would then eventually evaporate. Some of it
found its way into creeks and rivers, some of it into the South
Saskatchewan River near where I live, and some of it found its
way over to the Hudson Bay and into the ocean. Once again, the
sun evaporated it and it came back in clouds. It is a large
cycle. We need to recognize the fact that a lot of this is
really quite beyond the control of people and, specifically, it
is beyond the control of governments.
1325
Therefore, it is very important for us to make sure that the
water supply and the basins that we have in Canada are protected
from exploitation and from harm. We need to make sure that our
water supplies are kept intact and not subject to being drained
so that our own people suddenly no longer have an adequate
water supply.
In principle, I agree with this particular bill before us today.
It is regrettable that when NAFTA was being negotiated there was
not a specific reference made to the total exclusion of water
from any trade considerations. The wording in the NAFTA
agreement unfortunately is ambiguous. It says that NAFTA creates
no rights to the natural water resources of any party to the
agreement.
As Canadians, we sit here with our water supply and wonder if
this means that neither the United States nor Mexico, nor any
other country, has any rights to our natural water resources. Or
does it mean that we as Canadians, since we are also a party to
this agreement, do not have the rights to our own natural water
resources? It is regrettable that the people who signed NAFTA
did not pick up on that and correct it before it got into its
final form. Hence, we now have this dilemma.
I really believe that when it comes to the sale of water we
could make pretty good use of that resource. As I said before,
if it is taken elsewhere in the world, through the design of our
universe, it will come back to us. We could sell the same water
over and over again and it could be a very good thing for us
economically. However, as soon as we begin to do this it becomes
a tradable commodity and subject to NAFTA which means we would,
at that stage, lose control of it.
As an interim measure, I think we should pass the bill so that
commercialization, sale of bulk water, is not even contemplated.
To do so under NAFTA would get us into a real bind.
I will concede now and give the floor to the member for Mercier.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I know I
really do not have much time.
However, I do want to take the last few minutes of this
parliament to point out that Bill C-15, despite its good
underlying principles, is in sync with all the other legislation
the current federal government, which as we all know does not
have much time left, has come up with. It is using every
opportunity to infringe upon the jurisdiction of the provinces,
and especially that of Quebec.
Yes, water is of the utmost importance for life, health and
economic development.
The report of the International Joint Commission proposed that,
on both sides of the border, the United States and Canada and
the American states and the Canadian provinces agree to suspend
bulk water exports for a period of six months.
What is important to realize here is that this bill goes much
further than the recommendation and authorizes the foreign
affairs minister to determine by himself Canada's jurisdiction
over Quebec's water resources.
1330
This is totally unacceptable. It explains why we insisted on
saying that this is not the way to go. We should trust the
provinces to exercise their jurisdiction and let the federal
government exercise its own jurisdiction, which is not at all
the one the government is trying to set out in Bill C-15.
My final words in this parliament are much the same as my first
words.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for all the work you have accomplished.
I would like to pay tribute to you.
For the members who rise in such a busy House as this one, the
mere fact that the Speaker is listening to them, as you have
very often listened to us, allows us to be better speakers for
the Canadians who watch us, to better explain the various bills
and why we oppose them, which is our responsibility as members
of the opposition.
For this as well as all your other qualities, I am convinced
that my colleagues will join me in thanking you sincerely for
the high level of parliamentary work you have done as acting
speaker in this House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I thank the hon. member for
her kind words.
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CANADIAN FORCES DAY
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government, in
recognition of the tremendous contribution of the Canadian Forces
to the protection of Canadian sovereignty, United Nations
peacekeeping missions, the NATO alliance, humanitarian
assistance, disaster relief and search and rescue operations,
should proclaim June 15 “Canadian Forces Day”.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which relates
to the text of the motion that is before the House. I think if
you request it you would find unanimous consent to change the
text of the motion very slightly. The motion as it now reads is:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government, in
recognition of the tremendous contribution of the Canadian Forces
to the protection of Canadian sovereignty, United Nations
peacekeeping missions, the NATO alliance, humanitarian
assistance, disaster relief and search and rescue operations,
should proclaim June 15 “Canadian Forces Day”.
The amendment I would like to have considered by unanimous
consent would be the following: that the motion be amended by
deleting all the words after the Canadian Forces and
substituting the following: both at home and abroad, in such
areas as humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, search and
rescue and UN peacekeeping, should proclaim the first Sunday in
June as Canadian Forces Day.
It is a relatively minor amendment, but I think you would find
unanimous consent to have the House agree to that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Members have heard
the suggested change to the motion standing in the name of the
member for Nepean—Carleton. Is there unanimous consent for the
hon. member to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Therefore debate is
on the original motion.
Mr. David Pratt: I am very pleased to have the
opportunity to speak to this motion today. The motion as it
appears is to declare June 15 as Canadian forces day.
I understand that my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough,
may be moving an amendment that would reflect my earlier comments
in this regard.
1335
I will give members a bit of the history of this motion. It was
introduced on March 18, 1998. It is perhaps a testament to the
speed with which the wheels of parliament turn that it has taken
over two years to have it considered by the House.
Some members would no doubt say that I should count myself lucky
that I got an item on for debate at all. I can assure them that
I feel fortunate to be able to have this item considered.
Nevertheless, I cannot help but think that there absolutely has
to be a better way to deal with private members' business. I
very much hope that the next parliament will address this issue
in a comprehensive and effective manner. That discussion very
clearly is for another day.
On the item before us, I must say that I have been gratified by
the amount of support expressed for the particular measure. The
motion received a great deal of support from the members of the
House. I should remind members that this was one of the items
for which there were 100 signatures of members, from both sides
of the House.
In circulating the petition on this motion, I received some very
supportive comments. Indeed there were some expressions of
surprise that the country had not already done something of this
nature to honour the men and women who serve in the Canadian
forces.
I should say as well that in consultations I had with members of
the House and with the Minister and the Department of National
Defence, I have revised the motion, as I indicated earlier. Those
revisions reflect the changes in terms of the consultations I had
with regard to the motion.
The reason for the change is quite simple. If we fix a date on
a weekend, it is more likely that Canadians across this great
country of ours would be able to more readily participate in
community events and ceremonies.
What is the motion all about? Quite simply, the purpose of the
motion is to thank all the men and women who serve us while in
the uniform of the Canadian forces.
Some might ask why such a measure is necessary today. After
all, we have so many people in the country who perform important
and dangerous roles to protect people and property.
I would argue, however, that the nature of military service is
quite different. As we have heard so often at the defence
committee, we have the concept of unlimited liability in military
service. What does that mean? It means that the person who
signs up with the Canadian forces agrees to obey orders that
could put his or her life, as well as those of colleagues, in
danger.
In two world wars and the Korean war, the concept of unlimited
liability was not an issue that attracted a lot of esoteric
debate. It was an issue that was all too real to the people who
served and died for this country. It was all too real to the
families, to the mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers who read
telegrams saying that a loved one was wounded, missing or killed
in action.
These issues seem so far from us today, 55 years after the end
of the second world war, but are they really? For the family of
a peacekeeper who was killed in Bosnia or Croatia or, indeed, if
we go back a few years, in places like Cyprus or the Golan
Heights, the concept of unlimited liability is very real. It is
very real for the families of the soldiers who are currently
serving in Bosnia and who will be very shortly serving in
Ethiopia and Eritrea.
I must admit that I feel a little close to this issue as someone
who has served from the beginning of this parliament on the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. It
has been as a result of my service on that committee that I have
come to know and appreciate the varied and complex work that is
done by our men and women in uniform.
I think back to the committee hearings on quality of life that
we held in bases across the country, where the members of our
committee got a real taste of what the Canadian forces
accomplish. Our committee started its work on a trip to Canadian
forces base Yellowknife on a C-130 Hercules in January 1998. I
have had a lot of trips on airplanes but I cannot remember one as
uncomfortable as that trip. My colleague, the hon. member for
Hillsborough, could probably attest to that on some of the rides
he has had in the C-130 Hercules.
That was the beginning of an eye opening experience that later
took us to Canadian forces base Esquimalt, then off to our search
and rescue operations at Pat Bay.
From there we went to Canadian forces bases Edmonton, Cold Lake
and Moose Jaw. Our travels also took us to Canadian forces bases
Borden, Petawawa, Valcartier, Halifax, Gagetown and Goose Bay. We
saw soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen who told us about the
joys and challenges of their work, along with the frustrations
and disappointments.
1340
Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of serving on the
defence committee was being able to visit our troops in
peacekeeping and other operations. Our committee travelled to
Geilenkirchen, Germany, where we saw Canada's contribution to the
NATO AWACS system.
We also travelled to Canada's areas of operations in Bosnia,
where we visited places with unusual names like Velika Kladusa,
Coralici, Bihac, Zgon and Drvar. In many places we saw the
physical damage of war: destroyed homes, burned out farms,
burned out businesses and factories, and beautiful green fields
that no one would dare to walk on for fear of land mines. Perhaps
most disturbing of all were the faces of the men, women and
children who have been deeply affected by war.
The conditions of service that our men and women in the Canadian
forces face are certainly less than ideal. There is, as we all
know, the danger of unexploded land mines and unexploded
ordnance. As well, there are weapons everywhere in some of these
places. There are dangerous roads and hazardous conditions.
One of the things that also struck me when our committee visited
Bosnia was that when I asked some of our peacekeepers what would
happen to the society being protected if the peacekeepers were to
leave that place, we were told very clearly that it would not
take very long, maybe only hours, perhaps days, before people
would again be killing one another and damaging and destroying
property. They said that it would be a very serious and
unfortunate situation.
Members of our committee also had the opportunity to travel to
Kosovo earlier this year to the KFOR operation, Camp Maple Leaf
in Skopje, Macedonia, to tour the operations there. What we saw
was equally disturbing and probably made just as much impact on
us as the trip that we took to Bosnia a couple of years earlier.
We saw the results of the precision bombing, the mass graves and
the property destruction, which was everywhere.
However, members of the Canadian forces do not just serve in the
Balkans and in the former Yugoslavia. They are in many other
parts of the world, more recently in places like East Timor and
in an area that I am certainly more familiar with, Sierra Leone.
We have had, for instance, military observers there to monitor
the Lomé peace agreement as part of the UNAMSIL force there. We
also had a cargo handling unit in Sierra Leone.
I mentioned some of the dangers of our operations for people in
places like Bosnia and Kosovo, but in Africa the dangers are in
many respects multiplied. Here I am thinking of military
observers and the dangers that exist in terms of kidnapping. We
saw earlier this year the kidnapping by the rebel forces in
Sierra Leone of about 500 members of the Indian peacekeeping
force that was part of the UNAMSIL operation. That sort of
violence is something that peacekeepers or military observers can
be exposed to on a fairly regular basis.
Also, in places like Africa there is the threat of disease. I
am thinking again of Sierra Leone, where the danger is constant
with regard to diseases like malaria, dysentery, yellow fever,
cholera, sleeping sickness and river blindness. These are all
diseases that members of our forces can be exposed to in areas
like Sierra Leone, Congo and Ethiopia-Eritrea.
Inasmuch as we can be inoculated against certain diseases, the
one thing we cannot be inoculated against is post-traumatic
stress disorder. That is something we have certainly seen over
the last number of years. Many of the members of our forces are
facing it. Perhaps the most high profile victim of PTSD, as it
is called, has been Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire, who served
with great distinction in Rwanda.
1345
I had the opportunity to meet General Dallaire on a number of
occasions. He certainly has my greatest respect and admiration.
I think he embodies the values of the Canadian forces. When I
say the values of the Canadian forces, I mean the desire to help
people in need, the desire to protect the innocent, to preserve
the rule of law, to safeguard human rights and to protect people
and property.
General Dallaire is one of many who have experienced probably
the worst the world has to offer. Rwanda was certainly a place
where the world as a whole failed very miserably. However I
think we can be very proud of the fact that a member of the
Canadian forces, General Dallaire, tried his very best to prevent
this slaughter.
It is to the people like General Dallaire and many of the unsung
heroes of the Canadian forces to whom this Canadian forces day
would be dedicated.
One of the comments I have heard from members of the forces,
which is a source of great frustration to them, is that many
people do not really understand what they do. People know we
have an army. They know we have an air force. They know we have
a navy, but they are not really clear on the sorts of things and
the individual tasks that our forces perform.
In this regard, it is important to emphasize that the Canadian
forces as whole is a very vital tool of our foreign policy. When
all else fails, when the diplomats stop talking and when the guns
come out, it is members of the Canadian forces and other allied
forces who are sent in to try and straighten out the situation.
I have talked about the challenges and the work of the Canadian
forces abroad, but I think it is just as important to stress what
they have done domestically.
I cannot help but be drawn to the memories I have of the ice
storm that occurred in 1998. It is probably a distant memory for
a lot of members in the House and for a lot of Canadians, but
half the people in my riding were without power and in some cases
for several weeks. This was an experience they do not want to
repeat soon.
There were roughly 30,000 to 35,000 people without power during
a very difficult winter. Whole towns in my riding, places like
Osgoode, Manotick and North Gower, were without power. It was in
aid of these small communities that our forces came to the
rescue. My constituents were very pleased to see the members of
the Canadian forces present and providing a kind of security
blanket for the members of the community.
I will conclude my comments here and allow other members to
speak on this motion. I would appreciate the opportunity at the
conclusion of the debate to make a few more comments.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I think it is appropriate on what is undoubtedly the very last
day of the 36th parliament that we should conclude our debates
with such an important topic. I would like to congratulate my
hon. colleague from across the way for having introduced this
motion.
Just before private members' business began we were talking
about water and how in this country we have an abundant, safe
supply of it. We take it so for granted. We often take for
granted the relative peace and safety of our land.
We are greatly blessed by the fact that we do not have to have
active, armed troops in full combat gear going up and down our
roads and highways, protecting our borders and generally using
force to keep the peace. We have become accustomed in Canada to
our freedoms, our freedom to move about and our safety, without
fear and without worrying about being attacked by either internal
or external agents. We are probably remiss.
We do not think about this enough, nor do we express our
gratitude enough to not only God, under whose charter this
country was founded, but also for the people who serve us in the
various peacekeeping capacities. Certainly I am thinking of not
only our armed forces, but also our very notable police forces,
the RCMP and the many other provincial and local forces that we
have throughout our land.
1350
I sometimes wonder what would happen if we did not have the
restraint of our peace officers and our armed forces in order to
protect the peace, because we realize when we look at other parts
of the world that it could indeed be very fragile.
The member is proposing that we have one day a year in which we,
in a specific way, acknowledge and give honour to our armed
forces personnel. This is of course something which we already
do to some degree annually on November 11 when we have
Remembrance Day.
It has been my privilege over the last seven years as a member
of parliament to participate in that very special day which we
have on November 11 every year. I have had the occasion on that
day to visit one of the local legion branches in my riding each
year. There are five of them altogether. I have rotated around
from one to the other. Last year I went to the community of
Chipman where they do not even have a legion branch per se, but
where they have a very fitting and a very respectful ceremony on
November 11 to honour the armed forces.
On every occasion when I have picked up that wreath and
approached the place where we place it, I have been touched by
the emotion of realizing that the wreath represents a sacrifice
which other people were willing to make in order to protect our
safety, our society and our country, to protect and defend those
things that we so strongly believe in.
I have had only a very small and indirect involvement with
violence in the form of war, that is, in the sense that our son
has served overseas. In fact, both of our sons did, but one for
a greater length of time. He served, not with the armed forces
but with the peace forces: World Vision, with which I am sure
many of the members here are familiar; Samaritan's Purse; and
Compassion Canada, agencies that are there to help people. He did
go into areas where the land was wartorn. He came back from
Bosnia and told us that the countryside was a lot like ours but
that when he went closer to the houses, which also looked like
ours, those houses were full of bullet holes.
There is no doubt that we owe a tremendously huge debt of
gratitude for those in the armed forces who sacrifice their own
safety and put their own safety at risk in order to defend the
rights of others and keep the peace.
I happen to be a member of parliament who has the privilege of
having a large armed forces base in my riding. The Edmonton base
is actually in my riding since my riding sort of boundaries right
up to the city of Edmonton. I have a number of people there who
are working in the armed forces. It has been my privilege on a
number of occasions to visit that base and talk to the different
personnel.
Frankly, among other things, we ought to be showing these people
the respect which they should have by making sure that their
needs, financial and otherwise, are adequately met. It is one
of the areas that I think we should address. Many of them are
not paid enough in straight money to provide for themselves and
their families. Besides having a day in which we honour them in
addition to November 11, we should also be looking at providing
them with adequate means of livelihood.
1355
I concur with the member's desire to amend the motion that
instead of having it fixed at the 15th day of June, we would have
it the first Sunday in June. It is a good amendment and I would
support it if it were put forward again.
It is important to have a day where everyone can participate. In
our Canadian culture Sunday is a day when, despite the fact that
we are becoming more and more commercialized on that day, many
people do work less. Government employees, for example, enjoy
Saturdays and Sundays off. Sunday is one of those days when we
have a little more personal freedom to be together with families
and do things.
Since many thousands of Canadians attend worship service or a
synagogue on Saturday or Sunday, these ceremonies could also be
included there. As people of faith, we also believe in being
thankful, and to weave gratitude to our armed forces personnel
into a religious service would be something very appropriate.
In principle I agree with this motion. November 11 is a fairly
adequate acknowledgement of the work that our armed forces do,
but that particular day is rooted more in history. We use the
phrase “lest we forget” and think specifically of those who
gave their lives and of those who suffered bodily injury in the
great wars of the past. This would be a day to honour and give
credit and tributes to those who presently serve in our armed
forces.
In as much as we are indebted to them, we should seriously
consider having such a day and making it part of our national
culture and part of what we do once a year to emphasize the
wonderful blessings that we have as a result of the things our
armed forces personnel do for us and on behalf of us.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have before us a
non-votable motion, which allows us to state our intentions if
that motion were some day to be voted on in the House.
In our opinion, the text the mover submitted to us in amendment
today would have been more acceptable than the one we have to
debate on.
Unfortunately, the change itself was unacceptable today. Since
100 members had signed to indicate their support for the bill,
we could not today, out of respect for those 100 members, accept
to debate a different text from the one already accepted.
Since the motion is non-votable and since the member who moved it
will eventually come back in the next parliament with a proposal
that hopefully will be made votable, we will nevertheless say
what we think about the text now before us.
There is no doubt that we would be in favour of a means of
recognizing the dedication of the members of the Canadian armed
forces. We must not recognize the dedication of only the
current members of the Canadian armed forces, as there are also
former members who are now retired and for whom there is no
recognition day.
We have a recognition day for veterans, Remembrance Day, for
those who were killed in action, who gave their lives to defend
the freedom of our people.
1400
There are also those who, fortunately, did not have to pay the
ultimate price, but who nevertheless put their lives at risk.
These people were members of the Canadian forces for years.
Their contribution should also be recognized on certain days.
These people took part in peacekeeping missions abroad. They may
have helped during catastrophes in Canada. They may have done
exactly the same job, without losing their lives. They are as
deserving of our recognition as those who died.
The question is whether, in order to recognize all these people,
we should have three special days during the year: one for the
veterans who died at war, one for those who did not die but
spent years with the Canadian forces in the service of the
nation, and another for those who are currently in the Canadian
forces. It would never end.
This issue should be examined by a committee. We could look at
how the contribution of these people could be acknowledged on
one or two specific days. I believe that in some countries one
day is set aside to remember those who died at war, and another
one is reserved for the country's armed forces. Perhaps we will
come to the conclusion that two days are needed but, in my
opinion, that second day should not only include current members
of the Canadian forces, but also former ones.
The motion before us talks about the “contribution of the
Canadian Forces to the protection of Canadian sovereignty”. I
think it inaccurate to seek a day of commemoration for this
reason, Canadian sovereignty having never been threatened. No
foreign power wants to attack Canada. No foreign power has
threatened Canada's sovereignty.
Why would we set aside a day to pay tribute to those who have
never had to fight to protect Canadian sovereignty, which has
never been threatened? The sovereignty of a country is
threatened when the citizens of that country no longer want it.
That is the only situation in which that sovereignty can be
threatened, and only a country's citizens may decide to retain
or modify their sovereignty.
This is something that could happen, because the people of
Quebec, who are in favour of Canadian sovereignty without
wanting to be a part of it, would like to be a sovereign nation
themselves. One day would have to be found to defend and
celebrate Quebec's sovereignty, and another to celebrate
Canada's sovereignty. There would be two different days and I
am sure that all Quebecers would be happy, under those
circumstances, to observe these two days to celebrate the
sovereignty of two peoples who deserved to exist, the Canadian
people and the people of Quebec.
Unfortunately, these are my last words in this august assembly.
I will not be a member in the next parliament, because I am not
seeking a new mandate. It was a great honour, during these
seven years, to defend the interests of my country, Quebec.
I was very struck by the democracy which reigns in this place, a
democracy which we would like to see continue in the nation we
are seeking.
I was also extremely proud to serve the inhabitants of the very
lovely and large riding of Joliette. I hope that my successors
will enjoy themselves here as much as I have, that their stay
will be as short as possible, and that they too will continue to
defend the sovereignty of our wonderful nation, Quebec.
1405
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before going further
I would respond to the member for Joliette. The member mentioned
that he was impressed by the democracy of this institution. From
my perspective as chair occupant, I too was very impressed by the
commitment to democracy, particularly from members of the Bloc.
To me and other members their kindness really stood out in those
seven years we worked together. Although we did not always have
the same intentions, we worked together honourably.
I know the hon. member for Joliette will be missed as a
contributor to this institution. He will not go quietly into the
night but will be missed by those of his colleagues who worked
for the common good here if sometimes in different directions.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise on this motion that aims to proclaim June 15
Canadian forces day.
I believe the many men and women employed with the Canadian
forces deserve recognition from all Canadians. Not only do these
Canadians face often very difficult conditions due to the nature
of their work but they must also deal with a Liberal government
that has not provided the kind of support they need.
We have heard many stories about poor equipment, inadequate
health care and lack of support for our troops overseas. Earlier
this week I addressed the House of Commons on the topic of
Canadian peacekeepers heading toward Ethiopia. I said then and I
will say again that first and foremost all Canadians involved in
that effort must be properly equipped, clothed, supported,
trained, led and organized.
I do hope the government has learned from the extreme hardships
encountered by peacekeepers in Croatia and will ensure that our
peacekeepers on this most recent mission will be provided with
every opportunity to fulfil their mission safely and securely.
The report we saw on Canada's peacekeeping efforts in Croatia
produced a troubling and very disturbing picture. On that
occasion our peacekeepers had a lack of lumber and sandbags to
adequately protect themselves from regular shelling and gunfire.
They also lacked proper medical support and sufficient advance
surgical team support. The UN in that case refused for weeks to
examine complaints from our peacekeepers that the drinking water
was contaminated.
Our peacekeepers, their families and communities deserve to know
that the government has addressed all these issues and is doing
everything possible to ensure that our peacekeepers are provided
with all the support possible.
While I support the notion of proclaiming Canadian forces day, I
would expect more from the Liberal government than merely setting
aside a day for recognition. As NDP spokesperson, I am appalled
by the way in which our troops and civilian defence employees
have been treated.
The government does not really have an overall vision for our
military. It seems that things happen on a case by case basis.
Often decisions are made on the spur of the moment. We really
need for our military an overall vision of what we as Canadians
want our military to be and what role we want it to perform. That
vision should be properly resourced and staffed. In that way
people can go about their business without worrying about cuts in
budgets or about not having enough people to send off on various
peacekeeping missions.
Despite the Liberal mishandling of Canadian forces issues, I
take my hat off to all men and women who have served and continue
to serve with such commitment and dedication. These men and
women have shown their devotion and love of our country. They
have performed their roles very well. We must take our hats off
to them.
I think particularly of the sacrifices endured by the families
of military personnel. Many times the spouses and children are
left at home while their loved ones are off on missions in very
dangerous settings. This is indeed quite a disruption to family
stability, but they all pull together and give their best because
of their love of and devotion to this country and the job they
are doing.
The government's announcement to finally replace the Sea King
helicopters underscores its complete mishandling of the whole
issue of support for our military. Every step of the way in the
Liberal government's supreme bungling of the Sea King
replacements has reflected the worst example of placing short
term political interests ahead of the safety of Canadian forces
personnel and Canadian citizens.
1410
In the House of Commons the NDP has been at the forefront
pushing for replacements for the Sea Kings. I wrote the Prime
Minister in June of this year, stating:
—it would be a shame, and in fact inexcusable, to allow the
political background and decisions of the past concerning new
military helicopters to cause any further delay in making a
speedy and proper decision at this time.
Subsequently there was an announcement that the government was
moving ahead with the contract on the Sea Kings. This appearance
of taking the matter off the back burner and putting it on the
front burner is somewhat suspect timing as we head toward an
election.
We note that the helicopters will not be available until 2005.
The first part of the contract, for the airframe, will not be
awarded until sometime in 2001. The second part, for the
missions system contract, will not be awarded until 2002. Even
today we hear concerns being expressed on the part of some of the
contenders for the contract. They feel there is a question about
the contracting process, that it eliminates some and enables
others to be at the forefront for the particular contract.
It is obvious that political considerations of the Liberal
government are still more important than the safety of our
Canadian forces personnel, who will be depending on the aging Sea
Kings for a long time yet to come.
I have pointed out on previous occasions that Sea Kings went
into service in 1963, when Diefenbaker was prime minister, 19
current members of parliament had yet to be born and Martin
Luther King had yet to give his famous speech. Sea King crashes
have killed and injured Canadians, yet almost 14 years have
passed since the Liberals first began the process of replacing
the Sea Kings.
I am glad we are finally moving forward on that issue, but there
is nothing the government can do at this point to wipe away this
huge stain on its record. Over seven years ago Sea Kings started
dropping out of the sky due to systems failures. The Liberals
are accountable to Canadians for each and every day of those
seven years that they did nothing. The recent fiasco with the
Liberal government's handling of the GTS Katie is just one
more example of the disaster of privatization. Canadian troops
and forces equipment should be transported by Canadian forces
vessels, period.
In the House on May 12 of this year I raised the issue of
contracting out. A recent defence audit condemned contracting
out in the military. The forces contracting out fiasco began
with ill-fated alternative service delivery that has cut DND
civilian workforces in Halifax, Goose Bay, Shiloh, Gagetown and
throughout the country.
The October 1988 report of the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs, entitled “Moving Forward: A
Strategic Plan for Quality of Life Improvements in the Canadian
Forces”, states:
Members of the Canadian Forces must be fairly and equitably
compensated for the work they do and the risks they take. Members
and their families should never have to suffer the indignity of
substandard housing, nor should they be reduced to charity in
order to feed their families.
The lifestyle faced by military personnel often makes it well
nigh impossible to support a dual income lifestyle.
Despite all this I must again applaud the men and women who
serve in the Canadian forces, both military and civilian.
Civilian personnel are sometimes forgotten in this regard. They
perform an integral and important role that is often overlooked
in providing support throughout the service. When we look at
what is happening with our civilian personnel we see the
government wanting to privatize such things as the supply chain
project rather than allowing in-house bids to deal with those
issues.
When I think about having a day to honour the Canadian forces I
also think of the reserves. Reservists play a very important
role in our military. Just this past week, on October 18, many
reservists wore the uniform with pride as part of reserve uniform
day. Reservists have served Canada for over a century and have
served on peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. On behalf of
the New Democratic Party, it is my honour to commend all
reservists for their commitment to their communities and their
country.
1415
In my riding of Halifax West reservists played an essential role
in the recovery of Swissair flight 111 and have provided
invaluable service throughout Canada, including service during
the Manitoba flood, the 1998 ice storm, avalanches and forest
fires.
I would urge all Canadians, as we think about a day to celebrate
the Canadian forces, to take time to say thank you to the
reservists who are so committed to our country. They deserve to
be well trained, properly equipped and adequately funded in order
to be a vital component of the forces of the future.
I am pleased to say that we would support a day recognizing the
Canadian forces because they are indeed an integral part of our
society. They do a lot to make Canada the kind of country of
which we can all be proud.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members of the House, before I go to my speech, I also want to
say that this will be my last speech. I said the other night
when I spoke in the take note debate that it was my last speech,
but this definitely will be my last speech in the House.
I want to thank all members for their co-operation over the
years. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all the Speakers
for the great role they play in the running of this glorious
institution.
The government readily supports private member's Motion No. 134
to designate Canadian forces day. This day would officially
recognize on an annual basis the significant contribution that
our military forces make in promoting Canadian interests, peace
and security, both at home and around the world.
Through the instituting of Canadian forces day, citizens across
the country would be encouraged to learn more about our armed
forces. It would provide them with an opportunity to personally
thank the many men and women who work tirelessly in Canada's
interests day after day, year after year.
A Canadian forces day would mean a lot to Canadians, and it
would mean a lot to those in uniform. The Canadian forces are a
vital national institution. They reflect Canada's cultural,
linguistic and regional diversity, with a presence in every
province and territory, in more than 3,000 communities across
the country. The Canadian forces are made up of many faces, all
of them serving as one under a single flag. They come from
across the nation, from farms and from cities, from different
ethnic and religious backgrounds, men and women alike, all of
them united by the common cause of serving Canada and Canadians.
The Canadian forces are an essential part of the national fabric.
Just outside this building on the lawns of Parliament Hill every
summer, members of the primary reserve force conduct the
colourful changing of the guard ceremony. Many of them, as
trained infanteers, have also served overseas on peacekeeping
missions or assisted during domestic crises, such as the ice storm
of 1998, as has been mentioned. These Canadians live, work and
study in this very community.
The Canadian forces are everywhere we look. Forces personnel
are raising families in our communities, contributing to our
local economies and working alongside many of us, sometimes
without our knowledge or recognition. Defence research and
development is stimulating Canadian innovation. The national
cadet program is teaching responsibility and citizenship to our
children. The Canadian forces, in short, are a very integral
part of our society.
The Canadian forces are also an integral part of Canada's
history. Since Confederation, their members have made great
sacrifices in the building of our nation. Thousands of Canadians
have died in active service with the Canadian forces, from
Paardeburg to Vimy Ridge, from the beaches of Normandy to
Kapyong. Many of the veterans who survived some of these battles
are among us today, former members of the Canadian forces who
fought with great courage for their nation.
The Canadian forces today continue to perform core functions of
the government. Our men and women in uniform work every day to
protect Canadian sovereignty, promote national interests and
secure international peace and security.
Canadian forces members bring relief during natural disasters.
They provide search and rescue services. They patrol our
coastline and enforce Canadian law. They help fulfil our
international obligations. They bring peace and stability to
troubled regions of the world through peace support operations.
Over the last year or so the Canadian forces have been involved
in the interception of over 600 illegal migrants, year 2000
preparations, disaster relief in Turkey, peacekeeping in East
Timor, NATO operations in Kosovo, and North American security
through NORAD.
1420
The Canadian forces provided support to and helped co-ordinate
over 8,000 search and rescue operations, a record number. These
efforts resulted in the saving of over 4,000 lives.
At this very moment approximately 2,500 Canadian forces
personnel are deployed on 16 operations around the world. We
currently have more than 1,500 men and women in
Bosnia-Herzegovina alone. The list of operations is long:
Ethiopia and Eritrea, Iraq and Kuwait, the Golan Heights,
Guatemala, and Sierra Leone. Just recently a Canadian officer,
Major-General Hillier, assumed command of Multi-National Division
Southwest in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
As these examples illustrate, all members of the Canadian
forces, from privates to general officers, are making a concrete
difference in improving the world in which we live. Much of
their work is, by its very nature, thankless and hard. Members
of the Canadian forces have chosen a profession that puts their
lives at risk, all in the name of Canada and Canadian interests.
They face down aggression and tyranny in distant lands every day
so that we may live in peace and prosperity here at home.
The government is committed to providing the Canadian forces
with the right tools for the job. With two consecutive defence
budget increases, a comprehensive quality of life program, and a
list of newly procured equipment, the Canadian forces are
building a strong future on an even stronger foundation.
The government is also committed to ensuring that our soldiers,
sailors, airmen and airwomen are properly recognized and publicly
thanked for their national service.
On September 6 the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief
presented the first Canadian peacekeeping service medals to
recipients in Ottawa, including many members of the Canadian
forces. As Canadians we recognize elements and individuals of
the Canadian forces through various honours and events such as
this one. However, we have yet to reserve a day when all
Canadians from coast to coast can take a moment to thank all
members of the Canadian forces for their dedication and hard
work. By declaring a Canadian forces day today in the House, we
will provide that opportunity.
People across the country will be given the occasion to
recognize the accomplishments of our men and women in uniform. It
will, in short, give Canadians an opportunity to thank Canadian
forces personnel for their dedicated work. It is time for us to
officially set aside a day when Canadians of all walks of life
can thank members of the Canadian forces for their service and
increase their knowledge of military issues in the process. It
is time to officially establish Canadian forces day.
I urge my fellow members to support this motion. I would like
to put forward the following amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
words “Canadian Forces” and substituting the following: “both
at home and abroad, in such areas as humanitarian assistance,
disaster relief, search and rescue and UN peacekeeping, should
proclaim the first Sunday in June as Canadian Forces Day”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair had a
previous notice of the amendment. The amendment is in order.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to stand today to speak in support of Motion
No. 134.
Although we support the bill, we have to recognize the
government cuts that the Department of National Defence has
suffered. In 1993-94 the defence budget was $12.4 billion. In
1997-98 it was down to $9.8 billion. That does not really show
support from the Liberal government. There has been a reduction
of 23%. The reduction in the number of civilian employees at the
Department of National Defence has been a staggering 40%. General
Maurice Baril says that there is likely to be an additional
reduction of 2,000 to 3,000 people in that department.
The government has gutted the heart and soul of the armed
forces. Let us not forget that the Sea King helicopter
replacement program is currently being investigated by the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal and that there have
actually been some pilots who have lost their lives because of a
very bad decision by the Liberals.
Let us not forget the soldiers who are forced to visit food
banks. I do not think that should be happening. I could go on
and on.
1425
The armed forces deserve our unconditional support and respect.
I commit to the House that members of my party will stand for our
armed forces on June 15 or on the first Sunday in June. They
will certainly have our support on that day as well as the other
364 days of the year.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
before I go back to the motion I would like to echo some of the
comments that have been made in this place in connection with
your own participation and membership in this Chamber. I wish
you the very best in terms of your future endeavours. You
certainly have been a credit to the House. I have watched you
over the last number of years since I was elected in 1997 and I
can say that I have a great deal of respect for the way you have
handled your role in the chair.
I did not get an opportunity, because I could probably speak for
quite some time on these subjects, to talk about the Canadian
forces in NATO, search and rescue operations or the many other
activities in which they involve themselves. However, I think
those activities have been amply discussed by other members who
have spoken to the issue before the House today, including the
member for Hillsborough, the member for Elk Island, the member
for Halifax West and the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
There were some comments made during the course of the debate to
which I want to make reference, that is, the whole business of
recognizing past and present members of the forces through the
motion. That is what the motion does. It just does not
recognize members of the Canadian forces who are serving right
now but recognizes the many others who served in years past.
Another hon. member made mention of the fact that Canadian
sovereignty has never been threatened. He would have a hard time
putting that argument to members of the Canadian forces who
served in the battle of the St. Lawrence during the second world
war.
I would like to read another endorsation of this idea from the
Conference of Defence Associations. As I mentioned earlier, a
tremendous number of groups and individuals have supported the
motion. The Conference of Defence Associations has said that the
28 member associations of the CDA, comprising over half a million
individuals coast to coast, stand behind any action to bring
attention and appreciation to members of the Canadian forces.
This is likely to be the last day of debate in parliament. I
can think of no better way to honour the men and women of the
Canadian forces than by proclaiming the first Sunday in June as
Canadian forces day. I would request unanimous consent of the
House for the passage of the motion with the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the member for
Nepean—Carleton have unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we close
today I should like to add a couple of words to indicate how
humble and how proud I am to have been able to occupy this
wonderful chair for the past three years.
I thank all members very much for the generosity shown to me for
three years and particularly for today.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hour provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired.
Since the motion was not votable, the item is dropped from the
order paper.
[English]
It being 2.30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)
The Second Session of the 36th Parliament was dissolved by Royal
Proclamation on October 22, 2000.