36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 124
CONTENTS
Thursday, September 28, 2000
1000
1005
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-44. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1010
| Importation of Plutonium
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Bill C-8. Report stage
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1015
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1020
1025
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1030
1035
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1040
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1045
1050
1055
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1100
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1105
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1110
| The Deputy Speaker |
1115
| Division on motion deferred
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Motion
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Motion
|
1120
| MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Motions in amendment
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 4
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 5
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Motion No. 6
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 8
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 9
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 10
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 11
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 14
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Motion No. 15
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 21
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motions Nos. 22 and 23
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 24
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 25
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 30
|
1125
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motions Nos. 31, 33, 35 and 36.
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 38.
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Motions No. 39
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 51.
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motions Nos. 52 and 54.
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Motions Nos. 57 and 58.
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1130
1135
1140
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1145
1150
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1155
1200
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1205
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1210
1215
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1220
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1225
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1230
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1250
1255
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Motions Nos. 32 and 34
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1300
1305
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1310
1315
| Mr. John Duncan |
1320
1325
| Division on Motion No. 4 deferred
|
| The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 |
| Division on Motion No. 8 deferred
|
| The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 |
| Division on Motion No. 10 deferred
|
| The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 |
| Division on Motion No. 14 deferred
|
| The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 |
| Division on Motion No. 21 deferred
|
| The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 |
| Division on Motion No. 24 deferred
|
| The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 |
1330
| Division on Motion No. 30 deferred
|
| The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 |
| Division on Motion No. 38 deferred
|
| The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 |
| Division on Motion No. 51 deferred
|
| The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 |
| Division on Motion No. 54 deferred
|
| The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 16
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motions Nos. 17 to 20
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Motion No. 49
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 50
|
1335
1340
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1345
1350
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| THE LATE HON. MARCEL LAMBERT
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1355
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1400
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1405
| The Speaker |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE LATE GEORGE K. DRYNAN
|
| Mr. Ivan Grose |
1410
| TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST MOX
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| BOMBARDIER
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE MINI-BUDGET
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| GOVERNMENT POLICIES
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1425
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1430
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1435
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1440
| CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1445
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1450
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1455
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| BIOSAFETY PROTOCOL
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| PRESENTATION OF REPORTS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1500
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Disclosure of Documents
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| The Speaker |
1510
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| The Speaker |
| Bill C-44
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| The Speaker |
1515
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Bill C-8. Report stage
|
| Division on Motion No. 16 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 49 deferred
|
1520
| ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
|
| Bill C-39. Second reading
|
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
1525
1530
| Mr. David Chatters |
1535
1540
1545
1550
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1555
1600
1605
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1610
1615
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1620
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1625
1630
1635
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-36. Second reading
|
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. John Maloney |
1640
1645
1650
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1655
1700
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1705
1710
1715
1720
1725
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
| CULTURAL INDUSTRY
|
| Motion
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1735
1740
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1745
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
1750
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Motion
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 124
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, September 28, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
The Speaker: Before we begin the daily routine of
business I address myself directly to the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Yesterday there was a question of privilege introduced by the
hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst with regard to an alleged
leaking of a document, specifically the bill. Is the minister
prepared to address that at this point, or will she do it after
question period?
1005
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to do
it after question period, if that is acceptable to the House.
The Speaker: It would be acceptable to the House for you
to do it then. We will expect your response.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table,
in both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-44, an act to amend
the Employment Insurance Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, if you were to seek consent of the House I think you
would find, as a result of all party consultations, there is
agreement to the following motion:
That all report stage motions standing in the name of the member
for Dauphin—Swan River be changed to stand in the name of the
member for Edmonton North.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for Athabasca
could enlighten the Chair on which bill this motion concerns.
That would be helpful.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, it is Bill C-8.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the proposal of
the hon. member for Athabasca. Is there unanimous consent for
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a
petition on behalf of citizens in the Grand Bend, Thedford and
London area.
They urge the government to eliminate the gas additive MMT as it
has a negative impact both on people's health and our ecosystem
at large.
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition bearing
the signatures of a number of constituents in the riding of
Charlevoix.
This is just one more in a series of petitions presented in this
House relating to rapidly escalating gasoline prices.
The petitioners call upon the government to act to lower the
excessive price of crude oil and to devote sufficient funding to
alternative energy research.
[English]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I present three petitions on behalf of my colleague, the
member for Okanagan—Shuswap.
The first petition is signed by 47 constituents in that riding.
These Canadians ask parliament to take all measures necessary to
ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious
criminal offence.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the second and third petitions are signed by a total of
103 residents.
They ask that parliament withdraw Bill C-23 and affirm the
opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure
marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
1010
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition signed
by 350 constituents in the riding of Jonquière.
The petitioners are calling upon parliament to take all of the
steps necessary to ensure that the public and its
representatives are consulted on the principle of importing MOX
plutonium.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 92 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. John Williams:
Do any of the following agencies provide governor in council
appointees with tax free allowances and if so (i) what is the
amount of the individual allowances and (ii) the reason for the
allowances, for example, second residences and/or transportation:
(a) Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages; (b)
National Film Board of Canada: (c) Canada Industrial Relations
Board; (d) Canadian Dairy Commission; (e) Atomic Energy
Control Board; (f) Canadian Space Agency; (g) Immigration and
Refugee Board; and (h) Privy Council Office?
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): No “tax free” allowances are provided to governor in
council appointees, however, some of these appointees do receive
allowances which are specified as being “net after tax”. They
are not tax free. These types of allowances normally cover travel
and living expenses incurred during temporary relocation and are
generally in line with those available under the Treasury Board
integrated relocation policy.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed from September 27 consideration of Bill C-8,
an act respecting marine conservation areas, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
apologize if the request I made was not properly put on paper,
although the House was aware that pursuant to consultations
yesterday the first order to be called today would be the motion
for the appointment of the privacy commissioner, not Bill C-8.
I understood that debate would be rather brief but it was to be
the first order called today.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry the Chair was not aware of
the order that had been agreed but I will put the question to
the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. Have you taken for granted that the
House had given its consent that this motion would be the first
item discussed today?
The Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter of consent. The
government is entitled to change the designated order for
anything under government orders. I do not believe that it is a
matter of the consent of the House because we did not begin
with the item the clerk read at the table. I believe it is
completely normal for the government to determine the order in
which we will deal with items under government orders.
* * *
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, in accordance with subsection 53(1)
of the Act to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the
privacy of individuals and that provide individuals with a right
of access to personal information about themselves, Chapter P-21
of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, this House approve the
appointment of George Radwanski of Toronto, Ontario, as Privacy
Commissioner for a term of seven years.
1015
First, I want to thank Bruce Phillips whose mandate ended on
August 30 and who carried out his duties with integrity and
professionalism.
An eminent journalist, Mr. Phillips served as deputy privacy
commissioner from February 1990 to April 1991. He then assumed
the position of privacy commissioner from April 1991 to quite
recently, namely August 30.
With the ongoing responsibilities and the extremely delicate
nature of the position of privacy commissioner, it should be
filled quickly.
Therefore, pursuant to subsection 53(4) of the Privacy Act, the
governor in council may give any qualified individual the powers
and functions of the incumbent of this position. George
Radwanski has therefore been appointed acting commissioner.
I hope that all members of this House will support the
appointment of Mr. Radwanski as the next privacy commissioner.
[English]
The Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government
Operations met to consider Mr. Radwanski's appointment last
Thursday, September 21. The committee reviewed Mr. Radwanski's
extensive experience which, as I am sure all hon. members will
agree, makes him very well qualified to assume the role of
privacy commissioner.
A former journalist, Mr. Radwanski is currently president of his
own public policy and communications consulting firm. From 1965
until 1985 he held journalism positions of increasing
responsibility for various newspapers, including associate editor
of the Montreal Gazette, Ottawa editor and national affairs
columnist with the Financial Times of Canada and editor in
chief with the Toronto Star.
Indeed, he was honoured by his peers in the journalism
profession on two occasions, namely in 1980 and 1981 with the
national newspaper award for editorial writing.
Following his departure from the journalism field, Mr. Radwanski
entered the public service when he was appointed by the then
Ontario premier, David Peterson, to head major studies into
matters of importance to the Canadian public, including a study
into the service sector in Ontario.
In 1996 at the request of the Canadian government, Mr. Radwanski
chaired the mandate review of the Canada Post Corporation, a very
important task.
During his journalism career and indeed his professional
activities following his departure from the journalism field,
George Radwanski has demonstrated a commitment to Canadian values
and to serving the Canadian public. His long and distinguished
career will hold him in good stead in this future position.
With his background he will bring to the position both knowledge
and experience with the delicate and difficult problems of
balancing the public's right to know and the individual's right
to privacy. He will also bring to the position of privacy
commissioner the independence of mind of a journalist, which I am
sure all hon. members will agree is an extremely important
qualification for the job of privacy commissioner.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I encourage all members of this House to support
the motion to have the House approve the appointment of George
Radwanski as the privacy commissioner.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the official opposition certainly supports the
appointment of Mr. Radwanski as the privacy commissioner.
For years now the official opposition has asked that when
appointing people like this to key positions, the individual
should be interviewed by certain standing parliamentary
committees, and that was done in part in this case.
1020
Before I proceed any further, I would like to pay tribute to the
previous privacy commissioner, Mr. Bruce Phillips. It was my
privilege to meet with him on several occasions and I have a lot
of respect for the gentleman. He did the office a great honour
and carried out his responsibilities with respect and also with
great confidentiality. I am sure that Mr. Radwanski will do the
same.
I want to refer back to the particular interview process that
took place at the parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural
Resources and Government Operations. This particular committee
met and the members of the committee were invited “to an
informal meeting for the purpose of consulting with the interim
privacy commissioner.”
The hon. member opposite just indicated that the committee met
to consider the the appointment of Mr. Radwanski. To the best of
my recollection there was no motion made at this particular
committee, neither was it ever indicated that there was a
consideration here. It was for the purpose of consulting with,
which is quite different from the implication left by the words
that the hon. member used a moment ago.
Unfortunately, the committee interviewed someone who had already
been appointed. In one sense it was really a ratification and,
indeed, the motion here before the House is in fact a
ratification. It is my understanding that Mr. Radwanski has
occupied the position since September 1, 2000.
I want to ask this question. What was the status of this
committee meeting at that time? It was my understanding that the
committee was to have been conducted in a manner similar to that
of a regular meeting of the standing committee. While an
interview took place, while there was translation services and
while there was a broadcast on the usual radio channels, there
was no official record kept of what transpired at the committee
meeting.
I submit that there is little practical use of a meeting like
this, when it is purely a motion. I want to reinforce the
concept that we agree that these kinds of interviews should take
place with people who will be occupying key positions. It is
essential that we do this. There should be transparency, there
should be respect and there should be dignity for the office and
also for the people who are being chosen to occupy these
positions. In order to have meaningful input it should not be
simply a consultation and it should not be simply a matter of
meeting with this person.
We met Mr. Radwanski. He was a good individual. He met with
the group and expressed himself well and demonstrated that he was
able to do the job.
I would suggest that in future the record of these meetings be
recorded. It will help both the memory of the members who were
there and will also help to make the process transparent and
accountable and it will give the respect deserved to these kinds
of appointments.
I would like to say something as well about the individual who
is being considered today, Mr. George Radwanski. I do not think
there is any doubt that he is a very capable individual and that
he has extensive academic and experiential credentials to do the
job. However, one wonders whether his connections and
association, past and present, with the Liberal Party, both
federally and provincially, may have influenced the selection of
him as the privacy commissioner.
To be specific, I want to refer to some of these connections.
First, he was the special adviser to the treasurer of Ontario,
appointed by then Premier Peterson to undertake a study of the
service sector. He published the study known as “Ontario Study
of the Service Sector, 1986”.
Then, in 1987 he was the special adviser for the minister of
education in Ontario, again appointed by then Premier Peterson.
He undertook a major study which resulted in a publication
entitled “Ontario Study of the Relevance of Education, and the
Issue of Dropouts, 1987”.
He served as a senior strategy and policy adviser and principal
speech writer for the Right Hon. John Turner in the 1988 election
campaign. Then very recently, Mr. Radwanski served as a senior
policy, strategy and communications adviser to the Right Hon.
Prime Minister of Canada in the House today.
During the discussion and consultation in no way did Mr.
Radwanski ever try to cover this up or in any way suggest that he
did not have these associations.
In fact, he had had these associations and was quite open about
that. I commend him for that.
1025
He indicated that he wanted to make some recommendations with
regard to the Privacy Act so that the act could be brought more
up to date and more commensurate with the conditions in the world
of government and business today.
He wrote “The Future of Canada Post Corporation”, which was
a review of the Canada Post mandate to which the hon. member
opposite just referred. The publication was given to the hon.
minister then responsible for Canada Post Corporation in 1996.
Unfortunately, those recommendations did not go anywhere. I hope
the recommendations he will make on the Privacy Act will go a
little further than that.
The Canada Post mandate reflected in my opinion both depth of
understanding of sound management principles and what a strong
organizational structure should look like. His comments, even in
this early tenure in the position of privacy commissioner, showed
the same kind of understanding and sensitivity that he revealed
in that earlier review. I certainly wish him well.
In my mind there is no doubt about the competency of this
individual. However, I have the sneaking suspicion that his
appointment was not totally void of patronage considerations by
those making the recommendation to appoint him the Privacy
Commissioner of Canada.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I will make just a few comments on what the House has before it
today, this motion to appoint Mr. George Radwanski as the new
privacy commissioner.
At the outset, I want to say that everything I have to say today
should not be taken as a reflection in any way upon the integrity
of Mr. Radwanski or his competence as an individual, an
administrator or, for that matter, potentially as a privacy
commissioner. However, there are a number of concerns that
should be registered at this time.
If we have a recorded vote on this, it may well be that we might
choose to vote against the motion, not so much as an expression
of opposition to Mr. Radwanski, but more as our expression of
opposition to the process which has been followed and the fact
that the government has missed an opportunity to really do the
right thing and break new ground with respect to the appointments
being made to these kinds of positions.
One can understand, to a certain degree, what we normally call
patronage when the government appoints people to carry out its
policies. It is understandable even though this can be done to
excess and improperly with people without merit sometimes getting
appointed. Nevertheless, governments have a right to appoint
people to carry out policy whom they trust share their world view
and can carry out their policy thrusts in any particular area.
However, there are a number of other positions that are not
positions in which people are entrusted with the carrying out of
government policy. What they are entrusted with is the scrutiny
of government policy. Their job is to criticize, if necessary,
government policy. For instance, there is no possibility that
part of the job of an ambassador is to criticize government
policy. He is an extension of government policy. However, a
privacy commissioner, an information commissioner, an official
languages commissioner and a number of other of those kinds of
appointments that may exist either as officers of the House or
out in the broader realm of the public service are quite
different in that respect.
Certainly the Office of the privacy commissioner falls within
that realm.
1030
I go back, at the risk of sounding repetitive, as I know I do to
some people in the House, to the McGrath report. We suggested in
that report that real power be given to committees of the House
when it comes to these kinds of appointments and, for that
matter, when it comes to a variety of other critical
appointments, like the appointment of the head of the CRTC, at
that time called the CTC, and those to a number of other
government boards and commissions. This was not just to have
informal consultations but to give committees real power to hear
from potential candidates, not just candidates that the
government had already selected, or if it was fixed on only one
candidate, to hear from that candidate and make a recommendation.
For that matter, we even suggested that the committee have some
measure of veto power over whether or not an appointment was to
be made.
That long standing recommendation goes back some 15 years. The
government had an opportunity here to implement that
recommendation in one way or another through having a much more
meaningful process than it did, instead of asking us what we
thought of a candidate and then appointing him as an interim
privacy commissioner.
This is putting the rest of us on the spot now. The government
tells us that a candidate is going to come before the committee
and at committee we then find out that it is a hybrid event. It
is not really a committee meeting but an informal discussion.
There may or may not be a record of the conversation. I raised
this matter with the chairman at the time and I understood from
what he said that there would be a record, but now I understand
that there is not. The record is not available. As far as I am
concerned, I was misled at the time with respect to the nature of
the meeting.
There is a lot to be unhappy about. There is the failure of the
government to implement a long standing recommendation when it
had an opportunity to do so with respect to these kinds of
appointments. We are unhappy with the inadequacy of the
government's process, by its own standards.
Mr. Radwanski is capable of impartiality. Even though he was
an active Liberal, he has a history of being critical of the
Liberal government and the Liberal Party from time to time. That
is beside the point. The point is that when it comes to this
kind of position the government should have chosen someone who
was beyond reproach at the level of perception. I am sure that
there are many capable Canadians who have no particular political
party association and who would make great privacy commissioners.
They would not necessarily come from the public service because,
as we know, sometimes bureaucrats have a tendency to secrecy. I
do not mean secrecy in the privacy sense, but secrecy in the
secrecy sense. They might not fit the bill either.
I am sure that there are Canadians who would have been great
nominees. Parliament could have had some role in short listing
them and suggesting to the government that it select from half a
dozen people. This would have been a much more meaningful
process and would have helped, in the public's mind, to reduce
the cynicism about parliament being a rubber stamp for things
that are decided elsewhere. Let us not kid ourselves. This was
clearly decided elsewhere.
We could, for the sake of Mr. Radwanski and for the sake of
public perception, have a nice touchy feely debate in the House
and pretend that parliament is doing something. That is not what
is happening. Parliament has been presented with a fait accompli
and an inadequate process. This is another missed opportunity.
As far as I am concerned, this is another demonstration of the
fact that the government and the Liberal Party are a hopeless
case when it comes to democratic reform or doing anything that
would really enhance the perception and the power of parliament.
1035
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before discussing this appointment, I would like, on behalf of
the Bloc Quebecois, to acknowledge the work of Bruce Phillips
who, in spite of often extremely difficult circumstances, did a
professional job. Mr. Phillips can only be praised for the
impartiality and common sense that he displayed.
At this point, I think that the Parliament of Canada and all
Canadians and Quebecers want the privacy commissioner to be
someone with good judgment and with the ability to objectively
evaluate the facts before him.
We congratulate Bruce Phillips and we wish him a new career that
will allow him to use his skills for the benefit of society.
As for the appointment of Mr. Radwanski, anyone taking the time
to read his resumé can only agree that this man has a very
extensive knowledge of Canadian politics. He is most certainly a
brilliant and very intelligent person.
We all know, however, that these qualities are important but do
not necessarily provide all the rigour required to hold an
office that must be totally exempt from any partisan behaviour.
The Bloc Quebecois will not approve this appointment for the
simple reason that parliament must be allowed to ask questions
to a candidate to the position of privacy commissioner.
This is another appointment made by the executive branch of
government and it could be perceived as a political
appointment. I believe the government—the one that is still in
office—would definitely not want to give that impression. I
humbly suggest that the government order that this candidate be
called by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to
answer the questions of members of parliament. In my view, this
is the least we can ask in a parliament that claims to be the
most democratic and the best one in the world.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the
Bloc for her statement.
The other day we were informed that the Freshwater Fish
Marketing Corporation in Winnipeg has been given another board
director through order in council without any consultation from
the fisheries committee, without any consultation from anyone.
This name just appeared, and bang. Through government order in
council this person is now in a very important position within
the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in Winnipeg.
I would like to have the hon. member's comments both on the
systemic attitude that the government has shown in ignoring past
recommendations and on making these appointments much more open
and much more transparent to all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that the issue of transparency in parliaments
is taking on increasing importance. With the emergence of all
the information technologies, the average person is becoming
increasingly aware that things are not as they should be.
The appointment to which the hon. member referred is just one
more example of what I would call the almost disturbing power
wielded by a majority government which has the right to decide
on a number of appointments with ramifications for the public.
1040
[English]
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, as our House leader said earlier, our opposition to
this process is not based on any personal judgment about Mr.
Radwanski, who is a journalist of some renown although he does
have historic and close ties with the Liberal Party. It is the
process we do not like.
Can my hon. friend from the Bloc enlighten us briefly about what
sort of process would be better in a case like this, rather than
having the government simply dip into its bag of Liberal contacts
and friends to make an appointment that really flies in the face
of any parliamentary debate or participation? What process would
be better?
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker,
I will give an example of what I think would be a clear way of
doing things.
We will be having an election soon, in three weeks or three
months. We do not know when but there will be one. When
elected parliamentarians return to the House how will they
choose their Speaker?
It is the role of the Speaker of the House of Commons to be
impartial, to use judgment and common sense. These are three
attributes required of the privacy commissioner. I think that
everyone would agree with me.
Why, therefore, would parliament not elect one of several
candidates? Naturally this takes longer and is more
complicated than just appointing someone, but when it is a
question of privacy, something that affects us all, is it not
worth taking a little of the House's time? This is something
that is very basic and I am certain that Canadians as well as
Quebecers would see it as a plus for democracy.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to take part in this debate. I think it is about a
very important matter.
I will begin my remarks by commending and thanking Mr. Phillips
for his work. He has worked very hard for the country.
[English]
I think it is fair to say that he brought great competence and
great class to the office he filled and to the work he did on
behalf of Canadians in his capacity as privacy commissioner.
I would very much like to attach myself to the remarks of prior
speakers on the opposition side of the House, particularly those
of the House leader of the New Democratic Party, who has a great
deal of experience and a remarkable degree of understanding of
the inner workings of parliament.
Much of the theme he touched on in his remarks is that which is
most important, which we are discussing here, and that is, it is
not the personal aspects of this appointment but the process that
was followed that is offensive to those previous speakers on the
opposition side.
I also must take issue with the way in which we were given some
semblance of an opportunity to have interaction and discussions
with Mr. Radwanski. I want to preface everything by saying this
is not to in any way question the integrity, competence or
ability of this individual. Yet when the name was first brought
forward in February of this year by the government House leader,
there was some initial resistance, some initial question, that
was expressed on the part of other government House leaders. I
note that my colleague from the Bloc is indicating likewise.
The issue just seemed to disappear. It just seemed to go away.
Then, while parliament was not in session this summer, we were
suddenly notified after the fact that this person would be given
this appointment. It was a very after the fact, stealth like
consultation.
1045
The government House leader is being a little economical with
the truth when he says this has been an open and inclusive
process. It is a shame, a crying shame, because in my opinion
this puts a pall over an individual who very well could serve the
country in the same professional, proficient fashion we have seen
of Mr. Phillips. That remains to be seen. We will see how this
turns out.
It is very important to note, as my colleague from the reform
alliance has put on record, the very close personal contacts this
individual has with the Liberal government. Something else
important to point out is that the resumé we received at the
pseudo-committee meeting we had did not include the same
connections that were on the initial résumé given back in
February. Those references have already been pointed out.
That is not to say a person who was senior policy strategy and
communications adviser to the Prime Minister would necessarily be
partisan. However, one would assume that working in that
capacity he would be called upon on occasion to dispense partisan
advice. One would also assume that working in that capacity very
closely with the Prime Minister he would achieve some level of
personal attachment and friendship. Similarly one would suspect
that in working as a senior strategy and policy adviser and
principal speech writer for the Right Hon. John Turner a personal
relationship and connection would develop.
We know times change. We know things evolve. Yet the same
government House leader who, while a prominent member of the rat
pack, used to stand on his desk and rail like a banshee at the
prior Conservative government, using words such as patronage orgy
and nepotism while in opposition, now has very much embraced this
supposedly offensive practice. He has wrapped his arms around
it.
I have a compiled list of over 500 appointments in the past
seven years that indicate a very strong golden thread of
connection to the Liberal Party which leads to very lucrative and
rewarding patronage type appointments. The shoe is on the other
foot and is now kicking the opposition in the teeth.
I know I cannot use the word hypocrisy in this place. I am not
allowed to use that word, but it is a shame because it seems to
me it smacks of just that. Famous words were uttered in debate
when Mr. Turner was left with that anvil of patronage
appointments hanging around his neck. It was pointed out by
former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney that he had a choice. He
had to wear that albatross. Yet it appears the government House
leader did not have a choice. He had to take his marching orders
from Mr. Goldenberg and the Prime Minister's Office. He had to
follow along the same path. He obviously was in the same boat as
Mr. Turner.
We know other very important supposedly non-partisan roles have
been filled on the advice of Mr. Goldenberg and others in the
Prime Minister's Office. As the House leader for the New
Democratic Party alluded to, it diminishes and sullies the
process when this attachment exists.
We know as well the significance of the office cannot be lost.
The significance should never be undermined or in any way
attacked or somehow devalued during the course of the debate,
because the ethics commissioner's office is very important, if it
is exercised in the way it is supposed to be.
Similarly, regarding the privacy commissioner, the information
commissioner and all of the roles that are filled by individuals,
I say with great sincerity that one hopes the persons in those
positions will exercise their duties in a non-partisan fashion.
When the perception exists that the only reason the appointment
has occurred is a close connection to an individual in
government, in this case the Prime Minister, or an individual
with strong Liberal connections, in my opinion this leads to
questions and further cynicism, almost bordering on apathy at
times on the part of the public when this practice continues.
1050
As was mentioned as well, the qualifications of the particular
person whose name has been brought forward are very impressive.
He is an author of great renown and an individual with
connections in the journalistic community. I am yet to be
convinced and I am yet to even hear proper explanation as to why
it is that a person necessarily with a journalistic background or
an academic background is the person who should fill the role of
privacy commissioner. I do not quite follow that thinking.
Again, this is not to attack the personalities here, but what
special qualifications do journalists have that make them good
privacy commissioners? We know the natural role of a journalist
is to disseminate and distribute information, as opposed to
protecting the public information. It seems to me a completely
contrary role is filled by a journalist or author.
In this context, in this parliament we have seen an occasion
when private information of Canadian citizens was being
distributed and was being handled in a very sloppy fashion, shall
we say, by the HRDC, and the privacy commissioner in his capacity
played a very important role in making that public. Would this
person, with his close Liberal connections, have done the same
thing?
Again we must ask that question because it is also the public
perception of impartiality that is important here, not just the
real impartiality, but the perception of same. We see that
phrase used quite often in the courtroom: it is not only that
justice be done, but that justice is seen to be done. That is
exactly what is at issue in this debate and the questions
surrounding this appointment.
The government, I would suggest, has failed to discharge its
duty of giving that public assurance and giving that impression.
Therefore we have some difficulties with this: difficulty with
the process, difficulty with that same old Liberal arrogance that
is being displayed more and more with each passing day.
The neutrality of this position has to be paramount, as well as
certainly a working knowledge of the Privacy Act. Again, I did
have the opportunity to participate in the sham of a committee.
As was alluded to, it was a hybrid. It was not really a
committee, but it was an opportunity after the fact to examine
the qualifications of this individual. To his credit, he
certainly owned up very quickly to his connections to the Liberal
government and expounded on his abilities in other areas.
One concern I have is a full appreciation and working knowledge
of technology. I suspect that in the capacity of privacy
commissioner there has to be a real indepth grasp and knowledge
of the information technology explosion and an ability to
understand how important it is to protect information that is now
available in computer banks and computer information that is held
by the government. Again we are not completely clear on the
connection and the ability of the particular individual in that
capacity, but time will tell. Certainly we will have the benefit
of hindsight, one would argue, at some time to come.
The government should be the focus of this debate. The Liberal
government has created this situation. It could have been
avoided with a more open and inclusive process, if there had even
been the invitation early on to simply sit down and talk with
this person, to have an opportunity to meet him even, on an
informal basis, instead of this stealthy, behind the scenes
appointment process that occurred in this instance. Perhaps we
should have had an opportunity early on to do that, and it would
have avoided some of the unpleasantness and some of the bad taste
left in the mouth of the opposition with this appointment.
1055
I want to conclude my remarks by reminding the House of
something I was reminded of quite recently. The individual is an
officer of parliament whose duty, first and foremost, is to the
people of Canada and to the Parliament of Canada, to discharge
his or her duties honourably, with professionalism, and in an
impartial way, devoid of any sort of partisan political
considerations.
We are unfortunately left, to some degree, with damaged goods.
That is most unfortunate for the privacy commissioner. This
could have been avoided if the government had chosen to go about
this in a different fashion and if the nominee had been given an
opportunity earlier to meet with opposition members to satisfy
concerns they might have about the way in which this process took
place.
Again I would suggest that our retiring privacy commissioner,
Mr. Phillips, certainly performed very ably on behalf of the
country. We wish him well in his future endeavours.
We hope this debate, to some small degree, will be a reminder to
the government that those on the opposition side of the House
have every right to question. There is in fact a public
expectation that the opposition will question the way in which
these appointments are made. They should not have the ring or
the stench of patronage. They should not reflect nepotism.
If competence is to be the true criterion, let us ensure that
takes place through a fair, open and inclusive process of
examination of those appointments.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. member
from the Progressive Conservative Party as well as by all our
colleagues from the other political parties, except those from
the party in power.
We are now speaking about an officer of parliament. The privacy
commissioner is indeed an officer of parliament.
Would my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party be in
agreement with what my colleague from Laval Centre proposed,
that is that it should be up to parliament, therefore to all the
members in this House, to appoint officers of parliament? These
officers should have no connection of any kind since they are
supposed to represent the whole population.
Would he agree that all the members of parliament should elect
the privacy commissioner?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her
question.
[English]
I would certainly agree that parliament should have greater say
and greater participation in the selection of the officers of
this place.
To rule out individuals who have had active participation in the
political process is somewhat naive. I am not saying this
personally to the member. We do want to encourage people to
participate in the political process to whatever degree, through
support of the party, through support of an individual, or
through participation in politics generally. We do not want to
say that would somehow negate a person's ability to fill an
office.
However, if there is to be confidence and the perception that
the person will perform the role impartially, then parliament
should have the final say. I believe that having an open vote is
appropriate in some cases, not necessarily in all appointment
cases, but for roles in which the underlying objective and need
to be fulfilled is the duty to respond to parliament. Yes, at
the end of the day, parliament should have the final say in
electing those individuals.
1100
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his comments. I only wish
his good friend the premier of Nova Scotia, Dr. John Hamm, would
hear his comments. As we all know, a former major Conservative
member received a very plum position in Nova Scotia as deputy
minister of education and received a raise on top of what the
person previously in that position received. I hope his comments
translate to the provincial Conservative premier. But that is
just a little punch to a provincial issue.
The member is absolutely correct in that parliament needs to be
more relevant, more transparent and more open. What role can the
hon. member see the general public playing in this? Would it be
just through elected officials in the committee? Would the
general public have an actual say in this as well or does he feel
that it would get too bogged down in some sort of bureaucratic
malaise? Can the hon. member see the general public having an
actual say on who is appointed to these very prestigious
positions?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will respond in two
parts. First, about trying to make some sort of a tie to what
happened in Nova Scotia, that individual was not an officer of
parliament obviously. With respect to the NDP, I think there is
still some residual smarting for the spanking that party received
in the provincial election in Nova Scotia. I will not delve into
that partisan boxing match.
My colleague from the eastern shore of Nova Scotia would know
that it is sometimes difficult to involve the general public
entirely in the appointment processes. I would suggest that is
what elected individuals are supposed to do. They are entrusted,
one would hope, with the public confidence and with the faith
that they will fulfil their roles in critiquing the government or
when in government that they will fulfil their roles in an
impartial way to as large a degree as possible.
I know my friend from Nova Scotia, my fellow Bluenoser, is a
person who appreciates that these processes have to take place
sometimes in a speedy fashion. If we go to complete populism
where there are referendums on everything and complete public
input on every appointment, I would suggest that government and
the bureaucratic malaise he refers to would kick in. There would
be a grinding, screeching halt to all government operations if we
tried to approach it in that fashion.
I take his point. Certainly openness and greater participation
from all sides of the House and certainly increased public
confidence and increased public participation are things we
should all strive for in this place.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I listened carefully to what my colleagues from the opposition
parties had to say. I can only agree with them that this kind of
appointment should for the most part be made by parliament and
not by the government, its decision then being ratified by the
majority in the House.
This is the difference between an appointment made with the
consent of all the parties represented in the House and an
appointment submitted, brought forward and even, as is the case
today, imposed by the government.
To the credit of Bruce Phillips, the privacy commissioner who is
stepping down today, I must say that he had a very delicate role
to play in the last few months. The commissioner must absolutely
deal at arm's length with the government. We saw this not too
long ago, when he played a key role when the government tried to
link the data from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency with
those of the Department of Human Resources Development. Had he
been close to the government, he might not have got involved.
The retiring commissioner also played a major role in bringing
to light the existence of the longitudinal file of the
Department of Human Resources Development.
Had he been close to the government he might not have got
involved.
1105
We should really make sure that the individual appointed to this
position is impartial, non-partisan and independent, especially
from the government, and all the more so because the new
legislation dealing with the protection of personal information
in the private sector still seems to us to be very vague,
especially as regards the development of e-commerce.
It is important that the appointee be under no suspicion at
all for collusion or dubious contacts with the government.
Does the Conservative House leader
not find it strange that the appointment process for officials
of the House provided in various laws is not exactly the same?
Here is an example. Subsection 49(1) of the Official Languages
Act reads:
49.(1) There shall be a Commissioner of Official Languages for
Canada who shall be appointed by commission under the Great Seal
after approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate
and House of Commons.
As for the Privacy Act, it states under subsection 53(1):
53. (1) The Governor in Council shall, by commission under the
Great Seal, appoint a privacy commissioner after approval of the
appointment by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons.
A simple approval is all that is required.
Is it not strange that the appointment process is not exactly
the same for the various House officials and that, in this
case, the commissioner is appointed by the governor in council?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I think my colleague is absolutely right. I
believe it is necessary to apply the same standards so that
there is a balance.
[English]
The hon. member is right to point out that for these positions
there should be a higher standard. If we are going to expect the
office to hold the respect of the public, if we are going to
expect there to be confidence in the proficiency and in the
process, we should have this equal standard that requires the
approval and examination and the penetrating view of both houses.
Surely anything to suggest otherwise diminishes the importance
of the role itself. The privacy commissioner, language
commissioner, ethics commissioner and information commissioner
are all extremely important offices that serve or should serve
Canadians with the highest degree of professionalism and
non-partisanship. To ensure that happens in the first instance,
maybe we should be looking at a similar standard apply
that will give Canadians the confidence and that will give
parliament itself the confidence and dignity and raise the
standard which is applied to these appointments and the process.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues know, I have
been a member of this House for many years. September 4 marked
my 16th anniversary of continuous service in this place. You
know that I always follow with great interest and take part in
every debate in this House.
I have heard the speeches of the four opposition parties,
particularly that of the chief whip of my party on the
appointment process for the offices of commissioner of official
languages and privacy commissioner. There is a double standard.
I think that you, Mr. Speaker, would find unanimous consent to withdraw the
motion and to appoint privacy commissioners in the future using
the same appointment process as for the commissioner of official
languages.
Accordingly, I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the motion
so that in the future appointments to that position will be
made the same way as appointments to that of commissioner of
official languages.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1110
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am wondering if I could request the unanimous consent
of the House to table the curriculum vitae of Mr. Radwanski. This
is an important part of the debate and it would reflect some of
the comments that have been made during the course of this
debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to permit
the tabling of the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Document tabled)
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Just before I put the question,
the Chair would like to clarify something that happened earlier
today.
At the beginning of debate this morning when government orders
were called, the clerk at the table rose and announced that the
item of business to be called was Bill C-8 at report stage. The
announcement was complete. The government House leader indicated
that had not been his wish. He wished to proceed with the motion
that is now before the House and which I am about to put to the
House.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes raised a point of
order, asking the Chair to continue with Bill C-8, which had
been called by the clerk at the table. At that time I decided
that the government was always entitled to change the order of
government orders. That is what was done through the
intervention of the government House leader.
[English]
I regret that it appears the Chair made an error in making such
a ruling. In fact, the Chair should have proceeded with Bill C-8
at that time. The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes was
quite correct in that, and I cite for the House on this point,
Erskine May's book Parliamentary Practice, page 319:
When an order of the day has been read, it must thereupon be
proceeded with, appointed for a future day, or discharged. It
cannot be postponed until after another order except as the
result of a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown at the
commencement of public business.
The motion had in fact been called and should have been
proceeded with.
[Translation]
That said, I must also indicate that your Chair has, like all
other members, read the new work on this subject, House of
Commons Procedure and Practice, by our distinguished colleagues
Messrs. Marleau and Montpetit.
Its wording is less precise. It states:
When Government Orders is called, any item listed may be brought
before the House for consideration. Any item that has been
called, and on which debate has begun, must be dealt with until
adjourned, interrupted or disposed of.
The wording in the new book is not as precise as in Erskine May,
but I must state that our practice—and obviously I have been well
advised on this—has always been what is given in Erskine May, and
not in the new book.
I read something and believed it. Hence my decision, but it was
obviously in error, and the hon. member for
Verchères—Les-Patriotes was absolutely right. Certainly the next
time there will not be such a disaster.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, if you are saying that you
made a mistake when you authorized the tabling of the motion
and the debate, the motion must be withdrawn. This debate should
not have taken place and we must revert to the former version of
Bill C-8 and ignore the part dealing with this motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The problem is that the Chair made a
mistake. The decision had been taken and it was over and done
with. We have now completed the debate and the House is ready to
vote on the matter. I must therefore put the question to the
House.
I am sorry, and this time I am sure that I am not mistaken.
1115
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the deputy
government whip, the vote on the motion is deferred until Monday
at the conclusion of government orders.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two motions to present.
First, pursuant to discussions between all the parties and the
hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys
concerning the taking of the division on M-259 scheduled at the
conclusion of private members' business today, I think you would
find consent for the following motion. I move:
That at the conclusion today's debate on M-259, all questions
necessary to dispose of the said motion be deemed put, a recorded
division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 3,
2000, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the deputy government whip have
the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
aodpt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope there will be unanimous consent as well for the
following motion. I move:
That private members' business item, C-469 in the name of Mr.
Jordan, now stand instead on the order paper in the name of Mrs.
Jennings;
That private members' business item, C-438 in the name of Ms.
Redman, now stand instead on the order paper in the name of Ms.
Torsney;
That private members' business item, C-230 in the name of Ms.
Bulte, now stand instead in the name of Ms. Carroll;
That private members' business M-418 in the name of Mr. Szabo,
now stand instead in the name of Mr. Calder;
And that Private Members' Business C-457, in the name of
Ms Leung, be withdrawn and the order for consideration thereof
discharged.
1120
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to
adopt this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-8, an act respecting
marine conservation areas, as reported (with amendment) from
the committee.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce
the amendments to Bill C-8 standing in the name of the hon.
member for Portneuf, since the hon. member cannot be with us
today.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to
allow the hon. member for Jonquière to introduce the motions
standing in the name of the hon. member for Portneuf?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I will now put the motions in Group No. 2 to
the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be
amended by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 3 with the following:
Hon. Elinor Caplan (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 15 on
page 3 with the following:
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 5 to
11 on page 4 with the following:
“(3) Marine conservation areas and reserves shall be managed
and used in a manner that meets the needs of present and future
generations.”
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 25 to
27 on page 4 with the following:
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
Hon. Elinor Caplan (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 36 on
page 6 with the following:
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 43 on
page 7 with the following:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 4 on
page 8 with the following:
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 13 on
page 8 with the following:
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
1125
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 24 on
page 9 with the following:
“regulations, after consulting with the public as provided for
in article 3.2.3 of the National Marine Conservation Areas
Policy, consistent with international law,”
That Bill C-8, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 36
and 37 on page 10 with the following:
“recommendation of the Minister, the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Natural
Resources and shall be consistent with article 3.3.5 of the
National Marine Conservation Areas Policy.”
That Bill C-8, in Clause 16,
be amended by replacing line 9 on page 11 with the following:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 16, be amended by deleting lines 26 to
32 on page 11.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
Hon. Elinor Caplan (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage)
moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 5 and
6 on page 12 with the following:
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing line 21 on
page 17 with the following:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 30.1, be amended by adding after line 2
on page 18 the following:
“30.1 Any area named and described in Schedule 1 ceases to be a
marine conservation area five years after the amendment is made
to that Schedule adding the description of the area unless,
before the expiration of the five years, another amendment to
that Schedule is made altering the description of the area or
continuing its existence as a marine conservation area.”
Hon. Elinor Caplan (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 34, be amended
“34. (1) Paragraph (a) of the definition “other protected
heritage areas” in subsection 2(1) of the Parks Canada Agency Act
is replaced by the”
That Bill C-8, in Clause 35, be amended
“42. On the later of the coming into force of section 122 of
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the coming
into force of this Act,”
(b) by replacing lines 30 to 32 on page 22 with the following:
“tion de ce terme à l'article 122 de la Loi canadienne sur la
protection de l'environnement (1999), la mention dans cette
définition de”
(c) by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 22 with the following:
“matter listed in Schedule 5 to the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, 1999.”
(d) by replacing line 1 on page 23 with the following:
“tion Act, 1999, as if references in that sec-”
(e) by replacing line 12 on page 23 with the following:
“Protection Act, 1999 applies, as authorized by”
(f) by replacing line 18 on page 23 with the following:
“Protection Act, 1999 for disposal in the waters”
(g) by replacing line 29 on page 23 with the following:
“Protection Act, 1999 does not apply; and”
(h) by replacing line 37 on page 23 with the following:
“dian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to”
The Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that motions Nos. 32
and 34, standing in the name of the member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands, could not be proposed since the member was not
present in the House.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I rise with pleasure to speak in this debate at the
request of my devoted colleague from Jonquière, our critic on
this subject. She does remarkable work on behalf of the
environment within our party and always comes up with arguments
in the defence of Quebec's interests when the federal
government is likely to overstep the bounds of our jurisdiction.
I would first like to put the debate in context. The Bloc will
vote against this bill. We would not object to having stricter
or more up to date environmental measures voted on in the House,
but we have clearly defined in two paragraphs our position
which should it seems to me, rally all members or at least
those from Quebec, of all parties claiming to speak for the
interests of Quebec.
1130
“The Bloc Quebecois supports”, said the Bloc through its devoted
critic, the member for Jonquière, “environmental protection
measures”. More specifically, the Bloc Quebecois reminds the
government that we supported it when it introduced
legislation to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Government of
Quebec has its own initiatives to protect the environment and
specifically the seabed. The Government of Quebec is also open
to working in this regard with the federal government, as phase
III of the St. Lawrence action plan indicates.
However, and this is where the problem lies, the Bloc Quebecois
is opposed to the bill for the following reasons: instead of
focusing on co-operation, as in the case of the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence marine park, the federal government can fill marine
conservation areas without regard to Quebec's jurisdiction over
its own territory and the environment and, because Canadian
Heritage is proposing to establish a new structure, the marine
conservation areas will duplicate DFO's marine protection zones
and Environment Canada's marine protected areas.
This position is clear and simple and all members
representing Quebec should readily support it. The Bloc
Quebecois arrived at this position after extensive consultations
with the Quebec government, with opposition parties at the
national assembly, with Quebec's environmental groups and with
all the interested people in our province. Our party came to the
conclusion, along with these stakeholders, that this was the
best position to adopt in Quebec's best interest.
If the federal government wants to get involved, it should
harmonize its measures with what already exists. If Quebec
already has effective legislation in this area, why should the
federal government interfere? It is as simple as that. Everyone
should agree to avoid duplication and to respect provincial
jurisdictions, which means to respect the constitution.
All members from Quebec
are here to represent the interests of Quebec, regardless of
which party they belong to. In the case of this bill, the
interests of Quebec would be better served if the amendments
suggested by the hon. member for Jonquière were included in it.
This is not a debate on sovereignty, on a philosophical issue
or on an issue involving millions of dollars. It is not a debate
that would put members at odds with their constituents because
of election speeches made during the last campaign about their
party's platform. It is a matter of practicality. It is a matter
of pride and of willingness to serve Quebec's interests.
Members from Quebec sitting across the way are also here to
protect Quebec's interests but are not doing so by
supporting this legislation.
It is very simple, basic and something which
unites all Quebecers. Will the Liberal members
from Quebec refuse to come on board when everyone in Quebec is
favourable to the amendments we are proposing, the vision we
have presented in our speeches and through press releases and
letters written by our critic, the member for Jonquière?
Everyone in Quebec agrees on this except the federal Liberal
members. But what are they doing here? Do they represent the
interests of Quebec?
The member for
Shefford was here as a Progressive Conservative member.
She criticized the Liberal Party, voted against Bill C-20,
against everything. Suddenly she decides to cross the floor of
the House. She announces “I am going to move across to the
Liberal Party and see that provincial jurisdictions are
respected.
I am going to see that the Constitution is respected and, with
it, Quebec's rights”. Having gone over to the other side, she
has fallen silent. I see her there. Why does she say nothing?
1135
She now prefers to serve the Liberal Party and its leader, who
has always worked to crush Quebec. She prefers that to
defending Quebec's interests. What is the member doing?
I appeal to the people of Granby who are listening at home.
Their representative has stopped speaking. The person they
elected as a Progressive Conservative back then, thinking that
she would defend their interests, defended those interests for a
while and then suddenly went over to the other side.
I would like to send greetings to the mayor, the municipal
council and all the community, social and economic
organizations we had the opportunity to meet. The Bloc
Quebecois caucus meeting was held in the magnificent city of
Granby and we had an opportunity to visit the entire riding. We
saw what proud people they are.
I would like the people of Granby to know that the Bloc
Quebecois members will now be proud to defend them and proud to
speak for them here in the House of Commons. The people of
Granby will never hear the voice of their representative again.
They will never hear a word out of her, no more speeches.
When a person moves over to the Liberal Party, he or she joins a
voiceless party, what I called the “muffler party” the other
day.
Their representative will no longer speak for them, so I would
like the people of Granby to know that they can count on the
Bloc Quebecois and on us.
If they have questions, letters, phone calls or need someone to
defend their rights, let them call a valiant Bloc Quebecois MP.
We will be there to defend the people of Granby.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: You will not have that opportunity.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: I have just heard some words from a Quebec
Liberal MP. That is the surprise of the day. He said “You will
not have that opportunity”.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: From a Franco-Manitoban. Don't you know
the difference?
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Pardon me, a Manitoba MP. I would have
been surprised if it had been one from Quebec.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: He is confused. There is a difference
between Manitoba and Quebec.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I ask the member from
Manitoba, who will be speaking soon, to tell us just how much he
serves the interests of Manitoba's francophones. I sit on the
committee for the defence of the interests of francophones
outside Quebec and the official languages committee and I have
never seen him at this committee, I note in passing.
The people of Granby live in a beautiful region but their
spokesperson will be silent from now on.
I know that this lady gave the next general election
considerable thought before crossing over. I know, however,
that the voters of Granby are now thinking about who they will
vote for in the next election.
The situation is the same for the member for Compton—Stanstead.
He was here.
Why did he criticize everything the Liberal government proposed
for three years? For three years he criticized all the bills,
including Bill C-20. He rose to say “No, that makes no sense”.
Then after three years, he is prepared to join
this party, which has always worked contrary to the interests of
Quebec. He is prepared to do so as a member from Quebec. Is
that acceptable? Is he serving the interests of Quebec by doing
so or is he looking out for his own interests?
I am looking forward to seeing the reaction of the people of
this riding, whom I salute in passing, and to whom we offer our
full co-operation through our candidate, Mr. Leroux, who was
selected and who will make an excellent member.
It saddens me to think of this riding.
I remember the two previous members who represented that riding,
Mr. Bernier and François Gérin. These were men of their word.
They were elected, they worked hard for their riding and they
also respected Quebec's interests. Never would they have put
their personal interests before those of Quebec.
People in that riding must also be disappointed by the
attitude of a member of parliament who claimed to be a
spokesperson for Quebec. Now that he has crossed the floor, he
never opens his mouth.
I mentioned those two members of parliament but what about the
member for Lac-Saint-Louis who is here with us and who is a
former Quebec minister of the environment? Would he have
accepted such a bill by the federal government?
In fact, in 1987 when he was a Liberal minister in Quebec, he
introduced an environmental bill that clearly defined
jurisdictions.
1140
Would he have let the federal government get involved in a
provincial jurisdiction? No. He would have risen in the national
assembly and told the federal government “You have no reason to
come up with such a bill”. He would have fought as a Quebecer
but now that he is a federal Liberal member of parliament he
remains silent. Worse still, he supports this interference in
Quebec's jurisdiction.
How is that? What is it that they slip the members from Quebec
when they join the Liberal Party? Why do they fall silent? Why
do they agree to serve Quebec's interests so badly, to serve the
Liberal Party, to let its leader—
An hon. member: Serve his own interests.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: —and to let the leader of the party serve
his own interests, to serve the friends of the party and to go
along with this sham? How is that?
Earlier, I saw the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies who was
appointed by the provincial government of Mr. Bourassa to chair
environmental commissions. This member should be the leading
spokesperson for Quebec because he is very familiar with the issues.
What is more, when he was commissioner he always said that
jurisdictions should be respected and that when it came to the
environment the best approach was not confrontation but
harmony. That was what he always said.
In conclusion, I again appeal to all members from Quebec,
whatever their political stripe, that Quebec's best interests
are at stake. We must join forces to vote against this bill or
at least to amend it so that it serves Quebec's interests.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak
to Bill C-8, an act respecting marine conservation areas. As the
title alone would indicate, why would anyone be against marine
conservation areas? When we say it like that it sounds great. We
are going to protect conservation areas in the marine aquatic
areas.
Unfortunately, it is just the title. Like most other things the
Liberal government does, this is another piece of legislation
that came out of the south end of a northbound cow. It is simply
not strong enough. It is not going to do what it is supposed to
do.
There is a bill that is also before the House, Bill C-33, the
endangered species act. It is very clear when we speak to people
within the environment committee and to people who appeared
before the committee that the bill does not protect the habitat
of the endangered species. That is what this bill does. It does
not do anything to protect conservation areas.
I will digress for just a moment. One of the reasons why the
cod stocks on the east coast of Atlantic Canada are down is the
massive overfishing through the technology that we use today in
dragging and trawling the ocean floor. They completely drag the
bottom of the ocean floor and everything comes up with it. Then
they throw over what they do not need, dead, to the tune of
millions of pounds of fish. Every year in this country and
around the world fish are being dumped overboard. As we speak,
there is dumping going on in the Georges Bank and in the NAFO
areas of the Flemish Cap because they throw overboard the fish
species they do not want.
The bill will permit trawling and dragging in these conservation
areas. It is absolute madness. If we are going to protect a
particular area it means we must have the most sustainable
environmental methods of harvesting our dwindling aquatic
resources. The bill does not even address that problem. In the
entire country, the government did absolutely no consultation on
the bill with any fishing communities. I find it absolutely
deplorable that people who rely on ocean species for their
livelihood are not even consulted on this very important bill.
As well, I cannot help but notice that the Minister of Veterans
Affairs is reported in the newspapers today as saying that he
wants an expansion of the 200 mile zone to a 350 mile zone.
1145
That sounds great, but what is its main purpose? Is it to
protect fishing jobs and coastal communities on the east coast
and on the west coast, or is there another reason for it? Are
his comments or ideas included in Bill C-8, an act respecting
marine conservation areas? Are they even included? I would
doubt very much.
We have a burgeoning oil and gas industry off the east coast. We
have a beautiful place called Sable Island about 100 miles off
the coast of Halifax.
We were told in 1997 that for oil and gas seismic work Sable
Island would be a no-touch zone. That means no seismic work
would be done on Sable Island because they did not need to do it.
It is a no-touch zone.
What happened last year? Seismic cables were drawn clearly
across that island, a very fragile ecosystem. They changed the
rules. They changed the code of practice in order to get that
work done.
I find it absolutely astonishing that one year they say
something and two years later they do something completely
different. If we are truly interested in protecting marine
conservation areas, we should stand by our words and truly
protect the aquatic species in Atlantic Canada.
For example, it has cost taxpayers across the country $4.2
billion to readjust the fishing industry on east coast since
1988. Yet the cod stocks are not rebounding. Salmon stocks are
in trouble. We heard the other day that turbot stocks may be in
trouble. Crab stocks off Newfoundland are in trouble. The bill
could have provided some protection for breeding grounds and
spawning grounds for many of those species, but unfortunately it
falls terribly short.
We on this side of the House know that the government cannot
handle certain areas on its own. The federal government does not
have the wherewithal or the knowledge to be able to do it on its
own. Why would it not include the province, the communities and
those people closest to the resource in the decision making
process?
I understand why Bloc Quebecois members are so angry. It goes
completely against what we voted on in the House earlier in Bill
C-7, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park model. That was an
excellent example of co-operation at all three levels of
government to protect a very sensitive area for beluga whales.
Now Bill C-8 goes completely the other way. It is absolute
madness.
Again we have that top down, bureaucratic, central based
government saying to the extremities of the country “We know
what is best for you in Ottawa, so be quiet, forget about it and
we will move forward”. It is disguised under a nice,
touchy-feely thing called conservation of marine areas and
protection of the environment, but unfortunately it simply does
not work.
Another big problem the government failed to address is that
Victoria, British Columbia, and Halifax, Nova Scotia, still pump
raw sewage into our oceanways. They are dumping millions of
pounds of sewage every year into the waterways and our oceanways.
The federal government has refused to act. It refuses to assist
the city of Victoria and the city of Halifax in stopping
deleterious substances from going into our oceanways and
affecting our marine aquatic species. The bill does not even
address that issue.
What are the Liberals really up to? They are all right. They
are pretty decent people. In fact some of them in the House
today are my friends. However, I doubt very much they have even
read the bill. I doubt very much they have even informed their
constituents about it.
The bill is very misleading. We simply cannot have that any
more, especially on the east coast with a burgeoning oil and gas
industry. Many people are very concerned about seismic work off
the east and west coasts of Cape Breton Island. There has been
no consultation with user groups. The province and federal
government, through the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum
Board, grant the leases and tell the companies to do an
environmental assessment after they get the leases. It is sort
of putting the cart before the horse.
The environmental assessment should be done on these areas long
prior to any seismic work being done. The government has shifted
responsibility from the public sector into the private sector,
which could have devastating effects on fishing communities
throughout Atlantic Canada. We do not know exactly what is going
on in the oceanways. We have cut back in that department in
science so much that this does not go a very long way.
1150
The Liberals continuously refuse to discuss these issues in an
open manner. They like to rush things through. Input from the
opposition or other members of society is simply not acceptable
in the Liberal way of things. It is incredible.
The fact is that there are many good things we can do to protect
our environment by working co-operatively with all three levels
of government, with all five official parties, and with our
friends in society who are seriously concerned about having true
marine conservation areas on our coastlines to protect aquatic
species and to protect the planet for many generations to come.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to talk about the Marine
Conservation Act, Bill C-8, which I think is what is on the
table. I appreciate the member's remarks and some of the insight
from the Atlantic coast.
On the political rant from the separatists, it is easy to go on
a rant and the closer we get to an election it seems all the more
simple. It seems to me that right now we should be discussing
the Marine Conservation Act.
The member across the way from British Columbia will be well
aware of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, with which I
met earlier this morning. It talks about marine protected areas.
We are talking about marine conservation areas. I suspect they
are pretty much the same, but when we look at semantics we start
to try to decide what it is we are actually dealing with.
We as members of the opposition certainly believe in sustainable
development and the management of the environment. Anyone in the
country would be foolish not to realize the importance of that in
this day and age. We simply must do that. We have to be able to
preserve biodiversity and conserve the environment for the
enjoyment of Canadians, present and future. There are always
generations coming along and it gets more and more important for
people to be able to enjoy that whether it is in the oceans, in
the Great Lakes or on land.
I question the fact that this bill falls under the heritage
department. I am not saying that we do not need to look at
marine conservation areas. This may well be important, but I
question why it is in the heritage portfolio. Bill C-8 appears
to fulfil preservationist and environmental objectives instead of
the usual objectives for national parks, historical or heritage
sites which generally allow relatively free public access. We
need to ask just how much free public access will there be to
these conservation areas.
Motion No. 5 would therefore rightfully change the minister
looking after the bill from the Canadian heritage minister to the
fisheries and oceans minister. Some may ask: “What difference
would that make? Is it not just a title?” If we look at
national parks or marine parks, as the minister wants to change
them, we have to look at the bureaucracy attached to that.
Granted, national parks and their agencies certainly do a pretty
good job of looking after and administering national parks. It
seems to me that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans already
looks after some small areas. Granted, they are not as large as
the MCAs the minister is wanting to include, but certainly under
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans there are already marine
protected areas. If the whole structure is in place it seems to
me it would be wise to make use of it and perhaps put it under
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I could get skeptical or cynical and say that the same minister
of heritage was the environment minister before and maybe is
trying to encroach on her old area. It could be just some
nostalgia to say that it would be important to look at the whole
area of the good old days back in environment. I understand the
Minister of the Environment would look after, very specifically,
seabirds. To enlarge that area it may not be wise to put it
under the Minister of the Environment. Certainly I believe the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would be a great overseer of one
of these marine parks.
We also have concern about some clauses in the bill which would
allow the government or the minister to circumvent the usual
parliamentary process. When we look at the Henry VIII clauses in
the bill, the minister would be allowed to designate new areas
under the act without having to steer an amending act through
parliament. Whether we agree or disagree with it, parliament is
the place where these things should be discussed and at least
passed so that even if it is a rubber stamp, at least it got
stamped.
With the Henry VIII clauses where the minister could bring in
sweeping new changes and designate new areas, it would not even
have to come back to pass the House.
1155
The key Henry VIII clause, clause 7, delegates the authority to
object to the creation or expansion of a new marine conservation
area or reserve to a standing committee. The whole House must
confirm the committee's objection.
Somewhere in this precinct on Parliament Hill today we see that
the government has asked if it could strike a couple of
committees early, ahead of the scheduled time next week or the
week after, to come up with committee chairs. That is all it
wants to do today. It just wants to come up with a couple of
chairmen for these committees.
Opposition members went in good faith to the couple of
committees this morning, finance and immigration, and agreed to
allow it to go ahead so a chair could be established, but there
would be no business done, the government told us.
We got in there and all of a sudden it was said: “We are just
going to look at these couple of bills today”. We can
understand why people are nervous. They are told one thing, and
when they walk in there in good faith all of a sudden there are
surprises. I love surprises but sometimes after I have made a
commitment to something I like it to be what I signed on for.
Those kind of surprises are never much fun.
Today before noon we have had the very thing happen we are
concerned about. We were told one thing and then something
absolutely different happened. That causes us great concern.
Schedules 1 and 2 are to describe the lands to be set aside in
marine conservation areas and reserves. In other words, with
schedules 1 and 2, the government will make sure it designates
the lands. It will tell us about it and have a really good
conversation so we know everything right upfront, but no lands
are described in schedules 1 and 2.
The government is asking us to sign the cheque and it will let
us know what they are later. It reminds me of the Charlottetown
accord in 1992 where the government was trying to push a document
through. Fortunately it put it to a national referendum, and I
give the Tories credit for that. I think it changed the way
politics will be done in the country because the people had the
power.
To be able to say “we will let you know” and designate it, as
in the Charlottetown accord when it said “Just give us the
go-ahead on this and we will tell you some of the constitutional
changes we want to make later”, I would be considered foolish if
I went to my truck dealer, gave him my signed cheque and told him
to fill in the amount later. You would never do that in your
business, Mr. Speaker. Nor should the Canadian public with this.
Canadians certainly have concerns about the whole area of these
schedules.
Also it gives the minister too much discretionary power and a
lack of adequate public consultation. I have had a briefing from
Parks Canada and appreciate the fact that a consultative process
goes on. I know they have just been through that up in the Lake
Superior area, that there have been consultations.
I say that is great. It is a terrific start. However the area
that would cause me the very most concern is the whole idea of
federal-provincial negotiations. It looks as though the federal
government obviously takes precedence over the provincial
government. It has just happened too many times and there are
too many awkward situations where the federal government has come
in and just stamped out the rights or concerns of the provinces.
With discretionary power the minister would be able to just
waltz right into the provinces and say “Thanks very much for
that 12 minutes of consultation but, sorry, we are going to go
ahead and do it our way”. That works for Frank Sinatra but I do
not think so for government policy on marine conservation acts.
I want to speak about the whole idea of prohibitions in the
bill. We have concerns with the whole aviation area, that the
minister has the right not just to scale back on but to prohibit
flights over some of these sensitive areas.
There are a number of float planes on the west coast that fly
around out there. Could the minister, as it says in the bill,
and the answer would obviously have to be yes, absolutely
prohibit some of these small aircraft that may be coming into the
area carrying tourists? Aside from any new air traffic that
might be coming in, would the minister have the power to
absolutely prohibit them? There are piles of scheduled flights
every day. There are seaplanes buzzing around all over the west
coast.
1200
Obviously that makes me nervous too because we look at some of
the things we have already seen. For instance, we saw this
minister overlook safety concerns in national parks before when
they wanted to close the Banff and Jasper airstrips. They
said that was they wanted to do and they were going to shut
them down. I do not think we can do that.
Motion No. 22 would put aviation associations and provincial
aviation councils on the list of bodies to be consulted by the
minister. It seems very reasonable to me.
Finally, regarding resource exploitation or exploring, I know
some of my colleagues will deal with this with far more expertise
than I will in the hours to come. However, for marine
conservation areas which would have their boundaries
established, knowing that there would be resource mineral
extraction, the government would say “Okay, we will put them
over here then”. That works for today but how in the world
would it work in future years if we found that we have the
technology available to extract some of those resources? Who
would have thought we would have ever seen a Hibernia project 15
or 20 years ago? It seemed impossible to be able to make that
extraction through a Hibernia project.
Those kinds of things are the areas that we have severe concerns
about. I know the member opposite will address those and I am
looking forward to her comments and concerns. We want to make
sure we do this as well as possible, but when we see red lights
and alarms we want to make sure we pay attention to them. I know
the government is very pleased to make corrections to address our
concerns.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity today to participate in this
debate at report stage on Bill C-8, an act respecting marine
conservation areas.
First, I want to express the regret of the hon. member for West
Nova who is the Progressive Conservative heritage critic. He is
unable to be here today to present his views on this second group
of amendments introduced at report stage. I know he is truly
disappointed that he cannot be here and that he is missing this
opportunity to condemn the federal government for going forward
with this flawed piece of legislation, despite the very serious
ramifications it could have on our coastal communities,
particularly communities in and around the Atlantic area.
The federal government's decision to go forward with the bill at
this particular time is totally reprehensible. It shows its
clear lack of understanding for the potentially explosive
situation that presently exists in Atlantic Canada. Violent
feelings are running very high in and around the Burnt Church and
New Edinburgh areas because of illegal native fishing.
Now in the midst of this very dangerous situation, the Minister
of Canadian Heritage has suddenly decided she wants to pass a
piece of legislation in the House of Commons which could
negatively affect fishermen. It clearly shows the contempt that
the Liberal government has for the people of Atlantic Canada.
My colleague, the hon. member for West Nova, was told in
committee that extensive consultations had been conducted all
over the country prior to introducing the bill. These so-called
consultations were more or less confined to sending letters out
to fishing organizations advising them of the government's
intention to introduce a marine conservation act. The government
has interpreted the lack of response as a total acceptance of its
plan.
Most fishermen in West Nova and in the Atlantic provinces have
never heard of these plans. Frankly, they have much larger
problems to deal with and worry about at this particular point in
time.
It is inconceivable that lobster fishermen in the Atlantic
provinces would participate in discussions about a new marine
conservation act when their livelihoods are being threatened by
the illegal native lobster fishery.
1205
Atlantic Canadians are witnessing the Liberal government's
failure to fully enforce the laws of the country by not putting
an end to the illegal lobster fishing in Burnt Church and New
Edinburgh. This is despite the fact that the federal government
received clarification from the supreme court in the Marshall
decision and was the recipient of a successful federal court
decision in Halifax.
What assurances do fishermen have that designated marine
conservation areas will not have a negative impact on their
fishery? Why should they expect the Department of Canadian
Heritage to protect these areas when the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans has shown that it is completely unable to uphold the
laws of the country?
If the Minister of Canadian Heritage thinks she can protect
these designated areas then perhaps she should take over the
responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is
all well and good that the Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to
create a marine conservation act. The Progressive Conservative
Party has continually shown support for protecting our natural
habitat. Our recent support of Bill C-27 is but one of the many
examples of our commitment to protecting the environment.
The government should be ashamed of itself for going ahead with
this bill without having held extensive public consultations. Of
greater concern is the fact that the government is going ahead
with this when it knows that fishermen in the Atlantic provinces
are preoccupied with the crisis in the fishery. This is but one
more example of the Liberal government's insensitivity toward the
Atlantic provinces and toward Atlantic Canadians in general.
I was somewhat surprised by the proposed amendment to replace
lines 3 and 4, on page 3 to read “Minister means Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans”. I respect the hon. member for
Dauphin—Swan River, however, does my hon. colleague, or for that
matter the Canadian Alliance Party, really believe that the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his departmental officials
are capable of protecting newly created marine conservation
areas? No, I do not believe they are. I suspect most Canadians
would not think so either.
I do not know what the member for Dauphin—Swan River was
thinking when he introduced this amendment, but I can certainly
tell him that we would not support that kind of amendment. Our
party believes that our national parks system must remain under
the jurisdiction of the Department of Canadian Heritage. Whether
these parks are on land or in water, we believe that they would be
better served if they remained under the jurisdiction of Canada's
new parks agency.
I have examined the other amendments grouped together at report
stage of this bill. Some would appear to be purely a question of
semantics while others were introduced to raise questions about
provincial jurisdiction. Our party has not introduced amendments
because we feel that the whole process for creating this
particular piece of legislation was fundamentally flawed right
from the outset. Therefore, we urge the federal government to
withdraw this bill immediately until proper consultations can
take place with the various stakeholders who are interested in
this.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the
introduction of Bill C-8, the Canadian government is following up
on the work done in parliament in relation to Bill C-48 on the
creation of marine conservation areas, which was introduced last
session. Thus we are picking up where we left off, that is at
the report stage.
1210
The purpose of federal Bill C-8, which is entitled an act
respecting marine conservation areas and was introduced by
Heritage Canada, is to provide a legal framework for the
creation of 28 marine conservation areas representative of each
of Canada's ecosystems. The 29th marine conservation area is
the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, but it is not covered by
this legislation because it has its own.
We will be voting against this bill, not as a political rant, as
my colleague from the Canadian Alliance put it, but because we
have major reasons, reasons relating to the jurisdictions of
Quebec and others, the multiplication of organisms in one area.
The Bloc Quebecois is certainly in favour of measures to protect
the environment, and I believe that no one can teach us anything
in that regard as we are focusing particular efforts on working
to protect the environment, particularly in marine conservation
areas.
Hon. members will recall that our party supported the bill
proposing legislation to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park, as well as being involved in initiatives to protect the
environment, the seabed in particular. The Government of Quebec
is also open to efforts to that same end and has, moreover,
shown itself capable of partnership with the federal government
as evidenced by phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan.
So why are we opposed to this bill? The answer is very simple.
First, instead of focusing on working together, as it did in the
case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal
government wants to introduce marine conservation areas with no
regard for Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and
environment.
In addition, Heritage Canada is planning to introduce a new
structure, marine conservation areas, which will duplicate the
marine protection zones of the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans and the protected marine areas of Environment Canada.
Bill C-8 ignores the integrity of Quebec's territory, because one
of the preconditions for a marine conservation area is that the
federal government own the territory where it is to be
established.
Subsection 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, makes it very
clear that the management and sale of public lands is an
exclusively provincial jurisdiction. When is the government
going to abide by the constitution it has signed?
In Quebec, the Loi québécoise sur les terres du domaine public
applies to all public lands belonging to Quebec, including beds
of waterways and lakes and those parts of the bed of the St.
Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence which belong to
Quebec by sovereign right.
This legislation also provides that Quebec cannot create or
transfer its lands to the federal government. The only thing it
can do is to authorize, by order, the federal government to use
them only in connection with matters under federal jurisdiction.
Usually, the federal government reads the constitution more
than we do, but I think it is reading it too quickly and
misinterpreting it.
Co-operative mechanisms already exist to protect ecosystems in
the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and in the St. Lawrence
River under the St. Lawrence action plan, phase III, which was
signed by all federal and Quebec departments concerned, and
which provides for major investments in connection with the St.
Lawrence River.
We are interested in protecting the environment. We are
interested in a partnership but we will not give up what is
ours.
Why then have the so far productive partnership ventures I just
mentioned been ignored by Heritage Canada? Why is it now
claiming exclusive ownership of the seabed? Will the federal
government respect the territorial claims of Quebec or ignore
them as usual?
There are precedents. I have mentioned two of them briefly
and I will go back to them again in more detail.
1215
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is a fine example of
consultation and organization with the community respecting who
we are and protecting all our rights.
In 1997 the federal and Quebec governments passed legislation
to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. This
legislation led to the creation of Canada's first marine
conservation area. One of the main features of this legislation
is the fact that the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the
first marine park to be created by two levels of government
without any land changing hands. Both governments will continue
to fulfil their respective responsibilities. The park is made up
entirely of marine areas and covers 1,138 square kilometres.
In order to promote local involvement, the acts passed by
Quebec and by Canada confirm the creation of a co-ordinating
committee whose membership is to be determined by the federal
and provincial ministers. The committee's mandate is to
recommend to the ministers responsible measures to achieve the
master plan's objectives. The plan is to be reviewed with the
people of the community who are aware of the activities taking
place in the marine park. This gives great pleasure to the
people of the north shore and the south shore alike. My
colleague is from the north shore. I am from the south shore
and everyone is happy.
This was a first, a fine example of success, and I do not
understand why the 28 other marine parks did not use the same
model. Is it because this is a Quebec model? Are people so
sceptical? Are they so unreasonable that they will not transpose
a success from one place to another part of Canada?
Another interesting example is phase III of the St. Lawrence
action plan, which was announced in June 1998 and which also
allows for extensive work to be done in the St. Lawrence River.
That initiative is also an unquestionable success.
Those are two successful initiatives that should be used as
models. Unfortunately the government is proposing an act that
creates overlap within the federal administration because we
will have Heritage Canada's marine conservation areas, Fisheries
and Oceans' marine protected areas and Environment Canada's
marine and wildlife reserves. This will generate confusion. It
will not ensure a single management structure but rather a lot
of discussions, opinions and ambiguity, thus adversely affecting
the effectiveness of the decision making process.
I will refrain from talking about the phony and failed
consultation process—the participation rate was 5%—about the
concerns and the agitation in fisheries, or about the
interference in sectors such as transportation in marine
conservation areas, public safety and research.
In conclusion, the future is rooted in the past. We have a
success story, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, and we have
a failure in that Heritage Canada is incapable of protecting
ecosystems in existing national parks, according to the 1996
report of the auditor general.
In light of this, we wonder if Parks Canada will be able to
protect the ecological integrity of our national parks and we
wonder why we should not follow the example of the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence marine park.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
just like to add a small point here leaving most of the time to
my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, who
will address the substance of the committee report to the House.
Before doing so, however, I would just like to perhaps spend a
couple of seconds on the comments by the hon. member for
Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who devotes his time not to
speaking to Bill C-8 but to casting invective at several members
of this House, myself included. He has become a specialist in
invective. I will not stoop to such an approach, of slinging
mud when one has nothing important to say.
The only thing that I will say is that I work very often in
committee with the hon. members for Jonquière, Repentigny,
Laurentides and Portneuf, and they all know my true character.
1220
I have spoken about the environment here in the House on a
number of occasions, sometimes even against my party, the
government, when my conscience dictated. People will judge for
themselves whether or not what he said is true.
With all due respect for all members of the House, I would like
to clarify a very important issue. It was said that Bill C-8
interferes in provincial jurisdiction. But this is not the
case, and there was a debate on this in committee.
I chaired the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage when Bill
C-8 was being considered and this issue was debated.
So that there would be absolutely no doubt about this important
issue of provincial and federal jurisdiction, the government
agreed to introduce an amendment, which is part of the report
tabled in the House, to say that if provincial jurisdiction over
the seabed were challenged, a federal-provincial agreement would
then be required before there could be any action on Bill C-8.
This therefore means that each province has a veto, and if it
does not agree that a jurisdiction is completely federal, there
will then be no federal-provincial agreement. There is therefore
no possibility under Bill C-8 that any provincial jurisdiction
will be affected.
I believe that this is a fundamental point that needs to be
cleared up, because all that I heard from Bloc Quebecois members
was that the federal government was interfering in provincial
jurisdiction.
This amendment will clearly completely prevent that. I believe
that Bill C-8, as it stands, is a reasonable bill, and I hope
that it will become law as soon as possible.
That having been said, I am very happy to turn the floor over to
my colleague, who will speak to the House about the substance of
the report.
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank
my colleague, who was the chair of the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage, for explaining the government's position with
respect to creating marine conservation areas.
This bill is about partnership. It is about consultation. It is
about people wanting the legislation to occur. The important
thing is, when our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois spoke out
that this was a violation of the rights of Quebecers, I would
submit that they have not read the legislation at all.
As chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage said,
the standing committee discussed the concern about what would
happen if the province owned part of the seabed. If it does, or
if any part of it is contested, the province must enter into an
agreement with the federal government to actually transfer
ownership of that area of land to the federal government before
we can ever proceed with this.
There has been a lot of talk over the Saguenay—St. Lawrence
Marine Park model. That is only one model. In that case it was
an undisputed fact that the seabed was under provincial control.
Where that was the case we passed two pieces of legislation. They
were mirror legislation. It is just another way of doing it.
What Bill C-8 tries to do is actually create the framework which
would allow us to begin consultations, to work with community
groups and coastal communities to ensure that it is in their best
interests that these areas are created.
The critic from the official opposition also noted that that
party had some concerns about low flying aircraft and the
Minister of Canadian Heritage imposing regulations over aircraft.
The legislation does not allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage
to do just anything she wants. Again if we look at the bill, this
is a true bill about consultation and partnership. Before any
regulation can be passed, it has to be done in conjunction with
the Minister of Transport.
There were other concerns about whether this should be an act
that is administered by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or
whether it should be something the Minister of the Environment
should administer.
All those ministries are complementary to what this bill is
trying to do. We are trying to balance conservation with
sustainability. The Oceans Act already provides for
conservation, as the critic from the NDP has said. The Minister
of the Environment is responsible for habitat but the Department
of Canadian Heritage is responsible for preserving Canada's
heritage.
1225
I would also like to take this opportunity to address the
amendments the government has proposed. These amendments are
essentially technical in nature. They deal with the fact that
the Parks Canada Agency Act has been passed. Our amendments
reflect the passage of that bill. As well another motion reflects
the passage of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act because
at the time the bill was tabled, it had not yet been passed.
There is another minor technical amendment which deals with the
recommendation brought forward by the standing committee. I am
specifically referring to Motion No. 15 which talks about
including traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge in clause 8
of the bill.
For members who are here listening, we are proposing essentially
all technical amendments today. I have no further comments on
the motions in Group No. 2.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to report stage of Bill
C-8.
The New Democratic Party wants to restate its support for the
principle involved in the bill. However as we have stated
previously, we cannot support the bill in its present form. I am
going to make a few general comments before getting into the
specifics of the motions moved.
Our repeated efforts in committee to improve Bill C-8 were
defeated at every turn. We think the amendments would have
clarified protection, conservation and jurisdictional issues
which were raised by many witnesses, communities and opposition
parties throughout the legislative review. However, as in many
other times and places in the House the committee process has
been frustrated by the government.
We intend to fully outline our concerns at third reading. They
are concerns the NDP has repeatedly raised on other parks and
environmental bills in the 36th Parliament. These are concerns
which all too often the Liberal and Alliance parties continue to
ignore.
If I may use an analogy, the Liberal promises and talk on the
environment are a little like the constitution of Myanmar, the
country formerly known as Burma. That country has a wonderful
constitution but the government's distasteful actions are
contrary to the fine language in that constitution. If I may
extend the analogy, the Liberal government makes all kinds of
sanctimonious comments and promises about the environment, but
its actions, or perhaps more accurately its lack of action, give
it away.
The Canadian environmental protection bill introduced in the
last parliament was derailed by an election, and there may be a
parallel here as well. It died on the order paper. In this
current parliament a much weaker bill has been introduced.
Similarly the species at risk act which was around in a somewhat
different form in the last parliament died on the order paper
when an election was called and was reintroduced into the House
during this parliament as Bill C-33. It is weaker legislation
than we would have had with the previous bill.
This is a disturbing trend with the government. It has little
or nothing to show on its environmental record, something which I
think must give it a bit of pause, or perhaps it will not as we
enter the next few weeks.
Finally, the commissioner for the environment reported last
spring that the federal and provincial governments had an accord
on smog abatement signed about a dozen years ago. He said that
nothing really has happened. He also said that 5,000 people a
year in Canada are dying as a result of bad air.
This is the general context in which I would like to address the
specifics of the bill.
I could do well by quoting from the newest member of the Liberal
caucus who was once a heritage critic for our party when he spoke
to the bill previously. He said:
The Liberal government's repeated statement to Canadians that the
high standards of environmental protection are being met is not
true. There is continued devolution and abdication of
environmental responsibilities. This government can sign a piece
of paper and have a photo opportunity for the news. Then the
government has a program review and always cuts the budget and at
the same time says that things are going great.
1230
This is a quote from the newest member of the Liberal caucus
completely panning the record of the party which he now embraces.
I will now speak to the motions in Group No. 2. The NDP
supports Motion No. 6, an effort we believe for clarification and
continuity between relevant acts. This is another example of
legislation that requires improvement at this final stage of the
legislative process.
The NDP will support Motion No. 15, an effort to clarify the
important contribution that aboriginal ecological knowledge plays
in the environment and ecosystem management. The NDP has
consistently fought for similar amendments throughout this entire
parliament in an effort to recognize the important role that
traditional knowledge can play to foster a greater understanding
between cultures and the importance of respect for the land and
nature's processes and unique relationships.
The NDP notes that the Canadian Alliance Motion No. 35 provides
direction for increased public participation with affected
aviation associations and provincial aviation councils. We also
support this motion.
I want to quickly mention that the government's lack of
consultation in air transportation matters is legendary, as was
most obviously seen in its granting to Air Canada an effective
monopoly over Canadian consumers without any concomitant
regulation. This was an abrogation of moral responsibility to
passengers. The government has also downloaded safety and
operation costs on to small communities by privatizing airports.
I might also mention the MOX shipments which have arrived in
Canada without emergency clean-up plans when other countries such
as the United States deem these shipments as unsafe practices.
We point to these as other examples of where the government has
not consulted on transportation matters, and that is true in this
bill as well.
The NDP cannot support the Alliance's motions that will open
marine areas for various facets of development. We believe this
defeats the purpose of protecting marine areas for the enjoyment
and use of future generations. We believe, unfortunately, that
the Alliance does not understand the basic tenet for our national
parks, which is long term management and not off and on
protection that suits the whims of oil or mining companies.
We would like to draw the House's attention to Alliance Motion
No. 52 which proposes to delete the need to take measures to
prevent environmental damage. We cannot support this motion. In
fact, a precautionary approach to environmental mitigation is
really becoming a basic international tenet. We hope that
someday the Alliance Party will be able to demonstrate foresight
and support prevention measures as well. Prevention makes a lot
more economic and environmental sense than cleaning up after the
fact or trying to recapture the horses once they have left the
stall, as we used to say on the farm. This is common sense and
really a basic credo.
Alliance Motion No. 54 provides clarity on reserve scheduling.
We think it could help to ensure the federal government continues
to settle aboriginal land claims in a fair, just and consistent
manner. The NDP will support this motion. We are pleased, in
this case, that the Alliance recognizes the need for a timely and
prompt settlement of aboriginal reserves, as will be outlined in
schedule 1.
As I mentioned, we will be making further comments on the bill
at third reading stage. However, to sum up, we think the bill in
principle is fine. As in many pieces of environmental and other
legislation, for that matter, the bill falls far short of what
the Liberals say they intend to do about the environment. They
talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
1235
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of my party. I
would like to take this opportunity to commend our heritage
critic, the member for Portneuf, and our environment critic, the
member for Jonquière, for their excellent work.
From the outset, I must say that even though the Bloc Quebecois
will oppose this bill, that decision must not be taken as
evidence that our party is against environmental protection
measures, on the contrary.
On behalf of all my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois who are
here in the House, I want to state that we certainly can
appreciate the work done in our regions by the hundreds of
volunteers involved in environmental protection. My riding is
home to the Cap-Tourmente wildlife refuge. Other areas also need
to be protected, including the shores of Île d'Orléans, the bay
near Beauport and the shore in the Beaupré area.
I want to take this opportunity to salute the many volunteers
who work for an organization called Ducks Unlimited, which is
dedicated to protecting the environment in general and waterfowl
in particular. Ducks Unlimited raises funds privately without
government grants, makes these funds grow and creates marshes
for conservation purposes.
Some members of Ducks Unlimited are hunters who are in favour of
a reasonable, structured and controlled hunting program, to
ensure that the resources will still be there in the future.
I want to stress the fact that even though the Bloc Quebecois is
opposed to the bill, it supports environmental protection
measures.
There are three reasons why I oppose this bill. The Bloc
Quebecois members who spoke before me accurately explained them.
Let me first elaborate on one reason in particular, namely the
fact that, with Bill C-8, Heritage Canada is proposing the
establishment of a new structure, namely marine conservation
areas, that will duplicate Fisheries and Oceans' marine
protected areas and Environment Canada's marine reserves.
If this bill is passed in its present form, we will be faced
with an incredible administrative maze with three departments
overlapping and all the costs that such a situation involves.
Indeed, these new structures do not appear by magic. They
require additional human and financial resources. Now Heritage
Canada wants to get involved in this area, even though
Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada are already
present. This will create an administrative maze.
We also know, given the personality of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, that this is undoubtedly motivated by reasons of
visibility. Let us not forget that this same minister launched a
flag campaign that cost Canadian taxpayers tens of millions of
dollars.
In the end, if we in the Bloc Quebecois are speaking out
against this administrative maze, it is not because we are
against the public servants who are part of these structures.
This is not the point. Whenever a new structure is set up, who
is the common denominator when it comes to paying for it? It is
always the same one who pays, the taxpayer, who is sick and
tired of paying taxes and believes he is not getting value for
his money. The fact that the Minister of Finance is bragging
about a surplus that will likely reach $157 billion over the
next five years is proof enough that the government is taking in
way too much in taxes.
1240
This should not be cause for joy. It is proof that, first, the
government is no good at forecasting and cannot count, and
second, that it collects too much tax. It should cut taxes as
we, in the Bloc Quebecois, have been saying for years.
Another reason the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill is that
instead of favouring negotiation, as was the case for the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government may now
establish marine conservation areas regardless of Quebec's
jurisdiction over its territory and the environment.
Again I salute the work of my colleague the member for
Jonquière, who recognized that the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park was a good thing for her area, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean,
because it was to be developed in partnership with the
Government of Quebec.
The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was happy too. But in the days
when he used to sit at the left of the Bloc Quebecois members,
on the Progressive Conservative Party benches, he used to say to
us regularly “We Quebecers should stick together. We should not
let the Liberal government get away with what it is doing. It
does not make sense to be governed by such nincompoops for
another four years”. We are far too young to have Alzheimer's
disease; we remember well what the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord
used to say.
Now he sits by the curtains in the last row. Exactly six and a
half weeks have passed between his resignation from the
Progressive Conservative Party and his first visit to this
House. I have made note of this. We have a fine motto in Quebec
“I remember”. The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who is now
sitting by the curtains, stayed away from the House for six and
a half weeks. Surely he was working hard to represent his
constituents. But the people of Chicoutimi sent him to this
parliament to defend their interests.
Why am I talking of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park—which
brings me to the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord? Because
apparently the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord—this was in the
news at noon—is tempted to join the Liberal Party.
A token investment in an aluminium processing research centre
should be announced this weekend, followed by the announcement
that the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord has sold his
allegiance for a mess of potage.
I want to tell the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and the
people of Chicoutimi who are now listening, the people of
Ville-de-La-Baie, Chicoutimi, Saint-Honoré, l'Anse-Saint-Jean and
Bas-Saguenay, that I hope they will remember that this turncoat
who had their confidence to defend an allegiance let himself be
bought to join a government he had criticized and condemned. The
rules do not allow me to repeat here what the hon. member for
Chicoutimi—Le Fjord said about the prime minister. The British
tradition and our rules keep me from repeating his words, but we
will bring them up in due course.
If the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord really intends to
do this, whether it is as an independent, a Conservative or a
Liberal, the people of Chicoutimi will be waiting for him just
around the corner and will have a chance to correct the error
they made on June 2, 1997, when they elected the hon. member for
Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
In closing let me say that the third reason we from the Bloc
Quebecois, are opposed to this bill is because Heritage Canada
wants to establish marine conservation areas while it is unable to
protect the ecosystems in the existing national parks.
I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures to
protect the environment. That is why we supported the
establishment of the marine park.
Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois is fully aware that the Government
of Quebec is taking steps to protect the environment and, in
particular, the seabed.
1245
The Government of Quebec is also willing to work toward this
goal with the federal government, as evidenced by phase III of
the St. Lawrence action plan, and the shoreline municipalities
in my riding of Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans can
also appreciate this.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
as a matter of fact, what I am about to say exactly matches the
last remarks of the previous speaker, my colleague the hon.
member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
Before becoming a member of parliament I worked in parks and
recreation at the municipal level. I was a recreationist. I had
studied in this field. Over the course of many years I visited
a number of national parks in Canada.
For example, this summer I visited Fundy National Park. One can
say that there are really incredible and beautiful natural
attractions there. I do not wish, like my colleague, to say that
the employees of Parks Canada are not doing their work properly
and that they are not taking the time to do it right, but the
fact is they do not have the resources they need.
I would like to quote from the 1996 report of the auditor
general. In chapter 31, on the management of national parks by
Parks Canada, the auditor general makes the following statement
after studying a sample:
In the six national parks we reviewed, Parks Canada's
biophysical information was out-of-date or incomplete except for
La Mauricie.
It seems that everything is fine in La Mauricie Park. Curiously,
it is in the Prime Minister's riding. It seems that there was
considerable effort and investment in this riding by the federal
government; sometimes the investments are made in businesses,
sometimes, invoices are missing, but I will not go into that.
It is a beautiful park.
It appears that, with the exception of this park, there are
problems. According to the report:
Monitoring the ecological condition of the ecosystems in
national parks is a high priority, according to Parks Canada
policies and guidelines. However, in many national parks, the
ecological conditions are not monitored on a regular, continuing
basis.
It also states that management plans for 18 national parks were
an average of 12 years old, even though they ought to be
reviewed every five years.
The report goes on:
The auditor general added:
Delays in preparing management plans and ecosystem conservation
plans reduce Parks Canada's ability to preserve the ecological
integrity of national parks.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to create a new
structure because Parks Canada proposes a new structure, the
marine conservation areas, which will duplicate the Fisheries
and Oceans Canada marine protection areas and the Environment
Canada protected marine areas.
I can claim some knowledge in this area, even a considerable
amount of knowledge about parks. I studied that field at the
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières. Parks were part of the
curriculum and we had access to data.
I have retained my interest in this area and have continued to
meet with experts in the field.
People may wonder what the differences are between “marine
conservation areas”, “Fisheries and Oceans marine protection
areas”, and “protected marine areas”.
Judging by what we heard from public servants, the Fisheries and
Oceans people were getting their terminology all mixed up.
1250
Now that there finally was some kind of consensus with regard to
fisheries management plans, these people are not too happy about
this new structure that could create duplication within the
federal government. We in the Bloc Quebecois have often said
that the federal government should be careful not to duplicate
structures that already exist in Quebec, that it should work in
partnership with us instead, as in the case of the Saguenay
park. In that case, it was done through special legislation that
dealt specifically with that park. It is a good example that
should be followed more often. It is a good example of
governments working together.
Instead of that, there is infighting in federal government. The
right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. Three
departments are involved. I do not know if this bodes ill or
well for the future of fish in Canada.
I thought the Department of Canadian Heritage was mainly
responsible for culture and history. I understand there is such
a thing as a natural heritage, but structures, like those at
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, already exist within the federal
government to deal with the protection of wildlife. It goes
without saying that protecting the fisheries and all marine
species means protecting the sea floor. We must protect the
shores and the flora of the St. Lawrence River as well as those
of Canada's oceans.
However, when committee members and public servants themselves
voice concern, we too should be concerned. These days, with the
300% increase in the surplus announced by the Minister of
Finance, some bills just reappear, like Bill C-8, formerly known
as Bill C-48. We have heard about it for many years and now,
here it is again. It suddenly becomes important to invest money
or to promise to invest money before the election. In the end,
they are unable to clean things up within the federal government
and between the various departments. What a waste. What a bad
example the federal government is giving the provinces.
When the government cannot respect jurisdictions and creates
duplication, confusion or dissatisfaction, it is going against
the principles of good business management.
What would big business do? Some businesses merge and amalgamate
to prevent duplication and unnecessary spending. Some experts
even say they go too fast in some cases. The federal government
is establishing three structures that will in essence deal with
the same thing, plant and animal life. Now it is trying to add a
heritage dimension on top of all that. I hope that it does not
want to turn the fish into objects to be put in a bowl once they
are dead. I hope this is not what they want to do.
I know the people well, but I do not want to make jokes about a
serious matter. Environmental and wildlife protection is a very
serious matter.
My colleague from Jonquière keeps bringing up this issue in
caucus meetings. Each time she rises to speak—we sometimes find
it annoying, but we must give her credit for her strong
commitment—she tries to drive the point across that this issue
must be given priority. I agree with her. Members will
understand that, as a former director of parks and recreation, I
am very much interested in that issue.
1255
Since my time is almost up, I will conclude by saying that
before investing in new structures, setting up new programs,
doing new things and spending new moneys, the federal government
should streamline and clean up its own act. It should develop
better conservation plans.
It should do what the auditor general said it should do in 1996.
Four years have passed already, and it has not acted on it yet.
People in the environment community, public servants, volunteer
organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited Canada, and every
environmental group in Canada, all those people are concerned.
We are more concerned about Quebec, but we think the government
should work in closer co-operation with provincial governments,
particularly that of Quebec. That government too has
jurisdiction over that area, as well as programs and structures.
I hope the Liberal government will pay attention to what we are
saying.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a result of all party
consultations, I would ask that you seek unanimous consent for
the following motion. I move:
That the motions on the notice paper to amend Bill C-8, standing
in the name of the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, be
deemed moved and seconded, and before this House for debate in
Group No. 2.
I am speaking to Motions Nos. 32 and 34.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to adopt
the motion by the hon. member for Athabasca?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing
lines 14 to 16 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 16, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 9
on page 11.
The Deputy Speaker: Those two motions are now before the
House as are all the other motions that we are debating in Group
No. 2.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today in this House to speak to Bill C-8.
At the start of my remarks I would like to pay tribute to the
hard work done by the member for Jonquière to protect the
environment.
Bill C-8 concerns the creation of a network of national marine
conservation areas, the marine equivalent of national parks.
This network would be representative of 29 marine regions in
Canada, covering the waters of the Great Lakes, inland waters
including swamps, the territorial sea and the 200 mile exclusive
economic zone.
With this bill, the government will set the boundaries of the
marine conservation areas in all the regions in Canada, in
consultation with the people of the area. This phrase is very
important.
Bill C-8 gives the governor in council, on the recommendation of
the Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Heritage, the
right to limit or prohibit activities in commercial zones in
order to protect marine resources.
It also gives the governor in council, on the recommendation of
the Ministers of Transport and Canadian Heritage, the right to
limit or prohibit transportation in marine conservation areas.
It is important to note that 1998 was set aside as the year of
the oceans by the UN.
The most important activities held to draw attention to this
event include the world's fair in Lisbon, Portugal, and the
adoption of the ocean charter by UNESCO in September 1997 in
St. John's, Newfoundland.
The government claims it is important to preserve the natural
marine ecosystems and their balance to maintain biologic
diversity. It says there is a need to establish a representative
network of marine conservation areas, whose scope and features
will ensure the maintenance of healthy marine ecosystems.
The Bloc Quebecois supports environmental protection measures.
We have always given our support. It gave its support when the
government introduced legislation to establish the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
In addition, in my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, the
Argenteuil Parti Quebecois and the PQ subcommittee on the
environment for the Laurentian region submitted briefs to the
BAPE. People wanted to show their support for the protection of
the environment, particularly ecosystems in the groundwater,
marine conservation areas, forests and other areas.
1300
In 1986, the federal government launched the marine conservation
area program. In 1988, the National Parks Act was amended to
take into account the establishment of temporary protected
marine areas. Since then, the following areas were created:
Fathom Five National Marine Park in the Georgian Bay, the Gwaii
Haanas marine conservation reserve in British Columbia, and, of
course, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
The park is over 1,100 square kilometres and has a unique
tourist component, the importance of which we are just beginning
to grasp. This marine park was 14 years in the making. Its
management is shared by the provincial governments and, yes, the
federal government.
The project began in 1985. It took quite a long time to create
the park because of the public consultations, environmental
studies and negotiations that were required. That precedent
should have served as a model for the federal government in
establishing other marine conservation areas.
It should be pointed out that co-operative mechanisms already
exist to protect ecosystems in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park, and in the St. Lawrence River, under the agreement entitled
“St. Lawrence action plan, phase III”, which was signed by all
federal and provincial departments concerned and which provides
for an investment of $250 million over five years in various
activities relating to the St. Lawrence River.
Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill, first
because it is not clear whether Quebec's territorial integrity
will be respected.
Second, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill because
Heritage Canada is proposing the establishment of a new
structure, that is the marine conservation areas, which will
simply duplicate Fisheries and Oceans' marine protected areas
and Environment Canada's marine wildlife reserves. There are
many people doing the same thing.
Quebec's jurisdiction is recognized under the British North
America Act of 1867. So, there is overlap within the federal
government. With the bill, the government wants to establish
marine conservation areas under the responsibility of Heritage
Canada, marine protection areas under the responsibility of
Fisheries and Oceans and marine wildlife areas under the
responsibility of Environment Canada. As I said before, three
cooks might spoil the broth.
The same site could have more than one designation. It could be
designated as a marine conservation area by Heritage Canada and
as a marine protection area by Fisheries and Oceans. In both
cases, it is said that the local population will have a major
role to play in the establishment of marine protection areas.
The Bloc is concerned about problems related to the bureaucracy.
The same area, according to Fisheries and Oceans, could fall
under different categories and be subject to different
regulations. We know that when more than one department is
involved in a project, there are difficulties and additional
costs to the taxpayers.
I think the government would have been better to make sure that
ecosystems are managed by one department only. The departments
involved should sign a framework agreement to delegate all of
their responsibilities over ecosystems to the same department
while respecting constitutional jurisdictions.
I also want to mention the fact that the preliminary
consultations were a failure. Furthermore, during hearings by
the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, almost all groups
from coastal areas heard condemned the bill on the grounds that
the system proposed by Heritage Canada would duplicate part of
the work done by Fisheries and Oceans and create confusion.
1305
On February 11, 1999, Patrick McGuinness, vice-president of the
Fisheries Council of Canada, told the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage that it was simply inefficient, cumbersome
public administration. I remember because I was there. In his
view, bringing forward this marine conservation area initiative
in its own act under the responsibility of a separate minister
and a separate department was unacceptable. His conclusion was
that the bill should be withdrawn.
Jean-Claude Grégoire, a member of the board of directors of the
Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec, which represents
almost 80% of all professional fishers in Quebec, also told the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that there were numerous
problems. In his testimony, he mentioned that because such an
area is scientifically inaccessible, you tend to work a lot more
with unconfirmed data or assumptions of what exists than with
actual scientific knowledge of what you are dealing with.
Lastly, I want to point out that the Bloc Quebecois believes
that the consultation conducted by the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans in Quebec with respect to the introduction of marine
conservation areas was also a failure.
Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Government of
Quebec is also engaged in initiatives to protect the environment
and submerged lands and water in particular.
Bill C-8 does not respect Quebec's territorial integrity.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures to
protect the environment, but opposed to Bill C-8 for all the
reasons I have mentioned.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to Bill C-8 at report stage.
I am sorry that this government has introduced such a bill. In
my opinion, it is a bill that should never have seen the light
of day. Why? Because the Government of Canada and the
Government of Quebec had finally managed to innovate with the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. This park is located in my
riding. It is a very beautiful park. I urge all Canadians to
come and visit it. It was through the framework agreement on
the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park that the two levels of
government set a precedent. Where did this precedent come from?
From the community.
For years, people in my riding worked together to really make
something of this enchanting site.
Everyone got together and said that they must do something.
They called on the provincial and federal governments.
As a result of the community's efforts, the two levels of
government sat down and said “Why not do something really
special?”
This was the model that the federal government should have used,
if it wanted to create 28 new marine conservation areas. It
could have said “We have a model, so we are going ahead”. But
no. What did it do? It decided to reinvent the wheel and
introduce a new bill, even though we already had a good one.
I think that one of my colleagues was right when he said that,
in this government, the right hand does not know what the left
one is doing. I think that this government is deaf and blind,
but not silent. It is always reinventing the wheel. It never
learns. I do not know why.
It seems to me that there are some very serious problems in
Canada today requiring a major investment of funds. There is
poverty, and all the issues to do with young people. But the
government wants to put millions into creating parks. That is
not what is needed right now.
1310
I think this government is out of touch with reality. I think it
is suffering from self-importance.
In my part of the country, when we say someone is self-important,
it means that person no longer believes that he or she can trust
other people and listen to them.
I think that, with this bill, the federal government is showing
that it is self-important. Right now, the federal government has
some cleaning up to do in its own backyard. This bill will allow
the heritage minister to interfere in other departments,
including Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
I know that Environment Canada's staff as well as its budget
have been cut for a number of years.
Why not take the money the government is willing to spend with
this bill and use it to meet crucial environmental needs? We
hear constantly that the environment has always been a low
priority for this government. However, we know that during the
next election campaign the Liberals will claim that the
environment will be their second priority, after health, as the
prime minister has already told us.
Canadians will not buy that because by bringing forward such
bills the government is showing us that it could not care less
about the environment.
Let us just take Bill C-33 as an example. I examined the
documents that were given to me by the Bloc Quebecois heritage
critic. Bill C-33 is aimed at protecting species at risk. Fisheries and
Oceans Canada already has legislative authority to act in order
to protect species at risk.
With Bill C-33, the government is trying to interfere in other
federal departments and in the provinces' ministries.
The lack of harmony orchestrated by this government is obvious.
When faced with such lack of harmony, one has to stop and say
“Let us sit back and see where to invest the money that is
needed”.
This is a joke. The environment is an ever increasing concern in
the heart, mind and daily life of people.
As parliamentarians, for the sake our future, our children's and
grandchildren's, we do not have the right to let the environment
be put on the back burner.
This must be a concern to us. The concern right now is to find
money to invest to deal with our listeners' main concern.
It makes no sense to blow up balloons and say “Look how nice my
balloon is”. At home we call this cellophane. I do not know if
it is how you call it. Cellophane wrinkles easily and then it is
ruined; however when you stretch it, it becomes smooth, and then
there is nothing left.
I believe we must act in a responsible manner. Being responsible
is part of what is expected of us as parliamentarians.
The government is not acting responsibly with Bill C-8. The
parliamentary committee spent many hours studying a bill that
should never have been introduced to begin with. We have the
striking and magical example of the agreement on the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence marine park. Again, we have to start with things we
already have instead of reinventing the wheel.
This bill deals with environment and the protection of marine
areas. We must give Canadians and Quebecers areas of which they
will be proud. They will then be able to say “We wanted to have
those areas and the governments have met our expectations”.
I do not believe that the consultations on this bill have
allowed people to voice their concerns properly.
1315
It is important for this government to consult Ducks Unlimited
and several other environmental groups and say to them “We will
listen to you: what do you expect us to do for your
environment?”
If they do not understand, they should come to my part of the
country. We will show them what we have accomplished and what it
is important to do in order to develop areas that future
generations will be proud to have.
The Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill. The environment
must be a concern for us, but we should not spend money where it
is not necessary.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to this bill before
when it was called Bill C-48, in 1998-99. I have attended some
of the committee meetings where the bill was discussed. I have
ensured that we had some witnesses from the west coast because
essentially their voices were not being heard and had not been
heard in the so-called consultation process.
I thought that somehow I could help to have their voices heard
in the committee process, but I still have a thing or two to
learn about the process. Even though I had witnesses from the
west coast at committee, they certainly were not treated with the
deference that I thought witnesses should be treated with. Their
input basically was rejected as being inadequate for the process
the government had set up, which is a ridiculous posture and a
ridiculous point of view to take.
That point of view was promoted by the chair of the committee. I
took issue with the chair of the committee with regard to how the
witnesses were being treated. Rather than achieving what I
thought was neutrality from the chair, I ended up being lectured
as well. I have not had happy experiences with the bill.
The last time I talked about the bill I complained about the
fact that 29 regions in the country were going to get these
trophy marine conservation areas under the Minister of Heritage,
previously the environment minister. This is an environmental
bill, not a heritage bill. We did not know where these 29 areas
were.
How can we respond to the government? How can industry groups
and other groups respond to a piece of legislation without
knowing the specifics?
When I challenged the government to do that, the parliamentary
secretary suggested that I was somehow being very controversial
and asked if I could name a single area where I would object to a
marine conservation area. My response at that time was that if
the parliamentary secretary could tell me which industry would be
targeted by the Americans as a result of the government's then
split run legislation which was so ill considered, I would be
able to return in kind and that would be a good barter. Of
course neither myself or the parliamentary secretary were
prepared to take that any further.
At this point we have received a lot of information from the
coastal perspective. A marine conservation bill obviously has to
consider the coastal stakeholders. We have heard from some
stakeholders from Nunavut, from the Atlantic provinces and from
the Pacific coast. Overwhelmingly they talk about the negative
consequences of this proposed legislation.
1320
I can talk about mining, for example. We cannot create areas that
restrict activity except by special permit when we have not even
done an inventory to see what is there. As one of the proponents
for undersea harvesting said, if we had had this kind of
legislation a long time ago Columbus would have never sailed to
America, because it is so exclusionary in terms of what activities
are allowed and what activities are not.
When we look at the potential mineral resources and other
resources on the seabed, it is not right to restrict activity.
One of the proposals has taken some shape since the last debate
in the House of Commons. We are talking about 9,000 square
kilometres of lake bed in this case, I think, in the Great Lakes.
Without an inventory we do not even know what we are locking up.
Locking it up pre-empts an inventory in a sense, because why
would anyone bother? This has been pointed out.
I want to very quickly make reference to some of the witnesses
we heard from in committee. Mr. Ainsworth from the west coast is
the one I was referring to in my Columbus point. He said:
Columbus would never have left port if constrained by this
principle. We would never embark on an airplane to soar en route
to Ottawa with ozone-eating exhaust gases, injected right into
the base of the stratosphere, if we really believed in the
precautionary principle.
The precautionary principle is behind the way the legislation
has been brought forward.
We heard from the mayor of Prince Rupert at the time, who said
that west coast residents were not aware of any areas that
required conservation on the north coast. He said that there was
only consideration of an extension of South Moresby Park on the
Queen Charlotte Islands, and that without adequate consultation
the federal government has made north coast residents very
suspicious. The park the mayor mentioned was created without the
need for proposed legislation.
We heard from Pat Green, who is with the regional district in
that area. Despite very good intelligence in terms of what the
government was thinking of proposing in the way of marine
conservation areas there, despite the fact that Mr. Green tried
to give some shape to that in the discussions, despite the fact
that the very bureaucrats responsible for administering this were
available to the committee, there was a complete denial that
there was any shape or form or contemplation of a marine
conservation area for that part of the world.
That marine conservation area, if it proceeds in the way this
legislation conceives of it, would pre-empt what has been a
traditional fishery, the gillnetters and some of the other
fishing activities in that area, without special permit. It
would pre-empt what is looking to be more and more like a project
that British Columbians will decide is a viable and worthwhile
project, that is, north coast oil and gas.
This is very large area of concern. The concerns that have been
expressed by industry, by local politicians and by the
stakeholders really have not been brought into this whole
discussion. They need to be.
Here is a statement from the testimony at committee, which
illustrates what I am talking about. This is from somebody with
the International Council on Metals and the Environment:
To my knowledge, in western Canada in the industry, I'm the only
person I've found who knows Bill C-48 [the predecessor to Bill
C-8] in any way, shape or form. It's interesting to note as well
that I don't see anybody from the Maritimes here on the witness
stand. I don't know if that reflects the selection of witnesses
at all, but I know there is concern in the Maritimes for the use
of mineral potential in the offshore environment.
1325
There has been undue haste, on the one hand, to make sure that
this piece of legislation goes through this place without
criticism. On the other hand, the government has been very slow
to push it ahead because it knows there is a lot of opposition to
it.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motions in
Group No. 2. The question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on Motion No. 4 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on Motion No. 8 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on Motion No. 10 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on Motion No. 14 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 21. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on Motion No. 21 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on Motion No. 24 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 30. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
1330
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on Motion No. 30 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 38. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on Motion No. 38 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 51. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on Motion No. 51 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 54. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on Motion No. 54 stands deferred.
That is it for Group No. 2. All the other votes apply. The
votes have been called and all the others will be dealt with
later. We have dealt with all the ones that have to be done now.
When we get to the deferred divisions there will be a few more.
We will now put the motions in Group No. 3.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 3 on
page 7 with the following:
“9. (1) The Minister shall, within three years”
That Bill C-8, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 13 on
page 7 with the following:
“sion for ecosystem protection, academic research, recreational
use, geological surveys, natural resources exploration, visitor
use and any other human use and”
That Bill C-8, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 21 to
26 on page 7 with the following:
“(3) Management plans shall balance the principles of ecosystem
management and the precautionary principle with considerations of
the fisheries, academic research, recreational use, geological
surveys and natural resources exploration.”
That Bill C-8, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 29 to
31 on page 7 with the following:
“agement, marine navigation, marine safety, academic research,
recreational use, geological surveys and natural resources
exploration are subject to agreements between the Minister, the
Minister of Transport and the Minister of Natural Resources.”
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That Bill C-8, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing line 10 on
page 17 with the following:
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get up and carry on with
the debate on the motions in Group No. 3.
As I said earlier about Group No. 2, and I think some of these
clauses refer to that as well, Canadian Heritage does seem a bit
puzzling. I listened carefully to the committee chair's speech
earlier about the fact that this is about preservation and making
sure, for present and future generations, that this should fall
under Canadian Parks. Of course we want to make sure future
generations get to enjoy these marine conservation areas, but
again, I do not think the government has come to grips with the
very basics of it.
As I mentioned earlier when I finished up my remarks, if we are
going to look at mineral resource extraction from these areas,
the government says now, i.e. in the future, it would make sure
it put the boundaries of these marine conservation areas in place
so that it did not disrupt any mineral or resource extraction.
Yet if we talk about future generations, what is going to happen
if in seven months, ten years or fifty-three years we come up
with some amazing technological device that is able to find,
harvest and extract some of these resources or minerals? What do
we do then?
I believe the bill says it would be in perpetuity, that they
would say “Sorry, we have a marine conservation area here and we
cannot do a thing about it. It is there forever”.
1335
I am pleased to see the member is looking through her notes. I
hope she will be able to straighten that out and let us know that
if in future years another Hibernia, for instance, were to come
along there would be room in the bill for it. We are all very
familiar with that. I think that would be a major thrill for
everybody.
Let me refer specifically under Group No. 3 to Motion No. 18,
which specifies that a marine conservation area management plan
would have to take into account not only ecosystem protection but
also academic research, recreational use, geological surveys,
natural resources exploitation and visitor use. Each one of
those would include a huge area of concern, consultation and
advisory committees.
It is one thing to talk about advisory committees, but it does
seem strange sometimes that a government may be only keen to take
one side of advice. I mentioned earlier a couple of committees
that were struck today, right in this place. The government gave
its word that it would just be electing chairs, nothing more.
Then all of a sudden, once the Liberals got to the committees
they sat down, and I am sure were having coffee and a pleasant
visit, and the next thing we knew they wanted to deal with a
couple of bills.
It does seem strange. When someone gives their word and their
commitment, I would like to be able to take it as such. Surely
it is not a good thing when people go back on their word. We
would want to make sure when the government says advisory
committees would be put in place and consultations would take
place that we would get both sides of the equation.
My friend from northern Vancouver Island just made comments
about some folks who came down from British Columbia as
witnesses. Dear knows, that is a large part of the country. If we
are talking about marine conservation, there is plenty of water
out in B.C. They should be given the opportunity to give their
advice, to participate in those consultations. But what happens?
It does not fit with the government's little agenda. It thanks
them for coming in one of those big jets that gives lots of
pollution. It is talking about the environment now. It thanks
for them coming anyway and says that they can be shipped home.
Another thing the bill fails to do is strike a balance between
environmental protection and other interests. Of course we need
to weigh the pros and cons. If this is basically falling under
national parks, surely we can look at the national parks. My
home province of Alberta I think has about 60% of the land mass
of the national parks in the country. Somewhere, somehow, we
need to strike a balance between environmental preservation and
human enjoyment of this.
I know the Minister of Canadian Heritage, under whose purview
the bill falls, has made a trip to Banff, has made a trip to
Jasper, and certainly has looked at the balance between
environment and other interests. I know she has certainly some
concerns about it, as everyone does. Although she will talk about
scheduling delays or defaults or something or other, our minister
for tourism, the Hon. Jon Havelock, has been waiting and wanting
to meet with the hon. minister for some time now.
I am not sure if I can use the word stonewalling, but I think
that certainly would be the sentiment he has in his desire to
meet with the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Even though we are
landlocked in Alberta, if this whole marine conservation area
goes ahead certainly Alberta would express some of those very
same concerns.
When talking about consultation, surely from the provincial
level to the federal level, we should have consultations between
ministers. It seems to me fairly simple. I mentioned earlier
the struggle between federal and provincial negotiations and
whose power supersedes whose. The member across tried to make us
feel better or allay the fears or concerns by saying everything
would be up to negotiation and everyone would just sit down and
have coffee and a happy time and come up with an agreement.
I see members from B.C. across the way. I am dying to know if
the member over there has felt very comfortable in the fact that
her provincial government has worked with the federal government
and everything is going along just tickety-boo. I will bet 10
bucks she would not, as a matter of fact. When these
negotiations are being talked about, surely my minister, the Hon.
Jon Havelock, is not the only one being shunned when we are
talking about federal-provincial consultations and negotiations.
1340
It is great to throw around that we are to consult and have
advisory committees, but it is a very dangerous thing just to say
“I will consult with the people who agree with me, and I do not
really like listening to those other guys on the other side”.
Surely we need to make sure that does not go on.
Talking about the very tenuous balance between environment and
sustainable development, there are people who go to Jasper and
just love to spend a night or two in Jasper Park Lodge. I gave
up tenting many years ago, having grown up on the west coast and
having spent far too much time in a wet tent when I was young. I
am sure there are others besides me who love to go to Jasper and
do some skiing or whatever, and who want to stay in a hotel. That
may be terribly capitalistic, but at the same time they want to
make sure they have a chance to wander around Jasper Park Lodge
or some of the fine hotels in that area, or Lake Louise or Banff.
I would also bet 10 bucks that a lot of members of the
government have had a wonderful visit to one of the national
parks, Banff or Jasper. I would also bet they stayed in one of
those capitalistic, entrepreneurial places such as a hotel and
ate in restaurants. I will bet they did not set up their Coleman
stoves and just rough it, although it is a wonderful thing to do;
it is great.
Many people need to realize there is a balance between
environmental concerns and making sure that when they want to
make use of those places or buy souvenirs for their children some
of those places are in those parks, with a balance, of course.
When we talk about present and future generations we want to
make sure we balance these environmental concerns. That is
absolutely essential. However, they must be balanced with the
interests of those individuals affected by the creation of
particular marine conservation areas. People live in the area.
People fly their float planes over this area, as we talked about
earlier.
I asked the people who were giving me briefings what would
happen with jet boats, for instance. They said “We are not
going to prohibit boats, but if in future times we decide jet
boats are too noisy, or heaven forbid, Sea-Doos, we may be able
to have the minister with the power to do so”. Sure, she could
work in conjunction with the Minister of Transport, the Minister
of the Environment, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It
all comes out of the same cat. If on the government side they
decide they do not like Sea-Doos and they do not like big, noisy
jet boats, they can just put a prohibition on them.
People are used to that lifestyle, and many of those who live in
these proposed marine conservation areas are very responsible. I
do not think people want to live there or holiday there just to
take advantage of those areas. Many of those people are as
environmentally concerned as any government member. We need to
make sure the individuals who are affected by it would be able to
have an amazing amount of input.
This is where I closed my remarks the last time I was speaking.
There is a lack of adequate consultation with resources groups,
aviation groups and other stakeholders. We should be able to
tell them we will listen to their concerns. What about those who
make their living by flying float planes up and down the B.C.
coast, for instance, or the Atlantic coast?
The minister may all of a sudden say to them “We are going to
consult with you. In other words, we will sort of listen for
five minutes, but we already have the order in council or the
regulations drawn up, and you too will be out of business”.
Surely that is not a good balance in making sure we can live
harmoniously in some of these areas.
I look forward to the members' concerns about this and certainly
possible solutions to the very real concerns. These are not just
my concerns. As I say, I live in landlocked Alberta, and I am
not sure we are looking at too many marine conservation areas.
However, people from the west coast, the east coast and the Great
Lakes will need these very real concerns addressed, and
unfortunately I have yet to hear any of them being addressed.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to speak once again this afternoon to Bill C-8, an act
respecting marine conservation areas, at report stage.
In the motions in Group No. 3, the Bloc is proposing that clause
9 dealing with management plans be deleted. Through this clause,
the government will draw up a management plan five years after
the establishment of the marine conservation area.
1345
This does not make any sense. There will be no management plan
beforehand, only afterwards. The government should go back to
the agreement it signed with the Government of Quebec and all
the stakeholders to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park.
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park was established jointly by
the Quebec and federal governments in 1997, when they passed
mirror legislation. I wonder if members opposite know what that
is. Mirror legislation is passed with the support of everyone
concerned, following extensive consultation of all the various
stakeholders.
These people said “This is what we want”. They wanted a plan and
the governments told them that they would pass mirror
legislation. Under this legislation, the Quebec and federal
governments agreed there would not be no transfer of land. The
two governments will continue to exercise their respective
jurisdictions. I hope our colleagues opposite now understand
what it means.
Second, the park is located entirely in a marine setting. We
should not forget that. It covers 1,138 square kilometres. We
can just imagine how huge that is. Its boundaries may be changed
by mutual consent and following public consultation by both
levels of government.
As members can see, public consultation is always carried out
because there is a management plan.
To facilitate community involvement, Quebec and Ottawa agreed to
create a co-ordinating committee, whose membership is determined
by the federal minister and the provincial minister. That is
what a management plan is all about.
The committee's mandate is to make recommendations to the
minister responsible with regard to measures which should be
taken to meet the objectives set out in the management plan. The
plan will be reviewed jointly by both governments at least every
seven years.
We can see that before the marine park was established through
mirror legislation, there was a management plan. Under clause 9
of Bill C-8, a management plan would be prepared five years after
the establishment of a marine conservation area. I think this is
absolutely ridiculous.
As I was saying earlier, this bill should have never been
introduced.
We in the Bloc Quebecois also think that clause 28, which
deals with proceedings by way of summary conviction, should be
deleted.
There should have been a management plan with specific
benchmarks right from the start, to avoid doing everything all
over again. I do not know what language we have to use to talk
to the government and tell it that enough is enough, that we
already have mirror legislation containing a management plan. We
have legislation on marine areas that was drafted in co-operation
with all federal and provincial stakeholders. We already have
that. So why is the government setting up another structure
which will only create further confusion?
It will be like the tower of Babel.
Perhaps hon. members do not know about the tower of Babel.
People started to talk different languages and could no longer
understand each other. One minute they were all talking the
same language and the next they were all talking at the same
time in different languages and no longer understood each other.
A self-styled responsible government should not be setting up
such a monstrous structure.
I believe the environment is an important issue and so are the
marine conservation areas. Before the government puts the
bill to a vote, let it come to my riding. We will explain how to
go about this. If it does not remember how we went about
establishing a conservation area in 1997, which is not exactly
the distant past, we will sit down with the government and we
will explain it all.
This bill is a waste of members' time and a waste of money.
Members have more important issues to discuss. We will
support the Bloc Quebecois amendments in Group No. 5 and we will
ask that this bill be withdrawn.
1350
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to add to the
dialogue on Bill C-8. I will quote the hon. member for Churchill
River who said:
Adequate resources must be defined and committed to pollution
monitoring. The Liberal government's repeated statement to
Canadians that the high standards of environmental protection are
being met is not true. There is continued devolution and
abdication of environmental responsibilities. This government
can sign a piece of paper and have a photo opportunity for the
news. Then the government has a program review and always cuts
the budget and at the same time says that things are going great.
This cannot continue with Bill C-8.
Those were the words of the member for Churchill River.
The Speaker: We will have a small change
today in our regular schedule. I announced to the House that
last Sunday a former Speaker of the House, Mr. Marcel Lambert,
elected in 1957, who was a member of the Progressive Conservative
Party, who became Speaker of the House of Commons and then
subsequently returned to the benches to serve with the
Progressive Conservative Party, passed away. His son Chris is
here with us today. I invited him for this, for what will be a
fitting tribute to Mr. Lambert.
* * *
THE LATE HON. MARCEL LAMBERT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
had the great privilege of serving in this Chamber with the late
Marcel Lambert and am honoured to rise on behalf of the
Progressive Conservative Party to pay tribute to a man who served
this country and the House so well.
1355
Marcel Lambert may not be well known in the House now. He was a
soldier. He was an economist, a lawyer and a Rhodes
scholar. He was a man whose talent and discipline would
have led him to excel in any field he chose. He chose public
life because he had a sense of commitment to the community around
him.
Marcel Lambert was born and educated in Edmonton and later was
educated in London as a Rhodes scholar. He was an effective
member of the House of Commons for some 27 years, a Speaker of
the House and a minister of the crown.
Mr. Lambert served in the second world war as a lieutenant in
the tank division of the King's Own Calgary Regiment. He was
part of the Dieppe raid and was feared lost and reported dead in
that historic event. In fact he had been captured. He was held
as a prisoner of war for three long years.
[Translation]
Marcel was elected the member for Edmonton West in 1957. He
served Canada in the House for 27 years and is seen as one of
the MPs who worked the hardest on behalf of their constituents.
People lined up outside his riding office to speak to him.
Appointed Speaker of the House in 1962, he acquired a reputation
as a tough arbiter when debate was heated.
In his memoirs, Lester B. Pearson spoke of the fine job Marcel
Lambert did as Speaker of the House. His detention as a
prisoner of war and his experience in combat were instrumental
in his appointment as Minister of Veterans Affairs in 1963.
[English]
During my years in the House as leader of the official
opposition, Mr. Lambert undertook the thankless job of leading my
party's scrutiny of the spending estimates each year. He held
the government accountable for spending. I have to say he did
that job with relish. Scrutiny of the estimates was much more
intense in those days. Marcel Lambert also served the House as
chair of the committee on miscellaneous spending.
If any of us sought a model as to the attributes that should
come to the Chamber and the spirit in which Canada should be
served here, we could do no better than to look to the example
and experience of the late Marcel Lambert.
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians were saddened to learn this past Sunday of the death
of a former Speaker of this House, the Hon. Marcel Lambert, a
proud Franco-Albertan and a distinguished scholar, soldier,
lawyer and parliamentarian.
As a member of the Canadian forces in World War II, he served at
Dieppe and even spent close to three years as a prisoner of war.
After the war, he continued his studies toward a degree in
commerce from the University of Alberta. He was awarded a
Rhodes scholarship to Oxford University, where he earned three
degrees in law. He then practised law in Edmonton.
He was elected to the House of Commons in 1957 to represent
Edmonton West, now in part represented by the hon. Minister of
Justice.
He went on to serve in 10 Canadian parliaments. He was a
parliamentary secretary. In 1962 he was elected, unanimously—as
if I need to point that out—Speaker of the House of Commons. He
also served as Minister of Veterans Affairs. Marcel Lambert was
the opposition critic for parliamentary procedures and finance
and was known as one of the hardest working and best prepared
members of the House of Commons. He later went on to sit on the
Canadian Transport Commission.
Although my time as an MP started after the hon.
Mr. Lambert had left this parliament, I have clear memories of
him from our time together on the International Assembly of
French-Speaking Parliamentarians. I am proud to be able to say
that I had the opportunity to work with him.
1400
On behalf of the Government of Canada and on behalf of my
party, I extend my deepest sympathy to the family, to his sons,
his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren, who have every
reason to be proud of the contribution the Hon. Marcel Lambert
made to his country in war and in peace.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is nearly impossible to
acknowledge in the short time that we have the accomplishments
of Marcel Lambert. The passing of this veteran of Dieppe,
prisoner of war, Rhodes scholar, member of parliament, cabinet
minister and Speaker of the House, saddens us all.
At the time I first arrived in the Chamber in 1972, Marcel
Lambert had been in the House for 15 years, to which he added
another 12 years before leaving in 1984. This record of 27 years
speaks highly of this gentleman's sense of public duty.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, Marcel occupied your chair for a brief
but impressive period from 1962 to 1963. He earned a reputation
as a tough arbiter in a rowdy Commons in those heady times.
Following that, he was appointed minister of veterans affairs and
served that portfolio with distinction and honour.
Marcel left the Chamber and the country with many things. In
the vicissitudes of political life, Marcel had one thing
constant: respect and service to his constituents.
To his son Chris in the gallery and to his family, “you can be
very proud of your father. He was a great Canadian”.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois in tribute
to Marcel Lambert who passed away Sunday at the age of 81.
Mr. Lambert, who sat in this House and was its Speaker, was born
in Edmonton in 1919. He was a student at the outbreak of the
second world war. He joined the King's Own Calgary Regiment.
He was taken prisoner of war in 1942 during the Dieppe raid. At
the end of the war, he returned to the University of Alberta and
went on to study law at Oxford. He returned to Edmonton and
opened a law firm there.
In 1957 he was elected for the first time to the House of
Commons under the banner of the Progressive Conservative Party
in the riding of Edmonton, which he represented until 1984.
He served as parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence
in 1957-58. Re-elected in 1958, he served as the parliamentary
secretary to the minister of national revenue until 1962.
Following the 1962 election, he was appointed Speaker of the
House and remained so until February 1963.
The general election brought the defeat of the Conservative
government but not of Marcel Lambert who was re-elected. In
opposition, he served as defence and finance critic.
When the Conservatives returned to office in 1979, he chaired a
committee and was re-elected in 1980. In 1985, when he retired
from active political life, he was appointed the chair of the
Canadian Transport Commission.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and myself, I
would like to offer my sincerest condolences to his family and
friends.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
like the right hon. member for Kings—Hants and the hon. member
for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, I too had the honour of
serving in the House with the honourable Marcel Lambert in the
latter five years of his parliamentary career. I consider myself
fortunate to have been in that position.
I want to join with others who have already spoken and who have
portrayed very well the details of Mr. Lambert's career as a
parliamentarian, his service as a soldier, his sensitivity to his
constituents and his care for others as reflected in the way in
which his constituents repeatedly re-elected him.
I think particularly of his service as a soldier and his capture
at Dieppe. If his family might permit me, we see him as a symbol
of a generation of young men who were in military service at the
beginning of the war and who therefore suffered in ways that not
everyone did by being in places like Hong Kong and, in this
particular case, Dieppe, and who therefore had the misfortune and
the tragedy of becoming prisoners of war.
1405
Time is taking its toll on their generation and so, through my
salute to Marcel Lambert, I also want to salute that entire
generation of Canadians.
I also want to salute his work as a Speaker and the fact that in
the House of Commons one of the special ways in which a member of
parliament can be honoured is to be selected as Speaker, or in
those days, appointed as Speaker, but clearly governments
appointed people whom they thought would have the respect of the
House of Commons and the confidence of both sides of the House.
Mr. Lambert fell into that category.
For all these things we give thanks. We honour his life and
work. We honour his memory and we express our condolences to his
family.
The Speaker: I reserve a
few words for myself, and I address myself to you, Chris, who are
representing the members of your family here in the House today.
I knew Marcel Lambert of course, like some of the other members,
because we served together in the House. You will recall when
you came to see your father that he sat in these seats over here.
Forever the vigilant parliamentarian, yes, and forever the critic
because that was his role at the time.
I spoke with him immediately after I became Speaker in 1995. He
was in Ottawa and he did me the honour of coming to my chambers
where we shared lunch together. I asked him at that time that if he
had advice to give to a novice speaker what would it
be. He told me that these were the important things of being a
Speaker. He said “You must respect the parliamentarians. They
have work to do here and you must give them as much leeway as you
can. You must respect the rules of parliament under which you
operate so that you can make decisions in a fair-handed manner.
But most of all”, he said, “you must love this place. You must
love parliament, this House of Commons”.
I think it is good advice that he gave to me that all Speakers
who sit in this chair would do well to remember whenever they do
take this awesome task of trying to bring the House to a decision
of some kind.
Your father, sir, was an intellectual, a Rhodes scholar. He was
a soldier and, in my view, a hero. That has been mentioned. He was
a parliamentarian who served in our midst for more than a
quarter of a century. We who knew him held him in very great
respect. Canada has lost one of her sons. In that way the
nation is diminished by his departure.
Please accept my own personal sincere condolences and the
condolences of all members of parliament. Some of us had
the great honour to serve with your dad. Thanks for coming.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE LATE GEORGE K. DRYNAN
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I am
sad to say I have to announce the passing of a good friend, an
outstanding citizen of Oshawa and a great citizen of Canada, Mr.
George K. Drynan, Q.C.
George was an officer in the Canadian army and was wounded in
Italy. Being a lawyer he was involved in the war crimes trial of
Kurt Meyer, a German Panzer officer who ordered the execution
of Canadian prisoners of war in Normandy.
My fondest memory of George was to see him walking in downtown
Oshawa, cane in hand. Incidentally, the cane was more an
exclamation point than an assistance to walking.
George was always definite about everything. We knew where he
stood and damn the torpedoes. He called me regularly with advice
I was to convey to the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and
Minister of Justice.
I passed on to these ministers a great deal of what George said
and, amazingly, some of it bore fruit.
1410
“Goodbye good friend. I am sure you will, wherever you go,
find some Tories or Socialists to argue with. See ya round”.
* * *
TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Transparency International, a global anti-corruption
organization with chapters in over 75 countries, will host its
first ever integrity awards ceremony in Ottawa on September 29
and 30. It will present integrity awards to those who have shown
courage and dedication in their efforts to fight corruption.
Among those receiving recognition include Alfredo Maria Pochat,
an auditor in Argentina who was murdered shortly before he was to
release a report on fraud in a government department, and
Mustapha Adib from Morocco, presently in jail for having blown
the whistle on his air force superiors. Among us today, also
receiving an award, include representatives for the Concerned
Citizens of Abra for Good Government from the Philippines, and
Lasantha Wickremetunge, a newspaper editor from Sri Lanka.
I commend Transparency International's ongoing efforts in
curbing corruption at all levels. I recognize and I am sure the
House will recognize those who have both committed and paid the
supreme sacrifice for their beliefs.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST MOX
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today,
161 organizations from all over the world are celebrating the
third international day against MOX, to oppose the marketing of
that fuel anywhere in the world.
The United States and Russia recently announced that a large
proportion of the plutonium from their old ballistic missiles
will be used in nuclear reactors to produce energy. Canada,
through its Minister of Natural Resources, is jumping head first
in this adventure.
However, many top scientists feel that the global marketing of
MOX could result in an increase in the number of accidents and
terrorist acts and adversely affect nuclear disarmament.
Immobilizing plutonium in Russia and in the United States is the
only way to achieve disarmament. If Canada is serious about that
objective, it is with this in mind that it should provide
assistance to Russia, and it should immediately stop importing
MOX.
* * *
[English]
BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the month of October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
More than 500,000 women will die this decade alone from breast
cancer. That is about one every ten minutes. These very high
numbers should be ringing alarm bells across this country. I am
sure all of us in the House agree that something must be done
immediately.
As it stands right now, we do not know what causes breast cancer
nor can we prevent it, but if detected in time it can be cured.
Probably every individual in the House of Commons has been or
will be affected by this very serious illness, whether it be
directly or indirectly. Breast cancer affects us all. Early
detection is key.
Let us commit today to reinvest in our health care system in
order to ensure that these preventative measures are in place
and, in doing so, more lives will be saved.
* * *
BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I want to remind the House that as we approach October
that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It is a month
dedicated to raising the awareness of this devastating disease.
On October 1 we will see approximately 85,000 Canadians in 29
cities participate in the Run for the Cure campaign to raise
funds to support the necessary research, education, diagnosis and
treatment programs.
Almost 20,000 Canadian women will develop breast cancer this
year and over 5,000 will die from it. Breast cancer is the
leading cause of death among women ages 35 to 55. Twenty-two per
cent of all breast cancers occur in women below the age of 50.
I know all my colleagues in the House will join me in wishing
the Breast Cancer Awareness campaign every success.
* * *
[Translation]
BOMBARDIER
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bombardier is a
household name. That company is very successful and is also a
major economic tool in Quebec.
Last Friday, we learned that Bombardier was awarded a
$379 million contract to design and build an elevated monorail in
Las Vegas.
Under that contract, part of the engineering work will be done
at the head office, located in Saint-Bruno. This is a direct
economic spinoff for Quebec.
Bombardier, which owns, among others, two plants in my riding,
one in Valcourt and one in Granby, continues to be a showpiece
of the Quebec and Canadian economy.
1415
Our government's contribution consists in ensuring a very
favourable climate for businesses in Canada and in Quebec.
This stimulating context helps attract investments, which have a
positive impact on job creation and on our quality of life.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Translation]
THE MINI-BUDGET
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could confirm
for us today whether the government will be bringing down a
mini-budget before October 16 or 17?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
will all have to wait and see what happens.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, their future may be short. The
concern that we have with October 16, as we have heard that date,
is that the 17th is a very exciting day. It is the day that the
auditor general intends to release the report on the scandal
plagued HRDC. We would like some assurance that there would not
be a mini-budget and then an election call before we had the
great opportunity to view that particular report.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be pleased to take the hon. member's question as
a representation.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood that in
English. I will get the French translation.
What we are concerned about is the representation of the people
of Canada. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give us the assurance
one way or another, either by advancing the release of the
auditor general's report from the 17th, or moving a prospective
mini-budget from the 16th to the 17th, that an election would not
be called before the public had the great honour and pleasure of
viewing the auditor general's report on the scandal plagued HRDC?
Can we get that confirmation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): It is
interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition is
now backtracking from his demand for an immediate election.
* * *
GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Oh
no, Mr. Speaker, we are ready whenever it is, but the Prime
Minister seems to have a new game in the lead-up to the election
call. It is called hide and highlight.
He will hide that upcoming HRD audit. I am sure he does not
want to see that, but he will highlight vote buying down in
Atlantic Canada. He will hide that pesky APEC report, I am sure
of it. He will highlight the new health accord but he will hide
the fact that it was he who slashed all that funding in the first
place.
When will the government admit that yes, it can run, but it sure
cannot hide?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the deputy leader is making a very bad attempt at trying
to hide the fact that if her party ever got power, which is
unlikely, it would kill medicare. That is the fact and she
cannot run away from that.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we would highlight the fact that under the Prime
Minister's watch we have seen higher taxes, longer hospital
line-ups, and the Liberals can hardly blame us for that, a
hepatitis C nightmare that the government has overseen, the GST
flip-flop of course, and prison parties.
If the Prime Minister has done such a fabulous job in these
seven years, why the rush to backtrack and fast track?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend is totally mistaken. We have not been
raising taxes, we have been lowering taxes. We have been
lowering taxes by billions of dollars. In the last budget we put
down a tax package where we would lower taxes over the next four
years by close to $50 billion.
Why does the hon. member not get up and speak accurately and
praise us for these real achievements for Canadians?
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister admitted in the House that the EI
cuts were used to pay down the $42 billion deficit.
Now that there is no longer a deficit and surpluses are the
order of the day, should the government's priority not be to
help unemployed workers, who have been required to pay more than
their share in the fight to reduce the deficit?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
priority is not just to help the unemployed by creating millions
of jobs, but to help the entire Canadian economy. So far, we
have been very successful.
1420
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister should mention this to all these unemployed
workers, the more than 65% who pay premiums and are not entitled
to benefits when they are out of work. The word that would
appropriately describe what this is is unparliamentary, but I
know what it is.
Could the government not use 90% of what it is going to relieve
unemployed workers of this year, a surplus of $5.6 billion, to
help young people, women, seasonal workers, all the people who
are discriminated against in the existing Employment Insurance
Act?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have reduced EI premiums by millions and millions of dollars.
Why is the hon. member not congratulating us on how successful
we have been at reducing EI premiums for all employees in this
fine land of ours?
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the rejects of the employment insurance system
have been the main contributors to paying off the government's
deficit, as the Prime Minister himself confirmed yesterday.
Now that it has the full financial manoeuvrability it requires,
is the government going to finally do away with the incredible
discrimination toward young workers, who need to have worked 910
hours to quality for employment insurance when everyone else
needs 400 to 700 hours?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government continues to act on
behalf of Canadians who find themselves unemployed.
We celebrate the fact that two million more Canadians are
working today than were working when we took office in 1993. We
celebrate the fact that when we look at youth unemployment, it
has been reduced by 3.8% since that time. We celebrate the fact
that women are working more today than they ever have and at the
lowest unemployment level in 25 years for that very important
part of our workforce.
We support Canadian workers not only with employment insurance
benefits and making changes as we need to, but also by direct
programs that deal with their immediate concerns.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to use improved working
conditions to justify her discrimination of young workers. This
is disgusting.
How can the government continue to penalize young people by
treating them differently, when they have already contributed
their share to paying down the government's deficit?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us review some of the investments we
make on behalf of Canadian youth. There is $155 million every
year through the Canada youth employment strategy. There is the
$2.5 billion that has been put into the millennium scholarship
fund to help young people interested in post-secondary education.
There is the introduction of the very popular Canada education
savings plan and the continued commitment through the Canada
university grant system.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
One of the justifications that Liberals are giving for the
possibility of an early election is that they have a surplus and
they do not know what to do with it. They need a mandate. They
want to have a national debate.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, why do they need to have this
debate when they have committed to and already have a mandate to
bring in a national pharmacare program? This mandate was
recommitted to by the Minister of Health this spring when he
promised a pharmacare program. Why not bring in the pharmacare
program that they have a mandate for, spend some of the surplus
on that and do that before any election call?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we already indicated the way we want to help Canadians
in the health care area with our $21 billion health accord with
the provinces signed by the way by the NDP premier of the
member's province. We have put billions into the national child
care program.
We are doing things along the lines the member is asking for. I
do not know if he is asking for an election or not, but we will
see what happens.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, surely the Deputy Prime Minister does not believe that
the accord was the last word on health care, unless he is
prepared to repudiate all the other things the Liberals are
committed to.
Incidentally, today is the day that bill 11 is proclaimed in
Alberta yet we hear nothing from the other side. One would think
that the political flags would be flying at half-mast over this
new era in the destruction of medicare. However, that is not the
case because it is this government that collaborated with the
government that the Leader of the Opposition was part of to make
sure that this kind of privatization could happen, both in terms
of the 12 points and the obvious deal that was cut between the
Prime Minister and the premier of Alberta in order to get Mr.
Klein to sign on to the accord in the first place.
1425
What was the deal? Could you tell us what the deal was?
The Speaker: My colleagues, please address your questions
always to the Chair.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is totally
wrong. There is no such deal. We have said clearly that we do
not agree with bill 11. We said clearly that we will monitor
what is done or not done with respect to the actual use of the
bill.
We put $4 million into more funds for the health department to
monitor how the Canada Health Act is respected in Alberta and
across the country. If the Canada Health Act is not respected in
Alberta or any other province, we will assume our
responsibilities and the hon. member should know that.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is becoming clear that one of the reasons the government would
call an election would be to hide the auditor general's report.
It is well known that the draft reports from the auditor general
would now be in the hands of ministers for their comments.
May I ask the minister of HRDC if she is prepared to table today
in the House of Commons the copy of the audit by the auditor
general which otherwise would be hidden from the people of
Canada?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member with his years in the House should know
that it would be a breach of the privileges of the House to
pre-empt the role of the auditor general, an officer of the
House, in tabling his report and making it public through tabling
in parliament.
I am surprised that the hon. member has forgotten this, although
I realize he took two years off when he could have been updating
himself on the rules of the House.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
conscious as we all are of the proprieties of the House, will the
Deputy Prime Minister right now commit his party to an all party
agreement in the House to permit ministers to lay upon the table
in parliament today the copies of the audits they have of the
Downsview scandal and the HRDC scandal, so that the people of
Canada will know what the ministers know, so that the Government
of Canada will be prevented from hiding these facts from the
people? Will he agree to that all party agreement in the House?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that the hon. member has an overactive
imagination. I certainly have not seen any drafts of the auditor
general's report. I am not able to say that he is right in
saying that ministers have drafts.
I repeat that the obligation of the auditor general is to report
to the House with his formal report. I am surprised that the hon.
leader of the Conservative Party with his years of experience
here is not willing to respect the role of the auditor general as
stipulated in legislation passed by the House and as set out in
the rules of the House.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister has such
respect for the role of the auditor general, it is surprising
that the Liberals are making all haste to call an election before
the auditor general can report to the Canadian public.
In addition to that, after ignoring concerns about EI for years,
the Prime Minister suddenly decided to make changes right before
an election call. To make sure he can use it to gain election
support, he plans to rush it through all stages in just one day.
Is this whole thing not just a cynical vote buying exercise by
the Liberals over there?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, speaking of cynicism, why did the member ask the
question she just did, contradicting her leader who called for an
immediate election just the other day? Is this cynicism or what?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition
called for lower gas taxes for Canadians too. I did not see the
Liberals rushing out to do that. They are very selective on what
advice they take from the opposition.
Here we have changes to the EI system. The Liberals knew they
needed to be made years ago. Now they are rushing them through
just before an election so that they can have bragging rights in
Atlantic Canada and try to gain some seats they deservedly lost
in the last election.
Why should Canadians be manipulated like that by the government?
1430
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why should the hon. member want us to ignore the
concerns of the seasonal workers and the construction workers all
across the country? What does she have against the seasonal
workers and the construction workers? What is wrong with their
concerns being taken into account? Why does she oppose working
people?
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, women are the
big losers in the cuts this government has made to employment
insurance.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development explain that
pregnant women need 600 hours to qualify for benefits, while
many workers can collect benefits with only 420 hours?
What does this government have against expectant mothers?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the government has shown
its understanding of the workplace family dynamics facing
Canadian women.
I point to the doubling of parental benefits that will be in
place by the end of this year. I point to the reduction in hours
required to collect special benefits. I point to the proposals
that are before the House today that will ensure that women are
not part of the clawback if they are home caring for their
children and out of the workforce.
I point to the other proposal that says we recognize that women
may leave the workforce for a longer period of time. These
proposals will make it easier for them, should they need to
collect regular benefits on their return to the workforce.
Canadian women are at the heart of these proposals.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
has had a solution proposed to her by the Government of Quebec,
which has a parental leave program that is far more fair,
accessible and generous.
What is the minister waiting for before giving a favourable
answer to the 17 organizations which called on September 26 for
the return to Quebec of the funds allotted to family benefits
under the employment insurance program? What is she waiting for
before she gives the green light on this?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, those organizations
recognize that the government is prepared to and will, by the end
of this year, have a plan in place that will double parental
benefits for all Canadian women, including those living in
Quebec. If I am not mistaken, what was said was that the
Government of Quebec could nicely complement the undertakings of
the Government of Canada.
I remind the hon. member that our undertakings will be done in
the context of the employment insurance program. They will be
done without raising premiums but, as we proposed today, by
continuing to lower employment insurance premiums.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, ministers attending a FACT fundraiser is not an
issue of culture or ethnicity. It is about terrorism. It is
about the government's priorities and mismanagement of security
intelligence information.
On the one hand, Canada signed a United Nations declaration
calling for a global ban on terrorist fundraising. On the other
hand, ministers are attending a fundraiser for a front for
terrorists. Does the solicitor general have confidence in his
department's reporting service or not?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is wrong,
wrong, wrong. The minister did not attend a fundraiser for this
group. He attended a cultural event involving the celebration of
the Tamil new year.
I do not know why the member of the Alliance Party, on behalf of
his party, is attempting to wrongly stereotype and stigmatize
hundreds of thousands of people because of their Tamil origin.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister did not answer my
question. The question is why was the security intelligence
information ignored. The government is failing to fulfil its
responsibility for the safety and security of all Canadians.
Therefore I ask the question again. Does the solicitor general
have any confidence in his department's reporting service or not?
Yes or no.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind my hon. colleague that CSIS does
not recommend who should or should not go to any gathering.
The government strongly condemns terrorists and any group that
uses violence to forward their goals and will continue to do so.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
seems increasingly certain that the Minister of Finance will
respond favourably to the repeated request of the Bloc Quebecois
and table a mini budget before the next election in order to
give some of the billions of dollars of hidden surplus back to
the taxpayers.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee that his government will
add in the mini budget all the money needed to employment
insurance to end to discrimination against women, young people
and seasonal workers?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for the confidence he is expressing in
this government. We will consider his comments as representing
interesting advice.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
calling for a mini budget because we want to make the
commitments official, since, otherwise, they evaporate like a
puff of smoke for lack of expression.
Are we to understand from the answers of the Deputy Prime
Minister that, in the face of the bill tabled by his colleague,
the government is giving up and will not put one cent more in
the employment insurance system than the few hundred million
dollars announced this morning?
Are we to understand from the response by the Deputy Prime
Minister that the government is abandoning many of the
unemployed and will continue to dip into the employment
insurance fund surplus?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in case the hon. member missed it, the
proposals before the House speak directly to the issues facing
seasonal workers and women. I am confused as to what more he is
asking.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is fairly obvious from the documents that have
been brought into the House that the solicitor general has a
complete lack of confidence in the reports to him from CSIS or
from any of the other organizations, when the government permits
ministers to go to events such as have been described in the
House.
He does not understand that when terrorists slip into Canada, it
is the people from their former countries who are the most put
upon. Why is the minister not taking their well-being seriously?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that the
government and I take their well-being very seriously. As I
previously indicated, CSIS does not recommend to government who
should or should not go to dinners, official dinners, fundraising
dinners, heritage dinners or whatever.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, these terrorists raise funds through welfare scams,
drugs, credit cards, passport frauds and human smuggling. These
are all international security issues which put all Canadians at
risk.
We are asking legitimate questions in the House. We are
answered by blusters from the frontbench and caterwauling from
the backbench. It does not change the issue. This issue is not
about culture or ethnicity; it is about public safety. Why does
the minister not understand that?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the House, Canada has taken a
very active role in developing an international convention
against fundraising for terrorism. We chaired the committee that
put the convention together. We have tabled the convention at
the United Nations and we were one of the signatories.
The next step is to develop legislation in consultation with the
provinces, because it is a criminal matter, to set up a process
of due law so that people who are considered to be under
suspicion can have a full protection of the law and we can also
use the instruments of the law.
There is no point in trying people in the court of public
opinion, by allegation or by guilt by association, which is what
the Alliance Party—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a
1990 supreme court ruling, chief justice Dickson recognized the
notion of diversity in the application of the criminal law for
the provinces.
He even said the following regarding young offenders, and I
quote: “It is legitimate for Parliament to allow for
province-based distinctions as a reflection of distinct and
rationally based political values and sensitivities”.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. If the minister will
not agree that we are right regarding young offenders, will she
at least comply with the supreme court opinion? What Quebec is
asking about Bill C-3 is legitimate and legal under a ruling
made by the Supreme Court of Canada.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should
know, that is exactly what Bill C-3 does.
* * *
1440
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Following a review of the subject matter of my private member's
Bill C-224, the recognition of crimes against humanity act, the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommended that Heritage
Canada consider entrusting one or more academic centres with the
task of researching all genocides and crimes against humanity in
the 20th century.
Will the minister explain to the House what efforts are being
made to ensure that this important issue is addressed by the
Government of Canada very soon?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the stories of the
victims of crimes against humanity are among the most powerful
stories of the 20th century. Canadians need to hear those
stories.
The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage report on Bill C-224
looked at a number of ways that the Government of Canada could
recognize the victims of genocide and the victims of crime
against humanity through education, research and remembrance.
The department is grateful to the committee for its thorough,
sensitive examination of this very profound and complex issue.
It made a number of recommendations which the department is
currently and carefully considering.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Umberto Marvuglia of Surrey knows
that accessibility to quality health care in Canada is dubious at
best.
Last year he was diagnosed as having an aneurysm and was warned
that any strenuous exercise would kill him. Despite this life
threatening condition, it took seven months before Umberto was
operated on.
Is this the type of accessibility to quality health care the
Canada Health Act is trying to protect?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the opposition member that
the delivery and structuring of services come under the
responsibility of the provinces and of the hospitals that are
accountable to them.
However, the federal government, through Health Canada, just
showed its willingness to help strengthen the health system in
each and every province by providing them with an additional
$21 billion in the coming years and by targeting certain
investments under a very concrete action plan.
I believe these investments will provide an answer to such
issues.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it did not help the Canada
health services to have the federal government cut as much money
as it did a number of years ago.
Umberto's family members in his native Italy were so concerned
about the delay in his surgery that they approached Italian
doctors who said that they would have operated within seven days,
not seven months. Umberto's Italian relatives are horrified that
a country like Canada would have a health care system that forces
someone to wait so long for life saving treatment.
I think Canadians would like to know as well if this is the type
of accessibility to quality health care that the minister is
trying to defend.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we knew official opposition party
members in this theatre were very eager to walk on wet land. We
have invited them to work now on dry land. Now they are walking
on very slippery land.
The Leader of the Opposition has a written a letter to all
provincial premiers asking them to weaken the role of the federal
government in health. What is the logic of this question now?
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, for three years the government has known about plans
to dump Toronto garbage into the Adams mine. Environment Canada
played a role in this process from day one and the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans gave it a green light in 1997.
The Liberals knew about this problem for three years, but they
waited until a week before the decision had to be made to pretend
to do something. The minister just figured out that 80 billion
litres of toxic byproducts from Toronto garbage just might be a
problem. Why did the minister do nothing for three years?
1445
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the contradictions in the hon. member's question
show how faulty the question itself is.
He has pointed out that we were there at the beginning providing
information to the Ontario government, which has the primary
responsibility for a landfill site of this type. He has pointed
out that we were right there providing that information.
Later in the process, when concerns were raised about
transboundary pollution getting into the province of Quebec and
the province of Ontario and getting into an Indian reserve from
lands outside the Indian reserve, in accordance with I believe
sections 46 and 48 of the act we followed the normal procedure
set down by the legislation. That process is continuing.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, let us review what the government has not done. It
has sat on its duff for years and only now on the eve of an
election has it begun even to think of doing something.
People in the Adams mine area do not want this project and that
includes the Timiskaming first nation. Mike Harris is free to
pollute Ontario and Quebec, and this minister sits and watches
the clock click down, abandoning clean water to Mike Harris.
Why does the minister not protect the drinking water of Ontario
and Quebec? Why did he gut our laws to the point that he cannot
act?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member's question follows the same faulty
assumptions that preceded his questions with respect to
Walkerton.
The fact is the primary responsibility in this situation for the
issue of a municipal dumpsite is provincial and municipal as
well. That is the Canadian constitution. There are certain
federal aspects. We provided technical information to the
province in its assessment. There are aspects which we are now
considering appropriately under sections 46 and 48 of the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Does the minister's department have a copy of the audit prepared
by the auditor general, the audit of her department scheduled to
be presented to the House of Commons on October 17? Does her
department have a copy? Yes or no.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
there have been some consultations among House leaders and
parties on this side of the House, and all parties on this side
of the House would be prepared to agree to special permission to
allow that document to be tabled now in the House of Commons.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister agree to tell the truth to the
Canadian people, to stop hiding the facts, and agree to an all
party agreement to let the minister table the document right now
in the House?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House leaders meeting took
place as early as two days ago. No such discussion took place.
* * *
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is always a pleasure to ask the government for and receive
valuable information in the House. My question is for the
Minister of the Environment.
This morning the World Conservation Union released its red list
of threatened species. The list shows that 62 of the globally
threatened species are found in Canada. Could the minister
indicate to the House what Canada is doing to ensure that those
species will be protected?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for pointing out what is a
critical issue for Canada. We have in his province a large
number of species at risk, including the beluga whale, wolverine,
woodland caribou and many others.
The approach is threefold.
We are trying to work with the provinces on the accord on species
at risk to make sure we have maximum co-operation and no holes in
the system, and with organizations and communities so that we can
encourage, on the ground, attitudes among people who live and
work out there where these species are to protect them. We have
our own species at risk act which is moving through the House
process.
* * *
1450
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Christian churches have a long and honourable history in
the country in spite of the actions of some employees involved in
the residential schools.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Only one out of eight
lawsuits has named the church as a co-defendent. Now the
government has initiated countersuits naming the churches in the
remaining seven out of eight, forcing many churches to face the
peril of bankruptcy. Why is the government doing this?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think it is appropriate to discuss details of
litigation before the courts in the House.
I want to confirm to the House that I have been asked on behalf
of the government to undertake a new dialogue with the churches
involved in the issue of residential schools. I hope to have the
first meeting in this dialogue later today.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Human Resources
Development Canada is a source of endless surprises, and, daily,
members of this House discover new scandals there.
Since the members of this House are unanimous in their desire to
discover the outcome of the inquiry at Human Resources
Development Canada, will the government agree to table this
report today so that we do not go into an election without
knowing the truth in this whole scandalous affair?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not the government's report. It is the auditor
general's report. The hon. member may well have forgotten that a
law was passed not too long ago to enable the auditor general to
make reports four times a year.
He can pick a date of his choice, if he wants to respond in his
role as an officer of the House, to table his report on a date
other than the one the hon. members have been talking about. It
is open to him to do so. I think we should respect the role of
the auditor general. He is an officer of the House.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 65% of the
people paying employment insurance contributions do not qualify
for benefits.
We know that there are people in a black hole, seasonal workers
across the country, especially in the Atlantic region.
My question to the Minister of Human Resources Development is
clear. What is there in her bill to resolve these two
problems—the black hole and entitlement? She should stop
bragging; Atlantic Canada cannot be bought with her paltry 5%.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on December 15, 1999, the hon. member
said:
I am prepared to give credit to the Liberals. They understood
the situation before taking office in 1993. They knew that
employment insurance was an important program that was part and
parcel of the social fabric of our country.
I thank him for that support. Again on December 15 the hon.
member said:
Today we have proposed to do just that, so I assume we still
have the support of the hon. member.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
Tuesday at the fisheries committee departmental officials
referred to phase two in implementing the Marshall decision.
Non-native fishermen were completely left out of the
negotiations in the so-called phase one. Is it the minister's
intention to involve non-native fishermen in the negotiations in
the so-called phase two?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong.
Throughout the Marshall decision and our response to the Marshall
decision we have worked with the commercial fishermen.
I have met with the executive itself. In fact, Mr. Thériault
was assigned the job of working with the commercial fishermen to
get their feedback to make sure that they played an important
role and that their views were taken into consideration in the
Marshall response.
1455
Further to Marshall and in terms of the long term view, we are
still working on these issues. Of course their input will be
very important in the final resolution.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration. I am told today that the House
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has received a
paper outlining the minister's proposal for regulations that will
accompany the immigration bill.
My colleagues, my constituents and I would like to know what the
minister is doing to reduce the waiting period across the system.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I promised, I tabled a discussion
paper which will lead to the development of regulations. The
purpose of these are to see that Canadians and permanent
residents are reunited with their families in a faster and easier
way.
We will be allowing spouses and children who are legally in
Canada to apply for landing from within Canada. We will also be
allowing refugee families to be processed for landing as a family
unit.
We believe that families are the backbones of our community.
That is why we would like to see families reunited more quickly,
and that is our plan.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the people in these churches are very worried and very
concerned about the government's action against them. I am glad
that finally the Deputy Prime Minister will meet with them.
In the meantime, has the government ceased to name these
churches as co-defendants in these suits?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is probably
aware, these claims reflect very complex and difficult issues. I
think it is not appropriate for any of us in the House to attempt
to score cheap political points out of the pain and suffering of
victims of physical and sexual abuse.
* * *
[Translation]
BIOSAFETY PROTOCOL
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to date, 75
countries have signed the Biosafety Protocol, but Canada is
dragging its heels and refusing to acknowledge the global trend
to providing rules on GMOs.
Is it the intention of the Minister of the Environment to sign
the Biosafety Protocol in order to put people's health and the
environment ahead of commercial concerns?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the final phases of the Cartagena protocol were
negotiated in Montreal in January, and I took part. Canada
played a very important role. I thank my colleague, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs, for the great work he did in this regard.
I point out that the standard practice of the Canadian
government, when faced with the issue of signature and adhering
to the protocol, is to consult with groups in Canada that may be
affected and may have concerns. We have virtually completed
those consultations. I fully expect a decision of the government
will follow very shortly.
* * *
PRESENTATION OF REPORTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the government House leader said that at the House leaders
meeting on Tuesday the issue of the October 17 reports did not
come up, and that is true. What is also true, of course, is that
on Tuesday an election did not seem as imminent or probable as it
does today.
I wonder whether it would be in the interest of the government
itself and of its own reputation to dispel any perception that it
might be contemplating an election because it does not want these
reports to become public.
I ask the government why would it not agree, as all parties on
this side of the House have suggested, to a procedure by which
these reports could be made public. Transparency could be
preserved, accountability, freedom of information—
The Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, House leaders seldom negotiate
things like this during question period. We have—
Mr. Bill Blaikie: You are the one that mentioned the
House leaders meeting on the floor, not me.
Hon. Don Boudria: No, I did not, Mr. Speaker. I am
sorry, it was someone across the way who expressed that House
leaders had made such an agreement when such was not the case.
If House leaders want to bring a suggestion to the next House
leaders meeting, they are quite welcome to do so. We usually
have very constructive work in which we participate all together.
I congratulate other House leaders for their usually
constructive work. I look forward to working with them again at
the next House leaders meeting and at all subsequent House
leaders meetings as well.
* * *
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, today a report was leaked on the health of children in
Canada and we have another confirmation that we have 40% more
children living in poverty in this rich country.
1500
I hear Liberals laughing at me right now while I am talking
about poor children. I think that is a disgrace.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development admit today
that her government's cuts to the EI program in 1996 is a major
factor in the increase of child poverty?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is not aware of
it, but I would encourage her to read the Employment Insurance
Act wherein, as a result of the 1996 amendments, we made very
effective and targeted changes. The family supplement is there
for low income families earning less than $26,000. They do not
receive the regular benefit of 55%. As of this year, it is 80%.
The recommendations from that party would be to raise the
percentages not even close to that 80%. What would that do to
poor families?
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in one of my answers I may have referred to a national
child care program. I should have either spoken of an early
child development program or the already existing and very well
funded national child benefit program.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to ask the government House leader
this very important question on the business of the House for the
remainder of this week and for next week.
Also, in light of the questioning during question period with
regard to the auditor general's report, which we now know the
minister of human resources has, would it be part of the
government's agenda to release that prior to the imminent
election call?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me take those points in
reverse order. First, no one said there was an imminent election
call. That decision certainly has not been announced.
Second, the last point that was raised was the allegation that
there is an auditor general's report to be tabled. In fact that
is not what the minister said. The minister said that she, as
with any government department, has been issued documentation
from the auditor general on which to respond. That is not an
auditor general's report.
To get back to the initial question that was asked, which was
the weekly business statement, it is as follows. This afternoon
we will continue to debate the report stage of Bill C-8, the
marine parks bill. This will be followed by the second reading
of Bill C-39 respecting Petro-Canada and Bill C-36 respecting the
criminal code.
On Friday we will deal with second reading of Bill S-17
respecting marine liability and, time permitting, we will then
commence Bill C-43 which amends the Income Tax Act.
On Monday we will debate the second reading of a new bill to
amend the Employment Insurance Act. If the House is so disposed,
we would be prepared, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, to go
through all stages of that bill in one day in order to give the
benefit to Canadians as soon as possible. We will see whether
that is the wish of the House.
We will then follow on Monday, or later if we do not get to it
on Monday, with Bill C-15 regarding the export of water.
1505
It is my present intention that on Tuesday and Wednesday we
would return to unfinished business from this week, more
particularly or including Bill C-3, the youth justice
legislation. I will be consulting further before clarifying this
issue.
Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
his preambular remarks, the House leader of the government
inadvertently misrepresented the facts in question period. The
question was about the receipt by the minister of the audit by
the auditor general. Just so the record is clear, she answered
in the affirmative, “yes”.
The Speaker: I do not want to get into a debate on what
was said. The blues exist. If you want to check with what was
said, I invite all hon. members to check on it. That will be
made available to you very quickly.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS
The Speaker: I will now deal with a point of privilege
that was raised by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst
yesterday. At that time I asked the hon. member directly if he
was alleging that the Minister of Human Resources Development
leaked a bill or a paper. I was referring to a bill. He
answered in the affirmative, “yes”.
The minister is here. The allegation has been made. I ask the
hon. minister to address herself to that particular fact.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have read the Hansard for the
member for Acadie—Bathurst's point of privilege yesterday. Let
me first say that I take strong exception to his accusation that
I have shown contempt for the House and its rules. I respect the
House and its practices immensely.
Let me be very clear that I never authorized or instructed
anyone to provide a copy of the bill to the media or to any other
individual.
After making inquiries with my department, I have confirmed that
no copies were distributed to journalists or to anyone else. I
can only conclude that no copies of the bill have been leaked
and, therefore, any reporting in the media would be speculative.
I know that the member has been working very hard on this issue
of employment insurance on behalf of many of his constituents and
I know how seriously he takes this issue. He is aware of the
adjustments we introduced today and that they have been a topic
of varied speculation and wide discussion in recent months, both
in the media and elsewhere.
I regret that he has drawn the conclusions that he has over
media reports on this issue, but I can reassure him and this
House that I would never condone any practice of leaking copies
of bills prior to their introduction in this place.
The Speaker: We have an allegation that was made by
the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst. We have a denial by the
minister that she was involved and, evidently from an inquiry
that she made, that no one on her staff was involved in this.
This matter of leaking documents is one that continues to take
our time in the House and, in some ways, to baffle us as to what
we are going to do about it. Because there were direct
allegations with regard to the information that was released and
that which is in the bill, I will take a couple of days to look
at everything. If it is necessary, I will come back to the
House.
What we have now is an allegation and a denial. Until I have a
look at it, the matter will stay there.
* * *
1510
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I seek your advice on this question I have for the
government on something that I know you have addressed in the
House before during question period, and that is a tactic by the
government in that when the opposition parties, which have a
limited time to keep the government accountable, do ask
questions, often a technique is for government members to
actually ask questions of the opposition. I think if you check
the record today, that happened on at least eight different
occasions. I am wondering what can be done in order to remedy
this.
The Speaker: I wish I had advice for hon. members. I
have found myself in the same situation in years gone by.
You as a House have agreed that you will have about 35 seconds
for a question and about 35 seconds for a response. We have had
a pretty good run at it in the last three years. We started with
getting in 24 questions in a question period. We have been
averaging in excess of 35 for the last three years.
I can deal with the quantity, that is to say the timing, but my
dear colleague, you will forgive me for saying that I cannot deal
with the quality of either the questions or the answers.
My role here is to see to it that a question is asked and that
an answer, whatever we want to say about it, is given. I do not
make any judgment about the quality of the questions and I do not
think you should ask me to make any judgment about the quality of
the answers.
BILL C-44
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order arising somewhat out of the
circumstances surrounding Bill C-44, which we now have in hand.
It concerns the practice of supplying the opposition with copies
of the bill in a timely fashion.
This morning the bill itself was tabled. It was introduced at
10.04 a.m. or 10.05 a.m. Within five minutes the minister
promptly left the House and went on television to discuss the
bill. Some members of the opposition who have the critic's
responsibility for this department were not provided with copies
of the bill until 10.40 a.m., 30 minutes later.
I know this may sound petty, Mr. Speaker, but it is petty on the
part of the government not to ensure that the entire opposition,
those critics, are given copies of the bill.
The bill itself was available on the media Internet site, which
is where our critic, the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, went
to get a copy when he was unable to obtain a copy from the
government. Other members, and I will not single anybody out,
received hand delivered copies from the government House leader.
There has to be parity. There has to be an attempt to see to it
that all members receive the same information at the same time so
that they can discharge their duties.
I ask the Chair to consider this in conjunction with the earlier
complaints yesterday with respect to the government's seeming
unwillingness to be forthcoming with this type of information.
This place is not to be considered an afterthought. This House
of Parliament has to be treated equitably on both sides. This is
not to say that the government can give the information prior to
the minister being prepared to do so, but we cannot be treated
here like mongrel dogs, as an after supper thought. This has to
be done fairly and in a straightforward fashion so that all
members can respond.
The Speaker: I want to deal with this directly. I do
not agree with all of the words the member used, but I agree and
I order that these copies be given to all members of parliament
so that we have access to them.
I do not know what happened such that some of the members on
this side did not have this information but I will make
inquiries, unless someone here can give an explanation.
Where these copies are distributed at a certain time for
everyone, I believe that the copies should go to our members of
parliament at the same time. If they are distributed on this
side at 11.15 or whatever it is, then they should be distributed,
out of courtesy, to one another. I will see to it that the
minister is apprised that this was not done and if it is
necessary she will come back to the House.
I agree with you that you should have the information to work
with.
1515
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we respect your decision. I would like to refresh
the memory of the House. Last year, when I used to be the deputy
House leader, I raised the same issue that the House leader—
The Speaker: The point of order is closed for now. I
will make inquiries about it and find out what happened in this
regard because it is a matter of courtesy among the members of
parliament and it should be respected.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-8, an act respecting
marine conservation areas, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 3.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 16. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on Motion No. 16 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 49. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on Motion No. 49 stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. Call in the
members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): At the request of
the deputy government whip the vote stands deferred until the end
of government orders on Monday.
* * *
1520
ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
Hon. Denis Coderre (for the Minister of Natural Resources)
moved that Bill C-39, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear
Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada
Public Participation Act, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the
House on second reading of Bill C-39, an act to amend the
Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and
the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act.
I am pleased to be bringing this piece of legislation before the
House at this time. Canada's economy is booming, due in no small
part to the strong performance of Canada's resource industries.
Today the energy, mining, forestry, geomatics and related
industries account for 11% of Canada's gross domestic product.
They directly employ 780,000 Canadians and account for 22% of new
capital investment in the country. The sector had $97 billion in
exports in 1998 and is the economic lifeblood of more than 600
communities across the country.
Canadian resource companies are showing that not only can they
succeed in the knowledge based economy, but they are a dynamic
and vital element of the new economy. Canadian resource
companies are investing $35 billion per year in new capital, and
average productivity growth is three times higher in the
resources sector than in the rest of the economy. The policies
implemented by the government are helping to ensure that Canada's
resource industries remain competitive and continue to underpin
our economic prosperity.
I am proud of the government's record on natural resources, but
I am also convinced that we can never take a prosperous resource
sector for granted. We must strive for continuous improvement.
As we enter the new millennium, I believe Canada must become and
remain the world's smartest natural resources steward, developer,
user and exporter—the most high tech, the most environmentally
friendly, the most socially responsible, the most productive and
competitive—leading the world as a living model of sustainable
development.
Consistent with this vision, it is important that Canadian
resource companies have the ability to make strategic decisions
and better position themselves in the domestic and global
marketplace. With that in mind, I am proposing legislative
amendments that will allow two of our major performers in the
natural resources sector, Cameco Corporation and Petro-Canada, to
continue their record of economic growth and environmental
stewardship.
Hon. members are familiar with these companies. Canada is the
world's largest producer and exporter of uranium, and Cameco is
the dominant Canadian company, accounting for about 25% of both
global uranium production and the western world's uranium
conversion services capacity.
At one time both companies were crown corporations, fully owned
by taxpayers.
As hon. members are aware, this is no longer the case. The
Government of Canada sold all its shares in Cameco by 1995.
Although the government currently holds 18% of Petro-Canada's
shares, it does not influence the management of the company.
1525
At the time of privatization certain ownership restrictions were
placed on both companies, but the energy sector is a dynamic
sector and the market has evolved significantly over the past
decade. While these restrictions were implemented for good
reason, some have outlived their usefulness and are now
preventing these companies from taking advantage of new business
opportunities.
Officials of Cameco and Petro-Canada have repeatedly asked for
changes in these ownership restrictions, which they view as
unfair, since they do not apply to other companies in their
respective industries. After careful review our government has
determined that these arguments have merit.
Through Bill C-39 we are taking action to give Petro-Canada and
Cameco greater freedom to grow and compete in the global market
on a more level playing field with their competitors, while
ensuring decisions will still be made in Canada.
The goal of Bill C-39 is to remove unnecessary restrictions that
are limiting the ability of these companies to attract new
investment capital and forge new strategic alliances, good
alliances. Specifically the legislation proposes to modify
existing restrictions on the ownership of shares and the disposal
of assets in the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act. We are
also proposing to amend the share ownership provisions of the
Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act,
which governs Cameco.
In the case of Petro-Canada, Bill C-39 will increase the limit
on the individual ownership of shares from 10% to 20%. We are
proposing to eliminate the 25% limit on the quantity of shares
that can be collectively owned by non-residents of Canada. In
other words, there will be no foreign ownership restrictions for
Petro-Canada.
In the case of Cameco, Bill C-39 will ease but not completely
eliminate the current foreign ownership restrictions. The limit
on individual non-resident share ownership will be increased by
10%, to a maximum of 15%. The ownership limit for an individual
Canadian shareholder will remain at 25%. Under Bill C-39, the
cap on total non-resident ownership of Cameco will move to 25% of
the company's shares from the current 20%.
I assure hon. members that these proposed changes are intended
strictly to give Cameco and Petro-Canada increased agility and
better global positioning. Bill C-39 will not affect Canadian
control of these companies.
[Translation]
As I have said, the restrictions on foreign ownership of Cameco
will be loosened, although not totally done away with. The
legislation will continue to require Cameco's head office to be
located in Saskatchewan and for the majority of its directors to
be Canadian residents. This will ensure that Cameco remains
under Canadian control.
It is true that Bill C-39 will result in the elimination of
restrictions on foreign participation in the case of
Petro-Canada. A number of factors, however, will ensure that
this major national will remain Canadian.
First of all, the 20% limit on individual ownership of voting
shares in Petro-Canada will prevent a takeover by a major
multinational. Then, as in the case of Cameco, the legislation
will require the headquarters of Petro-Canada to be located in
Canada—in Calgary, in this case—and the majority of its directors
to be Canadian residents.
Finally Petro-Canada has more or less reoriented its activities
to concentrate on off-shore resources in the Atlantic region and
on the oil sands, both of which are essentially Canadian
resources.
1530
Bill C-39 will amend the provisions of the Petro-Canada Public
Participation Act that govern the disposal of Petro-Canada
assets. Specifically, the provision preventing Petro-Canada from
disposing, particularly by sale or transfer, of all or
substantially all of its commercial or production assets will be
replaced by a similar one which makes no distinction between the
two types of assets. Petro-Canada will thus benefit from more
latitude in administering its portfolio of assets, while not
being allowed to wind up its activities through a pure and
simple liquidation of its assets.
The proposed amendments are not an indication of a major change
in the government energy policy. In fact, they confirm that we
want to let the market forces play within reasonable and
responsible limits. This is merely housekeeping legislation
bringing minor changes to property rules for Cameco Corporation
and Petro-Canada.
I can assure my colleagues that the proposed amendments will
have no impact on the prices of refined petroleum products. The
recent hikes in gasoline and diesel prices in Canada are a
direct result of the price of crude oil worldwide, which has
increased three times since 1998. The price of crude oil is
established according to supply and demand on the global market
and has nothing to do with property rules established in the
Canadian energy industry.
I also want to inform the hon. members that Bill C-39 will not
change anything to the commitment Canada made toward
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons or nuclear security. Also,
it will permit Cameco to consolidate its position as a world
leader in the mining and conversion of uranium.
Both companies support Bill C-39. Canadian as well as foreign
investors will applaud this initiative, which should improve the
long term outlook for shareholders as well as protect the
Canadian status of Petro-Canada and Cameco.
This is clearly legislation which encourages good management of
public affairs, and that is why I would ask all members to join
me in voting to have it referred to a committee.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-39.
We in the Canadian Alliance support the objective of the bill and
will be supporting it when it comes time to vote on second
reading.
I am certainly not about to let the government off the hook on
the issues in the bill simply because the issue that the bill
addresses should have been addressed a long time ago. In some
respects the government still does not go as far as it should in
allowing the flexibility of the two companies to compete in a
global economic environment. Only a Liberal in a Liberal
government could stand in the House and say he or she is proud of
the Liberal record when it comes to energy management.
The two acts originally placed restrictions on individual and
foreign ownership when Petro-Canada and Cameco were first
privatized. In my view the restrictions placed on these two
companies were too restrictive, more restrictive than necessary.
The government some time ago should have made the move that is
being made today.
The intent of the bill is to increase the companies' access to
domestic and foreign capital and enable greater flexibility in
using share exchanges and asset pooling to make acquisitions and
strategic alliances. Of course, if the government would do
something about our pathetic Canadian dollar, we would not need
this legislation even to the degree that still remains to protect
these Canadian companies from international takeover.
However that is another issue and a topic for debate on another
day.
1535
Having said that, I cannot help but wonder if the bill is to
finally pave the way for the government to sell off its remaining
18% ownership, or 49.4 million shares of Petro-Canada. Certainly
that is what appears to be going on here. Far be it from me to
be suspect of the government's motives, but I suspect that is the
intent of the bill.
The bill does a number of things to make room for the sale of
Petro-Canada. It raises the limit on individual ownership of
shares from 10% to 20%. The 25% limit on shares that can be owned
collectively by non-residents is removed. It also provides the
company with greater flexibility to manage its assets portfolio
while maintaining a check against the company winding up its
activities through an outright sale of all of its assets. What
does all that mean?
Petro-Canada was created in 1975 as one of the mechanisms of the
national energy program. The feelings of western Canada and
those of us who represent ridings in that region are well
documented when it comes to the national energy program. We
never did buy the Liberal line that the national energy program
was a vehicle for nationalist dreams and a ticket to energy
self-sufficiency.
At the time Canadians were told that we had less than 20 years
worth of recoverable oil reserves and that a high gasoline tax
burden was justifiable to guarantee our future energy needs.
When we look at where the oil industry in Canada currently
stands, obviously our skepticism was appropriate. Twenty-five
years later we know that those empty threats were little more
than Liberal hogwash and a simple money grab and a flagrant
breach of the principles of confederation by the federal
government, a Liberal federal government.
We now have proven oil reserves that will supply Canada's energy
needs well into the future. In fact, there is almost 400 years of
recoverable reserves at current usage levels in the tar sands of
northern Alberta alone. The Liberal government might have
thought that it had fooled Canadians but we knew it was the
federal government poking its rather large and unwelcome nose
into the oil and gas industry, an intrusion that was totally
unasked for, unappreciated and unnecessary.
Although the national energy program was eventually dismantled,
Petro-Canada lived on, fed by taxpayer dollars without taxpayer
approval. I might say that even today in this Liberal government
so many years later, the concept of a made in Canada energy
policy still exists. We heard reference to it just the other day
on the debate on the reduction of gasoline taxes in Canada.
At one time perhaps it was of primary interest only in western
Canada. I would urge Canadians on the Atlantic coast and in
Canada's Arctic today to be just as wary of that kind of
discussion.
The Liberals' presentation of the principle of a made in Canada
energy policy perhaps had some validity when we look at the total
context of Canada and its energy needs, but the folly and
downfall of the program was that it was based simply on the
resources of one or two provinces and took some $60 billion out
of the economy of those provinces and gave nothing back in
return.
In my opinion that is not the way to run a country. If we are
going to depend on one part of the country for our resources and
if we are going to take those resources in the interests of the
whole country, then it behooves us to give back to the particular
province or region something in return to equalize the
contributions of the province or region. Certainly that did not
happen.
Anger was a result of that program. The injustice of the
program has resulted now in a commitment in the North American
Free Trade Agreement which does not allow Canada in any sense to
set its own energy policy independent of the North American
market.
I think it could have been handled much better and in the
interest of the entire country, not just a small part of it.
1540
It was not until after a federal election and the Liberals were
defeated and the Tory government came to power that the national
energy program was abandoned. Of course by that time it did not
matter anymore because oil prices had collapsed and the idea of
western Canada selling its oil resources below international
prices was not an issue. It did not matter. Finally the concept
of a made in Canada energy policy was abandoned.
Petro-Canada lived on after the national energy program and
continues to live on today. It continues to remind us of just
how foolish and inept the government was in setting up the
program. Petro-Canada ended up as an oil company much like any
other oil company in Canada, except that the taxpayers still own
18% of the company and are the single largest holder of stock in
the company. No one but the government could own more than 10%
of the company.
In 1994 I questioned why the government would not sell off its
national oil company while the industry was strong and recoup
some of the billions of taxpayer dollars that were used to create
Petro-Canada in the first place. Even in 1994 I asked the
government why it would not do something significant and use the
revenue from the sale of Petro-Canada to reduce Canada's debt
burden. That debt burden was in part because of the creation of
Petro-Canada and the money that the government took from
taxpayers to buy Petrofina and create Petro-Canada.
In 1995 the Liberal budget promised to totally privatize
Petro-Canada, and we can see today how reliable Liberal budget
promises are. Certainly this is no different than in many other
areas. Indeed it is something we should consider over the coming
weeks.
The fact remains that Petro-Canada cost Canadians over $5
billion to create. Petro-Canada has never provided any benefit
to Canadians that could not have been provided by the private
sector. When it was finally privatized, Petro-Canada started
making a profit and competed effectively. Until the company was
privatized, it continued to be a drain on the taxpayers' purse
and never did make a profit until it was privatized, even with
the restrictions that have continued to be placed on the company.
Governments, since Petro-Canada was established, have never had
the courage to admit to Canadians that they will only be able to
recover less than $2 billion of the original cost of $5 billion
for the creation of Petro-Canada. If this bill is indeed the
first step in the process of the government to sell off its
remaining shares of Petro-Canada, my first response would be it
is about time.
I am curious though about the timing of the bill. On Bay Street
investors have driven up Petro-Canada's share prices in
anticipation of a move by Ottawa to sell its shares. Today
Petro-Canada shares are selling at $32.75 each. That is over a
46% gain just this year and there is potential for the price to
go even higher. Bill C-39 will remove foreign ownership
restrictions, allowing for an expanded market and certainly the
potential of increased share prices.
Should the government sell its shares? It could optimistically
find itself receiving $1.6 billion. That is $3.4 billion less
than what Canadians originally paid for Petro-Canada, a business
transaction anyone could identify as being a disaster, let alone
standing and saying they were proud of their record. How could
anyone be proud of a record like that?
1545
However, the government could find itself in possession of $1.6
billion. What I would like to know is what it is going to do
with the money? Since it was originally taxpayers' dollars that
paid for Petro-Canada, I believe that the funds should be
returned to the taxpayers in a direct fashion, rather than being
dumped into the general revenue fund that the Liberal cronies can
dip into whenever they feel inclined, whether it is for vote
buying schemes in some parts of the country or for huge new
national social programs that it commits to then later backs away
from and leaves the provinces stuck with them. No, I would like
to see the money going to debt reduction, again to reduce the
debt that the creation of Petro-Canada had a role in making in
the first place.
Perhaps it could be put into transportation improvements or
maybe we could really be revolutionary and put the money toward
lowering gas taxes. Lowering gas taxes, what an original idea.
However, we must remember that these Liberals just two days ago
voted against such a notion so I do not suppose they would be
interested in returning taxpayer dollars directly to the
taxpayers. No, in fact, that is far to clear-cut, simple, direct
and responsible for this government to recognize.
Bill C-39 does a number of things that we support. Referring to
Petro-Canada, it moves toward opening up ownership of the company
to both national and international interests, while still
ensuring that the majority of the company is still Canadian. The
legislation clearly states that resident Canadians must still
make up the majority of the board of directors. It also
stipulates that the head office of the company must remain in
Calgary. That is a curious feature of a number of bills which
privatized crown corporations. I have always wonder why that was
necessary.
It would only make sense for the head office of Petro-Canada to
remain in Calgary because that is the centre of their operation.
As the House may recall, when CN was privatized the head office
had to remain in a certain particular city. When Air Canada was
privatized the head office also had to stay in a particular city.
I have trouble understanding what the motivation for that is,
except it has to be politically motivated. I tend to be a bit
cynical after awhile.
The Canadian Alliance supports the removal of restrictions upon
Canadian businesses to allow for both domestic and foreign
investing. We expect to see that Petro-Canada, once it is no
longer manipulated by government, will continue to show profits
and growth.
Of course, Bill C-39 does not only address issues surrounding
Petro-Canada, although that is where my primary interest is, as
members might have noticed. It also addresses relating to the
sale of shares in Cameco, Canada's biggest uranium producer.
Canada's Kyoto commitments have increased the need for Canada to
find green energy and certainly nuclear energy is one of the
options that is being considered. Our Prime Minister speaks of
it often.
I do not wish to get into the debate at this point on the merits
or lack thereof of nuclear energy, but the fact remains that
uranium is a resource that should nuclear energy be a factor in
the world's efforts to reduce CO2 levels will become a very
important resource.
The bill raises foreign and individual ownership limits for
Cameco. Individual non-resident ownership will increase from 5%
to 15% and the limit on the total amount of non-resident
ownership of shares will increase from 20% to 25%. I am pleased
to see that the legislation still is mindful of the possible
consequences of high levels of foreign ownership of uranium
resources. In fact, the lower limits on Cameco shares reflect
across the board government restrictions on foreign activity in
uranium mining. While the Canadian Alliance is all for Canadian
businesses having all the opportunities to succeed, we must also
be conscious of the need to keep such potentially volatile
resources within Canadian control.
In effect, the bill allows for greater flexibility in the
selling of shares in Canadian companies and I can certainly
support that effort. It allows those companies the freedom to
raise capital and to prosper and grow to the maximum that their
ability and their resource will allow.
As I have already stated, if this legislation leads to the
government finally selling off its remaining shares of
Petro-Canada, it would be legislation that is long overdue.
1550
I guess we will just have to wait and see if the sale of
Petro-Canada becomes another pre-election goodie, and if so,
exactly how much the Liberals think Canadians have forgotten
regarding the original purpose of Petro-Canada and the amount of
taxpayers' dollars that went into establishing the company which
were never and will never be recovered from the sale.
As I said, essentially we will be supporting the bill. It is a
step in the right direction. It is the right thing to do. It is
better late than never. We will be voting in favour of the bill
as it moves through the House of Commons.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with rather
mixed emotions, I rise to speak to Bill C-39, an act to amend the
Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and
the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act.
These days, we hear the words “snap election” or “early
election” on everybody's lips. In the meantime, the job of the
MPs is to speak to certain bills, which in some cases are
contrary to the interests of Quebec, such as the young offenders
bill or bills I consider of relative importance, such as the one
before us today.
In short, this enactment relates to the mandatory provisions in
the articles of Eldorado Nuclear Limited—now Cameco
Corporation—and Petro-Canada.
It provides that the articles of Cameco Corporation will have to
contain a 15% individual non-resident share ownership limit for
voting shares as well as a cap on aggregate non-resident share
ownership voting rights of 25%.
It provides that the articles of Petro-Canada will have to be
amended to allow for a 20% individual share ownership limit
instead of 10%, while the aggregate non-resident share ownership
limit of 25% will be eliminated.
In addition, the prohibition on the sale, transfer or disposal
of all or substantially all of Petro-Canada's upstream and
downstream assets will be replaced with a similar prohibition on
the sale, transfer or disposal of all or substantially all of
its assets, without distinguishing between the upstream and
downstream sectors of activity.
However, before examining the reason for the bill, let me give
you a brief overview of these two corporations, which I had to
do to get to know them better.
First Cameco. Cameco was born in 1988 out of an amalgamation of
two crown corporations, namely, Saskatchewan Mining Development
Corporation and Eldorado Nuclear Limited.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited had been in existence for 61 years. It
was the oldest uranium producer in the world. It was a world
class business and a reliable supplier with many customers, both
in Canada and abroad. The Eldorado company was Canada's only
integrated producer, which means that it could transform uranium
into products used not only in Canadian reactors in order to
satisfy Canadian energy needs, but also exported in order to
satisfy the energy needs of other countries. Modern and
efficient plants were operated by Eldorado, and it owned in
whole or in part the uranium mines where the ore was extracted
at competitive costs.
The other partner, the Saskatchewan Mining Development
Corporation, was one of the biggest uranium suppliers in the
world. Already, in 1986, it accounted for 7% of the total
production in the Western world.
As the company had been intensifying its exploration activities
for a number of years, it owned some of the world's most
important commercial reserves.
Since 1988, Cameco has made several buyouts and has extended its
activities in several other countries. The company deals in
uranium, gold and oil. It is worth mentioning that, in 1999, the
company signed an agreement for the purchase of natural uranium
extracted from highly enriched uranium coming from Russia's
dismantled nuclear armament. I will come back to this later.
1555
Cameco Corporation, headquartered in Saskatoon, is thus the
world's biggest uranium producer. Its customers are
hydro-electric companies in 13 countries around the world. The
uranium products they buy supply nuclear energy plants.
The Canadian nuclear industry sales figure is $4.5 billion and
it maintains 30,000 highly skilled jobs in 150 Canadian
companies. The Canadian government brings in annually more than
$700 million in taxes and sale taxes.
The new Cameco company has one thousand employees and its total
assets are worth over $1.6 billion.
The public holds 90% of its shares, and Saskatchewan government
holds 10%. The company's 57 million shares are traded on the
Toronto and New York stock exchanges. Unfortunately, I cannot at
this time say what the percentage of non-resident shareholders
is. This is the kind of information the minister will be able to
give us when he appears before the standing committee.
Let us now turn to Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada was established in
1975 by the federal government as a result of the high oil
prices and the uncertain supply we faced at the time. The
company's initial mandate was a response to public policy needs
in the energy sector. Canada had to establish a presence in the
industry, stimulate exploration in frontier areas and find new
oil resources in Canada.
The world changed a lot over the next decade.
Ten years later, the oil crisis was over, and it was claimed
that successful exploration and conservation measures had had a
tremendous impact both on supply and demand.
In 1984, Canada elected a Conservative government with a totally
different view of government's involvement in the business
world. This new philosophy, which meant the official end of
Petro-Canada's public policy mandate, was the first of many steps
toward privatization.
This new approach put an end to government
funding of Petro-Canada. However, as a crown corporation,
Petro-Canada could not go to the market to finance its
operations. In the mid 1980s, net receipts dropped even further
as oil prices came down.
During this time, Petro-Canada had to turn itself into a
profitable venture; it was very difficult. Petro-Canada had a
huge debt because of its original public policy mandate and, in
the absence of new capital, it had to borrow more to fund its
growth. Access to the stock market became essential.
Finally, in 1990, the government announced its intention to
privatize Petro-Canada and the first shares were sold on the open
market in July 1991, at $13 each. The markets were quick to pass
judgment on Petro-Canada's financial health. During the first
year, the value of the shares gradually dropped to $8. In 1991,
Petro-Canada suffered a huge loss of $603 million, primarily
because of the devaluation of some assets. Petro-Canada needed
more than a change, it needed a miracle. It had to fundamentally
review its business and the way it was managed.
It significantly reduced the number of properties in which it
had a direct interest. It reduced its annual operating costs by
$300 million. It went from a staff of close to 11,000 to only
about 5,000 employees.
September 1995 was a turning point in Petro-Canada's history.
Indeed, this is when the government disposed of most of the 70%
of outstanding shares that it still held, keeping only a 20%
interest. At the time, this was the largest issue of shares in
Canada's history.
On December 31, 1999, out of the 222.4 million public shares of
Petro-Canada, 181.6 million common shares were held by Canadian
residents, while 40.8 million multiple voting shares were held
by non-residents.
This completes my historical overview.
Let us now briefly go back to Cameco.
1600
In his press release announcing the proposed legislative
amendments, the minister put it this way, no doubt to reassure
the public.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the Government of
Canada's policy on foreign ownership in the uranium mining
sector and do not diminish Canada's ability to meet its
commitments with respect to nuclear non-proliferation.
Given the attitude we saw with respect to the transportation of
MOX, the warm and fuzzy words of the member for Wascana are
hardly reassuring.
I wonder about the appropriateness of such an action. Is it
really necessary to go after more foreign capital to mine
uranium?
It should also be pointed out that the Ontario communities of
Clarington, Hope Township and Port Hope will have to manage more
than one million cubic metres of low level waste produced by
former crown corporation Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. at the Port Hope
refinery from the 1930s on.
This waste was first dumped in various sites in the city of Port
Hope, then moved to the Welcome storage site in Hope Township,
and finally to the Port Granby site in the Municipality of
Clarington. The Welcome and Port Granby storage facilities are
authorized by the Atomic Energy Control Board and belong to
Cameco, which runs them itself.
Even though the waste is managed safely in its present location,
the current situation will not be acceptable in the longer term
according to the Atomic Energy Control Board, the Government of
Canada and the local communities. Why, while we want to attract
more foreign capital, are we limiting foreign control? Is it to
protect ourselves or to protect them against potential liability
with respect to the environment?
I hope the minister will give appropriate answers to our
questions in committee. However, I would be remiss if I failed
to mention that the head office of Cameco is located in the
minister's province, Saskatchewan.
Now, let us go back to Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada, whose head
office is located in Alberta, was previously a crown
corporation. Today, the federal government owns about one-fifth
of the corporation's shares.
As sovereignist Quebecers, we consider that this corporation is
already owned, to a certain extent, by foreigners. The fact that
the maximum percentage of shares that an individual is allowed
to own is raised from 10% to 20% does not necessarily change the
problem of competition on the fuel market.
What is surprising is that this bill is being introduced at the
very moment when the Conference Board is studying that market.
Would it not have been more appropriate to wait for the
completion of the Conference Board study before introducing such
changes to the share structure of Petro-Canada?
Also surprising is the fact that Petro-Canada contributed a
little over $5,000 to the election fund of the Liberal Party of
Canada in 1999.
I suppose that when the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Petro-Canada asks for changes to the Petro-Canada Public
Participation Act, close attention is paid to what he has to
say. All roads lead to the campaign fund of our friends across
the way.
As for the report of the Conference Board, I want to remind the
House that the parliamentary committee examined Petro-Canada and
the fuel industry in 1998. In one of its recommendations, the
committee warned us against a possible merger of Petro-Canada and
another oil company.
This is another fine example of the Prime Minister ignoring the
work of his own members. Despite all the work that was done, he
is trying to hide the fuel issue in this report from the
Conference Board.
The federal government not only collects fuel taxes, it grabs
part of the huge profits being registered by the oil companies
this year. Petro-Canada's profits increased by $195 million during
the second quarter of the year 2000. That is a 304.7% increase.
To increase its tax revenues, the government will stop at
nothing. During the next campaign, the Liberal Party election
cry could very well be “We want nothing but your good, and your
goods.”
Increasing the foreign ownership limit from 10% to 20% will not
allow an individual to take control of Petro-Canada. However, 20%
of the shares of a company can give someone a lot of power. We,
in the Bloc, think that competition is one of the major problems
of this industry.
Also, the 25% cap on aggregate non-resident share ownership
voting rights would also be abolished under this bill.
1605
Petro-Canada could very well end up under foreign control. The
minister should explain why this should be.
The federal government identified a dangerous level of
concentration in the industry, but it decided against doing
anything until the problem reached crisis proportions since the
winter of 2000.
The Bloc Quebecois has been demanding for some time that the
federal government make sure there is more competition in the
Canadian oil industry. For example, three refiners-marketers
control 75% of the wholesale trade in Canada, which is reason
enough to wonder if there is any real competition in this
industry. The Competition Act should be amended to guarantee
competitive prices for consumers.
The House committee that has been poring over this legislation
for a year has clearly indicated that the Competition Bureau had
a very hard time enforcing the law.
Two things should be done in that regard. First, there should be
changes made to the onus of proof with respect to
anticompetitive behaviour, and, second, the Competition Bureau
should be given the authority to initiate investigations.
Another problem with the federal government in the gas issue is
that only 17% of federal taxes on fuel are invested in the
transportation infrastructure. The federal government then feels
it has to set up infrastructure programs in order to gain more
visibility. Compare this with the Quebec government, which is
investing 71.7% of fuel taxes revenues in infrastructure.
To sum up, I fail to see how this bill is relevant.
We are not against it nor do we support it, but the minister
will have to answer some questions. The problem I see here is
why introduce this bill now? Is it because a foreign investor
anxious to invest in Petro-Canada needs an increase in the
foreign ownership limit to take over the company?
I suppose the Minister of Natural Resources will be able to
explain to us in committee why this bill is being introduced now
and why the government is not dealing with the issue of
competition in the gasoline market.
In conclusion, I will quote an excerpt from the 1999 annual
report of the National Energy Board:
Petroleum export revenues increased to an estimated $14.9
billion in 1999, somewhat below the peak of $17.9 billion in
1997.
Spending on petroleum imports was about $9 billion, leaving
Canada with a trade surplus in petroleum of $5.8 billion, up
from $4.4 billion in 1998.
It is strange that a country that has a trade surplus in
petroleum cannot exert any pressure on the gasoline market. It
is also strange that it would consider allowing foreign control.
There are some fundamental questions which must be put to the
minister. Therefore, I am looking forward to seeing him at a
future meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
and Government Operations.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New
Democratic Party to say how disappointed we are with the
government again selling off or giving away and basically
denouncing something that we were a big part of back in 1972-74
when there was a minority government.
Some people say that probably the best government of that time
was when we were assisting the Liberals and pushing them into the
Petro-Canada act itself. Because of the energy crisis facing our
consumers, our industries, our businesses and the economy at that
time, we felt that it was necessary for Canada to try to look
internally, at its own concerns, when it came to energy pricing
and energy supply. Unfortunately now the government has turned
its back on yet another Canadian corporation, one that all of us
in Canada were very proud of and in many ways are still very
proud of.
It is very interesting to hear the reform members talk about how
much it costs. They use inflated figures and say, “This applied
to the debt—”. To say that because we had Petro-Canada the
finances of the country are in terrible, dire straits is simple
nonsense.
The fact is, they never mention the profits that Petro-Canada
made over those years or the number of jobs it created in Canada.
They never mention the taxes that were paid by the employees of
Petro-Canada, which assisted in social programs and other
programs in Canada.
1610
They never mention the positive aspects of what Petro-Canada did
for this country. They never do. They are in such a rush with
their American friends to sell off anything that has the Canadian
flag on it, almost. In fact I will rue the day when I come into
this House of Commons and see the stars and stripes standing
right next to you, Mr. Speaker. The way we are going, we are
rushing off at a very dizzying rate and selling more of our
assets in Canada to American and foreign control.
My wife is from Montreal. Really, she sometimes can understand
and feel what the Bloc Quebecois is saying in the House of
Commons and in the province of Quebec when they talk about their
culture, their unity and being Quebecois. Many times I sit back
and say that sometimes they might be right in defending against
the interests of the Americans, but separatism will not work.
Their link to the American currency, which they would love, kind
of blows that little touchy-feely warm feeling I have for them.
It is a long string of deregulation, of getting rid of what we
pride ourselves on in Canada. When this country was young, when
it became a country with the CBC radio and television, we spoke
to each other from coast to coast to coast through the CBC. What
has happened over the years? The government has again taken away
funding from CBC. It has made it a shell of itself, to the point
where I think 5% of westerners actually watch CBC. In fact, the
CBC's greatest strength now is in Atlantic Canada and even that
is diminishing, to the point where eventually we will have the
argument of whether money should go into the CBC or into health
care. Then people will say that health care is diminishing
because we have the CBC, so get rid of it.
I suspect it will not be too long before we one day sit in the
House of Commons and the government across the way gets rid of
the CBC, something that we cherish and value. The string just
goes on and on.
We had Air Canada, a proud airline at one time. The government
got rid of it. It became privatized in the dog-eat-dog
competitive world out there. They linked with Canadian, a
company I worked with for 18 years, and what happened? There are
major complaints about the service. While competing against one
another these two airlines were doing a great job, but what has
the government had to do now? It has had to get an NHL referee
to separate all the concerns that were going on with regard to
the complaints in the industry.
It goes on and on. We sold MacMillan Bloedel. We are getting
rid of Petro-Canada. Pretty soon we will be getting rid of the
CBC. Eventually we will be selling out everything. This is what
shocks me. This shows how the Liberals are really no different
from the Canadian Alliance or the Progressive Conservatives in
their thinking. They both support more privatization of our
crown corporations, of what makes us Canadian. It is true. They
support it. Petro-Canada will eventually be controlled, if it is
not already in the majority sense, by foreign ownership. We will
no longer have the ability or the access to control our own
petroleum industry, for example.
A classic example of this is that we are a net exporter of
petroleum products in this country. That is a fact. Yet we do
not have a national energy pricing commission or an energy review
commission to protect consumers, the industry and the economy
from inflated prices for gas or natural gas. We cannot do
anything about it because we do not have those controls.
We continually allow government intervention or governmental
ability to protect, such as seniors, for example. Seniors in my
riding this year are going to have a very difficult time heating
their homes. They are on fixed incomes. They are already making
the choice between bread and their prescriptions. What are they
going to do this winter if we have a very cold winter in Atlantic
Canada? What is going to happen to these people? The government
is going to do absolutely nothing.
The government may talk about a little GST credit and everything
else, but it does not go after the root of the problem, which is,
first, the taxation on the fuel prices and, second, the fact that
these foreign companies can raise their oil prices without any
regulatory aspects to it and can just get away with it
constantly. For example, when the price of oil went down the
other day were there any concessions or knocking down of prices
at the pumps? Absolutely not. But when they go up, all of a
sudden, bang, they go up.
A classic example of that is from the member for Labrador who so
rightfully complained to his own government. In September and
early October most of the fuel for Labrador goes up there by
barge.
That fuel was bought at a specific price. What happens when the
price goes up? The gas starts going up in Labrador if there is
no new supply into there. It is a major rip-off to the economy
and to the people who live in Labrador. What does the government do?
Absolutely nothing. That is the way the pickle squirts.
1615
The government claims it cannot do anything about it. It knows
it has a responsibility to care for the people of this country,
but is not doing anything because American and foreign ownership
of our companies is much more important than the protection and
interests of our economy and those people who live within our
borders. It is a sin and a real shame.
A publication from Natural Resources Canada says that Canadian
control of these two enterprises will not be affected by the
amendments. That is simple nonsense. Nobody in their right mind
believes that. In most cases, nobody believes what the natural
resources minister says anyway. Just because a corporation keeps
its head office in Canada does not mean that its management is
completely in Canadian hands. Just because a corporation has an
office in Calgary does not mean we have Canadian control of it.
It is simple nonsense. This is what this bill will do.
From 1972 to 1974, Petro-Canada was pushed by the NDP so our
interests from coast to coast to coast would be protected. We
were very proud of that initiative. It allowed us to say that we
had our own company controlling energy prices, energy flow and
everything else. Yet, now we are in the year 2000 and the
government is saying get rid of it. Let us get rid of anything
that has a Canadian flag or a Canadian symbol on it. Pretty soon
we are going to see the stars and stripes up here. I proudly
walk into this building everyday because when I look up at the
Peace Tower I see our Canadian flag. Yet, every single day we
start losing one more piece and one more brick of what is called
Canadian.
I was not born in this country. I came to Canada in 1956
because my mother, father and the six children decided to leave
Holland for economic opportunities and for the opportunity to
live in peace and freedom. That is what Canada has given us. We
are very proud to be called Canadians. I am very proud to stand
up and say I am a Canadian and I am very proud to raise my
children in this country. It is disappointing to see our
Canadian identity slowly slipping away to foreign hands and
foreign control.
When polices in the government are no longer acceptable for the
people of Canada, we have to wait to see what the World Trade
Organization says or we cannot do something because we have to
see what GATT is going to do. We cannot help our farmers because
of certain international regulations. Yet, France and the
Americans do not hesitate for a second to help their farmers. We
sit and talk but do absolutely nothing about it. This is a real
sin.
As I have said before, the particular bill we have before us
looks like a piece of legislation that came out of the south end
of a north bound cow. I urge the government to reconsider this
legislation.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member has repeated the disappointment of Canadians as
gasoline and oil prices rise. Would he not accept, what most of
the world has come to accept, that is that these prices are
driven by the international markets, not by what happens on
Wellington Street? No country in the world has the ability to
control the prices.
Canadian oil companies are not bumping up the price. They are
simply responding to price increases. If the price happens to go
down, I am sure the member and Canadians would not be so
concerned. I accept the fact that the increase in oil prices is
very much an issue for Canadians. The ripple effect in the
marketplace for oil and gasoline is an also issue in terms of
affordability. The government is attempting to address that at
this time as are most government's around the world.
The second thing the member referred to was the repeated mantra
of foreign ownership in Canada. Would he not acknowledge that
Canadians directly themselves and through their pension plans are
investing billions and billions of dollars in ownership of
Canadian oil companies, other Canadian enterprises and in other
enterprises around the world?
We are no longer afraid of being owned by non-Canadians. In
fact, Canadians are investing their capital and buying here and
abroad as well. Would he acknowledge that that is going on at
the same time as he is trying to frighten, as has been done for
100 years, that Canada is being bought out by those nasty
foreigners?
1620
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, if he wants to refer to
foreigners as nasty, I would not call them that and never did. I
would call them very enterprising. Why would one not pick up a
Canadian company for a song? With our low dollar, why not? It
is an easy deal. I would do the same thing if I had the
opportunity.
However, if he firmly believes that we cannot do anything about
oil and gas prices and if he is going to blame the oil companies
for the rapid rises, then why does he not reduce the prices on
taxation of the fuel right now? Why does he not regulate the
industry within the country in the way that P.E.I. does? P.E.I.
has a regulatory framework on its fuel prices and its gas is
almost a dime cheaper than in Nova Scotia. Why does he not do
that?
Second, he talked about the corporate control. I know that the
parliamentary secretary is an honourable man and one of the most
intelligent people on the government side. However, how much has
foreign ownership gone up since 1993 when the government took
office? I think he would be astounded by the statistic of
exactly how much foreign ownership has increased since the
Liberals took power.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
before I get to the heart of the matter, I would be remiss not
to make a few comments on the speech by my colleague in the NDP.
For a change, I have to say that I agree with some of what he
said.
As it pertains to the cost of oil, gas and fuel at the present
time and the effect it is having on a lot of people in our
country, the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned that we could
not control the price of oil. What the government can control is
the effect it is having on the poor of the country and on the
people who are living on fixed incomes and suffering drastically
because of escalating prices.
If the government cannot control or lower the price of oil, it
can certainly lower the taxes. As the price of fuel goes up, the
amount of money that governments make, both provincially and
federally, increases dramatically. If they were satisfied with a
certain fixed income, then the balance of the amount of taxation
which is now being charged could revert to the user and that
would be substantial. There are all kinds of other ways that the
government can help the poor people of the country.
One of the other items that the hon. member mentioned, which is
an extremely important to people of Labrador, is the effect this
is has on the people who depend on fuel in Labrador. The fuel is
brought in during the summer months. Earlier this year, of
course, fuel was at a relatively low price. Prices escalated and
are those people paying the earlier price at which the owners of
the shipping companies bought the fuel? No, they are paying the
higher price which is now being charged. That is extremely unfair
to the users.
However, that is probably where my agreement with my colleague
in the NDP ends. My feeling on the divestiture of Petro-Canada
as such is entirely different from what the hon. member feels.
Even though we appreciate, perhaps more in Newfoundland than
anywhere else in the country, what Petro-Canada has done for oil
and gas development in our province, we also must realize that to
grow companies need investment. We cannot restrict that
investment or we are putting companies at a disadvantage.
1625
Any legislation respecting ownership of Petro-Canada is bound to
draw considerable attention in my home province of Newfoundland.
Petro-Canada, as a crown corporation and a private company, was
and remains a key player in the Atlantic oil and gas industry.
Petro-Canada was a partner in the Hibernia oil discovery off
Newfoundland in 1979, as well as in gas discoveries off Nova
Scotia. It now shares in substantial revenues from the very
successful development of the Hibernia field.
When the Tory government bought shares in Hibernia and invested
heavily in Hibernia development, many naysayers condemned it
for throwing money into such a development. The Canadian
Alliance talked about throwing money into a sinkhole. Today, the
Government of Canada benefits greatly from the development of
Hibernia and will continue to profit for years to come from the
developments off the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador.
A year later, in 1980, Petro-Canada was the operator of an oil
and gas exploration off Labrador. While it may be some time
before the oil and gas from the Labrador fields hits the market,
there is no doubt that the Petro-Canada shareholders will reap
substantial benefits from their investment in that first class
property.
In 1984 Canada Petro-Canada made its first large offshore oil
discovery as an operator at the Terra Nova oil field and is now
just a few months away from getting first oil from that property.
Petro-Canada is also a significant partner in the White Rose oil
field which will likely follow Terra Nova as the third producing
oil property in offshore Newfoundland.
Along the way the company became a key investor and owner in
building an oil transshipment terminal port at Whiffen Head which
will be the storage and distribution centre for all the
Newfoundland offshore oil. I doubt very much that there would be
an offshore oil industry today in Newfoundland without the
initiative, the drive, the risk, the faith and the determination
of Petro-Canada and its only shareholder for most of that time,
the Government of Canada.
Today, oil exploration, development and production in offshore
Newfoundland is one of Petro-Canada's four core businesses. The
others are the oil sands production and development in Alberta
and other developments in northern Alberta, natural gas
exploration and production in western Canada generally and
refining and marketing of petroleum products including
lubricants.
Petro-Canada's mandate is obvious in its core businesses. It
was formed by the Government of Canada in 1975 to do what private
investors were unwilling to do. That perhaps is the greatest
legacy that Petro-Canada leaves the country. The public
investment in Petro-Canada was the catalyst for drawing other
private sector investors at that time who, perhaps because of
exorbitant costs of development of oil fields in rough and rugged
areas or unchartered areas in the country and perhaps because of
the uncertainty of such developments, could not take the risk on
its own. It was the Government of Canada, through Petro-Canada,
that was the catalyst to start some of the major developments in
the country which have proven to be extremely successful and
rewarding to the country.
Private companies were reluctant to take the risks or to invest
in new technologies that would be needed to explore and develop
these frontiers. Petro-Canada gave Canada a presence and a voice
in the corporate culture where attitudes were formed and
decisions were made about potential for private sector
investments in these areas.
1630
It provided the government with a corporate investment that it
could use to form partnerships with the private sector, companies
to undertake projects such as Hibernia, which would never have
been undertaken without the incentive that the government
provided through Petro-Canada.
I am not normally a fan of public sector competition in the
private sector but Petro-Canada is different. It is a case where
the public sector attracted private sector investment in projects
that might not have been developed.
Petro-Canada is a success story. It demonstrates how the public
sector can open the door to new areas of investment. Thanks in
large measure to Petro-Canada and the former PC government, the
Newfoundland offshore is highly profitable, although still a
difficult area for private investment solely.
Everything changes. Petro-Canada is now a private company,
although the federal government retains 18% ownership. It has to
look to private investors for the capital it needs to operate and
to expand its core business. It must find the capital in the
global financial markets that are increasingly attracted to the
size of the profits that we see happening.
I can understand that the present level of ownership
restrictions on Petro-Canada may have a negative impact on its
ability to raise new capital. We had an example of that with a
former public company in Newfoundland, Fishery Products Limited,
which was privatized under great restrictions. The company now
readily admits that the limit on these restrictions have to be
changed because in order to draw the investment that will make
the company grow, prosper and be competitive it must be able to
encourage investment.
Now that the private sector has experienced firsthand that the
energy frontier in Canada is a good place to invest, it may not
be necessary to insist that Petro-Canada be majority owned by
Canadians.
It is important to avoid a reign takeover of Petro-Canada and
the 20% restriction on individual ownership might help do that.
If Canadian investors continue to put their money into
Petro-Canada so that we continue to have a primarily Canadian
owned company playing in the major leagues of global energy
exploration, development and production, it is worthwhile to keep
the requirement that a majority of directors be Canadian
citizens, but it may be more window dressing than substantial.
We have an old saying that says, “he who pays the piper calls
the tune”. Undoubtedly, the investors or shareholders in any
new company will be the ones who will direct the board of
directors. By having that clause in the bill, which says that
everything will be okay because the directors will be mainly
Canadian, it will probably be just window dressing.
We are not against the bill. It is something that had to come.
Petro-Canada has played an extremely important role in the oil
and gas development, particularly in my own area of Newfoundland
and Labrador. However, times change and new outside interested
investment is required to make companies grow, prosper and be
competitive in this global market.
We will be supporting the bill. However, just because we are
opening up the country to investment, I hope it does not mean
that we ourselves will be bought or owned by anybody else. The
remarks of my hon. NDP friend that one day we will see the
American flag flying over the country, surely we as
representatives in this great Chamber and as Canadians generally,
know we will never let such a thing happen. We are Canadians and
we stand for Canada first. Any decisions we make in this Chamber
will be for the betterment of the country and not to weaken it or
give it away.
1635
The Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38
to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at
the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Beausejour—Petitcodiac, Employment Insurance.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion for second
reading of Bill C-39.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Speaker: Accordingly the bill stands referred to the
Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government
Operations.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-36, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (criminal harassment, home invasions,
applications for ministerial review—miscarriages of justice, and
criminal procedure) and to amend other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased today to rise to introduce the debate on the
motion to give second reading to Bill C-36, an act to amend the
criminal code, dealing with criminal harassment, home invasions,
applications for ministerial review, dealing with miscarriages of
justice and criminal procedure, and to amend other acts.
As I am sure hon. members opposite will agree, there are a
number of outstanding criminal law policy matters that require a
legislative response. Bill C-36 is designed to address some of
these matters.
The amendments proposed to the bill respond to issues of public
concern. The proposals are as follows: first, the bill before
you proposes to amend the criminal code that would increase the
maximum penalty for criminal harassment from five years to ten
years; second, make home invasions an aggravating circumstance
for sentencing purposes; third, codify and clarify the review
process for applications to the Minister of Justice with respect
to allegations of miscarriage of justice or wrongful convictions;
and fourth, reform and modernize aspects of the law of criminal
procedure.
This enactment would also amend the National Capital Act by
increasing the maximum fine available and the National Defence
Act by providing for fingerprinting.
I would like to outline the rationale for the proposals. I
would like to spend some time this afternoon setting out the
rationale for these proposals in very clear terms. Let me turn
first to the proposal concerning criminal harassment.
Criminal harassment, or stalking, as it is sometimes referred
to, is a serious offence that can have a devastating effect upon
the emotional and physical well-being of the victim. Although
the offence of criminal harassment is still relatively new, the
conduct itself is not. There are many Canadians who associate
this type of conduct with some of the few well-known cases of
stalking of a celebrity. However, the reality is that in Canada
the primary motivation for stalking another partner more
typically relates to a desire to control a former partner.
We know from Statistics Canada data for 1997 that eight out of
ten victims of police report incidents of criminal harassment
were women. We know that nine out of ten accused were men. We
know as well that two-thirds of the victims were criminally
harassed by a current or former intimate partner or close male
friend. This data characterizes criminal harassment for many as
an issue of violence against women and as an issue of family
violence.
The government is committed to taking strong measures to ensure
that the criminal justice system treats criminal harassment as
the serious offence that we know it to be.
Some time ago the federal, provincial and territorial ministers
of justice directed senior criminal justice officials to review
the problem of criminal harassment. After receiving the advice
of senior officials and after carefully considering the matter,
the governments adopted a twofold response: first, strengthening
the existing legislation; and second, releasing comprehensive
guidelines for criminal justice personnel on criminal harassment
to enhance implementation of the law.
This twofold response, supported by our federal, provincial and
territorial counterparts, with whom the minister shares a mutual
concern that more must be done to ensure that not only the law
itself but also the enforcement of the law, is adequately
reflected in the serious nature of criminal harassment and its
impact.
1640
Bill C-36 responds to our first commitment by proposing to
increase the maximum penalty for criminal harassment from five to
ten years. By increasing the current maximum penalty for criminal
harassment from five to ten years, we are sending a strong message
to would be stalkers that criminal harassment is a serious
offence and its sentence will now better reflect the serious
nature. It also provides criminal justice personnel with a
stronger sentencing tool to more appropriately respond to this
type of conduct.
With respect to our second commitment relating to enhancing the
enforcement of the criminal harassment provisions, I am pleased
to note that, together with our federal, provincial and
territorial counterparts, a handbook for police and crown
prosecutors on criminal harassment was developed.
The handbook provides a practical set of guidelines for criminal
justice personnel on all aspects of a criminal harassment case,
including victim safety. The Department of Justice
released the handbook in December of 1999. I am pleased to note
that well over 3,500 copies of the handbook have since been
distributed across the country and are being used to assist with
investigations, prosecution, sentencing and victim support in
criminal harassment cases, as well as for training of criminal
justice personnel.
I would also like to note that Bill C-36's proposal to increase
the maximum penalty for criminal harassment is built upon the 1997
criminal harassment reforms introduced by the government. These
reforms strengthen the criminal harassment provisions by making
murder committed in the course of stalking first degree murder,
irrespective of whether the murder was planned and deliberate,
where the offender intended to cause the victim to fear for her
safety. We also made the commission of a criminal harassment in
breach of an existing protective court order an aggravating
factor for sentencing purposes.
I will turn now to the problem of home invasions. Hon. members
may be aware that this phenomenon has achieved a growing
prominence in the news media and in the minds of the public. The
term home invasion is generally described as a robbery or break
and enter of a private residence when a perpetrator forces an
entry while the occupants are home and threatens to use or uses
violence against the occupants. The criminal code offences most
commonly used to address home invasions are robbery and break and
enter of a dwelling, both of which carry a maximum penalty of
life imprisonment.
While the statistical occurrence of home invasions is still low,
these incidents have had a significant impact upon victims and
result in residents feeling unsafe within their own homes. The
proposed amendments to the criminal code would indicate that
where the offender's conduct was in the nature of a home
invasion, the court must consider this to be an aggravating
factor when determining the sentence to be imposed.
Such an amendment would provide clear direction to the courts
and would express parliament's view that home invasions are a
grave form of criminal conduct which must be dealt with
appropriately during the sentencing process. This amendment also
acknowledges that home invasions have a devastating impact on the
victims of this type of crime and that the safety and security of
Canadians within their own homes must be protected.
I would now like to outline changes that are being proposed to
deal more effectively with alleged wrongful convictions. The
efficiency of any criminal justice system depends upon its
ability to protect the innocent while bringing those who are
guilty of crimes to justice. Despite all the precautions that
our justice system takes to avoid the conviction of an innocent
person, no system is infallible. Wrongful convictions can and
regrettably do occur. I need only mention the names of Donald
Marshall, David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin to make my point.
In such cases, our entire justice system finds itself in
disrepute. That is why the minister has included in Bill C-36
some very important improvements to section 690, conviction
process.
For many years now there have been calls for the reform of how
cases involving alleged miscarriages of justice in Canada are
handled. Advocacy groups, such as the Association for the Defence
of the Wrongfully Convicted, have repeatedly called for the repeal
of section 690 and its replacement with an independent agency,
like the criminal cases review commission in Great Britain.
In April of 1998 the commission on proceedings involving Guy
Paul Morin recommended that we should study the advisability of
creating a criminal case review board to replace or supplement
the current system. Even before the Hon. Mr. Justice Kaufman's
report was completed on the Morin matter, the Minister of Justice
instructed her department to review the section 690 process and
to make recommendations on how to improve this very important
component of our justice system.
In October of 1998 a public consultation paper was released
seeking submissions on how the conviction review process could be
improved. The minister was searching for a fair and an efficient
solution that balanced the principles of fairness, timeliness,
openness and accountability. As part of the consultation
process, the minister met with members of the British commission.
1645
The British experience was completely different from ours and
convinced the minister that a completely arm's length commission
is unnecessary and not the best solution for Canada. It is
expensive, it is cumbersome, and although it was designed to
handle many more applications than the number we receive in
Canada, it has not yet solved the longstanding problem of delays
and backlogs.
After extensive consultations and review of all the submissions
received from interested parties, the minister concluded that the
ultimate decision making authority in criminal conviction review
should remain with the federal Minister of Justice, who is
accountable to parliament and to the people of Canada. The
executive role of the Minister of Justice is ideally suited to
the task of effective gatekeeping, that is, to recognize and
maintain the traditional jurisdiction of the courts while
providing a fair and just remedy in those exceptional cases that
have somehow fallen through the cracks of the conventional
justice system.
Having said that, I must add that the consultation process also
convinced the minister that maintaining the status quo was
certainly not an acceptable option. Therefore, the proposed
amendments to section 690 will provide new investigative powers
to those investigating cases on the minister's behalf. This will
allow investigators to compel witnesses to testify and documents
to be produced.
In order to make the conviction review process more open and
accountable, ministers of justice will now be required to provide
an annual report to parliament, and a website will be created to
give applicants information on the process.
In the past, section 690 reviews have been reserved for those
who have been convicted of a serious indictable offence. In
recognition of the fact that any wrongful conviction is a
miscarriage of justice which threatens public confidence in the
justice system, conviction reviews will be expanded to allow for
the review of any federal conviction.
To create a greater degree of independence, a senior adviser
from outside the department will be appointed to provide advice
exclusively on cases of alleged wrongful conviction and oversee
the review of applications. That person will be in charge of a
new multidisciplinary review unit which will include
investigators as well as counsel.
The government believes that these amendments are the most
efficient and effective way to improve the conviction review
process in Canada.
Let me turn to the area of criminal procedure reform. The
Department of Justice has been working closely with the provinces
and territories on criminal procedure reform for some time. This
work is now in its third phase. The two previous phases were
introduced as legislation, Bill C-42 in 1994 and Bill C-17 in
1996, and are now in effect.
The first two phases have been successful in assisting
jurisdictions to manage resources more effectively in the
criminal justice system. Jurisdictions are now pressing to have
the third phase translated into legislation. It is the proposals
of this third phase that are before the House now in Bill C-36.
The objectives of phase three are to simplify trial procedure;
modernize the criminal justice system and enhance efficiency
through the increased use of technology; protect victims and
witnesses in criminal trials; and provide speedy trials in
accordance with the charter requirements. We are trying to bring
criminal procedure into the 21st century. This phase is an
essential instalment in our efforts to modernize our procedure
without in any way reducing the measure of justice provided by
the system.
The criminal procedure reform amendments proposed in Bill C-36
would retain the unconditional right to a preliminary inquiry for
indictable offences on request, while modifying some procedural
aspects of the inquiry. For example, the proposal would create a
new pre-preliminary hearing for the judge and the parties to
attempt to determine the scope of the inquiry on a consensual
basis, and would amend the criminal code to require the justice
to prevent inappropriate questioning of witnesses at the
preliminary inquiry.
It would also change the rules of evidence applicable at the
preliminary inquiry to allow the admission of evidence the
justice considers credible or trustworthy. It would create a
limited defence disclosure obligation with regard to expert
reports.
It would also facilitate the establishment of rules of court in
relation to case management and preliminary inquiries. It would
also facilitate the application of new technology such as the use
of electronic documents to render the administration of justice
more efficient and effective.
It would expand the potential for remote appearances. It would
codify a plea comprehension inquiry scheme. It would make it
easier for the attorneys general to carry out the duty of
supervising private prosecutions. It would place restrictions on
the use of agents in criminal matters and allow for the selection
of two jury alternates who would be on hand until the start of a
trial.
As I said at the outset, this package of reforms was developed
in partnership with the provinces and territories. They support
these reforms. As they are responsible for the administration of
justice, I believe that we should do our best to give them the
tools that they need to ensure the efficient and effective
operation of the criminal justice system.
Finally, Bill C-36 includes amendments to the National Capital
Act and the National Defence Act.
1650
In order to make the National Capital Act consistent with other
federal legislation and regulations, it is proposed that the
maximum fine available for offences in regulations under the act
be increased from $500 to $2,000. This is the maximum fine
currently provided in the criminal code for summary conviction
matters. The type of offences that this proposed change would
target are relatively serious regulatory offences such as
poaching of large game and illegal dumping of waste.
The proposed amendments to the National Defence Act would allow
for the taking of fingerprints and other information from persons
charged with or convicted by court martial of designated service
offences. Designated service offences would be offences that are
identical or substantially similar to offences for which
civilians are currently subject to fingerprinting under the
Identification of Criminals Act. This legislative authority is
proposed to enable police forces to have access to the full
criminal record of persons dealt with under the code of service
discipline.
I would appreciate the support of all hon. members in the House
in bringing forward these very worthwhile reforms.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, finally Bill C-36 is up for second reading.
It was first introduced in this place back in the spring. At
that time the present whip of the Canadian Alliance, the hon.
member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, was the justice critic
for the official opposition. He accused the government of
pre-election posturing with this series of proposed amendments to
the criminal code, a sort of omnibus bill so to speak. At that
time he stated that the bill could be passed in a couple of days
if the government really wanted it.
As members know, I have been actively involved with my critic
responsibilities on Bill C-3, the youth criminal justice act.
Youth justice has never appeared to be much of a priority to the
government until this past week. It is only when an election
looms that the government feels the necessity to act and do
something. The government is not too interested in governing for
the people. It is much more interested in being re-elected and
staying in power.
In Bill C-3 the government absolutely bypassed any reasoned
contribution from the justice committee and almost overnight
forced the legislation back to the House for report stage debate.
The government House leader has been quoted widely about the
potential costs of overtime of the House dealing with Bill C-3.
However, he has been conspicuously silent about the costs
incurred by his compelling our legal staff and clerks to work
almost around the clock this past weekend in getting 3,133
amendments to Bill C-3 ready for debate this past Monday. Somehow
it was a priority for the government to deal with Bill C-3 on
Monday morning, meaning that the amendments had to be filed with
journals branch by early Friday afternoon.
We started debate on Monday, but the priority seems to have
disappeared as we will not be debating Bill C-3 again for the
rest of this week. Talk about a waste of money. I will not even
begin to get into the waste of money expended by the justice
committee to review the bill and prepare amendments, only to have
the government refuse to permit the committee to debate those
amendments and present an improved version of the legislation to
the House.
The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast sure called it
when he suggested that Bill C-36 was little more than an election
ploy. It is an attempt to convince Canadians that the government
is really interested in justice issues. We have seen this action
with the youth justice bill. It is only back on centre stage
because an election is looming. I suggest that Bill C-36 is only
getting time now for the same reason.
The Liberals are decidedly weak on their justice platform. They
merely need to prop up their image by claiming that youth justice
laws would have been enacted except for the tactics of the
opposition, specifically the Bloc. I suppose they will claim that
Bill C-36 would also have been enacted but they ran out of time
on their mandate because of other pressing issues, whatever they
may be. As I have already stated, that does not hold water as
Bill C-36 could have been passed in a couple of days last spring.
It could surely have been passed this fall.
I expect that Bill C-36 will not be passed before the Prime
Minister awakes some morning and, as he has said himself, hears
his wife tell him to call an election. He will then be able to
retire in the spring and have all of next summer to get his golf
game back in shape. We did not hear much about his golfing
exploits this past summer. Unfortunately, we did not see him do
much for Canadians either, other than overtax them and tell
jokes.
While there is not much to get too excited about with Bill C-36,
I will briefly make some comments and raise some concerns. As my
time is rather limited, I am sure there will be other
opportunities to discuss the pros and cons of this particular
legislation.
A number of the proposed changes to the law concern issues
whereby the government made earlier changes to the law but either
forgot or failed to properly consider all the aspects of those
previous changes.
In effect, the government is correcting some previous screw-ups.
1655
For instance, there are a number of changes to the criminal code
to include the Nunavut courts. There was a bill in the first
session of this parliament, Bill C-57, to deal with the Nunavut
courts of justice but the government seems to have forgotten to
include these aspects of the criminal code. It certainly makes
us wonder how much preparation and thought goes into bills before
they reach the floor of the House of Commons.
The Liberal government has also dealt with making stalking an
offence in Bill C-27 in the last parliament. At that time it
claimed that it was getting tough with stalkers of primarily
women, but it is only now that it is open to increasing the
maximum sentence for this offence.
One troubling aspect of the bill concerns changes to preliminary
inquiries. There are to be additional onuses placed upon the
defence to provide disclosure of its case in respect of expert
evidence. The defence will be compelled to provide the names of
its witnesses. That is something entirely new. I expect the
defence bar will have much to say about this provision. Charter
applications will also be an issue. It will be interesting to
see whether the government will be forced to withdraw from its
stand in this regard.
We have seen how the government pays little consideration to the
testimony obtained by the justice committee on Bill C-3. I do
expect that the government will be more apt to listen to the
lawyers. It is not so apt to listen to ordinary everyday
Canadians who comprise the bulk of persons interested in Bill
C-3.
As my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough pointed out
in his comments on Bill C-3 the other day, in Bill C-36 the
government appears to be trying to limit the use of preliminary
inquiries while at the same time through Bill C-3, it appears to
be introducing the whole concept into the youth justice system.
Talk about sucking and blowing at the same time; the government
cannot have it both ways.
The bill will also attract some attention over its amendments to
section 690 applications under the criminal code. There has been
much discussion about setting up an independent review agency.
The Minister of Justice has retained a right of final decision
on applications of wrongful conviction and I support her in this
regard. The minister must be held responsible and accountable
for these cases. She should not and must not relegate this duty
to an independent agency. It will be very interesting to see how
lobby groups, et cetera attempt to sway her from this position.
Again, it will also be interesting to see whether the government
listens to the lawyers and persons of influence when it was not
too interested in listening to laypersons pursuant to Bill C-3 on
youth justice reform.
Two components of the bill that will attract some public
attention are those proposals dealing with home invasions and
stalking. The proposal to make a home invasion offence an
aggravating factor certainly causes me to smile. A year and a
half ago, I moved a motion at justice committee after the premier
and the attorney general of British Columbia had written to the
minister requesting action on this issue. In that motion I
proposed the very course of action that the minister is now
proposing, but the government was not interested. In fact, one
Liberal member of the committee referred to my initiative as
silly and nothing more than political posturing. Now it appears
the government is claiming credit for the idea. Somehow I do not
believe it will see this as political posturing now.
Although the law currently allows for more severe sanctions,
this change will ensure that all of our courts clearly know that
parliament wishes home invasions to be considered as serious
attacks on the security and the lives of our citizens. This
should go without saying, but it appears that some of our courts
require an occasional tune-up.
The problem in this area is primarily systemic. Our whole
justice system must be readjusted so that our courts use the full
extent of punishments available for violent crimes. We have
significant maximum punishments available for most offences but
these maximums are seldom, if ever, utilized and imposed. This
is one of the primary reasons Canadians have become so
disenchanted with the criminal justice process. It also says
something about the Prime Minister having sole authority to
appoint judges to our superior courts.
I note that in the spring the Minister of Justice was quite
quick to lay claim to the fact that she is doubling the maximum
potential punishment for stalkers. This is the criminal offence
of criminal harassment. Stalkers are primarily male so this type
of issue is readily recognized and supported by female voters in
the country.
I fully agree that stalking is an abominable crime and that we
must protect all victims regardless of gender. With all due
respect, the government is not being entirely forthright on this
issue. The government is still maintaining the dual procedure
nature of this offence. The vast majority of offences are
proceeded with by summary conviction where the maximum sentence
is only six months in jail, a far cry from the 10 years maximum
if proceeded with by indictment. If the government really wanted
to protect victims, it would change the law to make the offence a
strictly indictable procedure.
It would indicate to the courts that parliament considers
criminal harassment a serious offence.
1700
Instead, the government seems to be sending the message that the
offence may be serious, but it may not be so serious. It may be
indictable in some circumstances, but in most cases it is merely
a summary offence. This type of attitude does little to protect
our women, who are the vast majority of victims of this form of
crime.
Some time ago a Vancouver family came to see me in my
constituency office. The estranged husband and father had
harassed them for years. The children are now grown. There had
been restraining order after restraining order, which he was
careful not to violate. The latest order was about to expire,
and they came to me for some help.
Let me give an example of how manipulative this man is. The
family lives in the central area of the city of Vancouver.
Successive restraining orders forbade him to be within a 25 block
zone around their home. The supermarket where they do their
shopping is outside that zone. The House can probably guess
where I am going with this. He would regularly show up in that
store when the family members were there to shop. He said
nothing to them. He did nothing to them. He was just there. He
would also show up at school or social functions. Again, he would
say and do nothing. He was just there. Can one imagine trying
to function from day to day with this going on?
All the restraining orders had fixed terms of two or three
years. Whenever one expired, like clockwork, within 24 hours, he
would show up at their door. The family members would be forced
to apply for a new order, which required them to justify time and
time again why such an order was required.
Unfortunately I could not offer them much help, other than to
encourage them to keep the restraining orders in place and
support their requests to the police and crown to examine the
possibility of criminal charges.
They contacted my office a few weeks ago because the latest
order, the current order, was about to expire. They wanted to
let me know that the crown was going to try to bring criminal
harassment charges, stalking charges, against this man. I do not
know the current status, but unfortunately the legislation before
us will be too late to be of any profit to them. Had the
government not chosen to introduce this harassment legislation in
the form of an omnibus bill, thereby clouding it with other
issues, we could have had something for these folks already.
My time is limited and, as I said earlier, there will be other
opportunities for discussion and debate. I am not interested in
holding up the legislation. I have witnessed the dilatory
actions of the government, and it needs no lessons from me when
it comes to stalling on justice issues.
I look forward to dealing with the bill at the justice
committee, but if the rumours of a potential announcement of an
election are accurate, it appears once again the government is
more interested in politics than in providing security and
protection to our citizens. It will be months, if ever, before
the legislation actually comes to fruition.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to this bill because it concerns
justice and I find very interesting what the Department of
Justice is involved with these days.
I always find it a bit comical, however, when I see this type of
omnibus bill, which seems to be a catch-all affair. It deals
with a number of subjects—I would not dare to say in a not
entirely serious manner—and mixes together a number of things. I
believe that, overall, this bill is perhaps a bit short on
seriousness.
I listened earlier to the parliamentary secretary telling us
about Bill C-36, which we are examining. There is one section
on which he said nothing at all.
I will remedy that quickly at the end of my speech, since it is
a subject close to my heart.
For our audience, I should explain that when I refer to an
omnibus bill that touches upon a lot of different subjects, as
we will see, the bill seeks to codify and clarify the review
process for applications to the Minister of Justice with respect
to allegations of miscarriage of justice.
The same bill also seeks to increase the maximum penalty for
criminal harassment. Then, in the same bill, there is reference
to making home invasions an aggravating circumstance for
sentencing purposes. And it goes on to address the procedural
aspects of preliminary inquiries, the disclosure of expert
evidence, rules of court in relation to preliminary inquiries.
It will even address electronic documents and remote
appearances, private prosecutions and the selection of jurors.
This is, I think, a bill that is going to solve certain problems
here and there, but lumping them together is not necessarily
going to solve the problem.
1705
It is certainly not accelerating the settlement process. On
this, I may be echoing the member for the Canadian Alliance.
Some parts of the bill could probably have been dealt with
outside the omnibus bill, and those matters requiring a more
in-depth consideration could have be dealt with much more
quickly. We would certainly have achieved much quicker results.
In all I have mentioned, there is one aspect missing in the
summary. This might explain why the government member did not
say a word about this. It has to do with Bill C-3, the young
offenders bill. While it has yet to be passed by the House, this
bill is already amending it.
I will come back to this because I find it quite exceptional. I
do not know what kind of country this is, but where I come from,
we would say that they are putting the cart before the horse. It
may be necessary to dot the i's and cross the t's, and I will do
so in my speech.
I will first talk about the judicial errors. When reading the
bill, we can actually notice an improvement in the review
procedures. It is obvious. Greater openness is sought. I think
an effort is made to speed the process. Perhaps the government
is trying to make it more accessible. But is it trying to make
it more transparent? I might say that I really doubt it.
In any case, there is evidence of openness and of the desire to
modernize the criminal code.
Nowadays, with the new DNA tools available, when we want to
present evidence that could not have been gathered previously,
we realize that the justice system is not perfect. Throughout
the years, there were some dreadful miscarriages of justice.
People found guilty of criminal offences spent 20 or 25 years in
prison before their lawyers were able, thanks to modern day
techniques, to prove their innocence.
The process used to be rather cumbersome. With Bill C-36, the
government wants to improve the process and make it more
accessible, which is a good thing and deserves to be examined.
In fact, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague from
Repentigny, who introduced a private member's bill to speed up
the compensation process for these people.
I do not know if his bill is what prompted the government to
act, but it could not have come at a better time and both pieces
of legislation go in the same direction.
The government would be well advised to go a little further, as
the member for Repentigny proposes to do, to compensate these
people as soon as possible.
Even if, at first glance, no one can be against the bill
introduced by the minister, the fact remains that the minister
wears two hats, one as Minister of Justice and the other as
Attorney General of Canada.
I do not know if the government understands the system as I do,
but at first glance, there appears to be a potential for a
conflict of interest involving the two hats on the same head.
The Minister of Justice has a lot of power and many
jurisdictions, but she is the protector of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, among other things. The attorney
general has a responsibility to examine irregularities in
proceedings. It is sort of as if one works to condemn and the
other to check that everything is fine.
On the very face of this we can see a potential conflict of
interest. If I were going to amend the criminal code, I would
have done it all and set up a real independent commission, which
would be accountable to parliament.
Accordingly, the minister would still be wearing these two hats,
but at least, we would ask her to try to correct an injustice
caused by one of her hats, to put it clearly.
1710
I do not understand the government member who said he examined
this whole possibility, that the department existed in Great
Britain. He mentioned Great Britain as an example.
This may do
nothing to speed things up, but at least we have the impression
that justice has been served. It is very important in a matter
in which an individual did not obtain justice to have some
procedure to follow when a request is made to have the file
re-examined, when there is an error in law and justice is served
the second time.
Law and politics are pretty much the same thing: public
perception is very important.
It bothers me that the same person who sentences someone can
also grant a pardon, or that the person who sentences can assess
the case to determine whether there was a miscarriage of
justice. For this alone, it would be important to send this bill
to the justice committee. The situation would be examined,
questions would be asked, and we would try to improve this bill
and the amendments introduced by the minister in Bill C-36.
There is also the whole issue of criminal harassment. The only
solution the government has found is to increase the maximum
penalty from five to ten years. At some point, the government
will have to stop and look at the problem in Canada. What is the
problem in Canada? It is not only by increasing penalties that
the problem of crime will be solved. This is too easy.
It is too easy to say “We have a problem because of criminal
harassment and we will solve it by increasing the penalty from
five to ten years. The problem has been solved. Since the people
sentenced for criminal harassment will spend more time in jail,
we have solved the problem”. Well, no. The problem has not been
solved. It has only been put off.
I understand that the Minister of Justice does not want to
listen to a nasty separatist. In her opinion, I must be a rare
species coming from who knows where, because what we are saying
is never good enough for the minister.
I understand that she is from western Canada, that there is an
extremely strong right wing in western Canada, and that the
minister, who probably wants to keep her seat in an upcoming
election, has decided to listen to this right wing from western
Canada to reinforce any legislation at the first opportunity.
At some point, however, we will end up with a criminal code that
will be no fun to apply and that may become a burden for the
state, precisely because the emphasis has been put on
incarceration, when it is not the solution.
I keep repeating it in this House, I keep explaining it in every
possible way, even with drawings, but the minister just does not
get it. She does not want to hear any of that. She only listens
to western Canada.
If the minister does not want to listen to me, a Bloc Quebecois
member, a Quebec MP, let me quote a supreme court decision, as I
did during oral question period. I do hope that she pays a
little more attention to what supreme court justices say.
In a fairly recent landmark decision, the supreme court dealt
directly with what is going on in Canada regarding
incarceration. Unfortunately, I do not have the specifics, but I
can provide them later to those hon. members who are interested
in this issue.
In a unanimous decision, the court said:
Canada is a world leader in many fields, particularly in the
areas of progressive social policy and human rights.
1715
The justices continue:
Unfortunately, our country is also distinguished as being a
world leader in putting people in prison.
This is not so flattering. They go on:
Although the United States has by far the highest rate of
incarceration among industrialized democracies, at over 600
inmates per 100,000 population, Canada's rate of approximately
130 places it second or third highest. Moreover, the rate at
which Canadian courts have been imprisoning offenders has risen
sharply in recent years, although there has been a slight
decline of late. This record of incarceration rates obviously
cannot instil a sense of pride.
These are the words, not of a separatist, but of the justices of
the Supreme Court of Canada. I trust the minister listens
attentively to these justices. She needs to listen to them, not
just to the right in the Canadian west. The court continues:
Notwithstanding its idealistic origins, imprisonment quickly
came to be condemned as harsh and ineffective, not only in
relation to its purported rehabilitative goals, but also in
relation to its broader public goals.
They go on:
I stop here for an aside which is that, with all the changes by
the government, there is no longer any doubt. The belief is
that there is a bias toward incarceration. Incarceration,
increasingly, is the favoured approach of the government as
well. I continue:
—since for most offences the penalty indicated is expressed in
terms of a maximum term of imprisonment. A number of
difficulties arise if imprisonment is perceived to be the
preferred sanction for most offences. Perhaps most significant
is that although we regularly impose this most onerous and
expensive sanction, it accomplishes very little apart from
separating offenders from society for a period of time.
The minister, who finds herself with a problem of criminal
harassment, will not resolve it by increasing the sentence from
five to ten years. That is very clear and I hope she has got
the message. I see that time is running out and I will go
immediately to my final point, which is a very important one for
me.
When I saw Bill C-36, I pointed out immediately that I was not
very fond of omnibus bills. I do not have much use for them. I
think that the government is getting it off its plate quickly.
However, I noticed that in clause 71 of the omnibus bill the
government wanted to amend Bill C-3, a bill that has not yet
been passed. It wants to amend a bill with 3,133 amendments
when we have only begun to consider the first group of
amendments. Worse still, a look at the background of Bill C-3
shows that it was introduced on October 14, 1999 and that it
contains 198 clauses to criminalize young people in conflict
with the law.
On June 8, 2000, the government introduced Bill C-36, which
includes amendments to Bill C-3.
On September 25, the same minister who introduced the bill on
October 14, 1999 and who amended the bill on June 8, 2000
through amendments in an omnibus Bill, that is Bill C-36, tabled
170 amendments to a bill containing 198 clauses. There is a
problem and the problem is the person running the Department of
Justice.
1720
She does not know what she is doing; she is acting only for
political motives, and I am sure that that will play a trick on
the justice minister in a very near future. I am convinced she
will pay a heavy political price for doing what she is doing
with legislation as important as the youth justice bill.
The amendments to the bill proposed by the minister are not
simple amendments. They are about the rights of young people,
the right to explain to them what is a plea of guilty and a plea
of not guilty, to inform them about their right to a trial by
judge and jury, to inform them about adult sentences.
Those are not minor changes.
Today, the minister wants us to pass Bill C-36 even before a
decision is made on Bill C-3. She wants us to examine and pass
Bill C-36, before the House has passed a single one of the 3,133
amendments that are before the House.
The parliamentary secretary, who has just spoken for the
minister, strangely enough, did not speak about Bill C-3. He has
probably not seen that in his bill. I say no. They are trying to
hide things, hoping the opposition will not see them. But the
opposition has seen them. They were caught red-handed.
An hon. member: We could say something else.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Indeed, some of
my colleagues could say more about the minister. For my part, I
will only say that she was caught red-handed.
What is the bill on young offenders really all about? Why is the
minister so determined to change the legislation? Why does she
want to deprive Quebec of the current act, which is working
well? Of course things can always be improved but we were able
to do some great things in the last few years with the current
act. Successes must be taken into account too, not only
failures.
When I see a 30 year old man totally integrated into society, an
ordinary citizen who has children, pays taxes and contributes to
his community, and know that he committed murder when he was
young, I think that we have succeeded.
If we did, it is because we applied the Young Offenders Act
correctly.
What are the major differences between that act and Bill C-3?
Basically, in Quebec the Young Offenders Act is applied with a
focus on the needs of young offenders. We examine the specific
needs of the young boy or girl who has a problem with crime,
because we believe that by answering his or her needs with the
help of experts, we can turn him or her into an ordinary citizen
in a few years. That girl or boy can be rehabilitated and that
is good for society.
It is the Young Offenders Act, let us make no mistake, that
focuses all the jargon, all the philosophy of the legislation on
young people's special needs, while Bill C-3, which the minister
is trying to ram down our throat—and fortunately the Bloc
Quebecois was there and used every parliamentary weapon
available to block the bill in committee and now in this House
so it may never see the light of day—what is its focus? It
focuses on the severity of the offence. A young person will be
treated this way or that according to the severity of the
sentence.
There is also the whole issue of serious crime. Murder is
serious, it is true. There are always too many, but in the case
of serious crime, as the minister's bill provides at the moment,
a youth of 14 could be sentenced as an adult. That means that a
youth of 14 could go to prison for life. That makes no sense.
We know that life imprisonment is for about 25 years. It is 25
years even with parole but let us say 25. Now 25 plus 14
makes 39.
1725
When this youth comes out of prison he could still be
productive. I do not know what he will have learned at prison
u. Not the right things, I am sure.
The minister wants to incarcerate 14 year old youths, to put
children in prison. However, on the subject of organized crime,
the Hells Angels, the Rock Machines and all those gangs, the
minister will not touch anything. These people have rights.
The minister has chosen organized crime instead of protecting
young people, and this is a bit of a scandal.
Let us talk about similarity of sentences. The minister said we
could do whatever we want in Quebec.
If this is true, let the minister put it in black and white in
her Bill C-3 and we will pass it on the same day. Let the
minister say that Quebec can continue to apply the Young
Offenders Act as it has been doing successfully for years and
her Bill C-3 will be passed on the same day.
The minister knows full well that what she is saying is not
true. It is not reflected in her bill. The harmonization of
sentencing, among other things, is an aberration. We will not be
able to treat our young people like we want. Western Canada will
tell us how to raise our children in Quebec. Thanks but no, we
are not interested.
In the numerous amendments that she just tabled on September 25
and which she probably forgot to include on October 14 or June
8, the minister tells us about the regional harmonization of
sentences.
What does the minister mean by region? Is my region of
Lanaudière part of her definition of “region” when it comes to
the harmonization of sentences? Are the maritimes a region? Is
the centre of Quebec a region? Is British Columbia a region? The
minister will leave that to the interpretation of the courts. It
is as if the minister was short of ideas. We will give her ideas
the next time. She should consult us first. Harmonizing
sentences does not work.
Then there are the delays. If there is something that could be
improved on in the Young Offenders Act it is this issue. I have
always said that if we want to amend the Young Offenders
Act—because I never said that this act was untouchable, that it
was perfect—we should begin with the issue of delays.
Delays must be shortened so that a young person who commits an
offence is punished immediately, or brought into the system
immediately. If there is a gang or family problem, it should be
possible to take him away from his gang or family immediately.
What is the minister doing about this? She is increasing the
number of steps: appearances, preliminary investigations,
discovery, selection of judge and jury, trial, decision and
sentence.
Someone who is a hardened criminal, who has just committed a
rape, a serious crime, and who has opted for judge and jury, as
any lawyer will suggest that he do, and is found guilty, will be
sentenced after a year and a half or two years, in the best case
scenario, so that there is zero cause and effect. The minister
has done nothing about this either.
Let us look at the complexity of the bill.
I can understand that the minister has amended the bill three
times in less than 12 months. The bill is incomprehensible. It
is complex. Even the experts who appeared before the committee
have said so.
Clearly, I could say a lot more. The last time I spoke, I went
on for 27 and a half hours. I think that if I were to seek
unanimous consent to continue, it would not be granted.
I simply wish to say that, for all these reasons and many more
as well, we will not be supporting the bill.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of private
members' business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
CULTURAL INDUSTRY
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before recognizing
the hon. member for Edmonton North, let me indicate that this is
a votable item. The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys has asked me to advise members of the House and
those watching these proceedings on television that the vote will
not take place at the end of the hour of debate tonight but has
been deferred until the end of government business on Tuesday,
which is normally around 5.30 in the afternoon, eastern time.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I know we have had a busy day talking about the Marine
Conservation Areas Act, mines and all kinds of other things. In
private members' business tonight I want to address the motion of
the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Motion
No. 259, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give
consideration to exempting up to $30,000 of income from income
tax as a gesture of support for those artists, writers and
performers who work in Canada's cultural industry.
I thank the member for bringing the motion forward. It
certainly bears discussion. We need to celebrate our arts
community in the country for sure.
Some members of my family are artists. As members know, I
taught in the high school system in the department of English and
love to see people who spend some time writing and in the
performing arts. It is a wonderful heritage for us as Canadians.
The member's proposal that the motion would give fledgling
artists, writers and performers a tax break to keep them in their
chosen line of work is noble. The reasoning is that due to the
economically unstable nature of their profession artists often
live at or below the poverty line. The NDP cites the average
income of Canadian artists as $13,000 a year. I am not sure
where the member gets his statistics, but I know he will
enlighten me on that.
If we start singling out this sector or that sector for tax
breaks, it makes it very difficult and puts us all at different
levels as to who pays what marginal rate of tax or what their
personal income tax will be. As hon. members know, we already
have several rates as it is: 17%, 21%, 29%, and those in the
higher income brackets pay as much as 50% in tax, which is a
little difficult to stomach for anyone in any industry, frankly.
I am thrilled to say our Alliance policy would give tax breaks
to everybody, not just the rich, whom we always get accused of
supporting. I would challenge any government member to stand
here when I am finished and say I support tax cuts only for the
rich.
Let me use artists as an example. The NDP has cited that they
make $13,000 a year. It is scandalous that they would pay any
federal income tax at all. The basic exemption now is around
$7,000, I believe. Under our program the basic exemption to any
taxpayer would be $10,000 and then the spousal equivalent would
be another $10,000. As I understand it now, $5,000 or $6,000 is
the basic income exemption for the spousal equivalent. Our
program, solution 17, would up that to $10,000 and then $3,000
per child to be exempt from that.
Let us use the example of two kids and two adults in a family
earning $26,000. They would not pay a dime of federal income
tax. That is a marvellous release for people in the artistic
community or anywhere else. Hon. members can hardly say that is
a tax break just for the rich. I really do not think anyone in
the Chamber would have the nerve to say $26,000 would be helping
the rich. Surely not.
We see this as a marvellous tax relief for people, and we would
see broad based tax relief certainly for artists in our
communities. Moreover, for people they deal with—their family
members, their extended family members, and those people who
would buy their art, go see their performing art, or read their
writings—the economic spinoff in that would be far more exciting
than just the proposal in Motion No. 259.
We should think about people who purchase art. In fact I just
had someone in my office who works with an arts stabilization
program, who had great ideas of private-public funding to say we
want stabilized programs, stabilized funding for the arts, but to
make sure there is accountability, to make sure government money
is not just being shovelled into whatever project it is with no
accountability.
1735
I met with the director of the Canada Council for the Arts,
Shirley Thomson, this week in my office. She is very keen on
making sure any grants that go out from the Canada council are
subject to accountability and that a small percentage of
government funding goes into this.
These artists certainly need to be celebrated for their works,
but we cannot just say we will pay the whole shot. It is wise
that we look at private-public partnerships for some of that
funding. I am sure the member who put the motion forward would
feel exactly the same way, that it would be only responsible.
Let me again mention that people who are in the business of art
would be able to celebrate capital gains savings through our tax
plan. Also, regarding business taxes such as employment
insurance and Canada pension, if they are paying their own
premiums or if they are working for someone else and someone is
paying payroll taxes for them, their particular EI premiums would
be much lower than they are now.
I was going to say I watch with amusement, but it is with almost
pity and sadness that I see government members today trying to
say they will put back all the money they stripped and slashed
out of EI, for which they got their heads kicked in, in the
election in 1997. The marvel of it is that they want it through
the House of Commons, and in one sitting day. Is it not something
that this twinge of conscience would hit them days before a writ?
It just has to be irony, and I find it very strange that the
timing would be such, but what in the world.
Surely we have to look at that and say we would decrease the EI
rates to $2 from $2.40. I know it was much higher than that.
Yes, we do have to give government members a shred of credit and
say they have brought it down some. It is pretty hard to sit on
a $12 billion egg of surplus and not be smitten by conscience for
some of the things they did in the past. The Prime Minister or
anyone else on the government side would say they have a burning
desire to help people whom they cut and kicked earlier.
Witness the health care accord just signed a couple of weeks
ago. If we look at the numbers, it is a very strange thing
again. The government has pulled out, slashed, and burned about
$21 billion in health care transfer payments to the provinces
since it came in in 1993. What do we think the health accord
signed a couple of weeks ago said? They are to put about $21
billion back into the health care system. That was just a pure
accident as well.
Let us look at the artists and employment insurance. It is true
that rates moving down to $2 would be very helpful to them. That
to me is exciting. A single rate of tax would eliminate the 5%
surtax, which would again give a tax savings of $762 million to
all Canadians. That would help the artistic community a whole
lot.
Let me also say that under the current income tax system there
already are some tax breaks for artists. They may deduct the
cost of creating a work of art in the year in which the costs are
incurred instead of when the work is sold. Of course that is
when the bulk of work goes into an artistic piece, when the
artist is working on it. The artist may be able to defer those
costs. Also, employed artists and musicians can deduct certain
expenses against their employment income.
We could look at mechanics. My husband Lou is a carpenter.
Anyone who came to our shop would see how unbelievably much
equipment goes into that industry.
People are just begging for tax relief. If we come up with
broad based tax relief right across the country, to every sector,
not just cherry-picking this sector or that sector, all of us
will be a lot better off.
There are already programs funded by the taxpaying public to
help this sector, artists, although they too are not terribly
accountable or transparent. I am trying to have some briefings
and meetings with many of these groups. Certainly there needs to
be some overhaul, but there are granting agencies in place. I
mentioned earlier the Canada council, the cultural initiatives
program and the National Film Board, just to name a few. I am
sure I could go through the estimates and really go at it in
terms of government funding that goes into it.
1740
Although I certainly do support the artistic community and all
the wonderful things artists do in supporting Canadian heritage,
I think the best way to help them would be not just to have this
particular proposal of a $30,000 exemption, but when we form
government to have broad based tax relief. That would help those
people probably more than anyone else on a relative scale.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the motion
brought before us by the member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys proposes that the first $30,000 per year earned
by artists, writers and performers be tax exempt. The government
recognizes and applauds the intent behind the motion. The motion
underscores the importance of Canadian culture.
Because of the way it shapes our lives, culture tells us who we
were in the past and who we are in the present. Inevitably it
also influences who we are likely to become in the future.
Culture is a force that drives our unique development as
individuals and as a nation. The government remains committed to
providing continued support to individuals engaged in our
cultural industries.
Since the 1950s the involvement of the federal government has
gradually evolved to include a variety of roles in response to
the expansion of cultural activity and its growing social and
economic impact. Cultural development in Canada is a partnership
among the private sector, individuals, corporations and all
orders of government.
By looking back, one can see the emergence of distinctive
Canadian approaches to supporting culture. In recent years it
has been identified as the Canadian model of cultural
affirmation. It emphasizes partnerships with other governments,
organizations and the private sector. Most important it is an
approach to government that uses a mix of the most effective
measures available to it, recognizing that circumstances and
situations are constantly shifting.
Ensuring a thriving economy in which individuals and businesses
earn more income and keep more of the income they earn is perhaps
the most important way to support our cultural industries. Not
only does such an environment provide better economic
circumstances for artists, writers and performers directly, it
also gives individuals and businesses more opportunities to
support these professions by increasing their ability to acquire
their products. Just as important, it recognizes the partnership
we share with other governments, organizations and the private
sector in supporting those cultural industries.
The broad based tax relief provided in the 1998, 1999 and 2000
budgets will help support economic growth and ensure that all
Canadians keep more of the income they earn. With the books
balanced in 1997-98, the 1998 and 1999 federal budgets introduced
broad based tax relief.
This tax relief was proportionately larger for low and modest
income Canadians. It included an increase of $675 in the amount
that can be earned tax free for all Canadians, elimination of the
3% general surtax and a $2 billion increase in the Canada child
tax benefit, for a total benefit of $7 billion annually. The
actions taken in the 1998 and 1999 federal budgets have removed
600,000 low income Canadians from the federal tax rolls.
As a result of these actions, taxpayers including artists,
writers and performers will have their federal income taxes
reduced on average by about 10%. Total personal income tax
relief provided in the 1997, 1998 and 1999 budgets amounted to
$7.5 billion annually or 10% of the $76.9 billion paid in
personal income taxes in the years 1999-2000.
The government has continued to build on these important tax
reduction efforts. In the fall of 1999 the government promised
Canadians in the Speech from the Throne and the economic and
fiscal update that it would set out a multi-year plan to further
reduce taxes. The 2000 budget set out such a plan, including the
most important structural changes to the federal tax system in
more than a decade.
The plan will immediately restore full indexation of the
personal income tax system to protect taxpayers against automatic
tax increases caused by inflation. This will benefit every
Canadian. It also reduces the middle income tax rate to 23% from
26%, starting with a two point reduction to 24% in July 2000.
This will cut taxes for nine million Canadians.
Additional key personal income tax measures of the plan will
increase the amount that Canadians can earn tax free to at least
$8,000, and the amount at which the middle and top tax rates
apply to at least $35,000 and $70,000 respectively. It will also
enrich the Canada child tax benefit by $2.5 billion a year by
2004 to more than $9 billion annually. Maximum benefits will
reach $2,400 for the first child and $2,200 for the second child.
1745
This plan will also eliminate as of July 1, 2000, the 5% deficit
surtax on middle income Canadians with incomes up to about
$85,000 and completely eliminate it by the year 2004. It will
also raise to 25% for the year 2000 and to 30% for the year 2001
the permissible foreign content of investment, registered
retirement pension plans and registered retirement savings plans.
The plan will mean more money in the pockets of Canadians. Taxes
will be reduced by a cumulative amount of at least $58 billion
over five years. Personal income taxes will be reduced by an
average of 15% annually by 2004-05. Low and middle income
Canadians will see their personal income taxes reduced by an
average of 18%.
In addition to these broad based measures that assist our unique
partnership approach to supporting cultural industries, the tax
system also features several specific measures intended to target
support to that cultural sector.
First, to enhance the exposure given to works by Canadian
artists, Canadian art objects purchased by businesses for display
purposes are eligible for a generous depreciation allowance
notwithstanding that such art objects may retain their value over
time or even appreciate.
Second, the designation of the national art service organization
provides not for profit arts groups with a tax treatment
equivalent to that of charities.
Third, to reduce liquidity and valuation difficulties, artists
may deduct the cost of creating work in the year incurred even
though the work may not be sold until a later date.
Fourth, to ensure that the artists are not deterred from
donating their works to charities, museums and other public
institutions, artists may value charitable gifts from their
inventory at an amount up to their fair market value.
In addition, employed artists and musicians may deduct certain
expenses against income from employment notwithstanding that most
employment expenses are not deductible. Specifically, employed
artists may deduct expenses related to artistic endeavours up to
an annual—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I was waiting
for an appropriate time to interrupt the hon. member, if I may.
It has been brought to my attention that the Right Hon. Pierre
Elliott Trudeau passed away today.
May I suggest that we have a moment of silence at this time
before we resume debate.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sure that all
members of the House present today extend to the Trudeau family
their heartfelt commiseration. The House will in due course
recognize Mr. Trudeau in a manner fitting. We will carry on with
debate, as I am sure Mr. Trudeau, a parliamentarian and a friend
of the House, would want.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I appreciate your comments. I am sure all of us in the House
feel the same. We are shocked and saddened at the news.
I wonder if it would not be appropriate to simply recess the
debate and perhaps make an arrangement between the parties to
complete it later next week. It seems to me to be inappropriate
to continue now. Perhaps I could have the agreement of the House
to come up with some agreement to continue this debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I thank the hon.
member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys in whose name
the motion stands and which is a votable item. That was the
reason we felt we needed to bring it forward.
If there is unanimous consent to accept the suggestion as
presented by the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys, we will proceed in that fashion. Is there unanimous
consent for the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys to move a motion?
1750
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
hate to be picky at a time like this, but it would be possible
for us simply not to conclude the debate on it. The hon.
member's item would stay on the order of precedence and come up
again for the final portion of debate at a future date in the
normal order, or otherwise if the parties came to an agreement on
it. That would be a reasonable disposition.
The only other disposition is to allow the debate to conclude
and go to a vote, as had been previously ordered by the House.
Perhaps the hon. member could give us his view. I am sure the
rest of the House would accept the member's view on it.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's
comments. I know that there are others who wish to speak to this
motion. Rather than deny them the opportunity to speak, I would
certainly accept the suggestion that we adjourn the debate at
this point and pick it up at an appropriate time some time in the
future. I know that is probably not the correct parliamentary
term.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like to know exactly where we stand, because this motion
is already deemed to have been put and the vote deferred until
next Tuesday.
If it is already deemed to have been put, how can we now drop it
and resume debate? It would be necessary to go back on an
earlier decision. I seek clarification, so that we
do not get caught.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion being
deemed put would only come into effect at the conclusion of
debate. Since it has been suggested by the hon. member for
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys that we adjourn the
debate, the deemed motion would not come into effect and we would
be okay in that regard.
Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Kamloops,
Thompson and Highland Valleys to move a motion that the debate be
adjourned?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP) moved:
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It has been brought
to my attention that we have a late show. Is there a motion to
adjourn the House?
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.53 p.m.,
the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.53 p.m.)