36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 64
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 15, 2000
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE LATE MARCEL PEPIN
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| TARA LEIGH SLOAN
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER'S BUDGET
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| HUMAN GENOME
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1405
| WEYBURN FOWL SUPPER
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER'S BUDGET
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| AIR CADETS
|
| Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1410
| RENDEZ-VOUS WITH OUR FRENCH-CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| ROYAL OAK GIANT MINES
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| FÊTE NATIONALE DES ACADIENS
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1420
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1440
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1445
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1450
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| RENÉ FUGÈRE
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. John Manley |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1455
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| SCOTIA RAINBOW
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. John Manley |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1500
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1505
1510
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1555
(Division 1161)
| Motion agreed to
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
|
| Bill C-20. Third Reading
|
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1600
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1620
1625
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
1705
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
|
| Bill C-20. Third reading
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1710
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
1715
1720
| Mr. André Bachand |
1725
1730
1735
| Amendment
|
1740
1815
(Division 1162)
| Amendment negatived
|
1820
1830
(Division 1163)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| WITNESS AND SPOUSAL PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT
|
| Bill C-223. Second reading
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1835
1840
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1845
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1850
1855
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1900
1905
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1910
1915
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1920
1925
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1930
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 64
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 15, 2000
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O
Canada.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
THE LATE MARCEL PEPIN
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on March 6, Marcel Pepin, a giant of the contemporary
trade union movement in Quebec, passed away.
Marcel Pepin began his union career in 1948. He was president
of the CSN from 1965 to 1976 and also held the position of
president of the World Confederation of Labour. He was, without
a doubt, one of the most talented union leaders Quebec has ever
produced. In his own way, Marcel Pepin was one of the key
architects of Quebec's quiet revolution.
For close to 50 years, he energetically defended the principles
of equity, justice and dignity on which our society is based.
He had strong beliefs and never hesitated to take a stand on
prevailing trends and practices. In short, Quebec has lost a
great worker and a great trade unionist.
On behalf of all Canadians, I wish to pay tribute to Marcel
Pepin for his great contribution to improved labour conditions
and the progress of Quebec and Canadian society.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have seen only the tip of the HRDC financial
mismanagement iceberg.
Last week the Surrey Aboriginal Cultural Society complained to
me about mismanagement of HRDC funds. The Sto:Lo nation receives
HRDC funds to provide services in Surrey. Its apparent failure
to honour contractual obligations has left aboriginals living in
Surrey without employment and training programs since 1998. The
society is now considering legal action.
Previous to that a member of the B.C. Metis community and a
former provincial Metis compliance officer came to me with
complaints of waste and favouritism, for example, HRDC money for
a university law course for a council director and a trip to
India for the son of another director. The complainants want
nothing less than a full forensic audit.
We know of 19 police investigations into the government's
mismanagement. It could be 20 but the RCMP told the Metis that
it lacked the resources to investigate. I hope the solicitor
general is listening.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is aware of both
complaints, so why is there no investigation?
* * *
TARA LEIGH SLOAN
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian national swim team lost one of its leading members this
weekend as Canadian Tara Leigh Sloan succumbed to serious head
injuries suffered in a car accident on March 3. She died on
March 11 at Foothills Hospital in Calgary. She had been en route
to visit her grandmother in Swift Current, Saskatchewan when her
car left the road.
Twenty years old, she was a national team member for four years
and is currently the Canadian short course record holder in the
100 metre breaststroke. She was a five time national champion
and won 17 international medals.
She competed in the Pan Am Games in Winnipeg last summer,
placing eighth in the 200 metre breaststroke. She was currently
training and preparing the Canadian Olympic qualifying trials
which are in late May in Montreal, with a dream of qualifying for
the Olympics. She was a member of the University of Calgary swim
club and was coached by Mike Blondal.
She is survived by her parents Gayle and Fred Sloan. Our
condolences go out to them.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER'S BUDGET
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Bernard Landry wrote that Quebec's budget reflected the strong
increase of 16.3% in federal transfer payments in 2000-2001.
This probably means that he will cash the money set aside in the
trust put in place by the Liberal member for LaSalle-Émard, the
federal Minister of Finance, for Quebec's share of the CHST,
thus helping to maintain the growth in federal transfer revenues
for Quebecers.
In its recent February 28 budget, the federal government
announced a $2.5 billion increase in Canada.
In the case of Quebec, this translates into a $600 million
increase in its share of federal funding.
With these extra amounts, Quebec can expect the trust to provide
several additional millions of dollars for the health needs of
Quebecers.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN GENOME
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
within the next few months the ability of our species to guide
its own destiny will progress significantly as the first draft of
the human genome is published.
1405
In essence the human species will have drawn the first map of
its genetic makeup. The sequencing of our genome and of the
genome of other species will revolutionize our world.
Basic scientific knowledge such as is contained in the periodic
table, such as the laws of physics, and such as the human genome
belong to all of humankind, not just to a select few.
Yesterday the British prime minister and the U.S. president
stated their views that no one should be allowed exclusive
ownership of information about the human genome. They affirmed
that such information belongs to all. They are right. I
congratulate them for taking this position and encourage the
Government of Canada to do the same.
* * *
WEYBURN FOWL SUPPER
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to announce to you, to the House and indeed
to all of Canada that the city of Weyburn has now received
recognition that can be found in the Guinness Book of
Records.
Part of the autumn tradition of western Canada is for groups to
hold fowl suppers. This tradition is carried on by church groups
as well as charitable organizations to raise funds for community
causes.
The Weyburn Performing Arts Society on October 10, 1999 set a
new record for the world's largest fowl supper with 1,641 people
attending.
Weyburn is known for many things, for its hospitality, its
cleanliness and having the largest inland grain facilities in
Canada. And now, thanks to the community and the support of the
performing arts society, it is known throughout the world for
this event.
Congratulations to the hundreds of volunteers who in true
western spirit volunteered to make this record possible.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER'S BUDGET
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Bernard Landry, the Quebec Minister of Finance,
delivered his budget for 2000-2001.
Speaking on my own behalf, as well as that of my colleagues of
the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to congratulate him for this
budget, which gives Quebecers what they had hoped for.
Quebec's budget, with its more limited resources, includes
investments in health and in education that are far greater than
those announced in the last federal budget.
What is more, the tax cuts announced by Minister Landry are
immediate, and 33% higher than those announced for Quebec by the
federal government.
Yesterday's Landry budget demonstrates one thing: if Quebecers
had total control over the $31 billion in taxes they send to
Ottawa every year, the Government of Quebec would clearly be
more efficient in managing it according to its real needs and
aspirations. That is what Quebec sovereignty is all about.
* * *
[English]
AIR CADETS
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to welcome on behalf of my colleagues from the Niagara
region the 35 young people from the Royal Canadian Air Cadets
126th Optimist Squadron who are visiting the national capital
region. They are here today in parliament.
The aim of the air cadet program is to promote in our youth the
attributes of good citizenship. Our cadets have recently
completed studies on the Canadian government and democratic
society. Today their visit to Canada's parliament will reinforce
the training they have received in this area.
Each year more than 55,000 young Canadians participate in the
nationwide cadet movement, an important part of Canada's defence
team. I would like to take this opportunity to reflect the
feeling of our entire community and thank the cadet movement for
the highly commendable work they carry out on behalf of the
community.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
February 24 the federal government shortchanged Alberta producers
because the agriculture minister did not feel that their
politicians had lobbied hard enough.
Yesterday the Alberta government showed it cared more about
helping farmers than about playing political games like the
Liberal government. In direct contrast to this government, which
cares more about cheap photo opportunities than helping farmers,
Alberta agriculture minister Ty Lund announced $145 million in
new funding for struggling Alberta farmers and demanded Ottawa
contribute its fair share.
The federal government must take this opportunity to demonstrate
fairness and equality to farmers in all provinces. It can start
by responding to Alberta's challenge and contributing its $103
million share.
The Liberals need to realize that farm income problems do not
stop at provincial borders. They need to immediately reform farm
safety net programs to ensure the long term success of
agriculture in this country and eliminate the need for these
emergency programs.
It is time the agriculture minister stood up for farmers and
quit being a pawn—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga West.
* * *
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week I travelled with the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and the member for Compton—Stanstead to Nairobi,
Kenya to meet with staff working with refugees and visa
applicants.
These people work long and emotionally draining hours. They risk
their lives. This is a very dangerous part of the world.
1410
Kate O'Brien interviews refugees in a camp in the Sahara desert.
Security requirements are very serious. Kate is at risk every
day. Michel Dupuis interviewed one woman who had seen her husband
and son murdered and endured two months in prison where she was
tortured and raped.
Keith Swinton, Christopher Hazel, Lynda Bowler, Michel Dupuis
and Kate O'Brien give hope and new life to people who could well
be dead.
Our High Commissioner, Gerry Campbell, leads a team of true
heroes along with Bob Orr and Dr. Jeremy Brown. On behalf of all
Canadians I want to thank them for their dedication and their
bravery.
* * *
[Translation]
RENDEZ-VOUS WITH OUR FRENCH-CANADIAN HERITAGE
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
draw hon. member's attention today to Rendez-vous with our
French-Canadian Heritage in connection with International
Francophonie Day. It is an opportunity for all francophones and
francophiles in Canada to express their love of the French
language and culture. This celebration of the French fact in
our country is clear evidence of the vitality of the
Francophonie.
Rendez-vous with our French-Canadian Heritage is a showcase not
only of our francophone heritage, but also of a dynamic
Francophonie in which strong ties are increasingly being forged.
This year's theme, “Notre francophonie en personne”, is an
invitation to acquaint or reacquaint ourselves with those
instrumental in the expansion of the Francophonie.
* * *
[English]
ROYAL OAK GIANT MINES
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
history of the Royal Oak Giant mines in Yellowknife has been
nothing short of tragic in every sense of the word. It has been
an unfortunate legacy of bad management and a poisonous and
hostile labour relations environment that resulted in nine people
being killed. A whole community was torn apart.
Royal Oak went bankrupt in 1999. The new owner has paid no
severance pay and now to add insult to injury the pensioners who
worked at Giant mines are having their pensions slashed.
To draw attention to the plight of these workers at Giant mines,
Mary Kosta is on her 16th day of a hunger strike. She is putting
her own health at risk to fight for justice for these workers,
workers that the government has turned its back on.
The Government of Canada played a role in both the bankruptcy
and the subsequent purchase of Giant mines. The Government of
Canada failed to defend the interests of the workers and
pensioners. The Government of Canada now has it within its power
to end the long and tragic history that is Giant mines.
Will it act and act now to make these workers whole and to
represent their interests before the interests of—
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over
the past few days, the members of the Bloc Quebecois rose 401
times in defence of Quebec. Four hundred times we stood up to
block the undemocratic attack of the Liberal government against
Quebec. Four hundred times we stood as a block in defence of
Quebec democracy.
At the same time, the members of the government majority voted
400 times in favour of a law intended to limit Quebec's right to
alone decide its future, 400 times they confirmed their
complicity in this unprecedented attack on Quebec.
All the more serious is the fact that these 400 votes mark an
irremediable break between Quebec and Canada. Historians will
note that the members from Quebec largely opposed this bill,
while the members from Canada supported it.
Bill C-20 will join the 1982 Constitution. It will have no
legitimacy in the eyes of Quebecers, who, whatever happens—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
* * *
FÊTE NATIONALE DES ACADIENS
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would underscore today this government's lack of respect for the
country's Acadians.
It is an insult to find that, for the second consecutive year,
the Fête nationale des Acadiens is not acknowledged on the
Canadian Heritage 2000 calendar. And yet, in 1999, Acadie
hosted the francophone summit, and the Acadian flag was flown
everywhere.
The Prime Minister campaigned among these same Acadians, who
gave him their support, and today he is refusing to recognize
them.
While this government is trying to convince Quebecers to stay in
our country, it continues to show a lack of respect for the
Acadians of this country. That is unacceptable.
I demand that the Minister of Canadian Heritage recognize the
Fête nationale des Acadiens of this country and that she make a
public apology. This government forgets that the Acadians
helped build this country.
August 15 is the date of the Fête nationale des Acadiens of this
country.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have obtained documents that show HRDC officials regularly
flaunted the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board
guidelines because their political masters interfered.
Departmental questions and answers were prepared in response to
the fallout of this damning internal audit. Staff said
“We were told to be flexible and responsive and not to lapse
funds. Now we are being told we have to obey the Financial
Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines”. How
inconvenient.
Why was this government operating for years outside the law?
The Speaker: I would urge members today to please choose
their words very carefully.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as is becoming usual, I categorically
reject the allegation made by the hon. member.
Those members are not interested in dealing with facts, so let us
review them again. We received an internal audit which said that
we could improve our administrative practices with regard to
grants and contributions. I asked for a tough response. We are
now implementing that response.
I am glad to say that as of yesterday we closed the 37 accounts
that we were reviewing as a result of the audit. Of the
overpayments identified, the majority has been collected, and
$600 is yet outstanding.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
she is not out of the crisis yet because very recently her own
employees have resented the fact that she continues to blame
anybody but herself. In fact, they have resorted to taking out
radio ads to defend themselves.
They were told to play with the rules. They were told not to
pay attention to details like the law. Breaking the Financial
Administration Act carries with it a five year prison term, but
in HRDC it had become routine.
What laws will the minister and the government not break for
their own political gain?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not break the law.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is one girl's opinion. I would like to quote from her own
employees.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would prefer, my
colleagues, if we called each other by our regular titles.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the
actual questions and answers, which I did not dream up. This was
something the department came up with and I would like to quote
verbatim. The staff said “Now we are being asked and told that
we have to obey the Financial Administration Act”, to which the
deputy minister has stated “We have to work within the rules,
starting now”.
I would like the minister to stand and say why in the world
she allows this to continue.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this girl will answer as she has over
the—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1420
The Speaker: Order, please. If the hon. Minister for
Human Resources Development would like to continue, I am sure
that all of us will call each other by our proper titles,
including the minister.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts.
We have identified that we have administrative improvements to
make in my department. We are implementing a six point plan.
I have had the opportunity to travel and visit offices where our
employees are working their heads off to make sure this plan gets
implemented and to improve the system on behalf of Canadians.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I refer to the questions and answers from the human
resources minister's own department. The title is: “Responding
to What We Learned from the Internal Audit Report”.
Question one reads: “We were told—not to lapse funds”.
However, section 37 of the Financial Administration Act
specifically states: “The balance of an appropriation that
remains unexpended at the end of a fiscal year—shall lapse”.
Clearly what the department acknowledges it told its employees
flies in the face of an act of parliament. Will the minister
explain that please?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that we have identified
that we will make improvements to our administrative process.
What we are doing now is implementing our six point plan, and we
are making serious progress. When it comes to the work of the
employees of this department I can tell that party that the men
and women of Human Resources Development Canada are together in
committing themselves to improving the process for the service of
Canadians.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has some serious explaining to do about
what her own employees were told by the people in charge; that is
to say, herself.
Clearly her employees were told not to lapse funds. They
acknowledge that. The law says that is illegal. Can the
minister explain why her own employees were told to contravene
the law of the land?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we have done together as a
department is to build the six point plan that will improve the
administration of our grants and contributions.
We will apply the Treasury Board requirements. We will ensure
that our employees are trained and have the resources they need
to do the job.
We are committed to improving our processes for the betterment
of grants and contributions that make a difference in the lives
of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
spite of the repeated denials of the Prime Minister, Human
Resources Development Canada officials maintain that the reason
why the department is so poorly managed is that they are
constantly subjected to political pressure in their work.
In view of this, how can the Prime Minister justify such
political interventions by his government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
the issue of moneys transferred to ridings for job creation, it
is provided that members for each electoral riding, both from
the opposition and the government, must be consulted.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are talking about more than mere consultations. In the series of
investigations targeting Human Resources Development Canada, a
frequently mentioned name is that of René Fugère. It would
appear that he is well known by the Prime Minister. Mr. Fugère
is the object of two investigations, one concerning the Auberge
des Gouverneurs, in Shawinigan, and another concerning the
Auberge Grand-Mère Inn, which received a $100,000 grant from the
Department of Human Resources Development.
Is this not an illustration of what HDRC officials are
condemning, namely that there all kinds of dubious political
interventions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in every case, the PQ MNA and the PQ government were consulted,
and they approved the grants that helped create jobs in the
riding of a PQ minister and a PQ member of the National
Assembly.
1425
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
TVA, René Fugère, not content to act as the Prime Minister's
representative, is also collecting fees as a lobbyist, lobbying
Human Resources Development Canada in particular.
In this context, how can the Prime Minister deny political
intervention in Human Resources Development Canada, as the
departmental employees have decried, given his known closeness
to René Fougère?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to state that Mr. Fugère has never worked for me.
There is legislation on lobbyists. There is a claim that he was
never registered, and we ourselves asked the ethics commissioner
to look into this. This is an offence, not under the Criminal
Code, but under an administrative law.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not know
how the Prime Minister can say what he has just said in this
House, when there is proof that René Fugère acted as a
representative of the PMO in a regional tourism symposium, using
the PMO address, the Prime Minister's telephone number, the
Prime Minister's fax number, and what is more, had a letter from
the PMO designating him as his official representative?
How can he say such a thing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
he did act on one or two occasions—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: —on a voluntary basis as a replacement
for someone in my office who was unable to attend. He was a
volunteer. He was never paid by the Canadian government, by my
office, to do so.
He is a strong party member from my riding, who works on behalf
of business, who has represented the native peoples, who has
represented others. This is what he does as a profession.
* * *
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
Decoding the human genome is an important key to scientific and
medical research. The profits of research into the human genome
should be measured in human lives and not in dollars.
Will the Prime Minister follow the lead of Messrs. Blair and
Clinton and assure us that the raw sequence of human genes is
not for sale?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
know that this was a very important announcement by Prime
Minister Blair and President Clinton. We also know that there
is already a case before the courts in Canada that will address
the question of trademarks with respect to the so-called Harvard
rat.
Some questions are already before the courts. We will also
consider the other aspects of the announcement by Mr. Clinton
and Mr. Blair with respect to the continued protection of
intellectual property.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I hope
again that the Prime Minister will take the opportunity to
indicate where he stands on this issue.
The Prime Minister knows that the WTO has ruled against Canada
on pharmaceuticals. That ruling will mean another $200 million
drained from Canada's health care system to the multinational
pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Is the government prepared to appeal that ruling, and what steps
is Canada taking to ensure that the benefit of modern
pharmaceuticals and of genetic research will be available to all
human kind and not appropriated primarily for the commercial—
1430
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the WTO panel's interim report was
provided to the parties on a confidential basis on March 3. We
are in the process of carefully examining the report and provided
comments to the panel on March 10.
It is very important at this stage to look at it very carefully
and measure its implications. The panel is expected to issue the
final report to all WTO members some time in mid-April.
* * *
CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Why is the Minister of Finance supporting the Bank of Canada's
decision to privatize the Canada savings bonds program?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to see the hon. member. I have not seen
him since 6.30 this morning when he voted both ways on the
clarity bill.
Let me say that decision has not been taken and it is not being
contemplated.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, at
least I admit my mistakes. This minister tries to cover his up.
The fact is that the decision has been made. I have an internal
document from Roy Flett, the chief of GSS with the Bank of
Canada, who said
I have been asked...to prepare Government Securities
Services...to move the Retail Debt operations outside the bank.
Achieving this objective will be my main preoccupation over the
next 12 to 18 months.
If the decision has not been made, why is a senior bureaucrat
devoting the next 12 to 18 months of his life to making it
happen?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that the Bank of Canada
administers the Canada savings bonds. In fact the marketing is
done by Canada Investment and Savings which is an agency of the
Department of Finance.
What is being examined is whether the status quo should exist or
that they might merge the two under the Department of Finance. I
would simply remind the hon. member that the Department of
Finance is part of the public sector of this country.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
November 4 the minister told the House that she found no breach
of the law when HRDC funds were put in a trust in the Prime
Minister's riding so that they would not lapse at the end of the
fiscal year, completely contrary to what is stated in section 37
of the FAA.
The minister's opinion does not count for much in a situation
like this. I want to know from the minister, has she referred
this matter to the RCMP.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again it is clear to all that there are
administrative improvements that we can make in our department
with regard to the management of grants and contributions. That
is a fact.
It is also a fact that along with the men and women who are
employees of the human resources development department we have a
plan that is being implemented to improve this undertaking.
Those are the facts and that is what this story is all about.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
right now employees of her department are trying to defend
themselves in radio ads because of her incompetence in running
that department.
We are not merely talking about an administrative matter; we are
talking about a potential breach of the law.
I am suggesting to the minister that the actions of her
department have violated section 37 of the Financial
Administration Act. She has said that is not the case. She has
offered that opinion to the House but her opinion in this matter
does not count for anything.
Has the minister referred it to the RCMP?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have had the chance to talk to the
employees of my department on a number of occasions. They are
not defending themselves from me. They are defending themselves
from the maligning that they are receiving from that party.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the course of the Human Resources
Development Canada administrative scandal, we learned that
Vidéotron had to give back $220,000 for 44 jobs that were not
created.
In the case of Placeteco, $1 million of the $1.2 million grant was
used to pay off debts rather than create jobs, and $200,000 has
been lost track of.
1435
Are we to understand that Placeteco will receive the same
treatment as Vidéotron and that repayment will be required?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the particular file to
which the hon. member is making reference, I can confirm as I
have before that there were administrative problems with this
particular file.
I can also confirm that my department has verified that the
company provided invoices for supplies and salary costs which
covered the amount of the transitional jobs fund contribution,
and that in fact payments to the sponsor were consistent with the
terms and the conditions of the transitional jobs fund program.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the grant money was to create
jobs, not to pay bills.
Since at least $1 million was used for purposes other than
creating jobs, should she not require an investigation into this
case as well?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will say again that the invoices we
received were appropriate with the context of the transitional
jobs fund program.
Speaking about jobs, there are 159 people, who otherwise would
not be working, who are working as a result of this program.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister has not denied that the grant rules were broken in
the House today.
Documents from her own department state, and I quote “The
minister and the deputy minister have instructed us to follow the
rules starting immediately”.
If the minister had to tell her department to start following
the rules immediately, what was she telling them before this
point?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I will confirm that the employees
of the department are working very hard to implement the six
point plan. The men and women of this department are working
overtime to review the files and implement the aspects of the
plan that will make a difference in the structure that is so
important to us.
I would ask the members of that party to remind themselves that
it was not too long ago that they were asking me to fire
employees in my department. Now they seem to be defending them.
Which way would they have it?
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what is very clear is that the minister is refusing to
answer these very serious questions.
The minister's department did not follow the law. They had to
be instructed to start doing so. They said things like this “Do
we really have to start these measures before this year end?”
If following the rules was not a new practice for the minister,
why did her department have to ask about when to start following
the rules?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again let me be clear. The department is
implementing a plan that will improve the administration of our
grants and contributions. We have made that a priority for the
department. We have already showed the results of the plan with
the closing of the 37 files and the recapturing of any
overpayments with the exception of just over $600.
Together as a team we are improving the activities of our
department and that, quite frankly, is what Canadians expect.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development has spent days in this House
justifying the fact that her riding received grants under the
transitional jobs fund citing the famous pockets of poverty
criterion.
How can the minister decently justify the grants received in her
own riding by talking of pockets of poverty, when her officials
tell us that this criterion did not exist at the time?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not what the officials said at
all.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
and her officials are totally contradicting each other.
Does the minister realize that she now bears the burden of proof
and that she has no choice but to table in this House the
documents proving that she and not her officials is right.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, time and again I have talked about the
use and the value of the transitional jobs fund in my riding of
Brant.
I would ask the hon. member to look at the local paper in my
riding that was presented last week that went through every
single one of these programs and found that there was nothing
wrong.
1440
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
breaking the law was not an accident at HRDC, it was policy. The
department's questions and answers—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Choose your words very
carefully. The hon. member for Calgary West.
Mr. Rob Anders: Breaking the rules was not an accident at
HRDC, it was policy. The department's question and answer sheet
produced after the audit says “The rules are not new; they are
just being enforced”. Officials are being told to disregard the
rules and all for partisan political gain.
What made the minister think that she could break the law—
The Speaker: From what I heard, the question is in order.
The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again let me categorically reject the
allegations made by the hon. member.
What was policy in my department was to ensure that these
important grants and contributions got administered in the
ridings of each and every one of the members of the House and
that includes members of the Reform Party. They know that when
they are back home in their ridings the money that comes from the
Government of Canada to help Canadians with disabilities, to help
young people who have not been able to find jobs and to help in
their communities where men and women do not have the opportunity
for employment, is money well spent.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all
the training in the world does not help when we are ordered to
break the rules. Even the minister's own officials are saying
that they were forced to break the rules.
This minister and her predecessor mismanaged millions of
taxpayer dollars. Now we find out that much of it was done
illegally. HRDC officials were told by their political masters
to break the law.
Why do the Liberals think they are—
The Speaker: The question is out of order.
The hon. member for Témiscamingue.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Labour and deputy chair of the team in charge of organizing
the next election, established yesterday by the Prime Minister,
expressed her opinion on the current increases gasoline prices.
She has adopted the idea already proposed by the Bloc Quebecois
of suspending the excise tax of 10 cents a litre on gasoline and
of 4 cents a litre on diesel fuel.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether
the federal government intends to do its share to give relief to
taxpayers by suspending excise taxes on gasoline?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, just to clarify the record, the Minister of Labour
communicated with the Minister of Finance with respect to raising
the fiscal question.
I should point out to the hon. gentleman that the excise tax on
gasoline is about 10 cents a litre. The excise tax on diesel is
about 4 cents a litre, and particularly with diesel where the
concern is concentrated, that tax has not changed since we have
been in government.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a
nation we are one of the largest exporters of fish products in
the world and export to about 100 different countries. Last week
in Boston, the famous Boston seafood show was attended by our
minister and by representatives of our various provinces and
Canadian companies.
Would the minister please update the House on how we are doing
on exporting fish?
The side over there needs a lot of fish products. It would be
good for them and would develop some of their brains too.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for Miramichi for taking an interest in the subject.
I had the opportunity to visit the International Boston Seafood
Show which, by the way, was started by Canadian companies and is
now world renown.
1445
At the International Boston Seafood Show I had the opportunity
to announce our export figures. We have broken all records for
our fish and seafood products which are at $3.7 billion, a $500
million increase over last year.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister cannot hide from the fact that her own departmental
briefing notes, the very papers that she uses for her
departmental officials state: “We were told to be flexible. Now
we are being told to obey the Financial Administration Act and
Treasury Board guidelines. Why doesn't management make up its
mind?”
In other words, officials were told that it was okay to break
the rules and only after she got caught did the minister slam on
the brakes. If the audit had not caught the minister red-handed,
would she have ever stopped the rule breaking?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member is incorrect in his
assertions. I know him to be a proponent of strong public
administration. That is why I am surprised he would not be
supporting us to continue to have a system of service delivery
that speaks directly to communities and individuals, and to work
together to build a system of modern comptrollership that allows
us to be even more accountable to Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister still will not acknowledge what is in her own
departmental questions and answers.
It is clear there was no intention to have HRDC officials abide
by the rules. To have done so would have made it impossible to
channel all these loans into Liberal ridings.
To quote the question and answer sheet again, “the rules are
not new, they are just being enforced” from now on.
The minister obviously changed her mind about the rule breaking
after she got caught. I will ask again, if she had not been
caught red-handed, would she have ever changed the rules?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the assertion is absolutely
incorrect. The facts are these. We have agreed within the
department that we are going to build a strong system of modern
comptrollership to strengthen our management of grants and
contributions. The plan is already at work. We are improving our
system in order to better serve Canadians.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on November 17 Alberta made its plan known for
privatization of health care. The Minister of Health at that
time said “We are looking at it”. On December 13 the Alberta
health minister confirmed its intentions. The Minister of Health
stood in the House and said “We are studying that matter”. On
March 2 Bill 11 was tabled. The minister said “We are studying
it”. On March 13 the minister said “We are still studying the
matter”.
On the most important issue facing Canadians, Canadians deserve
an answer today from the minister. Does Alberta's Bill 11
violate the Canada Health Act, yes or no?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should rest assured that the government will do
whatever it takes to protect the principles of the Canada Health
Act.
With respect to Bill 11, I invite the hon. member to observe
that the premier of Alberta himself is still talking about
possible amendments to that bill. It has yet to receive second
reading in the legislature. We have yet to see regulations which
are referred to extensively in the bill.
1450
If the hon. member has a legal opinion with respect to it now, I
wish she would share that with the House.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is the minister who said he would act if Bill 11
violated the spirit and the letter of the law. It is absolutely
clear. Bill 11 violates the spirit of the Canada Health Act.
Canadians want an answer. Since the minister is spending more
time developing slogans than on actually developing a response to
save medicare, will he act today? Will he give Canadians a
timetable for when he will have completed his analysis? Will he
state clearly that medicare is a program that will be preserved
at all costs? Will he say no to Ralph Klein?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we will do what is required to protect the Canada Health Act.
Let me remind the hon. member that she can make a real
contribution to preserving medicare by working with us to renew
it for the 21st century rather than aligning herself with the
forces on the right who would destroy medicare. I wish the New
Democratic Party would work with us toward making the long term
changes that are necessary, rather than playing into the hands of
the Reform Party and others who would destroy medicare in the
country.
* * *
RENÉ FUGÈRE
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
René Fugère had a close working relationship with the Prime
Minister. He represented the Prime Minister at events. Yet the
Prime Minister would like us to believe that he does not know
this unregistered lobbyist.
Would the Prime Minister come clean and admit that he knows Mr.
Fugère and that he has been using the Prime Minister's name to
advance his business career?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are a lot of people in Canada who know Jean
Chrétien. I have been elected 11 times in Saint-Maurice. I have
been the member of parliament for Saint-Maurice since 1963. A
lot of people have worked for me and I know a lot of people in my
riding. I am grateful that they keep electing me.
The more questions I am asked like that, because I am doing my
job as a member of parliament to create jobs, the more votes I
will get in the next election.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are starting to know the Prime Minister and the actions
of his government through the HRDC debacle.
René Fugère advised HRDC that he represented the Opitciwan
sawmill when it was negotiating with HRDC. Fugère was not
registered at the time as a lobbyist.
Will the Prime Minister ask the RCMP to investigate the lobbying
activities of his friend René Fugère?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should know that we do not ask the RCMP
to investigate anybody. What will happen is that the assistant
deputy registrar general of Canada, who is responsible for
registrations under the Lobbyists Registration Act, will ensure
that it is complied with. Where there is failure to comply, the
appropriate action will be taken.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members in the House are well aware of the tough times that
farmers in Canada are facing. One of the pressures is cost
recovery fees. Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
update the House with respect to cost recovery fees and how it
pertains to his portfolio?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question.
It gives me a chance to remind everyone of the government's
commitment to agriculture.
Not only is there the $600 million a year to support farmers but
there is also the $2.3 billion we put out in support in the last
18 months to farmers.
A week ago I announced another $83 million to cover the debts and
to allow the Canadian Grain Commission to freeze its mandatory
fees until 2003.
1455
I am pleased to announce today that Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will freeze
mandatory fees until at least the end of 2002.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister's own officials are asking her, “How are we supposed to
know how flexible is flexible?”
When she instructs her officials to not follow the law, did that
flexibility only apply to the Prime Minister's riding or did it
apply everywhere?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the employees of the Department of Human
Resources Development Canada have never been instructed not to
follow the law.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the Placeteco
issue, the trustee appointed by Human Resources Canada, Gilles
Champagne, had a responsibility to protect the $1.2 million from
HDRC. He did not do so and his own client, Claude Gauthier,
benefited from that money.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the government's
refusal to order an investigation into Placeteco not related to
Gilles Champagne, whom the Prime Minister himself appointed to
Canada Post's board of directors, in 1996?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions in the House I
have accepted that the creation of trust funds in this particular
file was inappropriate. The department was advised to close the
trust fund. It did that.
I would remind the hon. member that in the case of this
particular project, it was not only the Government of Canada that
was a partner. The company itself invested $5 million and it was
HQ, headquarters, the Government of Quebec, that also agreed that
this was a wise investment.
* * *
SCOTIA RAINBOW
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, question after question about the mismanagement of
public funds by the government and Scotia Rainbow have resulted
in a series of inconsistent answers.
There are inconsistencies about how many jobs were created and
inconsistencies about how much government money. The fact is
after $20 million in government subsidies, Scotia Rainbow is now
in receivership.
Will the minister now attempt to clear the air of this fishy
smell and agree to a forensic audit?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out in the House
before, the federal government has invested the least in this
enterprise. The most was invested by the chartered banks, private
investors, then the provincial government, and then way down is
the federal government.
We have received support from all of the communities in Cape
Breton Island and all of the newspaper editorials. The only
people out of step are NDP members. When are they going to get
in step with their own constituents?
* * *
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry.
When the department developed the research chair program to
provide research money for universities across the country, it
left out a small group of universities that do great work, like
Nova Scotia Agricultural College and many, many more.
We have raised this question in the House several times before.
I would like to know if the minister has adjusted the plan now to
include universities like Nova Scotia Agricultural College.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
speaker, I hope before the end of this month to be able to
announce the funding formula that will be used in order to
allocate the research chairs.
I would like to point out to the hon. member what a significant
difference this program is going to make to Canadian
universities: 2,000 research chairs across Canada, $900 million.
That is the equivalent of creating two virtual MITs in Canada.
This will make Canada competitive in the 21st century.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1500
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to one petition.
Furthermore, I move:
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval on a
point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
given the situation in which we find ourselves, a
situation which has not occurred since 1956, if my memory serves
me right, where the House must deal with a most urgent issue,
namely the tabling of a substantive motion by the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois on the issue of confidence in the Speaker of the
House of Commons, it seems to me that this issue must be dealt
with now.
I do not think we can simply move on to Government Orders as if
nothing had happened when, in fact, the Chair of the House of
Commons is being called into question. It would be much better,
not only for the sake of all the members of this House, but also
for the Chair itself and for parliament, to give absolute
priority—and I thought there would be no doubt whatsoever about
this—to the non-confidence motion moved by the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois.
Mr. Speaker, I would not understand if you were to agree to
simply move on to Government Orders as if nothing had happened,
when parliament is going through a crisis the scope of which it
has not seen since 1956.
1505
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Roberval, and I
wish to congratulate him on his return to the House. I am
pleased to see him here today.
His point of order is certainly very serious. I am well aware
that the order paper contains a notice of motion under the
heading of motions, which will be debated today in the House, in
a debate that is rather serious to everyone and certainly to
this House.
Until we get to motions, however, this is only a notice of
motion and the motion is not before the House. If it is put
before the House, it will no doubt be a motion of great
importance, with a certain priority over other matters we may
discuss.
We have a motion before us at this time, which was moved by the
hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and which is
acceptable from the point of view of procedure and practice in
this House. I believe I am obliged, regardless of the notices
of motion in the order paper, to continue with the business
before the House. The motion has been presented and we need to
consider it.
If the motion is not passed, we shall no doubt move on to
another matter under Business of the House. We shall probably
then have an opportunity to discuss this very important motion.
For the moment, I believe it is my duty to put to the House the
motion of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime
Minister.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question?
I had the impression, given the special nature of the
substantive motion by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, that the
48 hour period provided by the standing orders permitted and
inevitably led to a debate on this substantive motion at the end
of this period. This means today, now, as we speak.
make !sense.
I put the following question to you. Are we to understand that
if, through a motion, a political party raises the very serious
matter of the credibility of the Chair and questions one of the
foundations of the House of Commons, of parliament in Ottawa,
the motion will be brought to the attention of the members only
if the government wishes to debate the matter.
That amounts to saying that, by giving precedence to a proposal
by the parliamentary secretary, the Chair of the House of
Commons accepts that if the government does not wish to debate a
substantive motion such as confidence in the Speaker, we will
not discuss it.
This is so basic that the members of the Bloc Quebecois
unanimously want to debate this urgent matter now. A lot of
opposition party members are interested in debating the matter
of the Chair and—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have a great deal of
respect for the hon. member for Roberval. It often happens in
the House that some parties unanimously wish to discuss certain
issues, while others do not. This is why we sometimes have votes
concerning the order of business and the order of motions or
bills in the House. We are now at Routine Proceedings.
1510
As is often the case, the parliamentary secretary proposed a
motion—which is a normal thing to do, not always, but nonetheless
normal—and, from the Chair's point of view, that motion is in
order since it is in compliance with House procedures. This is
why I would like to carry on and put that motion to the House
now.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
House leader for the Bloc Quebecois pointed out, all the
government has to do is propose a motion to revert to Business
of the House and thus ensure that the impartiality of the Chair
cannot be debated.
Do members realize that the government is trying to turn the
Chair into a new weapon in its arsenal to gag the House and that
the Chair accepts to play—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I will put the question to the House.
The question is on the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Prime Minister that the House do now proceed to orders of the
day. 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: Call in the members.
1555
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
– 143
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Elley
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mancini
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nystrom
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 99
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE QUEBEC
SECESSION REFERENCE
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-20, an act to give effect to the requirement for
clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada
in the Quebec Secession Reference be read the third time and
passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, now that the House of Commons has reached
the last stage of its work on Bill C-20, I would like to take
this opportunity to recognize the important work done by members
of the legislative committee and the witnesses who contributed
to the examination of this bill which is fundamental to the
rights of Canadians.
I would also like to take this opportunity to salute the vision
of the Prime Minister of Canada, whose sense of duty has given
Canadians this essential guarantee of their rights.
Every citizen of this country will be guaranteed two fundamental
rights if, as it is desirable, the House of Commons and the
Senate pass Bill C-20, the clarity act.
First, every Canadian will have the guarantee that the
Government of Canada will never enter into negotiations on the
separation of a province unless the population of that province
has clearly expressed its will to cease to be part of Canada.
Second, the clarity act will guarantee to all Canadians that any
such negotiations on secession, should they occur, would take
place within the Canadian constitutional framework, respecting
the principles identified by the supreme court: democracy,
federalism, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect
for minority rights.
The clarity act will protect the rights and interests of all
Canadians, but especially Quebecers, because it is in Quebec
that the provincial government is contemplating a secession
attempt in an atmosphere of confusion and outside the legal
framework. Quebecers want no part of that disturbing prospect.
The clarity act is pro-Quebec and pro-democracy.
The Government of Canada is convinced that Bill C-20 complies
fully with the supreme court's opinion. Renowned legal scholars
testified to that effect before the committee, including Dean
Yves-Marie Morissette, former Quebec Justice Minister Gil
Rémillard, and Dean Peter Hogg, who stated as follows.
[English]
I quote Professor Hogg:
No, I think Bill C-20 is completely consistent with the Supreme
Court's judgment, and I think it would be difficult to both
support the decision of the court and reject the bill.
The government is also convinced that Bill C-20 ensures that the
House of Commons and the Government of Canada fulfil their
obligations without infringing in any way on those of the
provinces.
1600
[Translation]
It is noteworthy that no sitting provincial premier, with the
exception of Quebec's, has criticized the clarity act.
Before the legislative committee, in addition to Mr. Rémillard, who
stated that, and I quote “this bill respects Quebec's
jurisdiction”, another former minister of the Government of
Quebec, Claude Castonguay, stated “I have not seen anything in
this bill (C-20) that limits the jurisdiction of Quebec's
National Assembly, nor Quebecers' right to decide on their own
future”.
[English]
Former Ontario Premier Bob Rae stated:
I'm perfectly satisfied that the level of consultation that is
provided for in the clarity bill is certainly adequate and
nothing in the clarity bill takes away from the jurisdiction of
any province.
We may all have read in today's Calgary Herald the same
unequivocal support for Bill C-20 of a former premier of another
province and another political allegiance, Mr. Peter Lougheed.
[Translation]
Nevertheless, it will be recalled that some witnesses, including
Claude Ryan, told the committee that even if the federal
government has the right, if not the duty, to assess the clarity
of support for secession and to conduct itself accordingly, the
House of Commons would not have the right to make a determination
as to the clarity of the question before the referendum result
were known, The hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry, the
Bloc's intergovernmental affairs critic, also shares this
opinion. The House of Commons would have the right to make a
determination, but only after the referendum, and to conduct
itself accordingly. So there is not that much distance
separating us.
In point of fact, however, as Professor Patrick Monahan has
noted, if it is legal and legitimate for the House of Commons to
express its opinion on clarity after the referendum, it is hard
to see how it would be unable to do so beforehand.
Moreover, in purely practical terms, it is hard to imagine how
the House of Commons and the Government of Canada could go
through the whole referendum campaign without ever answering the
simple question: Do you think the question is clear? Voters
would press them for an answer, and rightly so. They would have
the right to know.
This brings me to the clarity of the question, and I will begin
with two quotes. The first is this “We don't need to dress it up
with a partnership”. The second goes as follows “These
institutions are just nonsense, it's just window dressing to sell
it to people. I think we have to be straight with people if we
want to sell our option”. These calls for straight talk were
made by PQ youth members at their meeting at the beginning of
this month.
It should be acknowledged by everyone that the question in 1995
lacked in clarity, and that it could not lead to any
negotiations as worded. Anyone who still has any doubts on this
would do well to consult the document submitted to the
legislative committee by Professor Maurice Pinard. It contains
abundant evidence that the 1995 question gave rise to a great
deal of confusion. To give just one example, and I am quoting
Professor Pinard “In 1995, only around 50% of voters knew that
sovereignty-partnership was divisible. The rest believed that
there would be no sovereignty without partnership at the same
time”.
The separatist leaders would do better to aim for maximum
clarity. So why is it so difficult to acknowledge that only a
question on secession can give rise to negotiations on
secession? With clarity, everyone wins.
Now, let us talk about the clarity of the majority. In Canadian
federal law as in Quebec law, a referendum is a consultation
whose results must be evaluated by the political authorities.
There is no legal majority threshold at which point a referendum
would lose its consultative nature to become a decisive one
binding governments.
1605
The separatist leaders accept this rule of law for municipal,
and they accept it for held by aboriginal peoples, but they do
not accept it for a referendum on the secession of Quebec. They
say it is undemocratic to challenge the threshold of 50% plus
one in determining whether a majority is sufficiently clear to
trigger negotiations on secession.
[English]
I do not think that anyone can question Mr. Ed Broadbent's
deep-rooted commitment to democracy. He has devoted his life to
it. This is what he had to say to the legislative committee.
It would be misleading in my view to describe democracy as simply
a system in which all decisions are reached on a 50% plus one
basis. In fact I would argue that...the more serious decisions
require much more than 50% plus one, and some require unanimity.
Will the separatists say that Mr. Broadbent is anti-democratic?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Ryan reiterated to the committee his preference for a
minimum threshold of 50% plus one of all registered voters.
Will he have to be called undemocratic as well?
[English]
As everyone knows, the clarity bill does not set a threshold.
The clarity bill provides that the majority will be the subject
of a qualitative assessment following a referendum. In actual
fact it is very difficult to set a minimum threshold in advance
which would guarantee a clear majority in all circumstances.
Indeed, setting a threshold in advance would likely be contrary
to the spirit of the supreme court's opinion.
As Dean Hogg told the committee:
I just don't think there is a constitutional basis for doing that
and that is why fidelity to the court's judgment requires us now
to wait until after the referendum.
[Translation]
Not setting a threshold in advance is consistent with our law
and with Canadian tradition regarding referendums.
For example, the Government of Canada did not commit itself in
advance to accepting Newfoundland as a province of Canada on the
basis of a 50% plus one majority in the 1948 referendum.
Instead, the Government of Canada proceeded exactly as provided
for in Bill C-20. It waited for the referendum result before it
came to a decision.
And what about international practice, including the United
Nations, the separatist leaders ask? Again, I must reiterate that
the UN generally supervises referendums held in the context of
decolonization, in which the UN recognizes right to independence
and expresses a strong preference for this political solution, as
professor Jean-Pierre Derriennic so eloquently told the
legislative committee.
Other than in cases of decolonization, the UN has shown no
sympathy for secession whatsoever, and has even opposed it
completely, as in the case of Katanga. It does not make
secession a right, and certainly not a right that can be
exercised on the fragile basis of 50% plus one of the ballots
cast in a referendum held only in the territory where secession
would take place.
To believe that the Government of Quebec could obtain
international recognition under such circumstances is to display
a profound misunderstanding of state practice.
So the clarity bill does nothing undemocratic in establishing,
in accordance with the supreme court's opinion, that the clarity
of a future referendum majority in favour of secession be
subject to assessment. On the contrary, Bill C-20 displays an
unusual openness, in a democracy, toward the widely opposed
phenomenon of secession, as professor Robert Young, the author
of a major book on secession, told the committee.
That is all on the subject of the clarity of the majority. I
will now consider the aboriginal issue.
Although the negotiation of secession raises many issues, it was
the issue of aboriginals that dominated a good part of the
deliberations of the legislative committee.
1610
Speaking to the committee, Quebec's Canadian intergovernmental
affairs minister, Mr. Joseph Facal, maintained a position and
the opposite at the same time. On the one hand, he cited
international legal texts recalling that, although aboriginals
are nations, and I quote the minister, “aboriginal rights must
be exercised within sovereign states”.
On the other hand, he stated that accessions to independence for
nations such as Quebec were, and I quote, “purely a factual
matter”, a political rather than a legal issue—an allegation
incidentally contradicted by the supreme court, which states in
paragraph 83 of its opinion that “Secession is a legal act as
much as a political one”.
In other words, he and his government believe themselves to be
free to act outside the law, but aboriginal populations, for
their part, would have to submit to the law. Clearly a double
standard.
It must surely be somewhat embarrassing to give oneself a right
and deny it to others. We know that the hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry, the Bloc's intergovernmental affairs
critic, was of the opinion, before he entered politics, that the
aboriginal peoples could remain in Canada in the event of
Quebec's secession. And, the esteemed witnesses invited by the
Bloc to appear before the legislative committee have maintained
that point of view: professors André Tremblay, Andrée Lajoie and
Guy Lachapelle and the head of the Confederation of National
Trade Unions, Mr. Marc Laviolette.
[English]
Under Bill C-20 the Government of Canada commits itself to
addressing in negotiating secession the rights, interests and
territorial claims of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. The
Assembly of First Nations, the Grand Council of the Crees and the
Inuit Tapirisat of Canada called for stronger guarantees before
the legislative committee. Several other witnesses, including
Mr. Jack Jedwab, made proposals to better take into account the
rights of aboriginals, and of minorities in general.
Liberal and NDP members of the committee showed strong support
for amendments that would make guarantees for aboriginals more
explicit. The validity of these suggestions led the Government
of Canada to support two amendments proposed by the NDP and
supported by the Liberal members of the committee. The scope of
these amendments is to explicitly mention representatives of the
aboriginal peoples of Canada among those whose views would be
taken into consideration by the House of Commons when assessing
the clarity of the question and of the majority.
The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Mr. Phil
Fontaine, indicated that he was satisfied with these
modifications, but was disappointed that the role of aboriginal
representatives in negotiations on secession had not been more
clearly defined. On this matter, and I want to stress this, the
reason subsection 3(1) of the clarity bill mentions among the
participants in possible future negotiations on secession only
the governments of the provinces and the Government of Canada is
that these are the only political actors to which the court
assigned an obligation to negotiate in the event of clear support
for secession. However, neither the court nor Bill C-20 rule out
the possibility of other political actors participating in those
negotiations, including representatives of the aboriginal peoples
of Canada. Simply put, it was not for Bill C-20 to go beyond the
court's reference by creating an obligation for actors other than
those to which the court assigned such an obligation.
I want to add that, according to the Constitution Act, 1982, the
federal and provincial governments are bound by an agreement in
principle by virtue of which representatives of the aboriginal
peoples would be invited to participate in discussions on any
constitutional amendment that would affect the provisions of the
constitution that are mentioned in subsection 35(1).
1615
The clarity act respects that principle by clearly stipulating
that negotiations on secession would include at least the
governments of the provinces and the Government of Canada. I
stress “at least”.
[Translation]
In conclusion, complying with all points of the supreme court's
opinion and giving effect to it, the clarity bill guarantees to
all Canadians that their federal government will never negotiate
the secession of a province, unless the House of Commons has
determined that the population of that province has expressed
its will to cease to be part of Canada. The clarity bill
guarantees them that any such negotiations, should they occur,
would respect the rule of law and constitutional principles.
Our colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, who ferociously opposed
Bill C-20, have merely succeeded in creating the impression that
they know full well they are incapable, through straight talk
and clarity, of convincing Quebecers that secession is the best
solution.
The fact is that Quebecers, and indeed all other Canadians, have
a right to clarity rather than ambiguity and to the protection
of the law rather than anarchy.
[English]
The fact is that Quebecers and indeed all other Canadians have a
right to clarity rather than ambiguity and to the protection of
the law rather than anarchy.
The time for ambiguity has passed. I call on all members of the
House to vote in favour of the clarity act.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. There has been consultation among the parties and if you were to
ask, I think you would find unanimous consent for the motion that
the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs presented on Wednesday, March 1, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland):
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House to
move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
give the official opposition's comments at third reading of the
clarity bill, Bill C-20. We approached this bill with some broad
principles in mind. I would like to list those broad principles.
The official opposition supported the issue of clarity of the
question. We undertook to try and pin down the majority. We
felt that broad consultation on an issue like this was best. We
felt that there were many more issues on the table than were
listed in the bill. We also felt there were a significant number
of positive changes to the federation that would be more useful
than rules for a battle.
Today I would like to report on how we did with those broad
principles.
1620
On the issue of a clear question, this is where I believe the
bill has been a success. The old question, the question asked
previously was ambiguous and open to misunderstanding. It was a
two pronged question. It asked about partnership on one hand and
sovereignty on the other hand in the same question. It made it
difficult to say yes or no to that question and be certain what
one was saying yes or no to. I listened carefully to one of the
senior Quebec politicians, Claude Castonguay, as it related to
the question. He felt as I did that the question was not clear.
It was not unambiguous.
I also used a pollster's comment to bolster that statement. The
pollster told me that a question such as this could not be asked
and get a legitimate result. He felt that if the question were
split in two, it could legitimately be considered clear. In
other words: do you want to have an improved partnership with
Canada, yes or no, and if that failed, do you want to leave
Canada, yes or no. The pollster guided me in the sense that the
question prior was not clear.
This bill will result in a clear question. I sincerely hope the
House of Commons never has to pass judgment on a question. I
believe that a question coming from a province on this issue will
never ever be as ambiguous as the last one. Surely for something
as serious as secession, the least we can expect is to have a
clear unambiguous question.
On the issue of majority, how did we do? We just listened to
the minister opposite say that setting a threshold would be a
mistake and so a threshold has not been set. I would say that we
have failed on that issue. Our position was that 50% plus one of
the votes cast was the threshold. I did listen to the debate on
that and there were good arguments on both sides. I must say I
found some of those arguments persuasive.
I would however like to use the example of Massachusetts as it
parted from Maine as to how a particular threshold that was set
to prevent secession did not succeed. This was a fairly low
threshold. In 1786 independence became an issue for
Massachusetts trying to secede from Maine. This was a state.
Maine was a district. Massachusetts wanted to become a state.
They went through seven referenda, each time asking for secession
from Maine. When it looked like it was close to Massachusetts
succeeding, Maine raised the threshold to five votes out of nine,
or 55.6%. The vote subsequently did not reach that threshold. It
reached 53.6% but public pressure resulted in secession of
Massachusetts from Maine with a very low threshold of 53.6%.
Artificially raising the threshold, leaving the threshold
ambiguous in my view is not wise.
The third issue was broad consultation. We felt that broad
consultation was better than just a small group of people coming
to Ottawa. We failed on that issue as well. There was no
travelling. We had but one week of committee hearings. Many
witnesses were unable to attend. No amendments were put forth at
committee. There were internal reasons that no amendments were
put forward. We did gain one thing. The proceedings were
televised. That was one concession, one tiny victory on the
issue of broad consultation so I would have to say that we failed
on that score as well.
On the fourth issue of broadening the issues, the bill mentions
debt and assets, boundaries, minority rights and aboriginal
concerns. We felt and still feel that there are many other
issues here: citizenship, passports, the Canadian dollar,
international recognition, an Atlantic corridor particularly
relating to Quebec, defence issues including military assets.
There is also the issue that was never discussed, the one of
rejoining Canada in the event a province seceded and then decided
it had made a mistake.
All those issues could have been discussed at least.
1625
When I make comments on a bill or process I always like to say
how we would have done things differently. How would Reform, if
we were the government, have had a different impact on the
clarity legislation?
There would have been broader consultation. Not just one
province but every province would have had input at the committee
level. There would have been more issues on the table. I have
mentioned those issues.
Our bill would not be proclaimed. In other words the bill we
would have passed would have gone through all the legislative
processes and then would have been set on the shelf as an
unproclaimed bill only to be used in the event of a secession.
Our bill would have had a 50% plus one threshold in it. That
threshold of course would have also been used for that part of
Quebec that wanted to stay in Canada in the event of secession.
The haste we went through in relation to this bill was
unnecessary and unwise. It gives those who would fight against
Canada a little bit of a tool to say that we were not as
democratic as we could have been. That is a legitimate
complaint. I am afraid that I as an ally of the government on
this bill still feel that the haste was unnecessary.
I conclude by saying that the official opposition will continue
to support this bill. I have mentioned areas that could have
been improved. We support it on the basis and the premise that
an informed vote is a powerful vote. I have a simple statement
for Quebecers.
[Translation]
Who are afraid of a clear question?
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when I
rise in this House, I usually say I am pleased to do so. I am
not in the habit of rising in this House without any pleasure.
I must admit that it is with some sadness and a great deal of
frustration that I rise now, at the end of this day, after we
have debated the proposed amendments to this bill for the past
few days.
I chose to become a member of this parliament where I was
elected, together with my colleagues from the Bloc
Quebecois—those who were elected in 1993 and those who were in
1997—to adequately represent the citizens who elected us to this
place, and to do so with a democratic mandate to act and speak
up in this House on behalf of our constituents who elected us to
defend their interests and promote sovereignty, a plan very dear
to a great many Quebecers.
Throughout this debate, I noticed that we were dealing not only
with foes of sovereignty, but also with people, members and
ministers on the government side, who had become foes of Quebec
democracy. Through their comments and reactions regarding our
plan to turn Quebec into a sovereign state, they were not trying
to respect neither this plan nor the citizens who elected
sovereignist MPs.
1630
The whole process surrounding Bill C-20 has demonstrated how
little respect there is in this country, in this Parliament, for
what we stand for in this House and for the people we represent.
Bill C-20 is undemocratic. We will keep on repeating it. We will
have many opportunities to do so after it has been passed by the
House and the Senate and given assent by the Governor General.
We will no doubt have an election campaign where Bill C-20 will
be a major issue and where Quebecers will have a chance to pass
judgment on the conduct of a majority, the Liberal Party, that
did not show even the most basic respect for the members of this
House and the citizens they represent.
On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to tell you how sitting
in the House of Commons, whose traditions, customs and practices
we have always respected, has become difficult and will probably
be made more difficult yet by the introduction of Bill C-20 and
its possible passage by the Parliament of Canada.
When one thinks about it and in spite of the assurances,
guarantees and suggestions by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, with the passage of Bill C-20, this country is becoming
a pioneer in the area of secession, a democratic country
unrivalled anywhere in the world.
If members look very carefully at this bill, at its provisions and
at its purpose, if they read the speeches that the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs made when he appeared before the
committee, they will realize that this bill is ultimately an
instrument to prevent, and I quote the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, “a separation threat from Quebec”.
We do not need a bill telling us that we are a threat to Canada.
That is not what it is all about. We have the right, and the
supreme court recognized it in its opinion dated August 20,
1998, to promote sovereignty for Quebec.
This is a legitimate initiative according to the supreme court.
To pretend that we pose a threat to Canada, that we are
threatening it with secession or break-up, as mentioned in the
preamble of this bill, does not respect this legitimacy
recognized by nine justices of the supreme court.
But more than anything, it does not respect Quebecers who
consider the sovereignty project as an option for the future, an
option they are entitled to consider and to support when
consulted on this matter.
During the committee hearings, there was a striking testimony
that left the Liberal members of the committee quite lost and
disappointed, which the minister quoted earlier in the debate,
and that is that of Mr. Claude Ryan, a previous leader of the
opposition in Quebec's legislative assembly.
While debating or discussing with some of us, here is what he
had to say regarding the behaviour of the Liberal government, of
the ministers and of the government members of this House:
1635
He said “You know, in Quebec, sovereignists and federalists are
adversaries, but they respect each other. Here in Ottawa,
however, sovereignists and federalists are enemies. They do not
respect each other”.
I have always believed that those who do not necessarily think
as we do and who promote federalism and its renewal deserve our
respect. As far as I am concerned, I have always respected those
who propose or would like to propose this project to Quebecers,
a project which, if it were renewed, could promote a greater
following than the present federalism. But theses views are not
shared by all.
It seems that respect for the sovereignists that we are does not
exist here in this House since we are considered as enemies of
the Canadian democracy, when we are in fact, by our mere
presence here, participating in this democracy.
We are undoubtedly the ones who have the most respect for
parliamentary democracy in this House. We have so much respect
that we try to protect not only our rights—and we had to do so
repeatedly during debate on Bill C-20—but we also want to ensure
that the rights of all the parliamentarians in this House are
respected.
When we see before us enemies of democracy in Quebec and enemies
of those who, in the name of democracy, promote sovereignty, it
is difficult not to consider those who make such a harsh and
dangerous judgment on what we represent here as enemies of
democracy in Quebec.
Bill C-20 is an eloquent example of the fact that this government
tries, as the minister said earlier in his speech, to protect
Quebecers against themselves or against sovereignists, their
representatives and their independentist leaders.
Quebecers do not need to be protected against themselves or
against their independentist leaders. They vote for
independentist leaders and they put their confidence in them.
They have done so on numerous occasions in the past by electing
successive governments of the Parti Québécois. They have put
their trust in independentist leaders by electing, in the last
two consecutive federal elections, a very clear majority of
members of the Bloc Quebecois to this House.
To think that this House can stand in for independentist leaders
and the national assembly, where sovereignists have the
majority, and that it can ignore the opposition of the members
of the Bloc Quebecois shows a lack or even an absence of respect
for Quebec's democracy.
Bill C-20 would stand in for our institutions and give the House
of Commons the power to decide on something that has always been
determined by the national assembly, namely the question and its
clarity in a debate which might take place and which has
actually taken place in the National Assembly during two
previous public consultations on sovereignty. The House of
Commons will never be able to substitute itself for the National
Assembly when time comes to formulate a question.
1640
This House will never be able to impose on the national assembly
and its members a question which would exclude a partnership, a
question which would prevent us to ask for a mandate to
negotiate, a question which would be imposed because the issue
here is about the future of Quebec as it is promoted by members
who were elected to the national assembly by Quebecers.
Bill C-20 precisely purports to give members of the House of
Commons, of which a large majority comes from English Canada,
the power to decide on the clarity of a question asked by the
national assembly.
Furthermore, the bill is unacceptable and undemocratic to the
point where it would allow the House to make a judgment on the
clarity of the question even during a referendum campaign. The
House of Commons could say, while the campaign is under way,
that the question is not clear. Would this not be a totally
unacceptable intrusion in a democratic process that was launched
by the national assembly and the elected representatives of the
Quebec people?
The provisions concerning clarity in this bill are undemocratic,
despite what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs thinks,
because they give the House a right of disallowance on a
decision made by the national assembly.
Claude Ryan, to quote him again, thought this was somewhat a
trusteeship system. It was giving the House a trusteeship over
the National Assembly when it came to the question and the
assessment of its clarity.
Not only does this provision on the question and its clarity
reveal the undemocratic nature of this bill, but the provisions
on majority infringe even more adversely upon Quebec democracy
as it was developed and fashioned by many generations of people
who have exercised the highest political functions in Quebec.
The minister claims that the 50% plus one rule has not been
applied or considered applicable during the referendums on
sovereignty association or sovereignty partnership, because it
is not written in the Referendum Act.
Undoubtedly it was not included because it was so clear and
obvious that it was the applicable rule. In fact, that rule had
never been generally challenged by Canadian leaders. It is
universally accepted. Since that rule no longer seems acceptable
to the Government of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada, it
must be enshrined in Quebec legislation, which is the purpose of
Bill 99 now before the National Assembly.
The 50% plus one rule is acceptable and accepted. The Liberal
government did not have the courage to include it in this bill
despite the insistence of the opposition parties. Three of the
opposition parties thought this bill should have contained a
reference to the clear majority rule of 50% plus one vote. This
lack of courage shows fear on the part of the government with
regard to the 50% plus one rule.
1645
There is a fear that Quebecers will make the decision because
sovereignty is an option that can be negotiated, that must be
negotiated as soon as a majority of voters have decided to
choose that option. So it has been suggested that this is an
irreversible and serious decision, because we are told that
these majorities are unstable. But that is supposing and stating
that they are, that is supposing that any decision on a people's
future is irreversible and is binding on future generations, and
that is prejudging the decision future generations will make.
Bill C-20, which will be enacted, is unacceptable to Quebecers,
as it should be to all Canadians.
Moreover, Canadians in other provinces abide by the rule of 50%
plus one; it is the case in British Columbia and Alberta for
example. That rule is universally applied.
Even if the minister and others claim that the last few
accessions to independence, whether in a colonial or non
colonial context, were accomplished with considerable
majorities, we must not forget that the rule that applies to
accession to sovereignty is still the 50% plus one rule.
That rule is universally accepted. It is accepted by the United
Nations, it was accepted during the 1980 and 1995 referendums
and, even if we were told repeatedly that Prime Minister Trudeau
and the present Prime Minister claimed that it was not the
applicable rule and that it was not sufficient for them to feel
bound to negotiate after a vote in favour of
sovereignty-association or sovereignty-partnership, we must
recall that these prime ministers were deceiving the public. As
they were saying this rule did not apply or would not bring them
to negotiate, they were also telling Quebecers “You must
understand, either you stay or you leave.”
Just a few days before the May 20, 1980 referendum, Mr. Trudeau
put the seats of all his MPs at stake. Quebecers, who are said
to be confused by the questions of sovereignists, understood the
question quite well.
We called on the intelligence of Quebecers with complex
questions, not confusing ones, as several witnesses before the
legislative committee on Bill C-20 pointed out.
Prime Ministers Trudeau and Chrétien themselves confused
Canadians when they told them that a no vote in the referendum
meant yes to the renewal of federalism. It was not clear. The no
vote of Quebecers in 1980 and again in 1995 was not clear.
Maurice Pinard, a colleague of mine from McGill University, had
to admit he himself had not conducted any study or analysis on
the possible confusion created in the minds of Quebecers by
prereferendum promises made by federalist leaders. Odd, is it
not?
The only confusion around is supposed to be in the sovereignist
camp.
But what about the confusion created by generations of
federalist leaders claiming this federation can be renewed, can
be changed to meet Quebec's demands and expectations? They have
never been able to carry out their plan to renew the federation.
1650
When they tried to carry out a reform, be it the one proposed in
the Meach Lake accord or in the Charlottetown accord, they were
defeated by Canadian public opinion, in the case of the Meech
Lake accord, or by people or provincial leaders who refused to
ratify the accord. They were again defeated in 1992 by the
Canadian people, who refused to change the Canadian federal
system because of irreconcilable differences of opinion on
federalism both in Quebec and Canada.
The minister will never really persuade Quebecers that they did
not understand the questions in 1995 and 1980, because they
understood them perfectly well. They voted to maintain the
federation and we, as democrats, respected their decision, but
that decision is not immutable.
Quebecers who keep their options open witnessed and examined
what was going on in the House. They will be persuaded that Bill
C-20 curtails their freedom, and is some kind of yoke, or a new
padlock act, passed by Ottawa this time. They will also realize
how this government and the Liberal Party of Canada wanted this
legislation to be passed in a hurry, even if that meant ignoring
the most basic rules of parliamentary democracy.
To create an artificial and partisan deadline for the benefit of
one political party, the Liberal Party of Canada, showed a total
lack of respect for this House. The Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister want to go
before not all Canadians, but their own party members with Bill
C-20 in their pockets. They want to stand tomorrow in front of
the members of the Liberal Party of Canada and say “We have
succeeded in bringing Quebec to heel. We have managed to pass
legislation that will give us the last word on the question and
on the majority”.
According to the government majority party, Quebec should no
longer be master of its own destiny. That party shall rule
Quebec. And Quebecers will never agree to that.
Since the Bloc Quebecois was created, Quebecers have not trusted
the Liberal Party of Canada.
I should remind those who are watching the debates that, in the
1993 federal election, the Liberal Party of Canada had only 19
candidates elected out of the 75 members representing Quebec in
this House. In 1997, only 26 Liberals were elected to the House.
The Liberal Party of Canada does not represent Quebecers. It
does not represent the interests of Quebec. Today, with Bill
C-20, it is showing it clearly. What it does with Bill C-20 is
trample on the democratic rights of Quebecers.
1655
Quebecers saw how eager it was to flout not only Quebec's
democracy and democratic institutions, but also the rules of the
parliament in which it is abusing its majority. That is what it
has been doing since the day in December when the minister
used a trick to introduce a draft bill, flouting right from the
beginning of the consideration of Bill C-20 the rules of the
House and parliamentary traditions.
It flouted them again following a few interventions in the House
in December and February. It imposed closure and allowed only
seven members of our party to speak to this bill.
The Liberal Party limited to 45 the number of witnesses the
legislative committee could hear and the committee was able to
hear only 39 of those witnesses.
It also imposed closure to end debate and stop the hearings all
opposition parties would have liked to continue. These parties
all wanted the committee to travel throughout Quebec and Canada
and the Bloc was more than willing to hear the views of other
Canadians on the bill.
But the committee was not to travel. It had to hear 45 witnesses
here in Ottawa. What was the minister afraid of? Why did he
oppose the committee travelling around Canada and Quebec with
his Bill C-20? Was he afraid to be told in all the cities of
Quebec, in Quebec's national capital, in Montreal, the
metropolis, and in all the regions that we from the Bloc
represent that his bill was antidemocratic? He did not have the
courage of his convictions.
If he was convinced that Bill C-20 was an acceptable bill, why
did he refuse to go to Quebec to defend it? Why did he refuse to
go to Quebec to hear those who are in favour of it, those he
talks to when he goes to chambers of commerce and elsewhere, but
also to hear those in the civil society, the unions, the
teachers, the young and the students who oppose it?
While claiming to be afraid of nothing, he did not have the
courage of his convictions. He told the committee he was afraid
of nothing, yet he was afraid to go to Quebec. He was afraid to
hear Quebecers tell him that this bill is an undemocratic
legislation.
He was afraid of the opposition parties, which wanted a full and
meaningful debate to take place, instead of cutting it short on
the eve of a Liberal Party convention, putting a premature end
to testimonies and actually preventing dozens if not hundreds of
people from appearing before the committee. There are people who
sent in briefs but were not heard, in spite of the fact that
they had contacted the clerk to indicate they were interested in
testifying before the committee. No, debates had to be limited.
Actually, the proceedings of that committee had to be made very
partisan.
There were witnesses for the Liberal Party and witnesses for the
Bloc Quebecois and the other parties. My colleague, the
minister, believes, I suppose, that meaningful and in-depth
debates are necessary, and that bills require proper
consideration if we want good legislation. According to many of
the people who came to talk to us about the rules that should
apply if we were to go ahead with the sovereignty plan for
example, legislation should reflect consensus. They said there
should be a consensus to hold a referendum on sovereignty.
1700
The minister has often said “Do not organize a referendum if
there is no consensus to that effect in Quebec. Unless there is
a consensus, do not hold a referendum even if you were elected
with a mandate to organize one and the possibility to hold one,
if this was the choice of the democratically elected party”.
I suppose this requirement should apply even more to a bill
aimed at regulating referendums which are required to be based on
a consensus before being organized. There is no consensus in
Quebec concerning Bill C-20. Three political parties from the
National Assembly are against this bill. The minister knows it.
He has made representations to political parties that see more
eye to eye with him, and they have said this project is
unacceptable.
The civil society of Quebec is clearly opposed to this bill.
When we rise later to vote on Bill C-20, presumably 49 out of
the 75 members from Quebec will be against it. Over 60% of the
members of parliament will vote against this bill.
This bill will have no legitimacy. It will not stop Quebec from
deciding its own future.
Contrary to what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
thinks, it will not be binding on the Quebec government. The
minister was caught in a contradiction when Minister Facal
appeared before the committee. Mr. Facal said that the
government would not feel bound by this illegal bill, after
having heard the minister and all those promoting this bill say
that it only concerned the federal government and the federal
institutions. And yet the minister has said that the Quebec
government would have to comply with this bill, a contradiction
eloquently brought to light by the editorial writer for Le
Soleil, Michel Venne.
The debate will not end here. It will continue as long as Bloc
Quebecois members sit in this House, and they will be here for a
long time to defend the interests of the people of Quebec and of
democracy in Quebec.
This is our mandate, one that we must take more and more
seriously, because there are people in this House who want to
hold this democracy hostage.
In closing, I would like to add this on behalf of Bloc Quebecois
members. We Bloc Quebecois members having been democratically
elected to represent Quebecers in the Parliament of Canada,
holding the majority of Quebec seats and defending the interests
of the people of Quebec and of democracy in Quebec, affirm that
Bill C-20 is undemocratic and that it has no legitimacy
whatsoever on the territory of Quebec.
1705
We affirm that the Prime Minister of Canada wants to deprive
Quebec of its freedom to choose its own destiny and we condemn
him for it.
We members of the Bloc Quebecois accuse the architect of plan
B, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, of wanting to
force Quebec to stay in Canada.
We, members of the Bloc Quebecois, deplore the fact that the
majority of the members of parliament from the rest of Canada
have sided with the Prime Minister and the Minister for
Intergovernmental Affairs in their desire to restrict the
freedom of the Quebec nation.
We, members of the Bloc Quebecois, consider that passage of Bill
C-20 fits within a history marked by full-fledged attacks against
the Quebec nation, particularly the Union Act of 1840,
conscription in 1918 and 1944, the War Measures Act of 1970, the
patriation of the Constitution in 1982 and the 1999 framework
agreement on social union.
We members of the Bloc Quebecois reaffirm our allegiance to
Quebec and to its best interests alone.
We members of the Bloc Quebecois recognize that sovereignty
belongs to the Quebec nation and is exercised within Quebec's
National Assembly.
We members of the Bloc Quebecois point out that Quebec is a
land of pride, brotherhood, tolerance and social justice. We
affirm that the most precious collective treasure of Quebecers
is freedom and that no authority, including the Parliament of
Canada, can deprive their nation of the right to control their
own destiny.
We members of the Bloc Quebecois are convinced that our
struggle will serve future generations and will aim at
preserving their freedom and the territory of their culture.
We members of the Bloc Quebecois affirm that the Quebec nation
has no allegiance to any other nation and never will have.
We members of the Bloc Quebecois are committed to continue to
fight for Quebec's freedom to democratically decide its own
future and to freely determine its political status.
We members of the Bloc Quebecois invite all democrats from
Canada, Quebec and the international community to join the
Quebec nation in its fight to preserve its freedom.
We members of the Bloc Quebecois affirm that the Quebec nation
is sovereign.
We members of the Bloc Quebecois affirm that Quebec is free.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. There have been consultations with the
other parties and I believe there would be unanimous consent for
the following motion. I move that the 18th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on
Wednesday, March 1, 2000, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Wetaskiwin has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to
present the motion. Does the member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE QUEBEC
SECESSION REFERENCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, an
act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in
the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec
Secession Reference, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I do not have a lot of time but I have lots to say to squeeze
into the next five minutes.
The NDP began the consideration of Bill C-20 with a number of
concerns, but we supported the bill in principle and supported
the view that in any future referendum in Quebec there needs to
be a clear question and that the House of Commons has a right to
have a say in whether or not that question is clear.
We supported the view that there needs to be a clear expression
of the will of the people of Quebec or any other province, and we
recognize the value of the supreme court opinion that the
judgment, in some respects, can only be made qualitatively after
the fact of the referendum, although we did raise concerns with
respect to whether or not there could be amendments which would
have at least fixed the numerical aspect of the judgment that
needed to be made. We therefore moved amendments having to do
with 50% plus one—
1710
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the
member for Winnipeg—Transcona, but in the spirit of
co-operation, I would ask for unanimous consent that the
government would consent to allow the member for
Winnipeg—Transcona to make a 15 minute intervention without
questions or comments, followed by a 15 minute intervention
without questions or comments from a member of the Progressive
Conservative Party and at the conclusion of these two
interventions the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to
dispose of the third reading stage of this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the request for unanimous consent by the hon. chief government
whip. Does the hon. chief government whip have unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the
government House leader's proposal is all about. Is he asking
that the time allocated both to my hon. colleague from the NDP
and my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party be
extended? Does this apply to both?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is right.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I express my thanks to the
government and to my colleagues for extending my time as the NDP
spokesperson and also the time of my colleague from the
Progressive Conservative Party.
I was saying that we had a number of concerns about the bill. I
cited the fact that we were concerned about an aspect of the bill
that left open the possibility of some abuse on the part of the
federal government after a referendum in jacking up the numerical
majority that might be needed in order to justify the decision
that there was a clear mandate. We moved amendments in that
respect and we moved them in a way that I thought was consistent
with the fact that there was still a qualitative judgment to be
made after the referendum. However, the government rejected
those amendments for reasons of its own.
We also had concerns about the role of the Senate. We moved
amendments in that regard and those amendments were defeated.
Finally, and I think most importantly from my point of view, we
had a number of amendments dealing with the role of aboriginal
peoples in the process that the bill sought to set up with
respect to how this House would determine whether or not there
was a clear question and a clear majority.
What we sought was to move amendments which would have done the
following: they would have added to the list in those sections
of the bill that listed those institutions or those parties which
the government would have to take into account the views of; and
on that list there was the House of Commons, the Senate, the
provincial governments and the territories. Our amendments were
to the effect that the aboriginal peoples, in particular the
aboriginal peoples of the province which was seeking to secede,
would be added to that list.
We had a number of other amendments that were of concern to
aboriginal peoples, in particular the aboriginal peoples listed
as those who would be represented in any talks or any
negotiations having to do with secession, and some other
amendments having to do with the fiduciary responsibility of the
federal government with respect to aboriginal rights.
We worked on these amendments all through the process. It was a
matter of great disappointment to me that I did not actually get
to move these amendments in committee because of the process,
although in the end it may have been a blessing. They probably
would have been defeated in committee at that time and then the
government having once defeated them might have been even more
reluctant than it was to have consented to some of those
amendments in the final analysis.
1715
As it turned out, in the hours just before the amendments were
to be voted on, discussions were continuing with the government.
The last time I rose in the House to speak at report stage, I
have to say that I rose with the impression that no amendments
were going to be accepted.
Some members may remember that I was a bit angry and that I
spoke in anger. I might say that it was justified anger. I felt
that none of the amendments were going to be accepted and,
frankly, that would have had the effect of making it very
difficult for the NDP to have continued to extend the support to
the bill which we extended at second reading.
Two of our amendments were accepted. They were important
amendments. Indeed, they have been recognized as such by the
Assembly of First Nations, the Grand Council of the Crees, the
minister himself and members of the committee from the Liberal
Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP who supported them.
It was unfortunate that the amendments could not have received
the unanimous support of the House. The Bloc Quebecois and the
Reform Party did not support those amendments, but nevertheless
the amendments are there. They do not add any new status for
aboriginal people, but they make sure that in this very important
bill a status which they already have is recognized. The danger
was that by not having them on that list, and listed in that way,
then that could have been seen as a way of diminishing or not
recognizing the status which they already have.
With these amendments having been accepted, I think I can say
with great certainty that the NDP as a caucus will be supporting
Bill C-20 at third reading.
This has not been easy. There are many in my party and
elsewhere who feel that somehow Bill C-20 is an attack on or
contrary to the principle of Quebec self-determination.
Particularly within the New Democratic Party there are people who
feel that somehow Bill C-20 is contrary to our traditional
position of support for the self-determination of Quebec. If I
thought that was so, I would not support Bill C-20 and neither
would my colleagues behind me.
In our view not only does Bill C-20 recognize the right of
Quebec to self-determination, it entrenches and recognizes in law
the right of Quebec to self-determination. However, it says that
this has to be achieved by virtue of a legitimate process that
was outlined by the supreme court in its opinion. What this law
attempted to do was to give legislative incarnation, if you like,
to the supreme court's opinion. I believe that Bill C-20 meets
that test. I do not think it is contrary to the principle of
self-determination for Quebec.
There are also a lot of people with whom we normally agree who
feel that this bill is a violation of their commitment to what is
sometimes called plan A; that is to say, keeping Quebec in
the federation and resolving problems of national unity by
renewing the federation in a way that Quebecers feel that some of
their longstanding aspirations and grievances can be met within
the federation.
Again, all of us here are plan A types. We have had one
plan A after another plan A. We urge the federal
government and the minister to come up their own plan A.
One of our criticisms of the Liberal government has been that we
do not feel it has a sufficient plan A. Not everybody
feels this way, but we also feel that to be committed to a plan
A is not to take the view that there cannot be a plan
B. We do not take the view that there is no plan B,
if you like, in Quebec among separatists, among sovereignists;
that is to say, a plan which may try to configure events in such
a way that Quebec could be led into a situation of secession or
negotiations on secession which are not the result of a clear
question and a clear majority.
1720
We cannot come at this innocently. I think there is a
legitimate means to self-determination and to secession. I hope
that day never comes.
I hope we will have a plan A. Even if we never have a
plan A that works and is implemented, I think we have a
country worth belonging to and a country worth keeping, no matter
what. However, I would urge the government to get busy on having
its own plan A.
I say to my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois that I do not see
anything undemocratic about requiring that there be a clear
question and requiring that there be a clear expression of the
will of the Quebec people. If I was a separatist I would say
that would be the minimum condition I would want anyway before I
sought to take my province out of the confederation. I have to
say that I do not understand that objection, at least when it
comes in the form of accusing Bill C-20 of being anti-democratic.
If it comes in the form of saying that the House of Commons and
the federal government have no jurisdiction, I can at least
understand that claim. I do not accept it because I think that
the rest of Canada does have some say and is entitled to some say
in what will bring them to the table and on what conditions we
would agree to talk about secession; that it is not just up to
Quebec to say what conditions should bring two parties to the
table. Quebec can say what conditions would bring itself to the
table to negotiate secession, but if there are two parties to a
negotiation, the other party has the right to say what would
bring it to the table. That, in my view, is what Bill C-20 does.
For all those reasons, the NDP caucus has decided to support the
bill at third reading. We have been very unhappy with the
process. I still say to the minister that I do not think it
needed to be rushed like this. I think we could have done a
better job than we did, but I am very happy that we succeeded in
the final hours of this debate in getting the amendments we did.
I hope that Bill C-20 is a bill which none of us ever has the
occasion to use.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the government and all the parties for their
kindness and broadmindedness in giving my NDP colleague and
myself a last chance to speak to Bill C-20. For the Progressive
Conservative Party, the debate is only beginning in the other
place.
Bill C-20 was extremely difficult, frustrating, disturbing and
alarming. Because of the possible failure of the country's unity
of the country, the Prime Minister and his government have gone,
in a few years, from indifference to constitutional matters in
1993 to the whip. That is what the government just did.
After Bill C-20, what happens? It will be the government's
the latent period. All will be settled, there will not be any
changes. I often say that a country evolves at the same pace as
his citizens. Legislation absolutely must evolve also.
1725
The most important legislation in this country, one that affects
us every day, which is the basis of everything, is the
Constitution Act. But the government is budging very little if
at all. Why not strive constantly to keep up with developments
in the country? It is not doing anything. It says “We do not
want to talk about it”.
When the government does decide to talk about it, it turns up
with a bill that is going to settle what exactly in the end?
Nothing, absolutely nothing at all. This is a false comfort
zone, false security. Just look at the Reformers' argument: the
vast majority of their basis for supporting the bill or not is
to say that they are 90% in disagreement but they will support
it anyway.
They voted against an amendment concerning the first nations,
but they support it anyway. Where is the logic in that? It is
a political logic. According to the polls, everyone wants a
clear question and a clear majority. Running a country requires
principles and guidelines. Yet the bill is not clear. We are
trying to explain that to people, and we are trying to explain
that to ourselves.
It is true that this has been difficult for our party and our
caucus. Nevertheless, we are not going to give up just because
it is difficult. It is not because a problem is hard to
overcome that we will not overcome it. That is not the way we
operate.
The bill is not clear.
Is the question clear? Where can we see, when we read the bill,
what the question will be, what its major thrust will be? I
tested it with people who will have to vote yes or no. They do
not know. They do not understand. Will we have a battle between
legal experts? I asked people who have read the bill “What do
you think would constitute a majority?” Their answer was either
“It has to be clear” or “I don't know”.
In the end, could it be 50% plus one, 60% plus one? Let me give
you a figure that no longer applies today: 91%. The Prime
Minister got that majority two years ago. Now, that majority has
been eroded, and even his own Liberal members are questioning
his leadership. The majority was 91%. One can see how faulty the
logic is. It is clearly illogical.
Bill C-20 is illogical, it does not make sense. It is a short
term political gain designed to prevent true long term
improvements in this country.
As for the question, the minister tells us there are guarantees
for Canadians. This is another comfort zone, a marketing
operation. The federal government is guaranteeing Canadians
that, if another referendum is held in Quebec—even though the act
does not refer to Quebec because, technically speaking, the
amendments that we proposed to make the bill clearer have been
rejected—negotiations will take place. How logical is that? The
federal government is saying that, in a future referendum on
sovereignty, Canadians can be sure that it will demand a clear
question and a clear majority before any negotiations can bet
under way. Thank heavens, we are saved. For now, but there will
be other referendums.
Do people not realize that, if it has come to this, it is
because something is wrong? Yet the government claims that
Canadians will now have the guarantee that, in the event of a
referendum, before entering into negotiations, it will make sure
that the question is clear and that there is a clear majority.
That is illogical, Liberal logic with regard to the future of
this country. It would mean getting ready for the country not
working and providing for it in legislation.
Our position is that this country deserves to be saved, most of
all from the Liberals. We guarantee that if ever—by the grace of
God and of this country's voters—we form the government, that
legislation will be repealed. We will send a message to
everybody: this country does not need such legislation.
1730
A country is not some kind of marriage contract. What is a
marriage contract? It is a contract for divorce. That is not
what a country is about. I wonder if that is why there is such a
drastic drop in the number of marriages across the country.
We must make sure that a signal is sent. This government has
been in office for seven years. What message has it sent to
Quebecers, Albertans and everybody else as to how this country
can be improved. We have gone from indifference to the whip.
Will the Minister of Finance now say “Let us dig into our purses
and open our wallets”? Who knows? He has not done a great job at
it. It will be at least two years before we see the difference
in our pockets.
But what message is being sent? In one-on-one conversations with
Liberal MPs, and even some ministers, when we really talk about
Bill C-20, what do they say? “Something had to be done. The
order has come down”. That is not much of an argument.
I ask them “How do you feel about perhaps making some small
improvements? How would you feel if there were a bill that
improved certain relationships or a Constitution for the 21st
century?”
Why not have a collective project? In addition to getting this
country on the Internet, since the desire is to have everyone
wired in to the high tech world and to have everyone right up to
date on what is going on, might the collective project not also
be right up to date as well? The answer is “Oh no, that is not
a good idea politically speaking, because people's reaction will
be that it will be another blessed conference on some island out
in the ocean, with Mounties everywhere and journalists trailing
20 feet away from any politician.”
But that is not what needs to be done.
We in the Conservative Party would also have some proposals for
future solutions, but the first thing is a matter of attitude.
After seven years, nothing has been done. They have gone from
indifference to the whip. We have a clarity bill that is not
clear in the least, that is only divisive, one that in my humble
opinion settles absolutely nothing and is against the spirit of
the supreme court opinion, against the letter even.
Where in the supreme court opinion have they found the right for
the federal government, which is barely mentioned in the
opinion—the reference is to political actors—to intervene at the
start of a referendum process? That is not what the supreme
court said.
The NDP proposed an amendment relating to the first nations.
When the minister came before the committee, I asked him “can
the bill be amended?” His answer “No, it is a perfect bill”.
The member for Winnipeg—Transcona must have thrown a few fits. It
took the three groups of first nations to convince the
government to change its mind, and not even that much. Is this
the message we want to send first nations? We are telling them
“Everything is fine, no problem, do not worry”. It took fits and
pressure from these groups for the government to even consider
taking the first nations into account. If I were in their shoes,
I would be scared.
I have the honour of being a member of the second nation to come
here, and I am very proud of it. But I am worried about the
first one. I am even more scared for those at the provincial
level because the political actors are not involved at the
federal level. Unfortunately, the provinces are letting their
big federal brother decide what to do.
If there is a referendum, the country might break up, but their
message to the federal government is “Take care of things. You
are so good. For the past seven years you have accomplished a
lot. You have not done a thing with regard to the Constitution,
but you have ideas. Do it.”
People across the way know the government has no plan to improve
the rules governing relationships in this country. It has no
plan. It has absolutely nothing to offer.
1735
This has been a very difficult bill for us. I do not hide that
fact. Our party's position has not changed. It is clear that
some members will vote with the government. We have tried to
explain our position. It was not easy and it has left scars
within the party. We do not hide that either.
However, people should know that our team is still there and
that we will keep on. In spite of all that and in spite of Bill
C-20, we will not stop. The Progressive Conservative Party will
break new ground in relationships within this country. In spite
of all the difficulties, the Progressive Conservative Party will
deal with the situation, something the government has refused to
do.
I do not have much time left and I would now like to propose an
amendment in the other official language.
[English]
I move:
Bill C-20, an act to give effect to the requirement for clarity
as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the
Quebec secession reference, be not now read a third time but be
referred back to the legislative committee on Bill C-20 with
instructions that the committee conduct further hearings and
report to the House, not later than October 30, 2000, amendments
to the bill to provide a mechanism to ensure that all proposed
amendments to the constitution adopted by the legislature of any
of the partners in Confederation are brought to parliament and
considered in accordance with the opinion of the supreme court at
paragraph 88.
[Translation]
As I was saying at the beginning about the other place where the
debate will be held, I hope that the government will be a little
bit more open.
Mr. André Harvey: The other place that has been forgotten.
Mr. André Bachand: The other place which, incidentally, as the
member for Chicoutimi was saying, has been forgotten in the
bill.
I would like to ask the government, on the eve of an election
maybe, in a year or so, or of a crisis within the Liberal party,
I would like to see the government shelve bill, as it does
sometimes, and come up with interesting proposals.
What I am asking again is that we be united, as our country
should be.
1740
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment is in
order.
I want to tell the House how privileged I felt to be in the
Chair during this debate. It has not been an easy debate. The
contributions of all of the members this afternoon were worthy. I
think that when historians look at the debate that took place
this afternoon, they will feel that our country has been well
served by its parliamentarians.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now
before the House.
[Translation]
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of
the amendment 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): Call in the members.
1815
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
|
Brison
| Casey
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Jones
| Price
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Vautour
– 14
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 249
|
PAIRED
Members
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I and other hon. members who stood up and voted twice on
that voted in favour of the amendment.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Could other hon. members who
voted twice please let me know who they are.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1820
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. For the sake of clarity, I personally voted in favour of
the amendment.
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
1830
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 208
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brien
| Brison
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Jones
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Venne – 55
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
WITNESS AND SPOUSAL PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT
The House resumed from November 26, 1999 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-223, an act to to amend the Witness Protection
Program Act and to make a related and consequential amendment to
another act (protection of spouses whose life is in danger), be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Calgary Centre has eight minutes remaining.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important bill,
Bill C-223. For the clarification of the House, I want to drive
home a point I was leading to when we last debated this private
member's bill which was some time ago.
The bill focuses on protecting people who are in relationships
when one person becomes violent and puts the other person at
risk. The bill is an innovative and very needed approach to
better protect spouses who are in abusive situations.
Under the HRDC ministry there is a new identities program. It is
intended to give a new identity to a person who was in an abusive
relationship so that the person can protect himself or herself
and get away from that abusive situation and not be harassed and
chased by the abusive partner.
The problem is that the current program in HRDC is on an ad hoc
basis. It has been thrown together by some well meaning
bureaucrats.
It has no real mandate. It actually has no funding. Not
surprisingly it has very limited structure. For people who have
need of this kind of program, something that would protect them
when an abusive partner is putting their lives and health at
risk, it is obscure. It is hard to find out about it and to
access it. It has had very limited application.
1835
Bill C-223 intends to address the problem by moving the new
identities program that is very loosely structured in HRDC over
to the RCMP witness protection program. It already exists in
Canada and is structured and funded. In a sense it would be a
subprogram of the RCMP witness protection program.
By combining the new identities program within the witness
protection program, participants would be registered with the
police and under the direction of the commissioner of the RCMP.
Participants would also benefit from the knowledge and expertise
of the RCMP and the witness protection program. We have taken it
from an obscure ad hoc program with no funding to something that
is structured, already works and has the oversight of the RCMP.
This is critical.
I can relate it to a story in my riding which involves a
personal acquaintance of mine. We will call her Sally to protect
her name. She is the mother of four children. She was married.
Early in her marriage she realized that her husband—in this case
it was the husband but it is not always the husband but I use
this as an example—had become abusive to her. It got worse and
worse. It got to the point where her life was literally at risk.
Of course she had to remove herself from that situation but he
pursued her and actually traumatized the children. It was a
tragic story.
Eventually charges were laid. He was out on probation for a
while. She lived in fear when she went shopping. Even at home at
night sounds in the house would traumatize her because of the
abusive nature of this relationship.
She went to the authorities. There was some limited support and
guidance but there was not much she could do except sweat it out
for well over a year. I think it was almost two years before
charges were finally laid, a conviction resulted and the
individual was incarcerated for a period of time. During that
time she had some relative peace of mind. Of course he will get
out one day and she will continue perhaps to live in the fear of
being pursued by an abusive mate.
Bill C-223 as put forward by my hon. colleague would give a
person like Sally some badly needed peace of mind.
It is essential that we put forward this kind of legislation.
There are some statistics that will drive this point home. A
simple change like this one would mean so much. It would save
lives. Between 1977 and 1996 there were 2,048 spousal killings in
Canada. In over 56% of spousal homicides, investigating police
officers had knowledge of previous domestic violence between the
victims and suspects. In 56% of the spousal killings, the police
knew there was a problem.
It is just like the case of Sally to which I referred. She
thankfully is alive and well at this point in time. I suggest to
the House that she will stay that way, but 2,048 people—and they
are not always women because it goes both ways, let me be clear
on that—were killed by their spouses and the police knew about
the situations.
1840
In situations such as those, Bill C-223 would have allowed the
individuals to apply to the RCMP witness protection program which
would have under it the new identities program which is currently
hard to access. They could have applied to that. They could have
taken on a new identity and perhaps could have relocated. Details
such as the cost of relocation would be worked out in the
regulations, but certainly they could have had a new identity and
could have established a life free from the threat of physical
violence. Many people have actually died, but we would save lives
with a simple fix to the structure that is in place today.
In that light I close by saying that it is time the new
identities act be moved under the RCMP auspices. I encourage all
members in the House to support this private member's bill. I
encourage a speedy passage of Bill C-223.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak to Bill C-223, which seeks to amend the Witness
Protection Program Act to include the protection of people whose
life is threatened by their spouse.
In practical terms, this bill would provide greater security for
women who are victims of domestic violence. We all know that the
majority of those victims are in fact women.
Violence often occurs within a domestic relationship. Indeed,
80% of violent crimes against women are committed by a spouse or
an ex-spouse. Moreover, domestic violence is rarely reported to
the police.
The women who are victims of domestic violence feel trapped and
often cannot see a way out. They are often stalked and sometimes
killed.
Bill C-223 wants to deal with this and avoid such tragedies. To
understand the purpose of this bill, it is important to ask
ourselves what measures there are to help those women who live
in a dangerous domestic situation.
In its initiative against family violence, the federal
government has adopted a number of measures to help such women,
including shelters for battered women, psychological services
and other social measures offering protection and prevention.
The criminal code has been amended to provide more ways to
protect the victims of domestic violence.
By way of example, the commitment under section 810 of the
criminal code makes it possible to order a violent spouse to not
enter into communication and to keep the peace with the other
spouse on pain of criminal charges. These measures to prevent
violence against women are vital and provide long term
solutions. However, despite these measures, tragedies continue
to occur all too often still. This initiative seems lacking in
our opinion therefore and should also provide a safety hatch in
the event of extreme and emergency situations.
Some would see the safety hatch in the program for victims of
spousal violence called “New Identities”, which is run by
officials of National Revenue and the Department of Human
Resources Development.
Unfortunately, women and the police do not seem very familiar
with this program. In addition, the assistance provided is very
limited.
It provides a name and social insurance number change, but not
all measures are in place to effect an identity change. For
instance, cases are cited in which the person benefiting from
the program had been located by her spouse because old
information had not been destroyed. The program has no specific
mandate and no statutory or regulatory basis. For all these
reasons, it appears quite inadequate to protect threatened
individuals.
1845
We believe Bill C-223 would be an effective way to help these
women in difficulty. It will not solve the problem of domestic
violence, but it will be an essential measure to deal with the
most serious cases. This improvement must be viewed as an
indispensable tool within the arsenal of measures available to
deal with the problem of violence. This bill will make it
possible to gather the resources to help the spouse whose life
is in danger in a more structured and effective way than
currently.
The Witness Protection Program Act that Bill C-223 would amend
provides for the protection of witnesses whose security is
threatened because of their involvement in a criminal case. This
is what is currently in place.
The act sets out the procedure to follow to determine if a
person can be admitted to the program. The act says, and I
quote:
Protection, in respect of a protectee, may include relocation,
accommodation and change of identity as well as counselling and
financial support for those or any other purposes in order to
ensure the security of the protectee or to facilitate the
protectee's re-establishment or becoming self-sufficient.
In short, it provides full protection. Women living in a
situation of domestic violence can find themselves in situations
as dangerous as witnesses for the prosecution. Therefore, they
should benefit from the legislative and regulatory measures
under this program.
Bill C-223 adds new criteria to deal with the tragedy of spouses
who are victims of violence. The commissioner responsible for
determining whether a spouse should be admitted to the program
will consider the facts of each situation.
He will take into account the nature of the physical harm and
psychological damage caused to the victim and the criminal
record of the threatening spouse. The commissioner will also
take into consideration a more subjective criterion. In that
regard, he will consider the circumstances that make the spouse
believe that his or her life is in danger. The commissioner will
also consider the nature of the risk and all the other factors
that he deems relevant.
It is all these factors together that will allow the
commissioner to arrive at a fair and informed decision. The
commissioner will also consider other possible forms of
protection outside the program.
The measures provided in Bill C-223 are extreme and apply to
exceptional circumstances. It is necessary to ensure that the
protection provided is offered to those whose life is truly in
danger.
The bill also adapted the concept of spouse to contemporary
situations, to include a former spouse or any person who has
lived with another person for a period of not less than one year
in a conjugal relationship.
The exceptional nature of these measures leads us to believe
that the adoption of Bill C-223 will not require additional
resources. The annual report to be submitted by the commissioner
to the solicitor general under the bill will allow the latter to
monitor the effectiveness of that extension of the scope of the
witness protection program to include women whose life is
threatened by their spouse.
The Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-223.
This bill is not the solution to the problem of spousal abuse,
but it is an essential measure for cases of extreme conjugal
violence. It is an improvement as an effective contemporary tool
to protect women who are victims of spousal abuse.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
at the outset I want to say that I very much appreciate the
opportunity to speak tonight and also to share some of the
concerns of the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River with
respect to victims of abuse.
1850
I have a long history when it comes to issues such as this. I
spent 10 years on the police services board and as chairman of
the Waterloo regional police. We worked very closely with
victims of crime and tried to do the kinds of things that are
necessary to ensure that people who have found themselves in that
kind of position and in that kind of situation were given every
assistance in a way that was meaningful not only to them but to
their families as well, and to ensure that an effective method of
dealing with them was in place.
I must admit that we were pioneers in this area and tried to do
it in a way consistent with the values not only of our community
but also in terms of Canada.
I would point out that while Canada's equitable and effective
justice system is one of the reasons this country remains a very
successful place and a very attractive place in which to live and
raise a family, no system is perfect. It is a sad fact that
despite criminal code measures, broad preventive initiatives and
assistance from shelters and transitional homes, vulnerable
Canadians still have not found the solace and protection they
need in society. Often, and unfortunately, these people are
women.
Bill C-223 attempts to assist the victims of violence and the
threat of violence in the home or from a spouse. I commend the
member for taking the initiative in this area.
However, I also point out that violence in the home affects not
only women but children as well. It is insidious and it tends to
be self-perpetuating, transferring from one generation to the
next. It is very sad.
A woman who leaves an abusive relationship must often move out
of the province, moving from one safe haven to another, living a
life of fear of discovery and fear for the safety and lives of
not only herself but her children as well.
As members of the House we are all concerned with this very
important issue. For far too long society has tended to ignore
the facts of violence in the home. Because we have ignored it,
it is more prevalent than it should otherwise be.
And so it is that I respect the hon. member's intentions in
introducing Bill C-223. I believe it is right and proper that we
should be focusing our attention on the issues of domestic
violence and the protection of our children, and the victims
associated with that violence.
That being said, I think we must consider that Bill C-223 may be
the wrong instrument in this case. Bill C-223 recognizes that
even after relocation some victims continue to be stalked,
threatened or even killed. Sometimes the only remaining last
resort and course of action is a change of identity. Bill C-223
would therefore extend the provisions of the witness protection
program to victims whose lives are in danger because of domestic
violence. That may be far from a perfect solution. I would
argue, given the experience I had with the police in the Waterloo
region, that it would be the wrong solution.
First, the objectives of the witness protection program are
wrong for these victims. The program is run by the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police as an aid to law enforcement, in
particular against organized crime. Participants are people who
have information that could incriminate themselves, but who would
risk their lives by testifying. The program to provide
protection to them is administered by the police, for police
reasons. This is a far different group of people from that of
the victims of violence and domestic violence.
Here we have a group of people who are desperate for help and,
aside from protection, need counselling, self-esteem building and
psychological help. I believe it would be a mistake, therefore,
to lump these very much at risk and vulnerable people in with a
quite different group of witnesses to organized criminal
activity.
To be effective a program to assist victims in life threatening
relationships must be quite different from the witness protection
program. Such a program must involve provincial and territorial
partners, because of the jurisdictional issues, to address the
issues of security, health, counselling, safe housing, employment
and the future of the children. In fact we should be assured by
the fact that the Government of Canada has for some time been
working toward such a program.
In previous discussions of this bill mention has been made of
the ad hoc process begun by Human Resources Development Canada
some time ago, of the experience gained and the evolution toward
a national federal-provincial-territorial program for providing
new identities to victims in life threatening relationships.
This process, initiated by HRDC and the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency, helps victims and their children, providing them
with new social insurance numbers and re-created federal social
benefits.
1855
Experience from this process has taught us some very valuable
lessons. A change of identity is definitely a last resort. In
the beginning there were not many cases. For example, from 1992
to 1997 there were 52 victims who were helped, but growing
awareness has since increased the number to a total of 206
victims, with more than 300 children involved.
The ad hoc process was meant to be a compassionate government
response to an obvious need, but the lack of formal co-ordination
and interjurisdictional complications of changing a person's
identity has made it necessary to seek a permanent solution. The
government, therefore, is working with stakeholders to do
precisely that in looking at the possibility of a more effective,
specifically mandated national program.
Consultations have begun in this very important area. During
these consultations there was unanimous agreement on the need for
a co-ordinated new identities program. Governments everywhere
that were involved were praised for bringing the issue to the
forefront. Provinces and territories seem to be looking to the
federal government for leadership in this area and that is
precisely what we will be doing.
A federal-provincial-territorial working group has been
established and is working in consultation with victims'
representatives, operating under the umbrella of the social
services ministers in consultation with the justice ministers.
Unlike many other fields of endeavour, there is a willingness to
co-operate and get on with the job in this important area. That
makes sense. Surely we should wait for it to complete its work
before any legislation on these issues is put into place.
Therefore, while we respect the hon. member's intent, and we
know that he has the best of intentions in bringing this to the
forefront, we on the government side think that it is premature
at this time. I would urge all hon. members to vote accordingly,
knowing that there are other ways and other venues to approach
this very, very important issue.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada and also on behalf of the
constituents which I have the privilege to represent, the
citizens of Madawaska—Restigouche, New Brunswick.
Let me begin by stating that the PC Party will be supporting
Bill C-223. I agreed with my colleague who, when this bill was
last debated in November, felt that this bill might not be
necessary, given the current criminal harassment laws and the
protection given under the witness protection program.
Logically I would like to see increased spending on policing to
protect spouses who suffer from domestic abuse. I would like to
see more meaningful sentences handed down by the courts to send a
message that the abuse of a spouse will not be tolerated. I
would also like to see more funding directed to counselling
programs for the abusive spouse and for the victim.
It is only through addressing these problems and correcting the
behaviour that this type of behaviour can be dismissed and
hopefully eliminated. However, the Liberal government has
consistently shown that it will not commit to allocating the
necessary funding to protect society from violent predators.
Sure, the Liberals will proudly state that the recent budget
allocated an extra $810 million for policing and protection, but
it will neglect to mention that this allocation will be over the
next three years and that 62% of the new money will not be
available until 2001-02.
Thus, although I agree with my colleague that under a
responsible government Bill C-223 would not be needed, I must
agree that the government's dismal record in protecting the
public, especially the most vulnerable in society, has made this
legislation necessary.
Currently, abused spouses, most often women, endure a living
hell as they try to protect themselves and their children from
the wrath of their abusive spouses.
We hear stories of victims moving into shelters or trying to
escape to another city, province or even another country to get
away from abusive relationships.
1900
Sadly, these victims cannot remain anonymous and are eventually
found by their abusive spouses. The result is often violent. In
recent years we have heard of too many incidents where the
results have been death.
Since the government will not take meaningful action to deal
with these violent predators, Bill C-223 is a necessary means to
protect these victims.
Bill C-223 is an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act
and to make a related consequential amendment to another act
(protection of spouses whose life is in danger). It is an act to
provide for the establishment and operation of a program to
enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to
certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions and to enable
certain certain spouses whose lives are in danger to receive
protection.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada supports the bill.
We have been consistent in our support of law and order,
protection of society and victims' rights.
I feel that most of the amendments brought forth by this
legislation already exist under the current witness protection
program. However, I agree with the hon. member that the witness
protection program is currently only mandated to protect crown
witnesses and is not used for abused victims. Broadening the
mandate is a welcome change.
I also agree that Canada's anti-stalking law can do nothing to
protect a victim who is confronted by a violent spouse who has
refused to desist or who has violated a restraining order.
I agree with my colleague that stronger laws to protect these
people would be a better alternative than having the abused
spouse change his or her identity and flee. Nevertheless, this
alternative would require more meaningful, well placed funding
which the Liberals have shown they are unwilling to do.
Therefore, if a change of identity is the only viable solution
for the protection of the victim, then I feel that all members
should be supportive of this initiative.
When dealing with a program such as this, one must also be
cognizant that certain individuals may attempt to use the program
in an unlawful manner. For example, some could try to use the
program to obtain a new identity while trying to escape
creditors. This will not be the case with Bill C-223 as there is
a detailed list of factors that the witness protection program
will have to consider before determining whether a spouse should
be admitted to the program. These considerations include the
nature of the risk to the security of the spouse, the
circumstances that cause the spouse to believe his or her life is
in danger, the nature of the injuries, psychological damage,
whether the other spouse has a criminal record and whether
alternative methods exist for protecting the spouse without
admission to the program.
An example of how the program could succeed can be seen through
the success of new identities for humanitarian reasons. This
unofficial program, which began in 1992 and works through HRDC
and Revenue Canada, does not reveal the names of those who
conduct the program. As well, Revenue Canada ensures that the
income tax history and child tax benefits of the victims follow
them into their new lives without linking them to their past
names. HRDC provides them with a new social insurance number and
transfers their pension benefits.
Police and women's shelters refer candidates for the program so
there is no formal application process.
1905
Presently the criminal code states that one cannot force someone
to testify against his or her spouse. In many cases the victim
of spouse abuse can give damning information that police and
prosecutors need to obtain a conviction of the spousal abuser.
Yet, as spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each
other, spousal intimidation can play a factor and create problems
in securing a conviction against the abuser.
Intimidation of witnesses in general, and spouses in particular,
has had an adverse effect on the justice system for years. As
the witness protection program is mandated to protect crown
witnesses and not abuse victims, this intimidation could continue
to occur in spousal family situations.
The new identities for humanitarian reasons program helps in
this process but lacks needed funding and recognition in policing
and counselling circles. If this type of program were allowed to
be incorporated under the witness protection program, as
suggested by Bill C-223, some of these problems could be
regulated.
In closing, I would like to thank the hon. member for Prince
George—Peace River for bringing this bill forward. I feel that
it is a sound bill that will offer further protection to victims
involved in the most severe cases of spousal abuse. Indirectly,
it also brings attention to the lack of funding from the federal
government for matters of public safety. Public safety has
always been a priority of the Progressive Conservative Party of
Canada and thus we will be supporting this legislation.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to enter into this debate. I will begin by
congratulating my colleague from Prince George—Peace River on
this initiative. It is one that he has worked on for a long time
and one that is wrapped around a personal story as well, which is
what makes it so very important. This is not just an abstract
piece of legislation that talks about facts or statistics. It is
a piece of legislation that has been developed to address a very
serious need of individuals in need of protection.
My colleague from Prince George—Peace River had an individual
in his riding who was affected by this type of situation. He
explained that in his speech in the previous hour of debate. It
caught his attention. It was a need crying out. Something had
to happen because there was a vacuum, a void, within our current
justice and legal system that put mainly women, who are involved
in domestic violence and being abused by their spouses, at risk.
The reason my colleague was compelled to bring this bill forward
was to address this serious need.
I will comment on a few of the statements made by the Liberal
member for Waterloo—Wellington who spoke earlier and rebut some
of the statements he made. He gave some encouragement for the
notion and the idea of this bill. He then went on to say that
this was the wrong solution and that this bill would not solve
the problem. He went on to say that we needed to wait and that
we needed to consult or work with stakeholders. These are
unacceptable solutions that he offers to a very serious need.
This is a bill that puts together a concrete plan to address a
very serious situation. It is well thought out. It has some
flexibility designed into it. My colleague has looked at the new
identities program, which was an ad hoc program developed to
address this need. It is a good start but it certainly is not a
viable solution to continue on with.
My colleague also looked at the witness protection program and
saw it as a vehicle by which spouses being affected in this type
of terrible abusive situation could be incorporated into the
program. It would obviously need to have some legislative
changes happen and that is what this bill is about.
The motivation for it is to fill a void and to help those
individuals who are facing this really serious situation.
1910
I do not think the 100 individuals who will die in our country
this year—statistics hold out on this terrible tragedy that is
occurring across the country—will take any solace in the fact
that the government is looking at this and waiting. This is
simply unacceptable. Individuals are being abused and murdered
by their spouses in our country. It is a sad situation.
If we as legislators see a situation that is crying out for a
solution and do nothing about it and say, “oh well, we will just
get the stakeholders together”, well the stakeholders in this
situation may not be around in a year if we do nothing. My
colleague has brought this bill to the floor of the House because
it puts together a plan to address a need and will save people's
lives.
This is a plan that could be passed in the House within a matter
of weeks or months before we leave this place at the end of this
session. It could be passed into legislation and individuals
could work on administering this program and making it work.
My colleague from the Liberal side mentioned that the current
witness protection program was put together to protect
individuals who provide information to the RCMP, and that this is
the wrong solution. I think he lacks foresight or creative
flexibility if he does not see that this is a program that could
be adapted to include individuals who are being abused. Who is
better to make this type of decision than the RCMP officers
themselves who are the ones who respond when there is domestic
violence. These situations are often very difficult for them to
deal with. Sometimes they are the first officers on the scene
after someone has been beaten to within an inch of his or her
life or even killed.
Who better to bring forward recommendations than the RCMP
officers who deal with these cases? They are in the inner
circle and on the front line of what is happening. Who better to
make some recommendations to the commissioner who would then
decide whether or not a person should enter this protection
program.
As legislators, this bill gives us a perfect opportunity to make
a change that will affect people's lives. It will also save
people's lives. We would be remiss if we let this opportunity
slip through our fingers simply because we trust the government
to meet with stakeholders, to wait and to develop some other kind
of program. It is not working now.
The new identities program moves in the right direction but it
does not address a bigger need and concern that this bill
specifically addresses.
I urge my Liberal colleague to discuss with his colleagues the
practicality of this bill and that it will work. I was
encouraged when colleagues from the Progressive Conservative
Party and the Bloc mentioned that they will support this bill.
That is positive. If we do not move ahead now on this issue we
will in many regards be held accountable for those individuals
whose lives will be lost this year.
We come to this Chamber day after day, talk about different
issues and policies and have votes. Sometimes there may even be
abstract notions.
People who are out in the general public have a hard time
identifying with some of the things we do here. This is a very
specific idea, a very specific answer to a very big problem. That
is why we need to understand as members of parliament who have
been sent here by our constituents that this is something we
could do. It would be a very simple thing to do. It would be a
shame if we let partisan direction from our party leadership or
from any other source influence our decision, or that we would
even have such a small vision that this is a particular program
that cannot be expanded to solve the problem, reject it out of
hand and not bring anything else forward.
1915
My Liberal colleague did not bring forward any constructive
alternatives, apart from saying that they are going to meet with
stakeholders and we should wait. Why in the world should we wait
when we have something here which would work, which could do the
job and save lives? Why in the world would we wait any longer?
For each year that goes by another 100 individuals will be
murdered. We would be remiss if we were implicated by our
inactivity.
That is why I strongly support the proposed legislation. I
congratulate my colleague from Prince George—Peace River for
bringing it forward. He has been sensitive to seeing a need and
to looking for a compassionate solution which would saves lives.
I encourage my colleagues from all parties to support this
legislation so that it could move forward and the program could
be developed, implemented and put in place. Let us do it. Let
us do it together. Let us make a positive solution to a very
serious problem.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I join with
my colleague from Dewdney—Alouette in congratulating my
colleague from Prince George—Peace River who introduced Bill
C-223 in the House of Commons for debate and for a vote. I am
very pleased to support the bill. I think it is not only
important, but imperative that we support the bill.
Two Canadians, mostly women, every week lose their lives to
their spouses in domestic situations. I ask members of the House
and I ask people who are watching at home to remember the deep
sense of shock and outrage that we all felt across the country
when Marc Lépine went on his murderous rampage and took the lives
of 15 young women in Quebec some years ago. Imagine, Mr.
Speaker, two women every week in this country lose their lives to
spousal abuse. In the House of Commons we have just over 301
seats. It would mean that one-third of the seats in the House
would be vacant every year as a result of murder through spousal
abuse.
Where is the shock? Where is the outrage? Why is this not
something that we are being compelled to deal with? Why is it
that we feel this sense of shock and outrage over the Marc Lépine
incident but we are doing virtually nothing to address the issue?
I suggest the reason that this does not have the sense of
urgency that it deserves is because these spouses, mostly women,
are not dying en masse. It is difficult for the TV cameras and
people in the media to get their heads around it. It is
difficult for Canadians to understand the depth of the problem
because it is not immediate, it is spread out over time.
I suggest that it is just as important and as urgent, and we
should be as equally distressed and concerned about the lives of
these women as we were for those 15 young women who lost their
lives at the polytechnique some years ago. We should be taking
strong measures, within the ability of this place to take strong
measures, to protect these women. We should do everything within
reason to ensure that we protect the lives of Canadians where we
have the ability and the responsibility to do so.
I hear the Liberal member who spoke some time ago making
comments. He suggested that we are taking the wrong approach.
I really do not want to be partisan on this issue, but I cannot
resist. The member suggests that my colleague from Prince
George—Peace River is on the wrong track with this legislation.
1920
Let us compare what this legislation attempts to do with, for
example, the Liberal's gun registry, the $1 billion boondoggle
that is supposed to save lives. We were told by the government
when this legislation was introduced that if it saved even one
life it would be worth it. Yet we have the ability with this
proposed legislation to enact protection that would really save
lives and we have the Liberals across the way saying that we are
on the wrong track. Frankly, I do not buy it. I think that
Canadians should do like Bill Clinton—do not inhale.
I cannot believe that we cannot come together as
parliamentarians and see the need and understand that there is
something we can do.
Some people might argue that this would be an expensive measure.
Let us not forget that we are talking about two people per week.
We are talking about people who might take advantage of this or
who might seek protection under this legislation. This is not
going to be something that is going to be taken advantage of by
many people. To enter this kind of protection program people
have to divorce themselves not only from friends but from family,
their lives and everything they know, and start over again
somewhere else with new identities and challenges, and no support
from family and friends. It is a very difficult choice that
people who might take advantage of this program would have to
make.
On two occasions women came to see me in my riding looking for
assistance because they were scared out of their wits. It is a
shame that in this country in the year 2000 we have women who
feel they have to go underground to protect themselves and to
preserve their lives, but that is the case.
We had the case of a young lady in my riding, her name is Tammy,
who was in a relationship with a man. She ended the
relationship. The man went into her house, commando style, in
the middle of the night, forcibly raped her and threatened her.
She pressed charges. The man went to jail for 18 months. He has
now been released, but when she came to see me he was on the
verge of being released. She was frightened. She said “I did
everything that I was supposed to do to protect myself. I did
not do anything to bring this on. The guy came into my house in
the middle of the night”. He went to the extraordinary measure
of taking masking tape, rolling it up and putting it on his vest
so that he would have it handily available to wrap around her
wrists and mouth. He broke into her house in the middle of the
night, violated her space and forcibly raped her.
She did what she was supposed to do. She went to the police and
made sure that he faced retribution. But our criminal justice
system is such a laugh in this country that he was only
incarcerated for a relatively short period of time, and when he
was on the verge of getting out she came to me and said “What am
I supposed to do? This guy is a little bit angry with me.
Surprise, surprise. What am I supposed to do?”
Tammy considered at great length going underground.
She considered at great length changing her identity and
relocating to another part of Canada, starting a new life with a
new career and divorcing herself, cutting the ties with her
family and friends in order to protect her life. Had this
legislation been in place at the time that Tammy came to see me,
it would have given her the option and opportunity to do that
without her having to do it herself.
1925
There are women right now in the country who are going
underground. They are being forced to do it because our justice
system is not protecting them. They are having to do it with
their own resources and in a haphazard manner because they do not
have the expertise and the ability. This legislation would
provide them with an option, a way out. It would provide
protection. It would save lives in contrast to the billion
dollar boondoggle known as Bill C-68 which the Liberals brought
in a few years ago.
In closing I urge all members of the House to carefully consider
what is being contemplated here. It is nothing less than saving
the lives of Canadians, in particular Canadian women. It can be
done. This legislation provides the tools to do it. I urge all
members of the House to take the opportunity to vote yes. Vote
in favour of this legislation. Let us protect Canadian lives.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this should be a non-partisan debate. Clearly this is an
exceptionally serious issue that crosses all gender lines. It
crosses all geographic and demographic lines within the country.
It is unfortunate that the member for Waterloo—Wellington has
decided to kibitz from the other side of the House. We treated
him with respect. I would expect that he would treat our side of
the debate with respect as well.
The member for Dewdney—Alouette and my colleague from Skeena
were trying to make the point, which I will underscore, that the
government not only has an opportunity but indeed it has a
responsibility to the people of Canada to begin to act, to be
acting now.
In doing some research prior to coming to this debate, I was
interested to read the comments of the parliamentary secretary to
the solicitor general. His comments were particularly revealing.
After he used the same kind of words that the member for
Waterloo—Wellington has used tonight, he came up with exactly
the same point, that the government for whatever reason seems to
be petrified to take any action that would actually go toward the
saving of lives of the women of Canada who are embroiled in and
sucked into this kind of situation. Not only women but children
are involved in this.
After the parliamentary secretary had completed his comments
that yes this would be a good idea, he said “We can and must do
more. Education, counselling, prevention and other social service
measures are essential if we are to do away with family violence.
When all else fails, we must take steps against the violent
partners. The federal, provincial and territorial partners have
already worked on the development of a new identity program.
There is always room for improvement but we do not need to
reinvent the wheel. We need to build on what is already
established. There are a number of unsettled questions”. Because
of the time tonight I will not complete his quote except to say
that all he could talk about is the fact that there are problems,
there are opportunities, and they are working on it.
The mantra from the Liberals is that because Bill C-223 was not
their idea it is the wrong vehicle. If this is the wrong
vehicle, why does the government not come up with the right
vehicle? It has 2,000 lawyers in the justice department. What
are those lawyers doing?
Why is the government not giving direction to the justice
department to come up with the solution to the problem? Why is
the government just saying that the proposal of the member for
Prince George—Peace River is not the right vehicle? If it is
not the right vehicle, then what is the right vehicle and when is
the government going to come forward with it?
1930
We also have to recognize that within the confines of what can
be done legislatively, there are problems even with existing law.
I am now out of time in this segment, but I look forward to the
continuation of this debate. At that time I will talk about some
of the problems with the existing witness protection legislation
and then try to marry the two things together, what the member
for Prince George—Peace River is trying to accomplish and what
improvements are needed even within the existing legislation, the
Witness Protection Program Act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the order paper.
The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:32 p.m.)