36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 114
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 14, 2000
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| SOLICITOR GENERAL
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| SAULT COLLEGE AND ALGOMA UNIVERSITY
|
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
| LES BRAVES DU COIN
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| OVARIAN CANCER MONTH
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1405
| BROMONT INTERNATIONAL
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| NATIONAL PARKS
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| QUEBEC PREMIER
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1410
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| HULL HUMAN RESOURCES CENTRE
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| SOCIAL BENEFITS
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| RONALD REID
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| PUBLIC SERVICE WEEK
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1415
| CANADIAN CONSERVATIVE REFORM ALLIANCE PARTY
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| LAND MINES
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
1435
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| BANKING
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1440
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| FRANCOPHONE ATHLETES
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
1445
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| TRANSPORTATION IN MONTREAL
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1450
| GUN REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| SCOTIA RAINBOW
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1455
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1500
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| MERCHANT MARINE VETERANS
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Motion No. 425
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1510
1515
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1520
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Citizenship and Immigration
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1525
| Industry
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
|
| Bill C-39. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| REFERENDUM ACT
|
| Bill C-490. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
| OLYMPIC GAMES
|
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
1530
| Motion
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Industry
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1535
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Motion
|
| Public Accounts
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| PETITIONS
|
| Lester B. Pearson International Airport
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1540
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Petroleum Product Pricing
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Genetically Modified Foods
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Health
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| CBC
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Organ Transplantation
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| The Environment
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| Sessions of Parliament
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1545
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Gasoline Prices
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Bioartificial kidney
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Abortion
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Passenger Rail Service
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| Gasoline prices
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Genetically modified organisms
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1550
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Genetically modified organisms
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Religious Broadcasters
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| World Trade Organization
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Child Care
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| Mammography
|
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
1555
| The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 36 |
| Community Television
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Parental Leave Benefits
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1600
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Rights of the Unborn
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Abortion
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Mammography
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Volunteer Emergency Workers
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1605
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-34. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Motion No. 1
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Motion No. 2
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 6
|
1610
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1615
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1620
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Third Reading
|
1625
1630
1635
1640
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1645
1650
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1655
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1715
1720
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1725
1730
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-37. Third reading
|
1800
(Division 1365)
| Motion agreed to
|
1805
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| NATURAL GAS
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1810
1815
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1820
1825
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1830
1835
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Indian Affairs and Northern Development
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1840
| Mr. David Iftody |
1845
| Transfer Payments
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1850
| Agriculture
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1855
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1900
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1905
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-18. Third reading
|
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. John Maloney |
1910
1915
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1920
| Motion
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1925
1930
1935
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1940
1945
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1950
| Division on motion deferred
|
| NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
| Bill S-18. Second reading
|
| Hon. Raymond Chan |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1955
2000
2005
| Mr. Jim Hart |
2010
2015
2020
2025
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
2030
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
2035
2040
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Raymond Chan |
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Raymond Chan |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
2045
2050
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 114
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 14, 2000
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Nanaimo—Cowichan.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we have all heard about the circle of life, well I will
introduce you to the circle of patronage in the Department of the
Solicitor General.
To reward his voters, the solicitor general builds a
multimillion dollar research facility in his riding. Old
fashioned Liberal politics at its finest. In turn, the
Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada uses his facility as
a meeting place for his international corrections; good for the
local economy and good for the solicitor general. In return, the
commissioner's reward was absolute authority. He does not have
to answer to anyone.
This is where the story gets bizarre. To reward the solicitor
general for staying out of his way while he paves his golden road
to retirement, Ole Ingstrup has created an award in the name of
the minister.
With the commissioner buttering up to the solicitor general this
blatantly, we had better steel ourselves for the next bombshell
to come. What could it be, a private plane for Ole? No, he has
that. A driving range for inmates? No, he has that too. A boat
cruise on a coast guard ship? He has done that.
Hang on taxpayers, it's going to be an expensive and dangerous
summer.
* * *
SAULT COLLEGE AND ALGOMA UNIVERSITY
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our educational institutions have consistently provided
Canadians with the knowledge and skills essential for success in
the global economy. In Sault Ste. Marie, 35 years ago the first
80 graduates accepted their diplomas from Sault College of
Applied Arts and Technology. Thirty-four years ago Algoma
University was founded.
Today, Sault College offers general and expanded programs in
such fields as aviation, engineering technology, health sciences
and natural resources. Algoma University offers degrees in arts
and science, as well as business administration and computer
science.
This spring, 951 students graduated from Sault College. Algoma
will grant 134 degrees to its graduating class. These are the
first graduates from each of these institutions in this exciting
new century. All have successfully completed another phase in
their continuum of learning. May each be successful in applying
their skills in the fulfilment of their aspirations. May Sault
College and Algoma University survive into the next century.
* * *
[Translation]
LES BRAVES DU COIN
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May 20,
the members of a Hull sports and social association, Les Braves
du Coin, got together to recognize excellence in sports and in
voluntarism.
Today I would like to congratulate the organizing committee of
the 27th gala of excellence, under the direction of Alain
Forest, as well as all the volunteers who make the evening such
a great success.
Congratulations as well to all the awards winners, who included
Denis Desjardins, Pierre Chartrand, Robert Chartrand, Norbert
Roy and Léo Martin, and to the guest of honour, Jean Labonté, a
member of the national sledge hockey team.
Since 1962, Les Braves du Coin have been involved in the Hull
community, through their big provincial peewee hockey tournament
and other events. Such devotion to their community would never
have been possible without the devotion of the association's 450
members and the able leadership of Gilles Parent.
Congratulations to all and best wished to the Braves du Coin for
a long life.
* * *
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
at the last negotiations with the Government of Canada, the
premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, never wanted any change in
parental leave available under the employment insurance program.
Only one province in Canada offers a program of preventive
withdrawal from the workplace, and that is the province of
Quebec. When he was a Canadian MP here in Ottawa, Lucien
Bouchard never did anything about such program for expectant
mothers.
Today, the Government of Canada has doubled the duration of
parental leave, effective December 31, 2000, while Lucien
Bouchard wants his own program, but only in the year 2002. This
is a program that will $10 million to workers, $14 million to
employers and $20 million to the self-employed.
The federal government has been administering parental leave for
close to 30 years. Thanks to those years of experience, all of
the mechanisms are in place to ensure that parents benefit from
this improved federal program, starting December 31 of this
year, not the year 2002.
What is essential today is that Canada and Quebec work together
to find the real solution to making more resources available to
mothers.
* * *
[English]
OVARIAN CANCER MONTH
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many
of us here today have had our lives touched in some way by
cancer. With Ovarian Cancer Month just over, I wish to draw the
attention to this important form of cancer.
Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of death among cancers
in women and causes more deaths than any other cancer of the
reproductive system. It affects women of all ages, particularly
those over 30.
[Translation]
The survival rate with early detection is 95%. Unfortunately,
only one-quarter of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer are in
the early stages. Most of these cancers are detected at a stage
where the survival rate drops to 28%.
The survival rate of women with ovarian cancer can be improved
by raising public awareness and by patient and physician
education.
[English]
On their way into the Chamber, fellow members of parliament may
have noticed the Ovarian Cancer Alliance of Canada information
booth. Further facts on symptoms, treatments and support can be
found there.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of
Okanagan—Coquihalla to inform the House that the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development is negotiating a flawed
self-government treaty with the Westbank Indian Band.
The B.C. treaty commission process, though far from perfect,
allows for some third party input and includes the B.C.
government. These secret negotiations between the minister and
the Westbank Indian Band excludes any input from the citizens of
British Columbia.
The Union of British Columbia Municipalities along with
concerned landowners are troubled that the federal government is
negotiating a treaty in a veil of secrecy that will ultimately
entrench preferential rights for certain Canadians at the expense
of others. Not only that, it will arbitrarily assign resources,
tax dollars and crown property to a distinct group.
Given the concern expressed in B.C. over the Nisga'a final
agreement, it is essential that the remaining negotiations be
opened to all concerned parties in B.C. and then be put to a
British Columbia referendum.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
BROMONT INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the
Attractions Canada awards were given out, Bromont International
won top honours in the sports event category.
I would therefore like to congratulate all those involved in
organizing this equestrian competition, which has become over
the years one of Quebec's most prestigious sporting events.
I want to pay tribute to the extraordinary work done by the
person who might easily be called the father of these events,
René Deslauriers.
All of these honours are the product of 25 years of work and
perseverance.
Bromont International has achieved extraordinary renown over the
years. Last year alone, there were over 600 horses and riders
from eight countries. Over 40,000 people attended the
competitions.
This great Canadian award confirms the fact that Bromont
International is a member of the very select club of exceptional
events, marked by the quality of their organization.
Congratulations, again.
* * *
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we all know
now that former journalist Robert-Guy Scully will have to pay the
price of lost professional credibility for his conflicts of
interest. As we say commonly, he was looking for it.
However, those who want to put this situation down to a quarrel
in Quebec between sovereignists and federalists are really
missing the point of the issue and simply repeating the spin put
on it by National Public Relations Inc.
What this unfortunate story reveals is the scope of the federal
government's propaganda operation, which goes so far as to make
use of a few of its rich Liberal friends as figureheads in order
to whitewash and hide its budget.
Let us not forget Option Canada and the Council for Canadian
Unity.
When the Minister of Canadian Heritage tells us that she will be
delighted to display the maple leaf when her department spends
more millions of dollars in “federal communications” operations,
we do not believe it for a minute. Secrecy and concealment are
key elements of the success of propaganda.
* * *
PARENTAL LEAVE
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are proud
of the national program for maternity and parental leave.
This program has demonstrated its value for 30 years and is now
in the process of being enhanced. The revised program will be
ready this year. Indeed, as early as at the end of the year
2000, parents will receive a bigger cheque and, more
importantly, lower income families will be eligible for a
supplement under that program.
We invite the Quebec government to build on the national
foundations to provide an even better program if it so wishes.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Kejimkujik National Park is the
most heavily infested gypsy moth area in Nova Scotia. The moth
destroys our forests because it is not native to North America
and has no natural predators. The spread of this insect
threatens the forest industry.
The federal government has a mandate for forest health and the
responsibility to act but is lacking the will. The root of the
problem appears to be a philosophical resistance to the control
of an introduced pest in a national park.
One observer, who has managed local gypsy moth control measures,
told me that if he had the federal money to eradicate this moth
that has been spent on travelling around to study the problem,
there would not be a problem.
The province is taking firm control measures for the brown
spruce longhorn beetle in Point Pleasant Park in Halifax. When
is the federal government going to do the same thing to control
the gypsy moth in the national park?
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not only as
the member for Beauce, but also as the president of the Quebec
Liberal caucus and on behalf of its members that I condemn the
offensive remarks made yesterday by Quebec Premier Lucien
Bouchard on the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada.
In a democracy, it is normal to have disagreements, but it is
unacceptable to have a head of government make such low personal
attacks as those made yesterday by Premier Lucien Bouchard.
For the quality of the public debate, and considering the
example parliamentarians are expected to set for the public and
for young people in particular, Premier Lucien Bouchard must
apologize and withdraw his remarks.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today is the National Day of warning for Medicare. Thank
goodness frontline health care workers are sounding the alarm
bell, because our health minister sure is not. All we get are
empty words and flowery speeches.
In speeches, the minister says he will come up with cash. In
reality, there is $24.7 billion less.
In speeches, the minister says he hates for profit hospitals.
In reality, he allows them.
1410
In speeches, he promises action on reproductive technology. In
reality, 10 years after the royal commission, there is still no
legislation.
In speeches, he boosts about health safety. In reality, the
health protection branch is gutted.
In speeches, he cares about drug prices. In reality, there is
no action on patents.
In speeches, he drips sincerity about hepatitis C victims. In
reality, it has been two years and three months and not a penny
paid.
No wonder the finance minister and provinces are not listening
to the minister. Maybe words are not what we need. How about
some action?
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the
Government of Quebec is offering young Quebec families flexible
parental leave suited to their needs, the Prime Minister
continues to live in the past and reject the National Assembly's
unanimous call for greater flexibility and openness with respect
to the needs of Quebec families and Quebec's jurisdiction over
family policy.
Instead of applauding the originality and the necessary
generosity of Quebec's parental insurance plan, the Prime
Minister has once again preferred to adopt the confrontational
attitude of a reactionary and run the risk of derailing a plan
that meets with the solid support of Quebecers.
If the Prime Minister refuses to listen to the repeated requests
from the National Assembly, the Bloc Quebecois and the Quebec
people, could he at least listen to his Liberal organizers in
Quebec who are calling on him to reverse steam and bow to the
legitimate requests of the Government of Quebec?
* * *
HULL HUMAN RESOURCES CENTRE
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was with great pleasure that I and the member for Hull—Aylmer
took part in this morning's official ISO 9002 certification
ceremony for the Human Resources Centre of Canada in Hull.
This centre is part of a very select group, for there are only
three other ISO 9002 certified centres in Canada, one of them
being the Laval human resources centre.
This ISO 9002 certification points up the exceptional work being
done by the employees of the Hull human resources centre under
the direction of Bertrand Duclos.
On behalf of the House and all my constituents who benefit from
the excellent service being provided by the devoted staff of the
Hull human resources centre, I extend our sincere
congratulations and thanks for a job well done, something which
too often goes unnoticed.
* * *
[English]
SOCIAL BENEFITS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
there are many Canadian women between the age of 50 and 60 who
find themselves displaced in society. They cannot work because
they are seriously ill. Their EI sick benefits have run out.
They cannot qualify for CPP disability. They are widowed or
divorced and have no savings and no family to help them. They are
not old enough for old age security or spousal allowance. They
cannot exist on the small welfare benefits they receive.
These women in my riding are calling me to tell me they cannot
pay their rent. They have no money for food. They have no hope
and they do not know where to turn. They have worked for years
and paid into the EI and the CPP, yet they are left destitute by
this government.
Women are living longer today and there are bound to be more of
them in this situation. It is a real shame that the Liberal
government and the HRDC minister are not ready to take concrete
steps to help these individuals.
* * *
RONALD REID
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the privilege and pleasure today to honour Mr. Ronald Reid,
a Canadian volunteer from my riding of Simcoe North.
Mr. Reid is a member of the Canadian volunteer advisers to
business, and recently returned from working on assignment in
Kyrgyzstan. Mr. Reid worked with the youth ecological movement,
an organization that focuses on the preservation of the
environment and the development of ecological activities.
Mr. Reid helped to develop a business plan and a fundraising
strategy to expand the work of the organization. He held
meetings with five potential lending agencies and, as a result,
the organization has reworked its submission to the World Bank
small branch programs.
I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Mr. Ronald
Reid on his outstanding efforts, and a special thanks to all
volunteers who have committed time, energy and talent to this
successful project.
* * *
PUBLIC SERVICE WEEK
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Canadian Alliance, I am pleased to rise
today in the House and offer my sincere best wishes and
congratulations to the hundreds of thousands of public servants
who are celebrating Public Service Week from June 11 to 17.
Canadians are well served by highly professional and dedicated
public servants who are ready to meet the challenges of governing
as we enter the 21st century.
Through the dedication of people like our public servants,
Canada has become one of the leading nations in the world. For
this, all Canadians can be proud.
As treasury board critic for the Alliance, I want to thank all
public servants who work hard on behalf of Canada and for all our
citizens. They can be truly proud of the work they do for our
country.
* * *
1415
CANADIAN CONSERVATIVE REFORM ALLIANCE PARTY
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the other day I was reading the Hill Times and I
could not believe my eyes. Tom Long, the leadership candidate
for the Canadian Alliance, had a little picnic up in cottage
country in the Muskokas. Over 100 people attended.
What did they charge for the tickets? Was it $10 like the old
Reform Party, or $20, or was it $500? It was $5,000 per ticket
for caviar and champagne. It was some grassroots party.
The old Reform Party has come and it has died. It has changed
its spots and moved from Main Street to Bay Street. Now it is a
party of the rich, a party of Bay Street, a party of backroom
boys, a party that is trying to imitate Brian Mulroney. That is
the long and short of it. It is a party that calls democracy
catering to the rich. It is a party that calls democracy
catering to Bay Street.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I guess I ain't nobody's backroom
boy.
There is more proof today, though, that something fishy is going
on over at HRDC. Serge Lafrenière got $15 million even though
his resumé is filled with multimillion dollar failures. He was a
Liberal campaign manager before he hatched his own fish breeding
scheme. His company, Scotia Rainbow, has donated thousands of
dollars to the Liberal Party.
Why is it that every time the government gets a whiff of a
Liberal HRDC spawns a cheque?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the chartered banks put in four times as
much as ACOA and HRDC put together.
The leadership contenders in Nova Scotia said recently “We want
to replace it with a support system similar to that in the United
States”. That is where one needs a credit card to get into a
hospital. We will fight this anti-Canadian attitude on the part
of the official opposition right to the ballot box.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is un-Canadian to
ask the government to keep its hands in its own pockets, not in
ours.
Media Express donated $10,000 to the Liberal Party and then it
got a $1 million return from HRDC to set up a call centre in the
riding of the President of the Treasury Board. She put out a
press release saying “We ought to announce this”. I am sure it
did not mention the ten grand they got because that might just
bother those pesky little constituents that believe in principle
and merit.
Why does a donation to the Liberal Party always open the
floodgates to these HRDC cheques?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the leading contenders for the
leadership of that party said in Nova Scotia recently “In
spending programs from this government they have three versions
of vanilla. I am selling chocolate ice cream here and it tastes
better”.
The reform alliance will campaign on chocolate ice cream in the
next election and Canadians will say “Where is the meat?”
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we would hate to think the meat was
right between his ears.
The past several months have brought nothing but trouble to the
HRDC minister and the entire government. The HRDC minister is
responsible for a billion dollar bungle. HRDC cut cheque after
cheque to friends in the Liberal Party. She led the charge. She
has botched every attempt, sadly, to cover her tracks.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, hello, if it is true
that he is planning on having a cabinet shuffle as early as
Friday.
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, cabinet shuffles are supposed to be my job. I know that
the Leader of the Opposition will lose her job very soon, but I
do not intend to invite her to become a minister in my cabinet.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, would you invest money with Mr.
Lafrenière? Here is his track record: In 1998, Quebec operation
shut down for polluting a recreational lake; in August 1999, went
bankrupt owing $3.6 million; in April 1999, Ontario operation
went bankrupt; and in May 1999, independent accounting said he
lost $2.4 million in the last six months.
That was enough to impress the HRDC minister. She gave him $1
million in September and another million in January. How does
she explain such poor judgment?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the chartered banks put in four times as
much as the federal government. Private enterprise put in three
times as much as the federal government. The provincial
government put in twice as much as the federal government.
They are just opposed to any money going to high unemployment
areas in Canada, or to our farmers, or to our fishermen, or to
our miners. We will fight this anti-rural Canada attitude on the
part of the reform alliance.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the minister did not
fight his deplorable tendency to bluster when the minister who
was asked the question does not have a good answer.
I quote from today's Ottawa Citizen: “A Gatineau
businessman with a history of failure but great Liberal
connections gets $15 million in grants and government loan
guarantees”, $2 million from the HRDC minister after she knew of
his dismal track record.
Why is she so eager to invest other people's money in clearly a
money losing operation?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that party wants to replace all these
programs with a fat cat flat tax and tax incentives to business.
Mr. Speaker, you and I know—we have been here a long time—that
tax incentives to businesses are actually tax expenditures paid
for by ordinary working Canadians. They do not want a tax take
from that party. They want a tax break from the Liberal
government.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
matter of parental insurance, the Prime Minister said yesterday
that it suited him fine to have Quebec go before the courts.
Does the Prime Minister understand that this is not his concern,
but rather the concern of young families?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 30
years ago, the federal government instituted a program of
parental leave, long before the provincial governments started
talking about it.
If the provincial government considers there
are gaps in Quebec's social policy and it has the money to
invest, it is welcome to do so.
But the program that provided six months' parental leave now
provides 12.
Everyone applauded when we announced it in the throne speech and
the budget. Only after we concluded our plans and announced
what we were going to do, they suddenly wanted to renegotiate,
when they were the ones to leave the table—
1425
The Speaker: The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
will take a look at the Employment Insurance Act. At section
69, it provides, among other things that “the Commission shall,
with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations
to provide a system for premiums where an equivalent provincial
program exists”.
Despite the Prime Minister's statements, the commission cannot
refuse to negotiate, it has to reach a settlement.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his own legislation
requires him not only to negotiate but to reach a settlement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the law provides that reaching a settlement is required but also
stipulates with the approval of the governor in council.
We negotiated with them in good faith a few years ago, but we
could not reach an agreement. We assumed our responsibilities
and we believe that it was important to increase parental leave
benefits so people could have children without losing their job.
We extended the period to 12 months.
If, as I said earlier, the provincial government finds that it
should inject more money, that there are social problems it is
responsible for, it should assume its responsibilities. We have
assumed ours.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the parental
insurance matter is not a complicated one. We are dealing with
two programs—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: —one of which is more advantageous because
it applies to all young families, while the other excludes a
very large number of them.
Setting aside the confrontation with Quebec and his short-term
political interests, does the Prime Minister not find that the
best choice, the most obvious choice, the required choice, is to
be on the side of these young families, by offering them the
best program, that is the one that is part of Quebec's family
policy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the two are not mutually exclusive. We cover those who have
contributed to employment insurance. If there are people who
have not contributed to employment insurance and who are having
problems, that comes under the social policy of the provincial
government, and it is up to it to solve the problem.
This is all the more the case because we transfer funds to the
provinces to help them in this field.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Yes, we do, Mr. Speaker, but the only
thing is that they do not always apply them to social programs.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we cannot
understand the Prime Minister's attitude in this matter.
All that we are asking him to do is to sit down and negotiate,
in keeping with subsection 69(2) of the Employment Insurance
Act. The more involvement he has in this matter, the less we
understand where he is headed.
Why is he opposed to doing what is best for Quebec's young
families?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member would like us to intervene in the social policy
of the Government of Quebec.
If they want to look after families who are not covered by
employment insurance, that is their choice; they have the power
to do so, and they have the opportunity to do so. They should
thank us for covering a goodly proportion of families. They can
cover the rest if they think that there is a problem that is of
great concern to them.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Today we have health care
workers across the country sounding another warning about health
care. Meanwhile, we have the Prime Minister trotting around the
country, dropping in on premiers to say “I feel your pain but I
just cannot pay a cent until the eve of the next election”.
Why is the Prime Minister delaying on the restoration of crucial
cash transfers to health care?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we said, and the premiers agreed, that we have to sit
down and look at what we should do collectively.
We have to make sure that we have the maximum return on the
money that will be used by the provincial governments and by us.
It is exactly why the minister is talking with the ministers this
week. We hope there will be meetings of officials in the weeks
to come. Eventually the ministers will meet and the first
ministers.
1430
That is the way we do things. We do it after there has been
enough consultation, and if the premiers agree with me.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister just does not seem to get it. Backroom deals and
pre-election posturing are the politics of the past. Maybe I can
get an answer on another question.
On March 28 in this House we asked questions about queue jumping
in Calgary and in Montreal. After three months of investigation,
is the government now prepared to say that $400 for an operating
room or $4,000 for vital eye surgery violates the Canada Health
Act? Or, is this just another hep C fiasco where this government
is all talk and no action?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is looking into these cases.
To come back to the question before the hon. member changed the
subject, I would like to say that in my negotiations with the
provinces I have talked with the premier of British Columbia, who
is a member of the NDP. I have talked many times with the
premier of Saskatchewan. This week I have had conversations with
Premier Doer of Manitoba. The premiers seem to understand us
much better than the leader of the fourth, soon to become the
fifth party.
* * *
LAND MINES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, speaking of all talk and no action, the government
has proved again that it is the world's worst project manager.
This Liberal government undermined Canada's international
reputation again through its bungled effort to remove land—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the question.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, proving once again that
the Liberal government is the world's worst project manager,
evidence has come forward that undermines Canada's international
reputation, again due to the bungled effort to remove
land mines in Kosovo. Bureaucratic delays, contract squabbles,
political interference and poor housing undermined Canada's
effort and led to CIDA's confirmation that Canada is not living
up to its commitment to remove land mines in Kosovo. Amid much
fanfare, Canada was supposed to take a lead role in this
humanitarian effort.
Why was our effort so ill-equipped and ill-prepared that a
senior UN diplomat called it a joke and a laughingstock?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact it is not as bad as the hon. member
says.
First, there were 800,000 refugees on the move back to Kosovo.
The United Nations asked for emergency action on the part of
Canada. There were some problems at the outset of the program
and that was why CIDA commissioned an internationally recognized
consultant to look at the projects. We implemented every
recommendation. In fact, the UN even wrote to CIDA asking that
both projects be extended by a month, stating that they had
“provided the UN mine action program with a much needed
capability”.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, that does not have a lot of credibility coming from
this minister because high ranking UN officials and Canadian
consultants accused CIDA, the minister and foreign affairs
officials of shoddy planning which resulted in ill-equipped
Canadian de-mining crews.
Delays in the most recent contract awards mean that work cannot
begin until late this summer, more than halfway through the
removal season. Our international reputation has been
diminished yet again, reminiscent of the Prime Minister's
farcical foray in the Middle East.
Can the Prime Minister tell us if the Minister of Foreign
Affairs has finally abandoned his Nobel Peace Prize winning
aspirations in light of Canada's—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister for
International Cooperation.
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the accusations are absolutely false.
First of all, Canada is not out of the de-mining situation in
Kosovo. We gave $500,000 in core funding to the UN mine action
committee early this spring to assist. As well, a team that was
chosen will be on the ground within two weeks and in operation
within the next month.
The process has been a very good process. When we went through
the bidding, the UN had a part in the process to ensure that the
winning company in fact would do a good job on the ground.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the HRDC minister's job creation scheme seemed to be
limited to just a few professions. Liberal fundraisers, police
investigators and forensic auditors seemed to be some of her
favourites. It has been a while since she has informed us of how
many police investigations are pending.
Would the minister please tell us today how many police
investigations are under way?
1435
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question,
most of the RCMP investigations have to do with ACOA operations
in eastern Canada. There are 11 of them. Four of them concern
only the application, for which no funds were dispersed. Four of
them are to do with provincial governments and enterprise, and
the remaining three have to do with grants given when the Tories
were in power.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am disappointed the HRDC minister could not answer
that question. Whatever happens to her career, I am sure the
forensic auditors will be eternally grateful for the gratuity.
The minister admitted yesterday that Price Waterhouse is
conducting a forensic audit into the Strathroy community centre.
Perhaps she would like to tell us how many forensic audits are
currently under way.
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leadership contender whom the hon.
member seems to be promoting said the other day in Atlantic
Canada: “Atlantic Canadians have got to get out from under
their dependency mentality”. They are attacking the poor—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of
Veterans Affairs.
Hon. George S. Baker: Mr. Speaker, they are attacking
people on welfare, people on employment insurance and people on
old age security. Canadians are going to reject the elitist
attitude of the official opposition.
* * *
[Translation]
BANKING
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with respect to
the bank bill, the Minister of Finance confirmed yesterday that
the federal government would have the final say in any decisions
concerning the acquisition of Quebec banks.
He would like us to think that Quebec's interests are well
defended just because he is looking after them. We do not see
it that way.
Why should we be happy that the bill gives him the power to use
his own subjective criteria to decide the future of banks in
Quebec, without any other safeguard? Why should that make us
happy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have said that, in any decisions having to do with Canadian
banks, the public interest will be the determining factor. In
the case of banks heavily concentrated in Quebec, the criteria
will be the public interest and Quebec's economy.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is all
very fine and well. But, in reality, who will ultimately decide
what Quebec's interest is? Will it be the Minister of Finance
or his successor? In either case, we are worried and not
without reason.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first I must point out that I am a Quebecer.
I would simply like to quote what another Quebecer, Bernard
Landry, Quebec's finance minister, said: “I recognize that,
with respect to the objectives pursued, the interest of Quebec,
Ottawa's Minister of Finance and I are on the same wavelength”.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has now had
almost a year to deal with the boat migrants of last summer. Of
the 600, fewer than one-quarter of the cases have been finalized.
That is to say, they have either been accepted as refugees or
deported.
The rest are either still in detention—and now some are
rioting—or they are quickly disappearing, including 21 children,
into the hands of the smugglers who brought them here. The
minister's record is shameful. She said that these cases would
be finalized in six months.
1440
Is the minister going to step in and deport the remaining cases,
or is she going to set up detention centres and refugee camps
right here in Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the party opposite, this party
believes in due process. We believe in our charter of rights and
freedoms. We are not going to scrap our charter. We are not
going to embarrass Canada internationally by ripping up the
Geneva convention. We are going to live up to our legal
obligations and ensure that anyone who comes to us making a
serious claim and asking for protection under our refugee
protection act will receive the due process of the law.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I believe in due process, too. However, this minister's
ill-advised delay in processing is making the situation worse for
the migrants, to the point that they are rioting. They languish
in detention centres at taxpayer expense. Now it is too late to
do anything that will act as a deterrent for boats coming this
summer. The minister's weak response to this new slave trade,
people smuggling, has exacerbated an already serious situation.
Will the minister commit today to cleaning up the backlog from
last summer, or is she planning on setting up permanent refugee
camps right here in Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only thing that has caused a delay
has been this member and his party's rhetoric in delaying Bill
C-31, which is presently at committee. With their help we could
pass that bill more quickly so that we could streamline our
processes.
Unlike the member opposite, this party believes in the charter
of rights and freedoms. We believe in the due process of law.
We support the Geneva convention. We will not humiliate Canada
internationally. We are proud of our humanitarian and
compassionate response.
If he and his party want to be helpful, they could help pass
Bill C-31, which will streamline our processes.
The Speaker: I notice both in the questions and in the
responses that we have members interjecting without stop. I
would ask for order, please.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONE ATHLETES
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the report
of the Commissioner of Official Languages is clear: in Canada,
being francophone is a handicap for an athlete.
They have to leave their language behind if they want to mount
the podium, because national organizations have neither a policy
nor the ability to provide services in French, and the federal
government is directly responsible for this situation.
Instead of denying the problem as he did on the weekend, will
the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport finally invest some
money to ensure that the francophone athletes receive services
in their own language?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first off, I salute—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Denis Coderre: They are not interested in the answer, but
all of Canada is. One thing is sure—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Denis Coderre: If they could just listen, they will see.
First off, I salute and thank the commissioner for the
thoroughness of his study.
I would remind members that one reason the study was done was
because I asked for it. Just yesterday, I met with
representatives of the national federations and I can tell you
that not only are we aware of this issue, but when they ask us
to do something specific, I will talk about it.
First, there is a new funding framework in which accountability
is all and official languages are part of the criteria. Second,
we increased by 30%—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Longueuil.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it would
be interesting if the secretary of state could tell the whole
truth when he announces things.
The Bloc Quebecois was the first to make a complaint. Eleven
years ago, another report noted the same situation that exists
today. So this is very serious. The more things change, the
more they stay the same.
Does the secretary of state understand that francophone athletes
are fed up with fine speeches? They want change.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the ten months I have been the Secretary of
State for Amateur Sport, I have taken part in over 100 events.
The sports community knows that any increase in budget
percentages comes from our sensitivity to their requests.
1445
I totally reject what the hon. member has just said, and I would
go further. I am the former deputy chair of the Standing
Committee on Official Languages, the former vice-chair of the
Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada and now the
Secretary of State for Amateur Sport. The member need only ask
around, ask anyone, and she will discover just who is serious
about official languages.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, by allowing the illegal Chinese migrant problem to
fester on Canadian soil, the minister is opening Pandora's box.
The minister should establish processing centres that deal with
these problems in days, not years. She is increasing bounties
per head and smuggler profits by her failure to act.
How much more rioting will the minister spawn before she deports
these Chinese illegals?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to be
helpful, his critic and his party could help us pass Bill C-31 as
quickly as possible. That is the way we are going to solve these
problems, not by the delays that party has caused in dealing with
legislative change.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, by sticking her head in the sand the minister is only
helping the snake heads.
Ten months ago the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said
that the Chinese illegal migrant cases would be finalized in six
months. Does the Liberal definition of finalized include
smashing windows, setting fires, breaking doors or toilets? The
B.C. riot required a lockdown for 82 of these aliens. Does the
minister expect Canadian taxpayers to accept this, or will she
deport the Chinese illegals before this season's boats start
arriving?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot condone the actions of
individuals who are frustrated because they will soon have to
leave Canada and return to their own country. But I can tell the
member opposite that those individuals have had due process of
Canadian law. They have had a chance to have their say.
Unlike the member opposite and his party, this party wants to
ensure that the charter of rights and freedoms applies to
everyone in Canada all the time, not some people selectively as
that party would do. We will not scrap the charter. We will not
deny due process of law. We will not humiliate Canada on the
international scene.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSPORTATION IN MONTREAL
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
with a view to correcting highway congestion problems in
Montreal, three projects must be undertaken.
The first is the introduction of light rail to run on the
Champlain Bridge structure, and the others are the completion of
autoroute 30 on Montreal's South Shore and 35 in the
Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu sector.
Does the Minister of Transport acknowledge that the funds
allocated in the last budget to transport infrastructures are
not enough for these projects, which are deemed to be priorities
for the City of Montreal and the Government of Quebec, to be
accomplished?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have discussed this matter with my Quebec counterpart
and I agree with the priorities of the Province of Quebec as far
as transportation in the Montreal region is concerned.
I believe that the infrastructure program provides sufficient
funds for this project to be begun.
* * *
[English]
WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State
for Western Economic Diversification. Could the minister tell
the House what western economic diversification is doing to help
western entrepreneurs participate in the new e-business economy?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification)(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because
of the expected phenomenal growth in e-business from $28 billion
to $155 billion in three years, and the creation of 180,000 new
good jobs along the way, Industry Canada and western economic
diversification have been conducting round tables and have
undertaken studies to describe the state of e-business and the
potential it has. We and our partners will be holding a
conference in each of the four western provinces to see where the
industry is at and to see what can be done in the future in order
to take advantage of this tremendous potential.
* * *
1450
GUN REGISTRY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister refused
to say who was responsible for the $320 million deficit in the
government's gun registration scheme. That deficit is 150 times
larger than originally forecast.
Will the Prime Minister tell us today, was it his previous
Minister of Justice who told parliament there would only be a $2
million deficit over five years, or was it his current minister
who wrote the Toronto Star saying, “User fees will cover
the entire cost of the program”?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, I think
it is most unfortunate that the official opposition does not get
behind the firearms registry program. Why do they not come on
side with 75% of Canadians—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. We will hear the response,
colleagues. The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I would
encourage the official opposition to get behind Canadians and get
behind this government and support the Canadian firearms program.
Unlike the Canadian Alliance, we do not see Charlton Heston of
the NRA as anyone worth emulating.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in May 1999, PricewaterhouseCoopers
presented the Minister of Justice with a report exposing huge
problems at the firearms centre and in the gun registration
scheme. Now another internal report warns, “We noted no major
changes since the May '99 report. The future of the Firearms Act
is presently hanging in the balance”.
Last fall we were told everything had been fixed. Now we find
out the mess is bigger than ever and nothing was fixed. The
system is collapsing. How much more will it cost taxpayers to
clean up the mess at Miramichi and how much bigger will the
deficit become?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member
that in fact I asked for the independent report of the firearms
registry system. Let me reassure the hon. member that we have
implemented almost all the recommendations in that report.
* * *
SCOTIA RAINBOW
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, ACOA's mandate states clearly that applicants must
provide full disclosure of all sources of public funds but an
internal memo states that the rules regarding funding from ACOA
relating to Scotia Rainbow do not apply.
Why four days after his own officials recognized the company's
lack of disclosure did the minister give millions of dollars to
Scotia Rainbow?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have received a petition from the hon.
member's riding from the Committee for Economic Survival which
says, “We the undersigned do hereby call upon the federal
government to continue to support projects and businesses located
on our island and do hereby”, and this is signed by a thousand
people, “roundly condemn our member of parliament for her
unwarranted and unfounded attacks on job creation in our
community”.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there is something fishy going on on the
other side of the House.
Internal financial statements by KPMG show Scotia Rainbow lost
$2.4 million in the first five months of 1999. Again the
government ignored the facts and its own rules and gave the
company even more money.
With all these flags waved in his own department, why did the
minister continue to funnel money to Liberal friends?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an editorial in the Cape Breton Post
which covers the hon. member's riding said, “Scotia Rainbow is
regarded as an important employer paying out $4.5 million last
year in wages”.
When is the NDP going to start supporting job creation in Cape
Breton?
* * *
1455
FISHERIES
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Is the minister's department poised to issue an offshore shrimp
licence to a P.E.I. consortium to catch northern shrimp off the
Labrador coast and bring it to P.E.I., bypassing the adjacent
communities on the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at this time I am looking at a
multi-year plan on the northern shrimp. I have had
representations from Quebec as well as from Atlantic provinces. I
will be reviewing those representations.
I assure the hon. member that I will make a fair and reasonable
decision in the northern shrimp plan so that we take into
consideration the adjacency but also other factors in terms of
historical links to ensure that we are fair and reasonable to all
parties that are requesting access to it.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
that probably means the answer is yes. Why is the minister
announcing the shrimp management plan in Ottawa, not in
Newfoundland and Labrador adjacent to the resource? Has the
government completely given up on the principle of adjacency?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the northern shrimp fishery has
increased from 37,000 tonnes to 100,000 tonnes. The lion's share
of that shrimp fishery goes to Newfoundland, recognizing the
adjacency principle. Quebec and other provinces also have access
to that.
I will take the representation from the hon. member as well as
other members to make sure that we have a fair and reasonable
allocation of that resource.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The people of the north know better than any others that
environmental damage created thousands of miles away is having a
huge effect on our children's health. When the minister met with
his American and Mexican counterparts earlier this week, what
decisions were made that will protect all our children from
environmental damage?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when I met with my American and Mexican
counterparts, we agreed to focus our efforts on the specific
problems of respiratory problems of children, asthma, other
respiratory diseases, and the effects of toxic substances. This
is also part of our domestic policy.
The member will recollect that recently we tightened controls on
sulphur and gasoline. We are reducing the level of sulphur in
diesel from 500 parts per million down to indeed 15.
I will be discussing a specific side agreement with the United
States. In fact, discussions are on today on the ozone agreement
with the United States. In addition—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Battlefords—Lloydminster.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government is continuing to prove
that it is big on press releases and promises and real short on
delivery.
Less than 30% of the $2 billion promised to farmers has gone out
while the further $400 million in transportation assistance for
Saskatchewan and Manitoba will be clawed back from any future
AIDA payouts in those two provinces.
The only help the Liberal government has given to farmers is
that everything it touches turns to fertilizer. I ask the
minister how many times can the same promised money be recycled
through the same failed programs?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member
knows, the government has been very generous over the past year
and a half in assisting western farmers.
We have given over $2 billion to the western farmers because of
the conditions in the marketing of their grain and in
transportation. Overall, I think the farmers are very pleased
with the government and the efforts it is making on their behalf.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, summer is
approaching and the public is concerned about what is going to
happen, as far as GMOs are concerned, over the summer when MPs
are in their ridings and no longer able to question the
government in the House.
Can the Prime Minister guarantee there will be no new GMOs
approved by the Canada Food Inspection Agency as long as the
Standing Committee on Agriculture has not finished hearing
witnesses and made its recommendations to the government?
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, the
hon. member knows very well that in the standing committee we are
conducting investigations and hearings into GMO products as to
whether the labels should be voluntary or mandatory.
She also knows that we have a number of committees that are
working and will be working all summer to give the government
advice on the policy we should pursue in view of GMOs.
* * *
MERCHANT MARINE VETERANS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when
the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced long overdue payments
to our merchant marine veterans he talked about “their enormous
contribution and sacrifice”.
Now that the funds set aside appear to be drying up, will the
minister clearly state to these veterans and their surviving
spouses right now that the Liberal government will ensure that
all qualifying applicants receive their maximum payment, or is he
now qualifying how much sacrifice and contribution he believes
these veterans made?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all veterans organizations, including the
national council representing veterans groups, the army, air
force and navy, the merchant navy organization and the Royal
Canadian Legion, will be holding a meeting at the end of July to
examine the situation.
The hon. member should be standing in his place to congratulate
the government for giving $50 million for this initiative.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Now that the period of consultation with respect to the review
of the boundaries of EI economic regions is over, will the
minister assure us that the changes proposed by MPs and by the
public will be taken seriously, and that the necessary
adjustments will be made in order to ensure that the new zones
are indeed representative of the economic reality of every
region across the country?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, without question the comments from
citizens across the country will be taken seriously.
* * *
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Speaker: My words today are for our pages who
have been with us for one very brief year in the life of our
parliament.
Pages of the House of Commons for 1999-2000, today we the
parliamentarians of Canada bid you farewell. It seems a little
strange since the House is still sitting and we are all still on
duty, but the weeks before summer recess have a way of becoming a
little hectic and we may not have another chance to thank you
properly.
1505
[Translation]
On behalf of all my colleagues here in the House, I wish to
thank you and congratulate you on the work you have done for us
over the past year, the first of the new millennium. Your job
has not always been an easy one, but you have all behaved
professionally and we appreciate it.
[English]
I would be the first to admit that sometimes we have been a
little tired and preoccupied, maybe even impatient.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Some of us have been that way. We have not
always taken the time to acknowledge you, but today I ask you to
receive our collective thanks and our best wishes for your future
careers.
Perhaps some day soon we will have the pleasure of seeing you
sitting at these desks and thinking perhaps it was your
experience with us that gave you the desire to serve as a member
of parliament.
I thank you very much for what you have done for us. We have
paid you I think the greatest compliment we can pay our pages,
that is we have trusted you so implicitly that we have virtually
ignored you in all of our conversations. We treat you as one of
us. We treat you as part of the family, which you are now and
always will be.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I see that most of us are still here. As is
the custom every year, I will be having a reception for our pages
in my chambers. I do hope that you will take just a few minutes
to come in to say a personal farewell to them. It will be
continuing until 5:30.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
MOTION NO. 425
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to Motion No. 425
standing on the order paper in my name. The motion reads as
follows:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours
that this House wishes to convey its dismay regarding the undue
delay in the Senate's progress on Bill C-247, an Act to amend the
Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Members of the House of Commons have expressed their distress at
the unnecessary delay in dealing with this legislation and in the
interest of co-operation between the two chambers, and,
ultimately service to the Canadian public, the House feels
compelled to express its serious concerns regarding the handling
of Bill C-247 by the Senate.
On the notice paper this motion is listed as a private member's
motion.
I intended this motion to be placed on the order paper so as to
be moved at Routine Proceedings under the rubric motions. I
believe this is the only way a private member can realistically
and practically deal with the Senate with respect to a private
member's bill. I will also argue that placing this motion on
notice for Routine Proceedings is in keeping with our practice.
1510
On September 16, 1996, a number of members raised questions of
privilege to complain that the Standing Committee on Justice was
not dealing with Private Member's Bill C-234. It was argued that
while a government could use time allocation to dislodge a bill
from committee, a private member had no means to do this except
by way of introducing another private member's motion.
It was pointed out that a second private member's motion dealing
with the issue would have little chance of being considered by
the House because of the complex and sometimes awkward process of
private members' business. It would be like lightning striking
the same place twice and very unlikely to ever happen.
Members felt that since the majority sent the bill to committee,
the committee should respect the will of the House. This
principle was so important to members that the standing orders
were changed to ensure that this situation would never happen
again. Before this change was instituted, the Speaker felt that
one way of dealing with the matter was to allow a motion to be
moved by a private member during Routine Proceedings.
The principles regarding the fate of Bill C-234 in 1996 are
similar to the principles regarding Bill C-247 in this
parliament. In both cases the government leadership was out to
kill a private member's bill. Fortunately both bills enjoyed the
support of the majority.
In the case of Bill C-247 it was gutted at committee by the
government leadership. Thankfully it was restored by the power
of the backbench and opposition members when it was reported back
to the House. Through all its stages and despite the efforts of
anyone else the majority supported the bill, and finally the
House sent it to the Senate.
Unfortunately the Senate has unduly held up Bill C-247. I
suspect this hold-up is due in part to the many friends that the
government side may have over in the Senate, possibly because of
the appointments that have been made there. Sadly this may cause
more problems for private members' bills that do not enjoy the
support of the Prime Minister in the future.
On September 23, 1996, the Speaker made his ruling on the
questions of privilege regarding Bill C-234. He did not rule the
matter to be a prima facie case of privilege but he did make the
following comment and suggestion:
Should a member or a minister be of the opinion that a committee
charged with the review of a bill is defying the authority of the
House, he or she may choose to bring it to the attention of the
House by placing on notice a motion to require the committee to
report by a certain date.
As hon. members know, this can indeed be done under Government
Orders or Private Members' Business, but such a notice of motion
could also be placed under the rubric motions and be dealt with
under Routine Proceedings.
As Speaker Fraser ruled on July 13, 1988, at page 17506 of the
Debates, referring to the then Standing Order 56(1)(p),
which is our current Standing Order 67(1)(p):
“This Standing Order lists as debatable items usually raised
under Routine Proceedings motions concerning the management of
the (House) business (and) the arrangements of its proceedings.
“The rubric motions usually encompasses matters related to the
management of the business of the House and its committees, but
it is not the exclusive purview of the government, despite the
government's unquestioned prerogative to determine the agenda of
business before the House.”
Under our current practices the Chair may well accept, after due
notice, such a motion.
Standing Order 67 lists motions that can be moved during Routine
Proceedings. They are:
—for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the
maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its
officers, the management of its business, the arrangements of its
proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its
sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.
The Senate's failure to deal with Bill C-247 in a timely manner
relates to the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its
authority and the management of its business.
Since we are talking about a private member's bill, it stands to
reason that a private member should be allowed to move a motion
under the rubric motions and send a message to the Senate
regarding the progress of the said bill.
1515
If a government bill was stuck in the Senate, the government
could move a motion under motions to send a message to the
Senate. Mr. Speaker, as you ruled on September 23, 1996, motions
are not for exclusive use by the government. Therefore, I should
be allowed to move my motion under motions.
In conclusion, the Prime Minister has been talking about an
election perhaps in the fall, certainly within 12 months. If the
Senate does not deal with Bill C-247 it will die. This
government, through its power to send a message to the Senate and
through the leader of the government in the Senate, can easily
set the government's priority in the other place. Private
members cannot.
On the eve of an election, if we are on the eve of an election,
this House should be allowed to send a message to the Senate
without going through the many hoops and the impossibility of
timing of the private member's system. There is not time to do
that.
In the interests of the people who elected us to this House and
those who want Bill C-247 to become law, which is a majority of
people in this place, the House has an obligation to communicate
to the Senate its concern about the fate of Bill C-247. Once
again, the motion says:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours
that this House wishes to convey its dismay regarding the undue
delay in the Senate's progress on Bill C-247, an Act to amend the
Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
members of the House of Commons have expressed their distress at
the unnecessary delay in dealing with this legislation and in the
interest of co-operation between the two chambers and,
ultimately, service to the Canadian public, the House feels
compelled to express its serious concerns regarding the handling
of Bill C-247 by the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for your consideration of that point of
order.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. House leader for the
official opposition has made a plea that the situation of Bill
C-247 was, in his view, substantially similar to that of Bill
C-234 and therefore the judgment of the Speaker on Bill C-244
applies equally to Bill C-247.
The issues are not at all the same. In the case of the other
bill that the hon. member referred to, it had to do with the
House exercising its authority over one of its committees. In
this case, the situation is totally different. This does not
take away from the merits of the bill in question and so on. I
am not pronouncing myself on that. This is a procedural argument
as to whether or not what was used in the case of one applies to
the other. I submit to your honour that it does not.
The hon. member also referred to 67(1)(p) of the Standing
Orders. Standing Order 67(1)(p) refers to:
such other motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be
required for the observance of the proprieties of the House,—
It is not of the Senate. That is not covered by that particular
item. The order goes on to say:
“Its authority” means the authority of the House. “Its
officers” means officers of the House not the Senate. “Its
business” is the House's business, and so on and so forth.
In reference to the Senate, there are only two applications
under the standing order where it applies. This has to do with a
conference of the Senate which only applies in the case where a
bill has been passed by the House, refused by the Senate, sent
back to the House, the House has disagreed with the Senate and
then a conference is necessary in order to re-establish how to
deal with the matter. That is the only place where it applies to
the Senate. It has to do do with a conference stage of the bill
which is about three steps away from what we have now, in any
case, a very long time from the period that we have in question.
The standing order in question applies only to the House.
There is only one minor exception where it could apply and that
is Standing Order 67(1)(g) when we are considering Senate
amendment to a House of Commons bill. Again, that proposition is
not before us. Although the hon. member may have made an
interesting point, I do not believe that the reference to motions
as being applicable for this particular case works at all. I am
convinced that it does not.
1520
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is an interesting procedural argument, but I would just like
to say that whatever its outcome, I would think all members of
parliament, no matter how they voted on the particular private
members' bill in question, should be concerned about any
developments which tend to sanction or portray an inability on
the part of the House to have the Senate deal expeditiously with
things that have been passed here in the House of Commons. This
is, after all, the elected Chamber in this parliament and the
Senate should not take upon itself the role of deliberately
withholding the appropriate procedural passage of anything that
has already gone through the House of Commons.
The Speaker: I do not want to get into a debate, but if
the opposition House leader has something to offer for my
consideration, then I want to hear it.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I do realize that the
Standing Order 67, which I quoted, does only refer to the Senate
and how we can handle House business and so on and does not
necessarily refer to the Senate.
The government House leader has pointed out that we are probably
three steps away before the normal process of dealing with
business coming back from the Senate. Of course, that is the
essence of my argument. We will never get those three more steps
going if the Senate continues to wilfully block it in that place.
If this is allowed to continue, the logic is that the Senate
could take a bill and we would never see it again.
The Speaker: Let me understand this. First, the Senate
is the master of what it does in the Senate and we are the master
of what we do here in the House.
As I understand the member's point of order, he is suggesting
that this item, which he has brought forward in a private
members' bill, should be moved over into motions. Is that
correct?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes.
The Speaker: Thank you. I have received advice from both
sides and I will deal with that specific point. What is in the
bill is of no concern to me at this point. I am dealing with
that procedural issue. I will deal with that, have a look at it
and come back to the House if necessary.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the standing orders, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 30
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour today to
present the government's response to the second report of the
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled
“Refugee Protection and Border Security: Striking a Balance”,
in both official languages.
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third
report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs. The subject of this report is the procurement of
military equipment.
I would like to note that the report has been unanimously
supported by all members in all parties. It makes some 38
recommendations calling for improvement of the procurement
process with which the government is involved.
1525
I want thank all members for their hard work on this particular
study which took many months. We had very diligent help from our
staff, from our committee clerk and, in particular, from our
researcher, Corinne McDonald, who was seized with this report and
helped to put most of it together. I also want to thank my
colleague, the hon. member for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, who
chaired a number of meetings in my absence on parliamentary
business.
We are very pleased with this report. It notes that there are
some definite shortcomings in the procurement process. It lays
out very specific proposals and how that can be improved. We
await with alacrity the response from the government.
INDUSTRY
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present in both official languages the seventh report
of the Standing Committee on Industry concerning the committee's
recent examination of the Competition Act.
Although varied opinions exist among the competition policy
experts, they were not so diverse as to prevent a consensus that
we believe is captured in this report.
Due to the public policy forum process underway and the
necessity for further study, we have limited this report to
preliminary findings suggesting a direction for future work.
On behalf of all committee members, I would like to thank those
who participated in our hearings for sharing their insights with
us and to thank our clerk, Richard Rumas, and our researchers,
Dan Saw and Geoffrey Kieley, for their diligence.
I am confident that the public will agree that this report
reflects both their concerns and common Canadian values and
priorities in the domain of competition policy, law and
enforcement.
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present in both official languages the eighth
report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee examined the
conflict in Kosovo and its aftermath.
[English]
Between February and June of this year, the committee has held
public hearings on Kosovo. It has heard from government
officials, academics and others, reflecting a wide variety of
views on Canada's role, both during and after the Kosovo
campaign.
On the first anniversary of Canadian and other international
forces entering Kosovo, the committee is pleased to table this
concise and forwardlooking report on this extremely important
subject.
* * *
ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.):
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-39, an act to amend the
Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and
the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
REFERENDUM ACT
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance):
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-490, an act to amend the
Referendum Act (to permit a referendum and a general election to
be conducted at the same time and on the same polling day).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private
members' bill which proposes to amend the current Referendum Act
to permit a referendum and a general election to be conducted at
the same time on the same day and, of course, at the same poll.
Few people would disagree that a majority of Canadians would
welcome the opportunity to have a direct vote at virtually no
extra cost on one or two issues that are uppermost in many
Canadians' minds. This amendment adds a whole new dimension to
the concept of participatory democracy that ostensibly is a
hallmark of our democratic process.
I ask all members from all sides of the House to support this
bill.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
OLYMPIC GAMES
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the motion I am about to read is, in my view,
an extremely important one, for it concerns the Olympic Games.
I move the following motion, with particular thanks to the
member for Ahuntsic, who gave me a hand.
1530
I move:
That this House recognize and support the resolution of the
United Nations General Assembly adopted every two years since
October 25, 1993, concerning the implementation of an Olympic
truce, so as to inform all Canadians of the objectives and
missions of an Olympic truce, which are to promote global peace
and security and to pursue the Olympic Games in the spirit of
fraternity and solidarity of ancient Greece.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations
with the House leaders of the other parties and I trust they have
a copy of my rather lengthy motion. It was sent to them and it
was reviewed earlier this day. I move:
That any division standing deferred to the expiry of the time for
consideration of Government Orders today shall be taken at 5.30
p.m. and, after that time during this day's sitting, the Chair
shall not receive any quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests
for unanimous consent and any division demanded shall be deemed
deferred until the conclusion of consideration of Government
Orders on June 15, 2000;
That at the conclusion today of any proceedings pursuant to
Standing Order 38, the motion to adjourn shall be deemed
withdrawn and the House shall continue to sit for the purpose of
considering Bill C-34, Bill C-18 and Bill S-18;
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of
the House, the third reading stage of Bill C-34 may be taken up
in the same sitting that the report stage of the said bill is
disposed of;
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of
the House, Bill S-18 shall be referred to a committee of the
whole House after second reading, and the said bill may be
considered at the third reading stage during the present sitting;
That, immediately after disposal of Bill S-18, the House shall
adjourn to the next sitting day; and
That on Thursday, June 15, 2000, in Standing Order 24(1) and
Standing Order 30(3) the words “10.00 a.m.” shall be read as
“9.00 a.m.”, in Standing Order 81(18)(a), (b) and (c) the words
“6.30 p.m.” shall be read as “5.30 p.m.” and in Standing
Order 81(18)(c) the words “10.00 p.m.” shall be read as “9.00
p.m.”.
The Deputy Speaker: Having heard that crystal clear
motion, does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous
consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
INDUSTRY
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I also have another motion upon
which there has been consultation, and agreement has been reached
to pass it without debate by unanimous consent:
That the Standing Committee on Industry shall be the committee
designated for the purposes of section 12 of the Lobbyists
Registration Act.
This has to do with conducting the review of that act next fall.
It was agreed to at the House leader's meeting last week and I
submit it to the House.
1535
(Motion agreed to)
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations on
the following motion and I would like to propose to the House
that it be adopted by unanimous consent and without debate. I
move:
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be granted
leave to travel from October 15 to 25, 2000 to Quebec, New
Brunswick, Maine, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador and P.E.I.
to continue its comprehensive study on aquacultural, its
statutory review of the Oceans Act and fisheries issues, and that
the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among
the leaders of the various parties and I believe that there
would be unanimous consent that the following motion be adopted
without debate or amendment.
That, in relation to its study of Canada's economic relations
with Europe, six members of the Sub-Committee on International
Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, one clerk and one
research officer be authorized to travel to London, Paris,
Geneva, Berlin and Brussels from October 23 to November 4, 2000.
(Motion agreed to)
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there have been consultations among the various parties and I
believe that there would be unanimous consent for the adoption
of Motion No. 85 on today's notice paper, which reads as
follows:
That the 34th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, presented on Friday, June 9, 2000, be concurred
in.
(Motion agreed to)
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe there would be unanimous
consent to adopt the following motion without debate or
amendment, as there have been consultations among the leaders of
the various parties in the House.
That five members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
and three staff persons of the Committee be authorized to travel
to Halifax, Nova Scotia, to attend the Twenty-First Annual
conference of the Canadian Council of Public Account Committees
from September 17 to 19, 2000.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that discussions have
taken place among all the parties and the member for Churchill
River concerning the taking of the recorded division on Motion
No. 298, scheduled at the conclusion of Private Members' Business
today, and I believe you would find consent for the following
motion:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on M-298, all questions
necessary to dispose of the said motion be deemed put, a recorded
division deemed requested and deferred to Thursday, June 15,
2000, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after broad consultation with all parties in the House I
would like to seek unanimous consent that Bill C-487 be deemed
read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Toronto
Centre—Rosedale have the unanimous consent of the House to
propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
PETITIONS
LESTER B. PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present the following
petitions.
The petitioners argue that 26 million passengers are serviced by
Lester B. Pearson International Airport and that this number is
due to double within the next few years.
1540
The petitioners call upon parliament to enter into an agreement
with the Greater Toronto Airport Authority and Nav Canada to
ensure that the communities surrounding Pearson International
Airport benefit from the development and timely adoption of noise
reducing technologies and airport management procedures.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a number of petitions
containing 700 signatures. The petitions are from concerned
Canadians, mostly from my constituency of Surrey Central.
The petitioners are asking why parliament was not recalled
immediately to invoke section 33 of the charter of rights and
Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause, to override the B.C. court
decision and to ensure that the possession of child pornography
in B.C. is illegal.
[Translation]
PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICING
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased today to table, on behalf of my fellow citizens of
Manicouagan, a petition containing over 2,000 names.
This petition calls on parliament to take all the steps
necessary to identify and recommend, as quickly as possible,
specific ways to put an end to the unreasonable increase in the
price of petroleum products and to regulate these prices
permanently. The petitioners also ask parliament to take every
measure to develop energy alternatives at affordable prices.
[English]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to present two petitions this
afternoon on matters that are most important and on the minds of
Canadians. The first has to do with food safety and the question
of genetically modified foods.
The petitioners call upon the government to implement
legislation which would provide for the clear labelling of all
genetically engineered seed and foods derived from or consisting
of genetically engineered organisms.
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition has to do with the future of our
health care system and our ability to ward against a two tier
American style health care model.
The petitioners call upon the federal government to take
immediate action to save public health care in Canada and to stop
two tier American style health care from coming to Canada.
CBC
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to present two petitions. The first petition
comes from 2,500 Newfoundlanders from every part of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
The petitioners are very disturbed and upset that the CBC
nationally is cutting the supper hour news program Here and
Now from one hour to half an hour. They ask parliament to
intervene to protect the program, which is essential to the
culture of our very large and sparsely populated province.
ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition comes from a number of Newfoundlanders who make
the case for the automatic harvesting of organs at death for
transplant. The petitioners ask parliament to enact legislation
to allow the automatic harvesting of organs at death for
transplant, unless a specific request to the contrary has been
made.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present a petition on behalf of the residents of
Mount Royal which deals with environmental protection and the
protection of health.
The petitioners call upon parliament to enact an immediate
moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides until such
time as their use has been scientifically proven to be safe and
the long term consequences of their application are known.
This petition reflects the recommendation of the report of the
Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development
tabled on May 16, 2000, and it received unanimous support in the
meeting of the residents of the constituency of Mount Royal on
June 1, which also called upon the government to immediately
adopt Private Member's Bill C-388 as a government bill.
[Translation]
SESSIONS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
second petition asking parliament to pass legislation to extend
its sessions and reduce the time between them so they reflect a
typical Canadian work year.
[English]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to present a petition signed by 646 people in my
riding.
The petitioners believe that it is the duty of parliament
through the enactment and enforcement of the criminal code to
protect the most vulnerable members of our society from sexual
abuse.
Therefore, the petitioners pray that parliament take all
measures necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography
remains a serious criminal offence and that federal police forces
be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the
protection of our children.
1545
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I wish
to table a petition signed by 92 rural mail carriers who live in
my riding of Laval West and surrounding regions in the Province
of Quebec.
These persons feel that the Canada Post Corporation Act deprives
rural mail carriers of the right to a collective agreement. They
are therefore asking parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the
Canada Post Corporation Act.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
today to table two petitions, each signed by 75 people, calling
for an improvement in the working conditions of rural letter
carriers.
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to table a petition signed by several hundreds of people who are
calling on the federal government to do something about the
increase in gasoline prices.
To date, over 5,000 of my constituents have signed this petition
calling on the federal government to take action to bring down
the price of gasoline.
[English]
BIOARTIFICIAL KIDNEY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition from the people of Peterborough. They
ask parliament to support the bioartificial kidney which will
eventually eliminate the need for both dialysis or
transplantation for those suffering from kidney disease.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
this petition the petitioners call upon parliament to legislate
clear labelling on all genetically engineered seeds, foods and
their byproducts available in Canada.
ABORTION
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Lastly, Mr.
Speaker, this petition is from citizens of Peterborough who are
concerned about the fact that statistics have not been
systematically collected on abortion. They call upon parliament
to act immediately to request the provision of Canada's annual
statistics in this respect.
TAXATION
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two
petitions today.
The first is from the hardworking people of my riding who know
that high taxes kill jobs, increase poverty, limit investment and
reduce prosperity. The petitioners are calling for a major tax
reduction of 25% over the next three years. Some 2,268 people
have signed that petition.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the subject of child
pornography. The petitioners ask that the government use the
notwithstanding clause to override the B.C. Court of Appeal
decision and reinstate subsection (4) of section 163.1 of the
criminal code making possession of child pornography in B.C.
illegal and by doing so reinforce and reaffirm our objection to
the B.C. Court of Appeal decision. Some 3,093 hardworking people
of Okanagan—Coquihalla have signed the petition.
PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition signed by more
than 600 people from New Brunswick. They draw to the attention
of parliament that the present method of passenger transportation
using highways is expensive, is often very dangerous and presents
environmental pollution problems. Our economy could be
greatly improved by the use of passenger service via railways
which would improve the situation for senior citizens, for our
youth and for tourism. They petition parliament to restore
passenger rail service for the provinces of Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick and connections with the rest of Canada.
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICES
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to table four petitions, one of which calls on the government to
take action to bring gasoline prices down to a reasonable level
for the consumer.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I also wish to
table three petitions containing 1,459 signatures calling on the
government to make labelling of transgenic goods mandatory.
In my riding, a total of 16,000 signatures have been collected
on this issue.
[English]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of tabling a
petition containing 75 names requesting the labelling of foods
containing genetically modified organisms.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present more petitions containing 32,000
more names of people from all across Canada who are dissatisfied
with the government's inaction in protecting our most vulnerable
from child pornography.
1550
It has been almost a year and a half since the original Sharpe
decision in B.C. which struck down the law against child
pornography.
These petitions tabled today are added to the hundreds of
thousands of signatures on petitions already tabled. By a large
margin it is the single largest petition tabled in the House of
Commons in this parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I concur with these petitions.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that it is
quite out of order for him to make such comments on presentation
of petitions. I know that when we draw to the end of the
session, members want to comply with the rules in every respect.
[Translation]
BILL C-23
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of tabling a
petition signed by 58 people in my riding calling for the
withdrawal of Bill C-23 and a better definition of marriage.
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to table.
The first calls for the repeal of subsection 13(5) of the Canada
Post Corporation Act so that rural route mail carriers will have
the right to collective bargaining.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my second
petition calls for legislation making it mandatory to label all
transgenic foods.
GASOLINE PRICING
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my third
petition is a protest against the high price of gasoline and
again calls upon the federal government to intervene as promptly
as possible.
[English]
RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present a petition on behalf of 122 of my
constituents. They note that on July 22, 1997 the CRTC ruled
against the licensing of four religious broadcasters, including
one Roman Catholic and three multi-denominational broadcasters,
while at the same time approving, in their definition, the
pornographic program Playboy.
As a consequence, the petitioners request that parliament review
the mandate of the CRTC and direct the CRTC to administer a new
policy which will encourage the licensing of single faith
religious broadcasters, including EWTN and TVN.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions, two of which deal with
health care. These citizens say that the federal government has
vastly reduced its funding for health care. They are calling
upon the government to increase its share to 25% of the total
bill and to implement the national home care and national
pharmacare programs.
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners refer to the
WTO. They do not like it in its present format whatsoever and
suggest that the House of Commons work to build an alternative
model of globalization, a stable rules based global economy
protecting the rights of citizens and environment workers.
CHILD CARE
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, finally, I have a petition from a group of people in
Saskatoon who point out that the federal government has not kept
its promise to provide 50,000 new child care spaces as it said it
would in 1993. The petitioners urge parliament to support a
national child care program.
Mr. Speaker, these petitioners, without knowing so, named a
figure for which this program would cost and I have been told by
the clerk of petitions that they are not allowed to name a
figure. I am not repeating it but I ask the indulgence and
unanimous consent of the House that this petition be tabled in
any event.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to permit
the tabling of this petition?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave
to present two petitions. In the first one the petitioners urge
parliament to fulfil the 1989 promise to end child poverty by the
year 2000.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
second petition the petitioners call upon parliament to enact
legislation to establish an independent governing body to
develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography
quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions bearing thousands upon
thousands of signatures from petitioners right across the
country. The petitioners pray that parliament take all measures
necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography remains
a serious criminal offence and that police forces be directed to
give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our
children.
1555
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 36(6) the
15 minutes allowed for presentation of petitions has expired. Is
there agreement to continue with petitions for a little while?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
COMMUNITY TELEVISION
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, community
television, which has developed throughout Quebec in recent
years, has been a response to community needs and has focused on
local identity, a sense of community, providing emergency
information, and generally bringing the community together.
Today, it is experiencing serious operating difficulties, even
threats of having to close down. This is all because of
ambiguity in the interpretation of its role and mission between
the community television corporation on the one hand and the
cable company on the other.
I have a petition to table, signed by 1,575 people on behalf of
the population of Châteauguay. The petitioners call upon the
government to intervene with the CRTC in order to restore
community television to our community that is dictated by its
needs and not by the economic imperatives of the cable company.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like my
colleague, the hon. member for Châteauguay, I am pleased to
table a petition signed by 891 people in my riding which brings
to the attention of the House that the cable company Vidéotron
is not respecting the community programming slot it promised the
CRTC it would preserve.
The petitioners are asking for CRTC intervention in order to
obtain the re-opening of our community television channel as soon
as possible, as well as asking the CRTC to carry out the public
examination of broadcasting distribution that was promised in
January 1998.
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me to present petitions this afternoon from people
who represent areas such as Port Elgin and Southampton.
The petitioners are speaking on behalf of the rural mail
couriers and have outlined the adverse working conditions of
their profession. They believe that their low wages are unfair,
their bargaining positions are generally bad, and they have
generally less than positive feelings for the way Canada Post has
addressed their issues. They are therefore calling upon
parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation
Act.
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table five petitions, three of which relate to GMOs.
Obviously, the petitioners are calling for the mandatory
labelling of genetically modified organisms.
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table a petition concerning rural mail carriers.
Basically, what the petitioners are calling for is the right of
association and repeal of subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post
Corporation Act.
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the last
petition concerns the high price of gasoline, in addition to the
thousands of names on the other petitions that have already been
tabled in this House.
The petitioners call upon the government to do its job as far as
the exorbitant price of gas is concerned.
[English]
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a
petition on behalf of the citizens living in Grand Bend, Port
Franks and Thedford, who urge this government to eliminate the gas
additive MMT, as it has a negative impact both on people's health
and on our ecosystem at large.
PARENTAL LEAVE BENEFITS
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the
honour of presenting petitions signed by more than 35 concerned
constituents.
The last throne speech promised more accessible employment
insurance benefits for parental leave. The petitioners want
parliament to begin the new program prior to the end of the year
2001. They also want a parent who has finished his or her
parental leave prior to the new program to be allowed to extend
their leave and receive their payments.
Finally the petitioners ask that the legislation provide a full
year of parental leave benefits.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I notice that at the same time I am
presenting this petition there is a rally in Kamloops on the same
topic. It is quite a coincidence.
The petition is on behalf of residents of the Kamloops area and
the North Thompson Valley. It brings the total now to 6,722
petitioners who point out their concern about the state of
Canada's health care system.
They say that the last budget gave only two cents to health care
for every one dollar spent on tax cuts. They also point out that
the government seems to be spending only 13% on health care as
opposed to 50% on health care, which has led to extreme shortages
of nurses, hospital beds and emergency room spaces across Canada.
They point out a whole number of other reasons for their concern
about the state of health care in Canada.
1600
They ask parliament to take whatever steps are necessary to stop
for profit hospitals and restore federal funding for health care,
to increase the federal government's share of health care funding
to 25% immediately, and to implement a national home care program
and a national program for prescription drugs. That is one
petition.
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have another shorter petition to present
from people in Kamloops and the lower Thompson Valley who are
concerned about excessively high gasoline prices.
They are asking the government to consider some form of
regulation or to do what is done in the United States, that is to
separate the vertical integration parts of oil companies from
their retail outlets so that retail outlets are all independently
owned, which would therefore bring some competition back into the
system.
RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise to present to
the House five petitions certified by the clerk of petitions.
They contain the signatures of constituents from my riding of
Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh.
In the first petition the petitioners pray that parliament act
immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending
the criminal code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born
human beings to unborn human beings.
ABORTION
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 the petitioners pray
that parliament act immediately to request the provision of
Canada's annual abortion statistics.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, in the third petition
the petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation to
establish an independent governing body to develop, implement and
enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance and
quality control standards in Canada.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the fourth petition the petitioners call upon
parliament to honour the commitment made by the House of Commons
in 1989 to end child poverty.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the last petition the petitioners pray that
parliament will make changes pertaining to employment insurance
and the clawbacks on EI.
VOLUNTEER EMERGENCY WORKERS
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present the petition I have before me requesting the
introduction of new legislation that would provide a $1,000 tax
deduction to all volunteer emergency workers so that the current
inequality that exists would be addressed.
It has been my pleasure to present this petition on behalf of
citizens of my riding of Fundy—Royal.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Mr.
Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-27, in the
name of the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, is acceptable to
the government with the reservations stated in the reply. The
documents are tabled immediately.
That a humble Address be presented to Her
Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before the
House copies of all documents, briefing notes, memos, minutes of
meetings, consulting contracts and reports concerning public
opinion polls and polls of producers conducted by, for, and/or
about the Canadian Wheat Board during the last two years.
The Deputy Speaker: Subject to any reservations or
conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the
pleasure of the House that Motion No. P-27 be deemed to have been
adopted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to be so kind as to
call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-6, in
the name of the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the
Corrections Canada report into the 24-hour delay by Corrections
Canada officials in reporting the disappearance of Kevin Machell
from day parole on September 6, 1997.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw Motion No. P-6.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion withdrawn)
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, for the record, there is
another Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers in the name
of the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, Motion No. P-35.
There has been a material change in the circumstances out of
which the notice of motion has been put and that may give the
government an opportunity to take a fresh look at the request. I
put that on the record for the benefit of the hon. member.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is not being called.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other Notices
of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1605
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
The Deputy Speaker: I am in receipt of a notice of motion
under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for West Nova.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the PC Party I am requesting an emergency debate on the urgent
situation facing the CBC throughout the regions of Canada, as the
House is scheduled to adjourn in the next couple of days.
The changes that have taken place with local regional news
broadcasts being cut by some two-thirds with very little savings
give the impression the situation is such that these programs are
bound to fail.
The CBC is a vital institution that plays a very important role
in enhancing and promoting our Canadian identity. Canadians have
been phoning, writing and contacting our offices with their
concerns.
It is for these reasons and as a strong supporter of the CBC
that I respectfully request that you grant us leave, Mr. Speaker,
to adjourn the House so that we may debate the future of the CBC,
a very important Canadian institution.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has considered the
request of the hon. member and is of the view that the requested
debate does not meet the exigencies of the standing order at this
time.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-34, an act to
amend the Canada Transportation Act, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are six motions in
amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of
Bill C-34, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act.
Motion No. 4 is the same as an amendment presented and negatived
in committee. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(5),
it has not been selected.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 will be grouped for purposes of
debate, but they will be put to a vote as follows:
(a) if Motion No. 2 is agreed to, it will not be necessary to
vote on Motion No. 3;
(b) however, if Motion No. 2 is not agreed to, it will be
necessary to vote on Motion No. 3;
(c) Motions Nos. 5 and 6 will be voted on separately.
[English]
I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved:
That Bill C-34, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 27
on page 1 the following:
“(2.1) If the Minister wishes to communicate information for
the purpose of monitoring the grain transportation and handling
system,
(a) the Minister must provide to the appropriate committee of
the House of Commons a copy of the contract for the monitoring
work, and
(b) the person to whom the contract is awarded must appear
before the committee to answer all questions on
(i) the terms of reference of the contract, and
(ii) any monitoring reports that they have given to the
Minister, except that they need not reveal confidential
information about an identifiable person.”
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. I
declare Motion No. 1 lost.
(Motion No. 1 negatived)
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved:
That Bill C-34, in Clause 9, be amended by adding after line 26
on page 5 the following:
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-34, in Clause 9, be amended by adding after line 26
on page 5 the following:
That Bill C-34, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 16
on page 9 the following:
“153. If there is a conflict between this Act, or any
regulations made under this Act, and any other Act that applies
to the movement of grain, or any regulations made under that
other Act, this Act prevails.”
That Bill C-34, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 16
on page 9 the following:
“153. On or before July 31, 2005, all contracts for the
movement of grain are to be entered into between a carrier and
(a) a person holding a grain dealer's licence under the Canada
Grain Act, or
(b) a producer of grain.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make some brief
comments on Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 6. Motion No. 3 is put forward
by the Canadian Alliance to make sure that there is an
accountability factor in the issue of shipping and that the
definition of shipper is clarified in the legislation. This
amendment would do that.
Motion No. 5, also put forward by the Canadian Alliance, would
make this act precede over all others. Anybody working under the
auspices of this act could not go to another one to seek
loopholes and to find ways of getting exemptions.
1610
As well Motion No. 6 is put forward by the Canadian Alliance. It
is a motion that would make clear that the government would move
to a commercially accountable contract based system. Of course
the whole bill should have done that in a more dramatic manner
than it has.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise today to address
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 put forward by the member for
Brandon—Souris and the member for Lethbridge.
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 seek to add a new definition of shipper to
the Canada Transportation Act. One proposed definition states:
The other states that a shipper means the person responsible for
transferring the grain to the carrier. Let me point out that
there is already a definition of shipper in the current
transportation act. The act already defines the shipper as a
person who sends or receives goods by means of a carrier or
intends to do so.
In Bill C-34 the government did not change that definition. If
we were to accept the proposed definitions, we would end up
having two definitions of shippers in the act. Similar motions
were debated at committee stage and were not supported.
Adding a special definition for grain shippers would be
confusing, should an interested party wish to file a complaint
with the Canadian Transportation Agency. It seems that this is a
back door attempt to get at the issue of the Canadian Wheat
Board's transportation role.
Let me say that the Canadian Wheat Board's transportation role
is being addressed through a memorandum of understanding that was
shared with the Standing Committee on Transport last week. A
memorandum of understanding is a document to be signed by the
minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the
Canadian Wheat Board itself.
The MOU reflects the government's decision, which was made after
very careful consideration of the recommendations made by Mr.
Justice Estey and Mr. Kroeger, and the extensive feedback from
many stakeholders. The changes move to a more commercially based
system involving tendering while at the same time addressing the
concerns of producers about the ability of the wheat board to
successfully fulfil its marketing mandate.
Motion No. 5 states that if there is a conflict between the
Canada Transportation Act or any regulations made under this act
and any other act that applies to the movement of grain, or any
regulations made under that other act, the Canada Transportation
Act prevails.
I draw attention to subsection 4(1) of the Canada Transportation
Act. This section already addresses the issue of conflicts
between orders or regulations made under the Canada
Transportation Act and orders or regulations made under any other
act in respect of a particular mode of transportation. The
Canada Transportation Act states that the order or regulation
made under the Canada Transportation Act shall prevail. I
believe that this is once again an effort to change the
government's policy decision on the transportation role of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
As for Motion No. 6, it would preclude the Canadian Wheat Board
from entering into contracts with the railways for the movement
of grain, beginning no later than July 31, 2005. The Canadian
Wheat Board's transportation role has been covered in the
memorandum of understanding.
As part of its decision on grain handling and transportation,
the government will establish a mechanism of continuous
monitoring, measurement and reporting to provide information to
the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board on the impact of these reforms and the overall performance
of the reformed grain handling and transportation system. Should
the monitor identify any problems or opportunities to improve the
system further, the government will be in a position to act. I
do not support the motions as presented.
1615
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker, I
will speak very briefly to the proposed amendments. I must stand
after those last comments made by the parliamentary secretary.
The amendments were put forward by witnesses and by
organizations that appeared before the committee. They were
amendments that were, in most cases, approved and suggested by
those organizations in order to make the legislation better than
what it is.
I will speak specifically to the amendment that was put forward
by myself as well as the member from the Canadian Alliance Party,
that being the definition of shipper. That speaks to the essence
of the bill which was to have a true commercial system.
Unfortunately, the Canadian Wheat Board once again got its wish
and its way in order to manipulate the process to the point where
this will not be a true commercial system.
As for the memorandum of understanding, we wanted to have that
open and transparent, as the government has always indicated that
it should be. The fact is that now the memorandum of
understanding need not come before parliament and need not come
before members of the committee. It need only be dealt with by
the Canadian Wheat Board and the minister, as well as the
monitor. It goes specifically to the minister as opposed to
parliament. I believe that speaks specifically to not having it
open and transparent and having a system in place that is not
only the same as we had before but in fact worse than what we
had. I will speak to that on third reading.
The amendments are solid, good amendments. Unfortunately, they
are not going to be passed because the government does not want
to see better legislation.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I too
want to rise at report stage on this group of amendments and run
through the position of the New Democratic Party. I will be ever
so brief.
With regard to Motions Nos. 2 and 3, I agree with the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, these are
fundamental to the whole debate. Implementation of either of
these amendments would weaken the Canadian Wheat Board and result
in more power to the railways. We believe that being recognized
as the shipper is fundamental and a key for the wheat board to
negotiate overall rail capacity.
We in this caucus believe that the Canadian Wheat Board does
maximize returns for farmers through meeting sales commitments
and by holding railways and grain companies accountable for their
service obligations. The board can only continue to perform
these vital functions if it remains the shipper. We are opposing
those two particular motions.
We are, however, supporting Motion No. 4 submitted by the member
for Brandon—Souris on rural prairie roads and what happens when
railways exceed the revenue cap.
We recognize that the changes to the grain transportation system
will increase the pressure on roads. Indeed, the government
recognizes that as well and has announced that it will be
contributing $175 million over the next five years to help to do
something about improving the condition of those roads. It is
noteworthy that Bill C-34, in and of itself, does not deal at all
with funding for rural roads and this amendment simply implements
the government's announcement concerning funding. We concur with
that and will be supporting it.
With regard to the revenue cap, the amendment says that if and
when the railways exceed the revenue cap in any given year the
railways will have to pay to producers the amount of their
revenue that exceeds that cap. This too will help producers, and
we will be supporting that.
Motion No. 5, which was put forward by the Canadian Alliance,
would ensure that the Canadian Transportation Act prevails over
the wheat board. If implemented, we believe that the railways
could argue through the CTA against the board's ability to
provide grain transportation services to producers on a train, at
a station or on a branch or shortline. The railways could argue,
therefore, that providing these services affects its ability to
meet their common carrier and level of service obligations. This
too, we believe, would have a negative impact on the wheat
board's ability to return the best possible value to producers
through providing access to the system.
The amendment attempts to use the Canada Transportation Act,
in our opinion at any rate, to regulate the Canadian Wheat Board
Act.
1620
Mr. Dennis Gruending: A Trojan horse.
Mr. Dick Proctor: It is a Trojan horse, as my colleague
for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar reminds me.
The CTA is intended to regulate transportation providers with
regard to rates and how those providers conduct business with
shippers. The purpose of the CTA is not to regulate other pieces
of legislation, such as the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Regulating
the Canadian Wheat Board Act is accomplished through the
regulations in the act itself.
The NDP caucus will not be supporting Motion No. 5, nor will we
be supporting Motion No. 6 which says that by August 1, 2005
there will be a fully commercial system to move grain from
elevator to port. In our opinion, that would obviously leave the
Canadian Wheat Board with no role whatsoever in transporting
western grain to port. We believe that this is another excessive
gift to the railways and the grain companies that will ultimately
be injurious to producers.
The wheat board cannot be an effective marketer of grain if it
is unable to fulfill its sales contracts by ensuring an adequate
supply of that commodity. This can only be accomplished if the
board maintains a significant role in grain transportation from
the country elevator to the port spout. There can be no
protection for producers without wheat board involvement in grain
transportation. We will be opposing that motion as well. I will
have more to say on this at third reading.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion
lost.
(Motion No. 2 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The next question is
on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion
lost.
(Motion No. 3 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The next question is
on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion
lost.
(Motion No. 5 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The next question is
on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion
lost.
(Motion No. 6 negatived)
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion
agreed to.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. David M. Collenette moved that the bill be read the
third time and passed.
1625
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today at
third reading of Bill C-34 which amends the Canada Transportation
Act to implement part of the government's May 10 announcement of
its decisions on grain reform.
As the House will know, at second reading I spoke about the
overall purpose of the bill and explained many of the measures
found in the bill. I want to take this opportunity to
acknowledge the extensive work done by the Standing Committee on
Transport which took written submissions and heard testimony from
about 30 different organizations in the short space of one week.
I congratulate the members of the committee, in particular the
hon. member for Hamilton West who was the chair, and my
parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Thunder
Bay—Atikokan who did an outstanding job at the committee stage.
This committee has worked wonders in this parliament. They had
the airline restructuring proposals last fall, the airline bill,
this grain bill, plus three other bills. They have certainly
worked extremely hard. I want all Canadians to know that members
on this side of the House and on the other side of the House have
worked with due diligence on behalf of Canadians.
The western grain industry is one of the largest segments of the
Canadian agri-food sector. In dollar terms, it ranks close to
the forestry industry, the automobile industry, the mining
industry and the fishing industries. Total Canadian grain
production averages 60 million tonnes a year, with about half of
this amount being exported. Production which is not exported is
consumed domestically by the livestock industry, flour milling
and other value-added processing activities.
The efficiency of the grain handling system has been the subject
of much debate over the past few years. Most contend that the
current system cannot continue to operate as it is and still
allow for the industry to maintain its competitiveness in an
international marketplace.
The present system is managed centrally, making it difficult to
hold anyone accountable when things go wrong. Freight rates do
not vary to encourage more efficient use of the transportation
assets over the crop year or during peak periods. The majority
of wheat board business is allocated to grain companies and to
railways by historic shares rather than by competition.
Three years ago, as I said earlier when I spoke on this at
second reading, I went with my colleagues to Winnipeg to meet
with all the stakeholders. We agreed that we would try to do
something about the breakdown of the system that occurred in the
winter of 1996-97. I feel particularly good about the process
that has been followed. We appointed an eminent jurist, Mr.
Willard Estey, a native of Saskatchewan, who gave us a very
comprehensive report advocating reforms toward a more competitive
system.
I then asked the former distinguished deputy minister Arthur
Kroeger, a native of Alberta, to take the theory of Mr. Estey and
put it into practical form, to put some bones to the framework,
as it were, and both of those gentlemen worked exceptionally hard
and brought forward their recommendations.
We have been criticized for not entirely following the
recommendations of those two gentlemen. However, it was always
assumed that those gentlemen would give us the overall conceptual
framework and some ways that the framework could be implemented.
However, ultimately it was government and parliament that had to
make the political decisions. We have to make the political
trade-offs.
I think we have done that successfully. The fact that even
though members on the other side are not entirely happy with
every aspect of this bill, the fact that there are really no
dissenting voices on the other side, means that we have it right.
I like to be accurate, but I cannot believe that there is
actually one member of the Canadian Alliance in the House that
would say no to a measure that will put money in the pockets of
the western farmers. I am sure that I have not heard any dissent
on the other side. I am not used to covering up for anyone, and
certainly not for the misdemeanours of the opposition, but I take
them at face value.
I know that everyone in the House agrees that we have it right,
that we are putting money in the hands of the producers and that
there has been significant changes made throughout the system.
The bill will not be proclaimed unless the MOU is satisfactory.
We are still holding consultations on the MOU. I have talked
with the presidents of the railways. We have talked with the
grain companies. My colleague, the minister responsible for the
wheat board, who was here a few minutes ago, has worked very hard
at trying to calibrate that MOU so that it deals with the
concerns of the various stakeholders.
1630
I think this shows that we are sensitive. We are trying to get
this particular measure right.
There are four main measures within the bill which have a large
impact on the problems that were uncovered over three years of
discussion. First, there is the annual limit on railway grain
revenue, what we now call the revenue cap. Second, there have
been enhancements to the final offer arbitration. Third,
enhancements have been made to the branch line process. Finally,
we have added measures to help obtain and share information
required for the monitoring of the grain system in a secure
manner.
I do not want to unduly hold up the passage of this bill at
third reading, but I would be remiss if I did not emphasize once
again that the bill does contain a limit on rail revenues of $27
a tonne for the crop year commencing August 1, which is 18% lower
than the effective revenue per tonne in 2000-01 under current
law, announced recently by the Canadian Transportation Agency
after its deliberations.
Railways will have the flexibility to vary individual grain
rates at any time to reflect efficiency and to offer more
innovative services to shippers.
The bill also designates the agency as having the responsibility
to monitor compliance based on actual grain movements and
distance hauled. If the agency at the end of the year determines
there are any railway earnings in excess of the cap, the excess
amounts will be repaid with a penalty.
The revenue cap will be adjusted annually to reflect railway
inflation, starting in 2001-02. Shippers whose traffic starts
from branch lines will have an assurance that the tariff rates
for single car movements originating on branch lines will not be
allowed under this bill to exceed main line tariff rates for
similar movements by more than 3%. I think that is an effective
guarantee.
Amendments to the CTA in Bill C-34 will also make significant
improvements to the final offer arbitration process. It will
require shippers to submit their whole proposal as part of the
application, excluding dollar amounts. After 10 days the shipper
and the railway will exchange their complete final offers
simultaneously, including dollar amounts.
A simplified arbitration mechanism is proposed for arbitration
involving freight charges that total no more than $750,000. In
this faster process the time between the shipper filing the
initial submission and the final decision will not exceed 30
days. At the request of the shipper or for arbitration of
disputes above $750,000 a 60 day process will be followed.
The bill allows the establishment of a three person panel on
agreement by both parties to hear more complex disputes. Of the
three arbitrators, one would be chosen by the shipper, one by the
railway and one by the two arbitrators. Failing that, the agency
could select the third arbitrator.
There were many members of the House on both sides who were
concerned with the provisions of the CTA in 1996 which allowed
the railways a certain procedure for the abandonment of branch
lines without recourse to the governor in council. I know this
is going to be an ongoing discussion as we start the review of
the act on July 1. I will be announcing the appointment of
prominent people to conduct that review very shortly.
We have included in this bill, because of the urgency and the
need for balance in the system, specific provisions that would
not only allow the two railways to reduce their costs, but
facilitate the transfer of branch lines for continued operation.
The main goal of these provisions was to ensure that a community
could maintain the rail line, which is so often the lifeblood of
the town. I am proud to say that since the act came into effect
in July 1996 about 80% or 9,200 kilometres of track are operated
by short line railways and only 1,800 kilometres of track have
been discontinued. This process has resulted in the creation of
36 new short line operators.
Despite this success, Justice Estey identified some issues
related to branch lines. Some of the problems included the
ability of railways to transfer grain dependent lines in small
segments, making a viable short line operation very difficult,
and the fact that when a community does lose a grain dependent
branch line it is not directly compensated.
I believe the bill addresses these particular issues.
1635
We are extending the notice period before a railway can take
steps to discontinue a rail line from two months to twelve
months. This would give more time for potential short line
purchasers to come along. It would also allow a community based
group which is ready to proceed with an offer to trigger an early
curtailment of the twelve month notice period and extend the
negotiation period from four months to six months. Also, either
party may request the Canadian Transportation Agency during this
stage to provide its estimate of the net salvage value of the
line.
Bill C-34 requires that both parties negotiate in good faith.
The Canadian Transportation Agency may order the railway to enter
into a commercially fair and reasonable agreement, or it may
allow a railway to end negotiations and continue to abandon the
line if parties are not negotiating in good faith.
Not all grain lines will be retained or transferred. Therefore,
the bill requires a railway that abandons a line to make three
annual payments of up to $10,000 per mile to each of the
municipal governments located along the line, related to the
length of the line that falls within each municipality. This
will ensure that the municipalities which are feeling the impact
of the changes will see the benefits from these railway payments.
With respect to the monitoring provisions, I believe that these
measures will ensure that we obtain information that is critical
to a full and fair assessment of the results from the changes to
the grain transportation and handling system. The bill ensures
that the information can be forwarded to a third party monitor.
The confidentiality of the information obtained for monitoring
purposes is ensured.
The standing committee adopted an amendment that calls on the
minister to table an annual report on the monitoring of the
system to parliament no later than January 31, which is six
months after the end of each crop year. The Minister responsible
for the Canadian Wheat Board, the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food and I support this amendment. We are very confident
that there will be much progress to report.
Under the decision we announced on May 10, the issue of more
open access to rail lines will be referred to the upcoming review
of the Canada Transportation Act for priority consideration on
effective ways to enhance competition in the railway sector,
including enhanced running rights, regional railways and other
access concepts. This review will be launched within the next
few days and will be ready by July 1. In the mandate letter for
the review I will request that an interim report be provided on
the open access issue no later than six months after the start of
the review.
Three of the government's measures on grain are realized through
non-statutory means. First, a memorandum of understanding will
be put in place to guide changes to the wheat board's
transportation role. Second, a mechanism will be put in place to
ensure the continuous monitoring, measurement and reporting of
the changes by a professional private sector third party. Third,
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will provide for a five
year, $175 million grain roads program at the rate of $35 million
per year from 2001 to 2005-06. This grain road program is to be
modelled on the Canada agri-infrastructure program, as
implemented in Saskatchewan.
On the whole, the statutory and non-statutory measures are
designed to turn a new page in Canada's grain transportation and
handling system. I think they create a significant opportunity
for the parties to commence a different set of relationships and
to work together to build a more commercial, more accountable and
more effective system.
Before I sit down I would like to thank all members on both
sides of the House who have worked really hard on this measure. I
know that it came late, but as I said at second reading, this was
a very tough measure to adjudicate and to do things properly. The
fact that there is no significant technical opposition to the
bill underscores the fact that we have gotten it right, that the
producers will benefit and that productivity gains will be
shared.
I realize that while producers may be happy, the railways and
the grain companies may not be as happy. We are trying to work
out modalities in the MOU with the wheat board to address some of
their concerns.
I think we have done justice to the railways by moving the open
access provisions and the regional railway provisions to the CTA
review to allow for a broader debate which will allow all
shippers, not just shippers of grain, to have an influence on the
decisions and an impact on policy changes which are coming
forward.
I think the coming year will be an interesting one because the
review will deal with some of the unfinished business. I am firm
in my view that we have started on the road to true
commercialization and reform of the system. I applaud members of
both sides of the House who have agreed that this objective will
be met.
1640
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance; the hon.
member for Prince Albert, Indian Affairs and Northern
Development; the hon. member for Lotbinière, Transfer Payments;
the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Agriculture; and the
hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
Human Resources Development.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is with some sadness that I
stand at this time. I want to join with the minister, however,
in congratulating the men and women who served on the transport
committee. I think it was a very good committee. The hearings
were good, we heard good witnesses and we had good discussion and
good debate.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House
to share my time with the hon. member for Lethbridge.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
hon. member to share his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying,
this was a good committee, but I want to point out and make it
very clear that the passage of this bill, and why we are
supporting this bill, is not so much the content but the
emergency that goes with it.
As Justice Estey said in committee, there is no choice. He said
it is like having a gun at your head. When I asked the hon.
justice what he thought about what the government had done to his
recommendations, he said that it had every right to do so, but
only 1 per cent. The government did exactly the opposite of what
the hon. justice wanted.
I also want to make it abundantly clear that our support for
this is for the short term gain, but there is going to be long
term pain. Make no mistake about it. This bill will be back
before the House within a year. The way the bill stands now, it
does not address agriculture in the year 2000 on the prairies.
Even members in the caucus opposite knew what was wrong. They
wanted a complete and open commercial system, but somehow through
the back door they said “No, no, no”. It is all right for the
potash companies to have an open agreement with the railways. It
is all right for the coal companies to have an open agreement
with the railways. But over 50% of all the money realized from
the sale of farm commodities on the prairies today does not come
from board grains handled by the wheat board. No consideration
was given to that fact.
There was even an attempt to blame us for bringing in
amendments, such as that brought by the member for
Brandon—Souris, to bring the meaning of shipper into the year
2000. They said “No, we are trying to get at the wheat board”.
The wheat board does not handle the goods whatsoever for which
we wanted that meaning.
This reminds me of the poem about Casey at the bat. There was
no joy in Mudville because mighty Casey struck out.
I was home on the weekend. There are some very disappointed
producers who really thought the Estey and Kroeger report was
going to go through. There is no joy in the producers, those
same producers who appeared before the committee, the canola
people who lost millions of dollars because for some reason there
were four or five long trains backed up in Vancouver and their
goods could not get to port.
1645
When I asked in committee whose fault that was, there was no
question it was the wheat board's fault. That is what they said;
I did not say that.
What was the opinion of the majority of the people who came
before the committee? The vast majority of people who came
before our committee, the five major grain companies, basically
said we should scrap the whole bill. That is why I say that this
bill will be back before this house.
The individual producers, and there are going to be more of
them, are worried because now the wheat board is taking on more
of a role even to control the transportation industry.
The railways said if what is wanted is to save the farmers a lot
of money in freight, as well as the grain companies, the five
major grain companies which handle over 90% of all the grain,
then let us go to an open accountable freight system. Somehow
the wisdom opposite was to say no, they do not trust the people
who handle more than 90% of the grain. They do not trust the
pulse growers. They do not trust the canola growers. They do not
trust anyone but themselves. And they do not trust the railways.
Which stakeholders are left?
The government promised money for roads. I want to put it on
the record that the money that has been allocated for prairie
roads is going to be a pittance to what the government should
have done with this bill and gone to an open commercialized
system.
The day will come when those same people will not grow products
that go to the wheat board because they do not trust it. That
was the reason for Estey in the first place. I am not trying to
condemn the wheat board. I am not trying to come through the
back door or anything. All I am saying is I respect the grain
producers, the barley producers, the pulse growers and the canola
growers. I respect all of those farm organizations, the majority
of which said to scrap the bill.
It makes good sense to get those points across. The majority of
the witnesses and the majority of the stakeholders disagreed big
time with this bill. We do have a gun at our heads. Therefore,
we have decided that for temporary gain and the long term pain
that could well be experienced by the producers, we will support
the bill. But let the record clearly show that the Canadian
Alliance pointed out the need to bring grain transportation into
the year 2000 and not take it back to 1945.
We are going backward; we are not moving ahead, as the minister
said. The move that was put into this bill is a concession by
those people who want full commercialization. Those people said
they will concede that and give a little bit of money and have
25% going into a tendering process and then it is not between the
grain companies and the railways.
I have been living with this issue since 1996, a good year
before I came to the House. No one in the House has been around
and watched the failures of the grain handling system more than I
have. I am not bragging, it is just a fact. It is just my age.
We had an opportunity to do something. We had an opportunity to
move into the new century, but no, we had to play a little
politics here. That is exactly what we did.
If I am still around and I suspect that I will be, we will be
back debating this bill within a year's time because it is doomed
to fail.
1650
Who will take the blame the next time the canola or pulse
shippers' cars cannot get to Vancouver because of unnecessary
grain cars with no boats in the harbour? Who will take the blame
for that? Nobody took the blame last time. It is always the
railways' fault. The railways were told to take the grain there,
but there can never be anybody but the railways to take all of
the blame.
I am not here to support the railways. I am simply saying that
for centuries now, when anything goes wrong it is blamed on the
railways. As I said in a speech over a year ago, in our part of
the country when the kids are in grade 6, part of the curriculum
is how to hate the railways.
It is time we became honest with ourselves and with all of the
stakeholders. This bill has not been honest with all of the
stakeholders. This bill scrapped what the government spent
thousands and thousands of dollars on simply because it was a
good idea. We were ready for the 20th century, but somebody was
not.
We will be back; I will be back. And let me say that the next
time we are back on this issue, we will do it right. That will
be the last time. We did not do it right the first time.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would certainly like to commend my colleague, the
member for Souris—Moose Mountain, for all the work he has done
on this issue, his understanding of it and the hours and hours of
endless committees where he carried the ball for the Canadian
Alliance. I thank him for that.
One of the reasons we are looking at the grain transportation
act and grain movement is that our primary producers in the grain
and oilseeds sector are suffering. We need to look at ways to
give them a little more cash in their pockets because it is a
desperate situation.
There have been groups that have said that as much as $300
million could be left on the prairies if the grain transportation
system was commercialized. That is $300 million. The estimate of
the government as a result of this bill is $178 million. We will
not stand in the way of any dollars flowing to the primary
producers because they do need it.
I have a letter which was sent to me today by an organization
which represents 90,000 farmers in western Canada, the Prairie
Farm Commodity Coalition. The group represents the Alberta
Barley Commission, the Alberta Canola Producers Commission,
Alberta Marketing Choices Implementation Group, the Alberta Rye
and Triticale Association, the Alberta Winter Wheat Producers
Commission, the Prairie Oat Growers Association, the Saskatchewan
Canola Growers Association, the Western Barley Growers
Association, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and
the Western Producer Car Group.
This group represents 90,000 primary producers. Instead of
giving some words here that could be construed to be just those
of the Canadian Alliance, I would like to read the letter from
the chairman of the group, Greg Rockafellow:
On June 8, 2000, the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition was invited
to make a submission to the House of Commons transport committee
on Bill C-34 which is part of the government's so-called
“reform” package on grain transportation. The position taken in
the PFCC submission was that the grain transportation reform
package put forward by the federal government is a sham, and will
do precisely nothing to resolve the problems that have been
studied for almost three years.
The consequences of the federal government's inaction on these
problems will have profoundly negative effects on farmers, the
grain industry and the federal government. The consequences for
the federal government will come to bear during the next tie-up
in grain movement, when vessels are once more lined up in
Vancouver harbour, sales are lost, and Canada's reputation as a
reliable supplier is further tarnished. The responsibility for
this event, when (not if) it occurs, will rest fully on the
federal government's shoulders.
It is our position that this package of so-called reform is in
fact worse than the current situation. It moves the grain
industry and the farmers back towards the old Crow rate regime
which gave us nothing but inefficiency, system breakdowns and
restricted investments. If the federal government was motivated
in the smallest degree by principle, this package would be
withdrawn. If members of parliament on both sides of the House
wanted to do what is best for western farmers, they would vote
against Bill C-34.
More serious than the loss of three years of study and
discussion is the shabby political games that have been played in
Ottawa by the government over the package. Putting forward this
backward looking and empty set of proposals, and then accusing
anyone who opposes it of “denying farmers $178 million in
freight savings” is itself symptomatic of a government which is
bereft of ideas and principle. This trap, however, is only one
way among several in which the federal government has abused
parliamentary democracy campaign over the last few weeks:
Railroading the package through with no opportunity for debate;
Having the farmers' presentations to the transport committee
occur after the deadline for any amendments to be submitted to
the committee for clause by clause consideration;
Bringing in the party whip to sit at the committee table,
driving Liberal members who dared to criticize the package off
the committee at the last minute, and replacing them with other
MPs who had not heard the presentations of any of the witnesses.
We find it repugnant in the extreme that the federal government
has put political gains ahead of the interests of farmers, has
abused the democratic and parliamentary system, and has insulted
the farm groups who travelled to Ottawa on their own time and at
their own expense to provide their views on this disgraceful
package.
Farmer representatives from the PFCC organizations spent all of
last summer working in good faith on the Kroeger facilitation
process. Each devoted considerable time and personal expense on
the premises clearly stated on May 12, 1999, that the federal
government had accepted Justice Estey's recommendations and Mr.
Kroeger was to develop an implementation plan. Clearly, the only
party that was not operating in good faith was the government,
which had no intention of implementing the Estey report. The
federal government's actions on this file over the past year have
completely undermined any trust that we will have in the future
in any consultation process.
1655
That letter alone from an organization that represents 90,000
primary producers pretty much puts in black and white what this
process has done and what it will not do. The faith the farmers
put in the government has been totally destroyed.
As the member for Souris—Moose Mountain said, when this bill
comes back the next time, it will be done right.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois to Bill C-34, which is intended to govern the
transportation of grain, particularly in the west.
Right off, for the benefit of those watching, I will point out
that our party, the Bloc Quebecois, will vote against this bill
at third reading. We will do so for on simple reason, a matter
of equity, or perhaps I should say a matter of inequity.
I would not want the members from out west to assume that this
is another chapter in the unending dispute between eastern and
western Canada. On the contrary. It is our view that the
government has once again decided, using this bill, to pit the
east against the west.
If this bill is passed, western producers will enjoy a
considerable reduction in the cost of transportation, on the
order of $178 million. This reduction will be achieved in the
form of discounts that the two railway companies—Canadian
National and Canadian Pacific—will be required to give western
producers.
On behalf of my party, I say that this is unfair to eastern
producers. When I say eastern producers, I am talking about
producers from Quebec, but also those from Ontario.
The Liberal majority across the way often tells the members of
the Bloc Quebecois, the Canadian Alliance or the Progressive
Conservative Party that they are regional parties.
1700
I would remind our Liberal friends opposite that we might ask
ourselves whether the same is not true of them. We know that
there are 155 Liberal members—
An hon. member: There are 157.
Mr. Michel Guimond: —the member from British Columbia tells me
there are 157—and that 101 of these 157 members come from
Ontario. We might therefore wonder whether the Liberal Party of
Canada is not a regional party too—the regional party of
Ontario.
I appeal to Ontario's farmers. Do they feel that they are well
represented by the federal Liberal members from Ontario, the ones
who are supporting this subsidy for western producers?
Moreover, my colleagues of the Canadian Alliance were certainly
delighted to learn that this bill was rushed through a few days
before the summer adjournment. This is a totally vote-seeking
bill, one introduced literally to buy the votes of western
farmers. They are being given some nice little goodies in order
to win them over and to get their votes.
The Canadian Alliance will have to deal with this matter when
the election comes around, which appears to be imminent for this
fall. However, it seems obvious that this is a program aimed at
buying the western farm vote.
I would like to take a few minutes to return to the $178 million
cut the two rail carriers, Canadian National and Canadian
Pacific, will be forced to make. I had the opportunity in the
Standing Committee on Transport to question directly Mr. Tellier,
the president of CN, and Mr. Ritchie, the president of CP, and
their responses leave me concerned and confused.
What I asked them was this: we know that the rail carriers have,
for the past 10 years, made the railway workers bear the brunt of
their lack of productivity. As a result, when the financial
reports were not to their liking, they announced major staff cuts
when releasing their annual financial statements.
I wish to say that my Bloc Quebecois colleagues share those
concerns.
We are concerned that the companies, Canadian National and
Canadian Pacific, not to name them, will be very tempted to have
railway workers bear the brunt—because their job will be cut—of
the $178 million drop in revenues the railroads will have to
absorb.
We should remember today, June 14, 2000, because I am warning
you that I will point out once again—I will no doubt have
another opportunity to talk on this issue—that I predicted on
June 14, today, that the railways will not absorb this $178
million within their operating costs. They will not pass it on
to their shareholders through considerable dividends. They will
not deprive their shareholders. They will deprive railway workers
of their jobs because of the number of cuts resulting directly
from Bill C-34.
Another reason we oppose this bill is that it changes the role
of the Canadian Wheat Board without our knowing how these changes
will affect its ability as a marketing agency to honour its
commitments to grain producers and its clientele worldwide.
1705
The Canadian Wheat Board is strange beast. It is an independent
agency. A number of the members of its board are appointed by
the government, as political payback. The Canadian Wheat Board
tries to make us believe that it will, with this legislation,
attempt to find the most cost effective shipping point and port
for producers.
I would like to give an example. My colleague from Thunder Bay
and I were members of a sub-committee on the future of the St.
Lawrence Seaway. One of the Bloc Quebecois' demands has always
been to have Manitoba wheat pass through Thunder Bay.
Why is a member of the Bloc Quebecois defending the Port of
Thunder Bay? The answer is obvious. Because every tonne of
wheat that goes through Thunder Bay has to go through the ports
on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. This means that
wheat that goes through Thunder Bay stands a good chance of being
redirected into other bigger ships, in the ports of Montreal,
Sorel, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City, Baie-Comeau or Sept-Îles.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois called on this government—and
the government has not agreed to do this in Bill C-34, which we
are debating today—to give preference to Thunder Bay and the St.
Lawrence Seaway as an efficient way to move wheat to European
markets in particular.
During the hearings on privatizing the St. Lawrence Seaway,
which I attended in 1995 with the member from Thunder Bay, the
then commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board admitted to us that
wheat headed for Belgium and Luxembourg went through the Port of
Vancouver.
Is it more cost effective to ship a tonne of wheat out of the
Port of Vancouver, when it has to travel down the west coast of
the United States, go through the Panama Canal and travel back up
north on its way to its final destination in Luxembourg or
Belgium, essentially shipping wheat to western Europe through
Vancouver rather than through Thunder Bay, when the ports of
Montreal, Quebec City or Sept-Îles are a few hundred kilometres
from western European ports?
Such thinking is the reason for a bill like this. That is why we
in the Bloc Quebecois cannot support Bill C-34, because, for one
thing, it does not help ports on the St. Lawrence.
Another feature of this bill with which the Bloc Quebecois has
major difficulties is the fact that it contains provisions for
$175 million worth of highway infrastructures for rural roads in
the western provinces—yet another sop to western producers. I
am sorry.
Once again, we have a double standard. Once again, Quebec is
treated differently. The government will hand over $175 million
to improve rural highway infrastructures in the west.
Does this mean that the roads used to transport grain, the
highway infrastructures for rural roads, are adequate? To ask
the question is to answer it.
1710
The Bloc Quebecois cannot accept bills such as Bill C-34, which
create inequities.
Unfortunately, since I am running out of time, I will have to
rush. The Minister of Transport himself recognizes that the
reforms affecting the grain transportation and handling system
will increase pressure on rural roads. I spoke about this issue
already.
We will oppose Bill C-34 for the three reasons we have
mentioned, the first one being the $178 million income reduction
for railroad companies, both CN and CP, which will necessarily
result in railway workers being laid off; the second is that
nothing in this bill guarantees that there will be an increase
in grain traffic, via the port of Thunder Bay, on the St.
Lawrence ports network; and the third reason why we oppose this
legislation is the $175 million budget allocated to upgrade rural
roads, while no money is provided for eastern Canada. Quebec
gets nothing, and nor does Ontario for that matter.
I see the chief government whip, who comes from the Cornwall
area. There must be agricultural producers in that region and
there must be rural roads around Cornwall. I am convinced that
Ontarians could team up with Quebec on this issue because the
situation is the same for both.
For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill
C-34 at third reading.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to take part in this important debate today on Bill C-34.
My only wish is that we had more time to debate and discuss this.
I think we all felt that it was terribly telescoped, which is not
to take anything away from the witnesses who presented to us last
week.
However, in all honesty and clarity, I must say that for the
government to have brought in background notes, a major press
release on May 10 and then require a full three weeks before the
House, the parliamentarians and the transport committee ever got
to see the legislation was, it seemed to me, a strange way to run
a railroad, if I could use that metaphor in this context.
Before I get into the thrust of my remarks, I want to comment
briefly on the remarks made by the transport critic for the Bloc
Quebecois and also the remarks made by the transport critic for
the Canadian Alliance Party.
I would just say, first to the Bloc member, that he seems to be
saying, if I understood him correctly, that this is legislation
or a bill for western Canada and nothing for the people in
Quebec. I would say to him, with respect, that the Crow's Nest
Pass freight rate agreement predated the entry of Manitoba and
Saskatchewan into confederation. We in those provinces are a
long way from tidewater, whereas in Quebec, I would submit that
most of the agriculture that is carried out in that province is
very close to the St. Lawrence Seaway system and, indeed, to
tidewater. One of the problems we have always had in western
Canada is getting our product to market, which is why we have
needed help for more than a century in this regard.
With respect to the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, the
transport critic for the Canadian Alliance, I congratulate him on
getting the only amendment that anybody got through that
committee last week, in the rush, rush, rush that we were in,
that I do not understand. He spent most of his speech
denigrating this bill. The words that he used to emphasize it
were short term gain for long term pain. However, at the end of
the day the Alliance appears to be going to vote for this bill.
1715
We in the New Democratic Party caucus will not being doing that.
We took the position at second reading that we oppose the bill.
We wanted to see some amendments. As I mentioned we received
none. Specifically the only amendment that was acceded to was
the one by the member for Souris—Moose Mountain and his party.
We just do not feel that the bill is deserving of support,
notwithstanding what the Minister of Transport said about the
taunting about $178 million and how it would look if we stand
opposed to it on behalf of the producers who will be supposedly
in receipt of the $178 million.
One of our concerns is that the memorandum of understanding
between the government and the Canadian Wheat Board was not part
of this process. The joint running rights open access question
to be negotiated involves the CTA doing a review of it. It will
be another shoe that will drop later on, some months from now.
Everyone in committee seemed to get very exercised about the
fact that MOU was not a public document. Everyone seemed to be
upset and wanted to point a finger at the Canadian Wheat Board
for the delay. I suggest that procrastination on the part of the
government in bringing forward the legislation should not result
in a crisis in terms of due diligence on the part of the Canadian
Wheat Board on this very important memorandum of understanding.
With regard to some of the amendments we moved that were all
rejected by members opposite, we note that there is no
productivity gains sharing. It has been identified by usually
reliable sources that some $700 million have accrued to the
railways since 1992 as a result of more fuel efficient
locomotives, larger hopper cars, and particularly a significant
downsizing in the workforce of the railways.
Prior to the dismantling of the Western Grain Transportation Act
those productivity gains, those windfall profits, were shared
between producers and the railways. They have not been shared
since 1992, and there is nothing in the legislation which
suggests that they will be shared in the future. That is one of
our major concerns.
Also no rate differential disciplines are mentioned at all. It
is single cars on branch lines versus single cars on main lines
and the 3% differential. We have some real concerns about that.
We believe it will come back to haunt people on main lines. It
does not deal with single cars versus multi-cars on main lines.
There are darn few single cars these days loaded on main lines.
We are also concerned about who will get the price premium.
Depending on the calendar and what commodity is being shipped,
there is nothing to ensure that we will be able to deal with that
in an adequate way.
We need clear rules for short line revenue sharing. I thought
we needed something on salvage. The Canadian government and
Canadian taxpayers have spent many millions of dollars on
upgrading railways. When a branch line is being sold off we
think it should be net of any federal taxpayer money that has
gone into it. It was an amendment moved by our caucus but not
agreed to.
There is much to say on the bill, but I will keep my remarks as
brief as I possibly can. Another member wants to participate in
this debate and I do not want to shorten his time.
During the debate a very interesting remark was made. Someone
who appeared before the committee quoted William Lyon Mackenzie
King and said that the problem with most countries was that they
had too much history and too little geography. King apparently
said that in Canada we had too much geography and too little
history. Frank Scott, a great Canadian poet, also said that
Mackenzie King never did by halves what he could do by quarters.
1720
That is how I feel about Bill C-34. All members in the House
are being asked to accept the bill on blind faith. The transport
minister said they got it right. I am not sure that they got it
right.
What if the five, six or seven major grain companies that are
around these days go through a streamlining process and are
reduced to two or three in the future? What if the two railroads
are merged into one, perhaps dominated by the United States? How
will competition work, which is the be-all and end-all according
to the government?
We are very concerned. The minister responsible for the wheat
board said that it was time to stop the bickering, that it was
time most people agreed. Most of the expert witnesses that came
before the committee had many concerns about the bill. I think
the concerns are growing rather than diminishing.
I was also disturbed when the Minister of Transport said that
they had it right but recognized that the railways and the grain
companies were not very happy with it. Mark my words. We will
be back here in a few months and there will be additional sops to
those two institutions because they have perhaps not been treated
as fairly as the government would want. It will be making the
necessary adjustments to correct that in the near future. Those
are my remarks. Our caucus will be opposing Bill C-34 at third
reading.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
extend my thanks to the member for Palliser who has allowed me to
speak as the last speaker to this bill. We can get on with life
after my few comments.
At the onset of my seven minutes or so I thank the transport
committee. I do not normally sit on that committee. Nor does
the member for Palliser. Nor does the member from the Canadian
Alliance. Normally we sit on the agriculture committee, but we
sat on the transport committee specifically because we had a bit
more knowledge with respect to western grain transportation than
perhaps my own colleague who was sitting on the transport
committee.
I thank the chairman of the transport committee who is in the
House today. I thought he did a very commendable job. He was
fair. He was honest. He was open in the process. I also thank
members of the government who sat on that committee. They were
very attentive. They listened to the petitioners and the
witnesses that came forward with very logical presentations and
points of view.
From that point on it sort of went downhill, but let us talk
about the process itself. I must spend a couple of seconds
dealing with that. The process is certainly a prime example of
the manipulative process the government has put into place with
respect to this piece of legislation.
As was mentioned earlier, this was not something that snuck up
on us. This was not an issue that jumped out of the hall closet.
We had to fix this problem. Rail transportation in western
Canada has been an issue for years and decades. As a matter of
fact, for three years now the particular issue has been studied
by what I consider to be two of the best known experts in the
industry, a gentleman by the name of Justice Willard Estey and
another gentleman by the name of Arthur Kroeger.
These individuals put forward a process that was very gruelling
and grinding. They came forward with what they thought were the
necessary changes to the system. A systemic change was
necessary. Mr. Kroeger came forward in September 1999 with his
report based on the Estey report. Mr. Kroeger said that in order
to make it work we would have to change the system. It had to
become a commercialized system. On May 10 the three ministers
came together at a press conference and told us what they would
put together with this piece of legislation.
1725
What happened between September 1999 and May 10, 2000, is kind
of a black hole. I suspect the Canadian Wheat Board had a lot of
ongoing negotiations with the minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board to try to fix the problem to the best of its
advantage, not to the advantage of producers, not to the
advantage of what Mr. Kroeger and Mr. Estey saw was a commercial
system.
Between May 10 and when we received this piece of legislation is
again kind of a black hole, a bit of a vacuum. All of a sudden
there is an urgency and a necessary 11th hour demand that the
legislation had to be passed before the House rose for its summer
recess. We had to have it in place by August 1, the crop year.
I do not disagree that we need to have the legislation in place
so that it can take effect for the next crop year. What I
disagree with is the process the government followed to get it
there. There was an 11th hour requirement. All stakeholders
were asked to come together for two grinding and demanding days
of committee hearings so they could tell us what was right and
what was wrong.
The Minister of Transport is either delusional or is totally
under a misconception. He stood before us and said that they
must have got it right, that everybody liked the legislation. I
sat through those two grinding days of hearings. Not one person,
not even the Canadian Wheat Board, said that what was being
proposed was the right legislation for the system. Out of the 30
witnesses that appeared nobody came forward and said
“Hallelujah, you got right”. In fact I heard quite the
opposite.
Organizations like the Hudson Bay Route Association said to
scrap it, that it was not good. I heard other producer
organizations come forward and say that what had been done would
exacerbate the problem of rail transportation in western Canada.
A rail coalition came forward and said nothing in the legislation
indicated who would be accountable for transportation. We would
still have the finger pointing of the past and the system would
still break down. Not one organization or producer group said
that it was the right thing to do.
Let us talk about what is not right. What is not right is the
fact that this is not a commercial system. The legislation
allows 25% of the business now performed by the Canadian Wheat
Board to be tendered. That is wonderful. It also says, and I
have also heard it, that the Canadian Wheat Board will control
not only the tendered portion but the untendered portion. It
will rebalance that tendered and untendered portion to the two
railways. That is not a commercial system. It is a manipulated
system between the Canadian Wheat Board and the railroads.
There is a monitoring process that is very positive. The
monitor is a third party that will be chosen by the government.
The monitor will report to three ministers. It will not report
to parliament, except for once a year which was a minor amendment
that was put through. Unfortunately it will not be open and
transparent like the government said it would be.
What happened when we got to the amendments at committee level
turned my faith off with respect to the particular process. We
listened to some very good people make some very good
presentations. The government then decided to take some members
from the committee who I believe were very understanding,
knowledgeable and supportive of some of the changes. It replaced
them with individuals who had never listened to the presentations
and never understood what was going on.
Believe it or not, we had the wonderful opportunity of having
the whip of the government party sitting in during the voting on
those amendments. I have a lot of respect for the whip, but why
was it necessary for him to come in at the 12th hour to make sure
government members would toe the party line? Was it necessary?
1730
We will support this legislation not because the government got
it right but because there is a carrot being dangled to my
producers who desperately need some financial recompense. One
hundred and seventy-eight million dollars may—and I stress
may—go back to them from the revenue cap on the railroads. That
is not a given in itself. We do need that $178 million to go
back to producers, plus much more. If we had a truly commercial
system, I believe that $178 million could have been $350 million.
I will reluctantly support this legislation, but the government
did not get it right. We will be back in the House within three
years to deal with other issues. We will be back in six months.
Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion for
third reading of Bill C-34. 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.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion agreed to on
division.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
[Translation]
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-37, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, be now read the
third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to order made
on Monday, June 12, 2000, the House will proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading
stage of Bill C-37.
Call in the members.
1800
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 197
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Doyle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Penson
|
Plamondon
| Ramsay
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Vautour
| Wayne – 46
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Goodale
| Hoeppner
| Lefebvre
|
Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion agreed to.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
1805
The Speaker: It being 6:07 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
NATURAL GAS
The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Earlier this motion was moved by one hon.
member in the name of another hon. member. I think the author of
the motion should have a chance to pronounce himself in the
House. I think it is only fair that I give the hon. member for
Churchill River 10 minutes to speak on his own motion.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to participate today in the third and final hour of
debate on Motion No. 298. To clarify the meaning of the motion,
I will read it. It says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide
initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and
address environmental concerns and high energy costs.
As parliamentarians, it is our duty and our responsibility to
act in the best interests of our specific constituencies and for
the betterment of Canada. It is our elected duty to represent
the best interests of all Canadians. It is our actions in this
House and in the everyday legislative process that will affect
this and future generations. What we debate and decide impacts
on the country as a whole, whether it is a bill, an act or, as in
this case with Motion No. 298, a motion to provide guidance to
this House in its vision and understanding of Canada's best
interests.
1810
The intent of this motion is not to interfere with free market
enterprises. The motion's purpose is not, and I repeat not, for
the federal government to build pipelines to every corner of this
vast and great country. The purpose of this motion is to provide
recognition of the economic disparity that some regions face
without access to clean and efficient energy sources.
While citizens in most cities can enjoy the benefits of natural
gas energy, there are entire regions of this country that do not.
There are entire unserviced regions that are being limited in
their opportunities for sustainable development. There are
regions in this country that are not only enjoying access to
clean fuels but are reaping billions of dollars of revenues,
royalties and profits.
At a time when the Prime Minister states to the country that one
of our core values is the principle of sharing our wealth and
opportunities, neglect and short-sightedness are hampering our
efforts as parliamentarians to utilize this 36th session of
parliament to improve the lives of Canadians.
We are not here to ensure the multinational corporations have
the first and exclusive access to the very raw resources that are
shared and owned by all Canadians. We are not here as
parliamentarians to ensure that disparity between regions
continues. We are not here as parliamentarians to ensure that our
natural resources are plundered by outside nations and our
citizens forced to repurchase our birthrights at inflated rates
of foreign currency exchange.
Canadians are sick and tired of watching our natural resources
flow south with little in return for ourselves except for federal
royalties. Canadians are sick and tired of listening to
governments state that there is nothing unfair or obscene with
fluctuating energy prices and overflowing corporate coffers.
Canadians are sick of dirty air and polluted water.
The motion that we are debating today is about a vision of where
we want our country to be in a year, in a decade, several
decades, as every tonne of carbon saved and cleaner energy helps
in our successful Kyoto protocol challenge.
The current federal policy in relation to natural gas is to
assist big pipelines with incentives and write-offs to ship our
natural gas, Canada's natural gas south for foreign markets.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I am sorry
to have to interrupt the hon. member, but even sitting close to
the hon. member who has the floor I can barely hear him. I would
therefore request a bit more quiet and co-operation from hon.
members.
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Madam Speaker, that is part of the
free market economy. The NDP are not anti-business or
anti-trade. As long as it is fair business on a level playing
field that will benefit Canadians, the NDP will support.
Thousands of jobs are tied to the natural gas resource sector.
This is good. We believe that thousands of more jobs could be
created by increasing access to unserviced areas.
The intent of this motion is to contribute to value-added
enterprises in the forestry sector, in the agricultural sector
and all sectors of industry across this country. As harvesting
moves further and further north in mining and forestry, there are
opportunities for kilns and processing centres scattered across
the Boreal forest. It is wasteful energy to expend energy to
have access to raw matériel only. Let us make sure that this
energy is used for value-added products.
Increased jobs come with access to natural gas. Following the
principles of sustainability, it ensures long term and constant
profitability.
The intent of this motion is a better future rather than today's
cap and ship policy, a policy that dates to the past century and
encouraged by unfettered free trade markets where domestic
concerns and issues are secondary to invisible shareholders, the
Bay or Wall Streets speculative markets, or the whole term of
colonization.
We should avoid speculation, and the facts are too real. Forced
to go head to head at outlandish inequities of foreign exchange
rates, many opportunities for Canadian enterprises are lost even
before they begin.
1815
The motion does not state to turn off the taps or put a
definitive domestic cap on natural gas. It asks that we as
parliamentarians recognize the disparities and provide
initiatives to level the playing field for Canada and its
citizens. It is our gas. Why endorse policies to strip our
children and future generations from their birthright? Indeed,
the future is now.
Forced to go head to head with American rates of consumption,
our natural gas rates for heating Canadian homes in the winter
are expected to rise by 50% to 100%. Chicago is being placed
before Selkirk, Burlington or Wascana. In the north, including
in my own riding, the gas flows right under our feet and away to
southern regions but not into our homes.
The north is about to enter into unrivalled natural gas
exploration and development and exports in the several decades to
come. What message will parliament send on our vision of the
future?
We understand that the government is now moving forward on
energy efficiency initiatives partly because of Canada's
international responsibilities with Kyoto. The main reason to go
forward into a cleaner century is not the limitations but the
basic fact that clean energy and efficiency means profits for our
country. Monetary gain and precious savings from cleaner air and
reduced costs will be a lot less of a burden on our health care
system. Cleaner lungs for our children and the next generation
will reduce the impact on our health care system.
On this premise of efficiency the current federal policy, lies.
We recognize that efficiency savings over time create benefits
for action. Not all communities can proceed on this premise.
An example is the often repeated concern in the Churchill River
constituency where excellent community efforts are bringing
natural gas across the distances to provide economic opportunity
in regions that did not have it before.
I call special attention to the Anglin Lake natural gas
committee led by its outstanding member, Alice Tatryn. It has
achieved success, but national initiatives would have accelerated
this promise years ago.
I call attention to the outstanding efforts of my constituency
assistant Judy Bridle. Day in and day out she listens to the
concerns of constituents who want natural gas. Residents know
and trust her judgment. They know very well that the resources
are under their feet but not in their homes. A disheartening fact
and reality is that many Canadians who want natural gas
extensions are forced to go without access to clean energy
because of minor percentage points in access to capital and
related endeavours. This portrait is repeated across Canada in
unserviced areas.
Canadians would like to do their part for energy efficiency in
their homes and workplace. In Labrador and New Brunswick, Nunavut
or the Yukon these advantages do not exist.
We acknowledge that the Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive
Conservatives support this motion. They demonstrate the vision
necessary to go beyond the shortsighted profiteering as reflected
in the agreements between Quebec and New Brunswick to encourage
regional natural gas access for better development opportunities
for their citizens and future generations.
It is time that other parliamentarians recognized and
contributed their support in a similar manner by voting for this
motion.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
happy to speak to the motion. I spoke to the issue earlier in
parliament before the member for Churchill River had an
opportunity to introduce his motion. It is a well thought out
and timely motion as events are unfolding in the history of the
country and how we deal with our future energy needs.
So everyone understands what we are debating here, Motion No.
298 put forward by the hon. member for Churchill River reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide
initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and
address environmental concerns and high energy costs.
The motion speaks to more than just that. Many regions in
Canada already have natural gas distribution.
In much of Alberta, which was government assisted, there is
natural gas distribution, as well as in much of Ontario and
Saskatchewan. There is less in Manitoba; there certainly is some
but most of it is close to the pipeline.
1820
The motion speaks to a more comprehensive federal plan to assist
that distribution of natural gas throughout the country. On the
east coast of Canada at the present time, we are just beginning
to understand and enjoy the benefits of natural gas usage. There
is a pipeline now from Sable Island, on which I had the good
fortune to work as a driller on the offshore from 1980 to 1988 on
Sable Island, Newfoundland and the Gulf of Mexico.
That natural gas is being delivered into Goldboro going into the
Maritimes & Northeast pipeline, throughout the riding represented
by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, throughout the
riding represented by the member for Cumberland—Colchester,
through New Brunswick into Maine and down into the northeastern
United States.
It is important to understand that certainly those areas close
to the pipeline will be fed automatically. There are many other
areas including northern New Brunswick, the
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac riding, and the South Shore riding which
I represent, that will not benefit immediately from the natural
gas in the pipeline, natural gas off our own shores.
We can look at what is going on in this country as far as energy
requirements and the major gas and oil players in Canada. The
Alliance pipeline, when it is built, will go from northern B.C.
and northern Alberta to the Peace River district all the way to
Chicago. It will feed the energy needs of the mid-central
industrialized United States, but will not necessarily benefit
the energy needs of northern Alberta and northern B.C.
We need a more holistic look at this. How do we deliver natural
gas to the outlying and more remote areas of Canada? That is what
the motion speaks to.
There are trillions and trillions of cubic metres of natural gas
in the Canadian Arctic. There is drilling for natural gas in the
Canadian Arctic today. There is drilling for natural gas in the
Northwest Territories. We hold tremendous potential to fill
Canada's energy requirements of Canada and much of the rest of
North America, but while we are doing that, and it is certainly
profit motivated, let us take a look at meeting our own energy
requirements.
Take for example the branch line that will come off the
Maritimes & Northeast pipeline. Sempra Gas has already won the
bid to supply gas to Nova Scotia. I think it has a pretty solid
plan and will be able to deliver on that plan. That branch line
will go into the Musquodoboit area, feed into Halifax, Dartmouth,
Sackville, the Burnside industrial park area. That is the main
area it will be supplying.
We need another branch line that does not just go down the
Annapolis Valley and feed that area all the way to Yarmouth, but
two branch lines, one down the Annapolis Valley and the other one
down the South Shore. The last time I spoke to this issue, I
talked about the development of that branch line, the possibility
of running it down the abandoned railroad lines that are being
used for recreational purposes as walking, hiking and biking
trails. That is a realistic opportunity for Sempra Gas to
develop.
In the South Shore area there is a very real opportunity that we
may get gas into Bridgewater. We may be able to run it down the
abandoned rail line past East River and feed the hardboard plant
in East River. We may get to Michelin Tires. We may get to
Bowater Mersey in Liverpool. From there on we are going to have
to squeeze government a lot harder in order to get that natural
gas into the other areas of the province. There is the little
community of New Ross which I come from, and communities like New
Germany, Caledonia, Lockeport, Shelburne, Barrington and Gunning
Cove.
1825
Everyone in this room has heard of clear water lobster. I am
sure it is no surprise to anyone. Only a handful of people in
this room would understand that 60% to 70% of the lobster
exported out of southwest Nova Scotia comes from Cape Sable
Island. All the lobster is held in holding pens. A lot of it is
refrigerated. Natural gas can be used to produce refrigeration.
There are hundreds of fish plants in South Shore and West Nova
and the southwestern region of Nova Scotia. Natural gas could be
a primary driver of those plants. It could be a primary driver
of the refrigeration units that are required to run those
operations.
The motion speaks not only to a requirement in rural Nova Scotia
and other rural and remote areas in Canada, but to a requirement
for cheap energy costs, a requirement to meet our Kyoto
obligations, and a requirement to meet our acid rain obligations.
If we feed natural gas into the United States, obviously it will
have cleaner energy and there would be less acid rain coming up
north.
The House has looked at endangered species legislation. I am
astounded when I talk to members of parliament that they do not
understand the threat to Atlantic salmon stocks. We had 1.2
million Atlantic salmon returning to the rivers in eastern
Canada. Today, 80,000 Atlantic salmon return to the rivers in
eastern Canada including Nova Scotia.
I live near the Gold River, a small river which runs into Mahone
Bay. Twenty years ago 1,000 or 2,000 fish would come up that
river but today we would be lucky if there were 70 or 80 and
maybe fewer. Atlantic salmon is an endangered species. We talk
about legislation but we are doing nothing to protect it.
The easiest way to bring back our salmon stocks is to get rid of
acid rain in the northeastern United States. The easiest way to
bring salmon stocks back in Europe, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and
Greenland is to get rid of acid rain coming out of industrialized
Europe. One way is to feed the power generators with natural
gas. It is clean, efficient and fairly cheap.
We have seen rising fuel costs straight across North America and
not just at the gasoline pumps and not just for furnace oil.
I would like to congratulate the member for Churchill River for
introducing the motion. It was timely and it was put forward in
good faith. It is incumbent upon parliament to support this as
much as we can. There is a real need and it is not just to
supply natural gas to remote and rural areas of Canada, but to
also meet the energy requirements under our Kyoto obligations and
to meet the needs of our children in the future, to keep Atlantic
salmon in eastern Canada and other species of fish, plants and
wildlife in this country.
I support the motion and I congratulate the member for bringing it
forward.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central
to participate in the debate on Motion No. 298. The motion calls
for the government to provide initiatives to deliver natural gas
to unserviced regions in Canada.
As always in private members' business, it is appropriate to
commend the hon. member for raising a matter in the House that
otherwise would not be raised. The matter the hon. member for
Churchill River has raised shows clearly that his heart is in the
right place. The availability of environmentally friendly clean
fuel for the remote areas of Canada is important.
As a member from one of the largest metropolitan centres in
Canada, one of the fastest growing in population, our hearts go
out to the small towns and villages and very remote areas in our
country.
1830
There are many of us who can only imagine what it is like to not
enjoy the conveniences and easy access to things that we frankly
take for granted in our busy cities. These things include many
types of infrastructure, such as roads, water, sewers,
electricity, telephone and other things that become very precious
when we talk about Canada's communities bordering on our
hinterland. The member can be assured that the people of Surrey
Central respect and acknowledge what this motion is trying to
address.
We take for granted the natural gas that heats our homes and
cooks our meals. It is not our fault. In our daily lives, with
all of the hustle and bustle, we consider certain things as
given, but Canada's northern climate creates unique heating
needs, not only in homes but also in schools and workplaces.
As parliamentarians we would like to help provide areas
unserviced by natural gas with initiatives to reduce heavy oil
and diesel dependency. Where natural gas is available, a variety
of energy efficiency opportunities are possible. Coal generation
and mixed fuel power production are two examples.
Energy efficiency in Canada will be a contributing factor in our
ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas is the
cleanest burning and most acceptable carbon energy source.
Canadian natural gas is distributed to more than four million
customers in six provinces.
Natural gas provides 26% of Canada's energy needs, and this
percentage is increasing each year. In addition, Canada's
natural gas exports are experiencing exponential growth. Canada
has plenty of natural gas. It is an economical source of energy
and it is clean, but it is under provincial jurisdiction. The
provision of natural gas is a matter for the provinces to deal
with.
We have to be sure that justification exists for bringing in
natural gas over a significant geographical hurdle. We need to
ensure that there is considerable demand for the commodity. To
fulfil what the motion is asking may require that a remote
community have a special need, or at least more of a need than
normal business activity and activity in the residential sector
would ordinarily demand. This may mean that remote communities
with a potential major consumer, for example a large business,
would be seen to have a greater demand than another community.
What is the solution?
There is room for governments to regulate rates so that
averaging would make services and commodities more affordable and
increase total demand by making them more attractive for more
consumers. The provinces and the territories have a very
important regulatory role to play in these activities. All of
these things are already happening where they are needed, where
demand is sufficient and where they are not a burden on the
taxpayers. They are market sensitive and regionally sensitive
and they properly allocate our energy resources.
The governments of Quebec and New Brunswick recognized the need
for regional natural gas distribution. They signed an agreement
in February for improved services and allocation.
There is opportunity in northern and other remote areas for
natural gas exploration incentives that would place the source
close to unserviced communities. This would create a whole new
affordability index in terms of servicing remote communities. In
these situations there is opportunity for provincial and
territorial governments to put incentives in place to try to
expand the servicing area of natural gas distribution.
1835
However, this is an entirely different matter from what this
private member's motion contemplates. This motion contemplates
federal spending when the jurisdiction is almost exclusively
provincial or territorial. In other words, the motion
contemplates a massive intrusion of the federal government into
provincial and territorial affairs.
As I have said, Canada is a major global natural gas producer
and a major exporter to the United States. Canadian companies
are at the forefront in developing natural gas alternatives to
traditional engine fuels. Many people are aware of this, as much
attention has been paid to the stock market and publicly traded
companies.
The major environmental benefit is that this reduces vehicle
pollutants. The economic benefits come from the reduced fuel
cost, as well as reduced maintenance costs and increased engine
life.
Natural gas is an excellent fuel source and Canada, as we know,
is blessed with large reserves. It is important that we properly
manage our wealth in this respect. We must do it right in terms
of how we develop, distribute, market and creatively manage our
legacy.
Earlier in the spring, the foreign affairs committee travelled
to Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Armenia. There is a great
deal of oil and gas in these parts of the world and there exists
a well-knit pipeline in the region. There is a potential for the
rest of the world, particularly Canadian companies, to explore
those possibilities.
In Canada gas prices increase because we rely on Middle East
countries for our supply, among other factors. Whenever the
Middle East decides to jack-up its prices, it affects the prices
at home. We now see the average Canadian paying more at the gas
pumps because the prices are fluctuating significantly. We do
not want to be susceptible to the gulf crisis of the early 1990s
or other kinds of crises that occur in that region of the world
which cause our energy costs to rise.
If the government takes on an initiative to help construct more
natural gas pipelines to remote areas in Canada, we would hope
that it would work with the provinces, the territories and the
private sector. The private sector could take over the pipelines
once they were up and running and allow market forces to prevail.
That would be sustainable development. That would accomplish the
intent of this motion.
Once again, I appreciate the intent of the motion and I
appreciate the work done by the hon. member from the NDP on this
issue.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order
made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of Motion
No. 298 are deemed put, a recorded division deemed demanded and
deferred until Thursday, June 15, at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, about a month ago I raised a question in the House
of Commons with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development concerning a $10,000 grant to the Ottawa Tulip
Festival. So far I have not had any answers that I like the
sound of.
I asked how the general progress and welfare of poverty stricken
people were promoted by making a $10,000 grant to the Ottawa Tulip
Festival. The minister replied that every single department,
including his, had an education component to make Canadians aware
of what aboriginal culture is all about and that is what his
department was doing.
1840
First, I doubt that every department of the government is making
grants to make Canadian people aware of aboriginal culture. If
every department in government is making such grants, then of
course that is completely out of line with any common sense.
The $10,000 grant story did not end there. Then there was a
contract given to Poirier Communications for $3,538.60 to set up
a tent and take it down.
We looked into the price of setting up tents and taking them
down and we found that people we knew had two tents set up on the
same day, a 40 foot by 70 foot and a 20 by 20, for $3,000. That
is a little better price, but it is sort of in the ballpark. We
do not know whether this tent was the size of this room or
whether it was a pup tent, but it cost over $3,000 to have it set
up and taken down.
All of a sudden the cost jumped to $13,000. That was in 1998.
The previous year there was no grant that I am aware of, but
there was a $25,000 contract for reservations for a booth at the
tulip festival from May 8 to May 18. That is $2,500 a day. I do
not know if that is a reasonable price to make a reservation or
not, but the reservation for a booth at the tulip festival is a
maximum of $650. We are wondering what became of the other
$24,350. I wonder if I could get an answer to that.
On top of that, we were wondering, would this not be better
spent by Heritage Canada, if it has to be spent at all? Why is
the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, whose
mandate it is to see to the general progress and welfare of
Indians, promoted by the use of this money? Surely Heritage
Canada is the agency that should be making these kinds of
expenditures.
These are some things for the minister to think about.
I had put another question to the minister concerning the
situation on Canada's reserves. According to RCAP, 23% lack
water, 65% of on reserve housing falls below standards, and the
health of many, many people on reserve is not good. I asked the
minister what the people who have to carry water to their rundown
houses would think of this grant approval. His answer was that
these people are the ones who applied for the grant.
The main question I would like to have answered is: Can the
minister table in the House any documentation that will prove to
me and to members of the House that it was poor people who live
in rundown housing who approved the grant?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Prince
Albert on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development concerning the department's $10,000 grant to the 1998
National Tulip Festival.
Under the theme “A Celebration of Canada's Provinces and
Territories”, the 1998 National Tulip Festival was intended to
mark and commemorate the wide range of cultural diversity in
Canada.
Canada's north, especially the Northwest Territories and
Nunavut, was a significant highlight of this particular
celebration, particularly in the context of the creation of the
new territory, which occurred, as members know, on April 1, 1999.
Members of the House and most Canadians will recall the large and
vast celebrations which occurred at that time in the northern
region.
In addition to his responsibility for the department, the
minister also has responsibilities in relation to Canada's north.
The grant was allocated by the minister under the northern
affairs program budget to contribute to and support the
activities of the 11 day presentation of Nunavut and the
Northwest Territories, especially Northwest Territories Day on
May 14 and Nunavut Day on May 16.
1845
The festival provided a significant opportunity to raise the
awareness of the public and the media of the upcoming creation of
this territory, as well to heighten the understanding about the
unique and diverse cultures of northerners, especially aboriginal
people.
It also served to broaden knowledge about the north, the
potential visitors and tourism, in this sense an investment. The
funds allocated to this project were entirely consistent with the
mandate and authorities of the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and supported national objectives for the
territories.
[Translation]
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, on behalf
of my party, I take this opportunity to ask a question
concerning transfer payments.
The Minister of Finance has been questioned on this on numerous
occasions in this House. He has always come out with a series
of figures that are totally unsatisfactory to my party and to
the Government of Quebec, and in particular to Pauline Marois,
the Minister of Health.
When I asked my question of the Minister of Finance, I quoted an
expert who had worked along with Lester B. Pearson in his day.
According to this expert, the federal government's behaviour,
and that of the Minister of Finance in particular, made it
extremely difficult to understand the logic used in determining
transfer payments.
Again today, I was amazed to hear the Minister of Health's
announcement, made in Ontario with great fanfare, of initiatives
aimed at rural Canadians. That means another $80 million that
will be taken away, over the heads of existing structures, such
as the Government of Quebec, its department of health, and all
the health infrastructure in place in Quebec.
It would be much more simple to have the Minister of Finance
tell us why he is refusing to reinstate the transfer payments at
1994 levels. This situation is causing major headaches to
provincial health ministers. For example, in the case of Quebec,
it involves a shortfall of $1.5 billion.
If this government really wants to show it still has a social
conscience and is concerned about health care, it will release
the funds needed to reinstate the transfer payments.
Once again, I insist. Perhaps with all the rumours going around
at the moment, with the health summit approaching in September,
we can expect the government to be more open.
If, however, we go with the current reaction of the Prime
Minister on parental leave, I have my doubts about the Minister
of Finance's willingness to reinstate transfer payments.
Will transfer payments be reinstated soon? There is an urgent
need for them everywhere, especially in Quebec. This money does
not belong to the federal government. It belongs to taxpayers
who paid it. Taxes are higher than usual. The middle class is
hit hard.
Why is the government refusing to reinstate transfer payments at
their 1994 levels? Could the Minister of Finance, in accordance
with the party line, take the word of the many experts who have
criticized his action since he became Minister of Finance,
especially his calculations? Already, major budget surpluses
have been announced. With the minister there are often
discrepancies between the forecasts and reality of between 50%
and 60%.
When will transfer payments be reinstated? What new policies
could the government announce to make things just a little fairer
for Quebecers?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, health
care is a priority of the government. The federal government has
restored social transfers to 1994-95 levels.
1850
Total CHST, that is cash and tax points, will reach an all time
high of close to $31 billion in the year 2000-01, and it will
continue to grow. This is up $900 million from the previous peak
in 1995-96 and up $1.8 billion since the government took office
in 1993-94.
Canada's strong economy has also significantly increased the
value of other major transfers to the provinces. Equalization
payments to less prosperous provinces are estimated at $9.5
billion this year. Total transfers will reach an estimated $40.6
billion this year and will continue to grow over the next four
years. This increase in total transfers means that provincial
governments can strengthen social programs that are important to
Canadians, programs such as health care.
What does all this mean for Quebec? In 2000-01 transfers to
Quebec will exceed $11.5 billion. They will account for about
25% of Quebec's estimated revenues. They are expected to total
about $1,566 per person, which is about 18% above the national
average. Over the next five years Quebec will receive about
$58.9 billion in federal transfers.
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, on March 23 I raised the matter of the new farm safety
net agreement announced earlier this year. My riding of
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, the true heart of agriculture in
Ontario with Lambton county alone producing more than the entire
province of New Brunswick, the safety net agreement came as
welcome news to those confronting historically low commodity
prices and mother nature.
After meeting with the local federations of agriculture in
Lambton, Kent and Middlesex, and hearing from many farmers,
whether it was in a grocery store on a Saturday morning or calls
to my three constituency offices, they were unanimous on one
point. Farmers in my riding, indeed across the country, were
looking for a solid, national, effective and equitable long term
safety net program.
Whether it was the corn, wheat or soybean growers, or the
cattle, hog or lamb producers, they told me that fairness must be
the end result. No one province or no one region of the country
should be treated differently than any other with regard to the
farm programs. I heard that loud and clear from my constituents
in the farm belt.
I am therefore pleased that our agriculture minister, with his
provincial counterparts, established the new three year agreement
that will be proportionately based on the size of the industry in
each province. That is eminently fair and supportable by all
concerned. Farmers need useful, long term safety nets.
The $3.3 billion agreement reached in March is a fine example of
federal and provincial co-operation and is a step in the right
direction, but we must keep up the fight on behalf of farmers in
Ontario and across the country who are hit with the double effect
of chronically low commodity prices and huge U.S. subsidies.
The announcement builds on the work of the standing committee on
agriculture. We released our report in February entitled
“Making the Farm Income Safety Net Stronger and More Responsive
to the Farmers' Needs”. We heard from farmers and their
organizations in every province. The input was from those most
affected and the most knowledgeable about exactly what is
happening on the farm today.
After two years of intense negotiations our federal minister of
agriculture has shown great leadership by compelling all
ministers to pull together and overcome the challenges of
Canadian agriculture and the challenges of the federal-provincial
discussions.
Reaching consensus with the provinces that represent such a
diverse group of farmers is no easy task at any time. I am
pleased that the agreement is designed to prove the maximum
degree of farm income stabilization possible. By working
together, the provinces, the federal government, members of
parliament, farmers and their organizations can shape a truly
national vision for agriculture in the 21st century.
1855
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex who, if nothing else, is
a persistent supporter of agriculture in this country, especially
agriculture in her riding. It gives me great pleasure to expand
on my answer of March 23 to the question she posed on that date.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food has worked very hard
with his provincial counterparts and the industry. He has
announced a tentative agreement with all 10 provinces on a long
term safety net plan. This will provide producers across Canada
with the stability they need to thrive. The work before all
governments now is to iron out the details of the agreement
including the details of a disaster program.
The Government of Canada is pleased that an agreement has been
achieved that provides for a three year farm income framework. We
are confident that the plan will be ratified by each of the
provinces as soon as possible. They have each committed to seek
the authorities they need from their respective cabinets and
provincial legislatures.
The tentative agreement provides annual federal funding of $665
million for basic safety net programs and access to $435 million
in income disaster assistance in each of the next three years.
When the agreement is finalized the federal commitment to safety
net funding will be more than $3.3 billion for the next three
years.
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the adjournment
debate on this next to last day of the session, which was marked
by the scandal at Human Resources Development Canada.
As we know, the federal government lost control over $1 billion
in grants.
We found very serious problems, administrative management flaws
and a total lack of control by the ministers responsible, both
the former one, now the Minister for International Trade, and
the current Minister of Human Resources Development.
Worse, the government shamelessly used public funds for partisan
purposes during the last election campaign. As we know, the RCMP
is currently conducting 12 investigations.
Worse yet is the fact that the effectiveness of the job creation
program was questioned. Today, newspaper headlines are to the
effect that the Liberals are considering eliminating these
programs. All this because of the mismanagement of public funds.
We must make a clear distinction between the relevancy of the
job creation programs and the way they are managed. But this
government will certainly be held responsible.
What sort of solution did the government propose? With respect
to the issue of administrative management: dismantling the
department. I would be in favour of that, and in fact I was the
one who suggested it to the committee. But there has been no
proposal from the Prime Minister or from the government for a
department that is truly accountable.
Why was the present minister not asked to resign so that another
minister could be appointed to oversee the dismantling of the
department? This minister's mandate could be for a specific
period of time. At the end of the road, there would be a new and
clear situation. The problem would not be carried over to future
new departments.
As for the use of money for partisan purposes, that is very
serious on the eve of a federal election. We have the same
situation we had four years ago. If it wants to, the government
will be able to use public money to try to win the election.
We will see the same scenario all over again. Money became
available, particularly in the ridings of Bloc Quebecois members
who were here in the 1997 election: 63% of the money spent under
the transitional job fund over three years was spent during the
election campaign, which is utterly shocking. The government has
put no measures in place to correct this situation.
Why is it that the government does not have the political will
to do something about this? Are there secret groups behind this?
Is it because this was how the election was won in Saint-Maurice
that the government does not want to sort this out for the
future? Why did the government refuse to conduct an independent,
public inquiry, as the opposition parties unanimously called for
it to do?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, grants and
contributions is an important part of Canadian social programs
and the government takes their administration very seriously.
1900
First, I want to clear the air that we did not lose $1 billion.
We did not lose control of $1 billion. An internal audit
identified administrative problems and that is why HRDC has taken
steps outlined in an action plan to correct the problems.
As the hon. member knows perfectly well, this issue has been
examined in great detail over the past months and continues to be
looked at in great detail.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, on which
that member sits, tabled its final report on June 1. If one
reads the report it is clear that it fully addresses the
fundamental issues at hand, namely, the need to restore public
confidence and the need to improve the management and
administration of those programs.
The government is committed to reviewing the committee's
recommendations in detail and to respond fully, as it does with
any other committee report.
The auditor general, an independent officer of this House, is
already auditing HRDC's grants and contributions and will report
in the fall.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has received the
best outside advice possible to assist her in correcting the
situation, from private sector experts, from the auditor general
himself and from the treasury board. Progress on correcting the
situation will be reported on publicly.
We believe these steps will ensure that we correct the situation
in an open manner so that Canadians can be assured that their tax
dollars are properly accounted for.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on this next
to last day of sitting, I welcome the opportunity to go back to
a question I asked in this House back in April. I said:
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, 300 people gathered on the Acadian
peninsula to ask the federal and provincial governments to
assume their responsibility in the matter of the black hole
created by the changes to unemployment insurance in 1996 by this
government.
This black hole, or gapper as it is called, is the time between
the end of the EI benefit period in January and May, when
fishing resumes, when forestry workers can start working again
and when construction employees can find work.
In my question, I also said this:
Yesterday, the Premier of New Brunswick told a group of 200
people that New Brunswick was not responsible for the black
hole.
What is the Minister of Human Resources Development going to do
to resolve the problem of the black hole once and for all?
The minister's reply was:
Mr. Speaker, we are very sensitive to the plight of seasonal
workers.
How can the Liberals be sensitive to the plight of seasonal
workers, when they are the ones who, in 1996, put them in that
black hole? It is the federal Liberal government which put
workers and seasonal workers in a black hole, and the minister
says:
Mr. Speaker, we are very sensitive to the plight of seasonal
workers.
Yet it was the Liberals who put seasonal workers in the black
hole.
This is disgusting. That is the word I will use.
I had a private member's motion, which was introduced in the
House of Commons and passed by 100% of those present. The
Liberals voted in favour of my motion, indicating that they were
going to review unemployment insurance. But they have not yet
had the gumption to do so.
In March, at the Liberal Convention that was held here in
Ottawa, the Prime Minister said “We lost the Atlantic provinces
because of the changes to employment insurance. The law has to
be changed if we are to win their support back”.
I can say to the Liberals across the way, however, that the
people of the Atlantic provinces cannot be bought. The
Liberals' changes to employment insurance are not going to buy
them votes.
What they need to do, in all honesty, is to make changes to
employment insurance. They are supposedly not happy with the
changes that have been made, and upset about the situation of
the seasonal workers. I would therefore ask them to do the
honourable thing, and make real changes in employment insurance
for the seasonal workers, whether in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Northern Ontario—in Timmins,
Kapuskasing or Hearst—or in Windsor, in Edmonton, Alberta, or
anywhere else.
1905
As the chief government whip has told us, Cornwall got $500,000
from the transitional jobs fund in order for Wal-Mart to create
jobs and so on. I thin that he believes in the cause. Yet we
know that even the Liberal Party whip had voted in favour of
changes to employment insurance. All the Liberals did.
Now, before the House adjourns, I would like to see the
parliamentary secretary rise in this House and tell us “Yes, the
Liberals are going to make changes to employment insurance, not
to buy votes, but because the situation we have put seasonal
workers in back in 1996 saddens us and we want to remedy the
situation, and because it is unacceptable, from the humane point
of view”.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
government is very sensitive to the plight of seasonal workers.
That is exactly why we modernized the EI system so that it can
help get people back to work as quickly as possible. We also
negotiated labour market agreements with the provinces to ensure
that our job programs better meet the local needs.
This year's monitoring and assessment report of those changes
shows that frequent claimants, such as seasonal workers, benefit
from the new EI system. These claimants now have an average
entitlement period of 32.8 weeks, which is three weeks longer
than it was before the changes. Frequent claimants also continue
to receive 42.9% of all benefits paid. Their share of benefits
paid has actually increased.
It is important to remember that EI benefits are just one
solution available for seasonal workers. Our priority is to work
with our partners to improve job opportunities and economic
development for individuals and communities that rely on seasonal
work. It is the end result that really counts.
Since 1993, two million more Canadians are working and the
unemployment rate has dropped to 6.6%, the lowest in 24 years.
Even in New Brunswick the unemployment rate has dropped nearly
three percentage points since October 1993 and 32,000 more people
are working today in that member's province.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just before we go on
to the next bit of business, I understand my little grandchildren
are watching. I want to say hello to Danielle and Colton.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order
made earlier today, the motion to adjourn the House is deemed
withdrawn.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-18, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired
driving causing death and other matters), be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise this evening to speak to this
legislation.
With Bill C-82 of the previous session and Bill C-18 of this
session, the government will have implemented every
recommendation for a specific criminal code change that the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights made in its report
toward eliminating impaired driving.
It was a distinct pleasure to observe the non-partisan approach
taken by all parties during the committee's review of the
impaired driving provisions. I believe the collegial atmosphere
in committee was an extension of the unanimous support given by
the House to the motion of the official opposition in October
1998 which initiated the committee's review.
I am certain that all members agree that impaired driving is a
totally unnecessary behaviour. The consequences of impaired
driving are tragic precisely because, in hindsight, other actions
so shocking in their simplicity could have avoided the
heart-rending results.
While we can easily agree on the pernicious problem, we are not
always agreed on the solutions. I accept that we will not always
fully agree on the appropriate solutions. Most importantly, I
would not want to diminish our unity concerning the
unacceptability of driving while impaired because that bedrock
message needs to go out from this House.
That message is best supported when we show respect for views on
impaired driving solutions that differ from our own but which are
just as sincerely held. I say this because there are some
differing opinions on one particular clause in Bill C-18.
1910
The Bloc Quebecois is concerned that raising the maximum penalty
for impaired driving causing death from 14 years imprisonment to
life imprisonment, as proposed in Bill C-18, is too harsh. I
respect the Bloc's view. However, I believe that this amendment
would enhance deterrence and denunciation of impaired driving
causing death. The amendment would harmonize the maximum penalty
for impaired driving causing death with the maximum penalty for
manslaughter and for criminal negligence causing death.
The proposed amendment in Bill C-18 addresses only the maximum
penalty that may be imposed. I again remind all members that a
maximum penalty is reserved for the worst offender and the worst
offence circumstances.
Governments, private and public organizations, families and
individuals play key roles in the struggle against impaired
driving. I want to acknowledge the successes that such combined
efforts have achieved. I am happy to note that there has been
significant improvement over the past dozen years.
Fatally injured drivers whose blood alcohol concentration was
over the criminal law limit comprised 43% of all fatally injured
drivers in 1987. By 1997 this dropped to 32%. This occurred at
the same time that the number of road deaths from all causes was
decreasing. Therefore, the lowered statistic of fatally injured
drivers who were over the legal limit, as a percentage of all
fatally injured drivers, is very significant.
Although we have seen progress in reducing alcohol involved road
fatalities, we should not forget that impaired driving behaviour
remains a very great challenge. A Traffic Injury Research
Foundation survey published in 1999 suggested that in Canada
there are some 12.5 million impaired driving trips taken each
year. Some 2.6% of drivers account for 84% of impaired driving
trips. In British Columbia in 1998 more than 80% of alcohol
involved road fatalities were persons in or on the alcohol
involved driver's vehicle, including the alcohol involved driver.
In 1997 it is estimated that there were 1,350 alcohol involved
impaired driving deaths nationally.
Impaired driving has shown itself to be a persistent problem.
Parliament first introduced a driving while intoxicated offence
in 1921. In 1925 it introduced the first intoxicated driving
offence related to a drug. Prior to 1969 there were several
significant changes to the impaired driving provisions, including
the creation of an offence for driving while impaired by alcohol
or a drug. In 1969 the offence of driving with a blood alcohol
concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per cent was added.
There were significant changes in 1985 that created the offences
of impaired driving causing bodily harm or death. Since 1985
parliament amended the impaired driving provisions on at least a
half dozen occasions. These changes address interpretations in
the case law and drafting difficulties. The need for Bill C-82
and Bill C-18 remind us just how persistent a problem impaired
driving is.
We should also bear in mind that every five years we have a new
cohort of young people aged 16 to 21 who are entering the driving
population. It is estimated that by 2010 the percentage of
Canadians aged 16 to 24 will return to levels not seen since the
early 1980s. Even if we could eliminate all impaired driving
today there would be much work to be done for new drivers of the
future. It is important to reach out continually to new drivers.
As we enter into this happy period of graduations and school
proms, I urge our students not to drink and drive. Students are
loved and cherished by their families and friends and should not,
under any circumstances, become tragic statistics. Those who
must drink should respect the designated driver tradition. All
Canadians will be glad for that, especially the moms and dads.
The criminal law is an important measure amongst a combination
of measures that can be brought to bear upon the problem of
impaired driving. However, while criminal legislation must do its
part, criminal legislation by itself cannot be expected to
eliminate impaired driving. The conviction rate for criminal
charges of impaired driving, at 77% in 1997, is amongst the
highest, if not the highest, for any criminal code offence.
1915
Yet the persons who are apprehended and charged with impaired
driving offences represent a small percentage of the actual
number of impaired driving trips taken. This is a very alarming
and a disturbing thought.
It is the combination of efforts aimed against impaired driving
that our hope for further progress is nourished. Bill C-18 is
one part of the needed combination of measures.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to lend my support to this very important bill.
I think we can get lost in statistics and they can become very
impersonal. However, I will never forget the day that one of my
colleagues at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, where
I worked, phoned to say that he would not be coming to work that
day because his sister had just been killed. It turned out that
she had been killed by a drunken driver. I believe she was 18
years old at the time.
When something like that happens, we realize that this is
something that is very serious and something that we must take
great action to stop. As the parliamentary secretary just said,
we probably cannot pass laws that will eliminate this totally.
What we need is a massive overhaul of public attitude toward
this.
It should be an automatic given that if a person is impaired, or
anywhere near impaired, that they decline to drive. There is
always another way of getting from point A to point B
if they are not able to drive.
I remember one day—and this person probably does not remember
who did it to him—I was driving behind a driver who literally
was bouncing off the curbs where there were three lanes in the
road. He was going from one side to another. I was heading out
into the country where my family lives, and he was going onto a
two lane country road. Fortunately, the very last light before
he left the town that I was in was red. I pulled up behind him,
threw on my four-way flashers, jumped out of my car, ran up,
opened the door and took his keys away. He was very surprised.
In a way, I guess, I made a citizen's arrest. Maybe I could get
charged for doing something illegal now.
However, I always think that perhaps what I did that day was not
only to save him the anguish of knowing that he had injured or
killed someone, but that I had also saved the life of some person
who could have been his victim. I knew that I had to do that.
As parliamentarians, today we have the opportunity to strengthen
the law with respect to impaired driving. This is a bill which I
believe is long overdue. It is a very important bill. We must
send a crystal clear message to people who contemplate driving
when they are impaired that it is something they just do not do
because the risks are too high.
I just thought of an example, Mr. Speaker. You just mentioned
that your grandchildren were watching on television. The
government whip just said that it was his twin grandkids'
birthday today. I have four grandchildren. None of us would
have a place, say a catwalk in a store, where we would take away
some of the railing that prevents kids from falling down and
hurting themselves. If that railing was broken, we would block
that place off and not allow anyone to go there until the risk
was removed.
Here we have an opportunity to remove the risk or at least
reduce it, thereby saving lives and saving the anguish of those
people who go through life knowing that they have taken someone
else's life.
This bill is long overdue. As I have said, I would like to give
a little credit to our colleague from Prince George—Bulkley
Valley, who has headed up the campaign to improve the law in the
area of impaired driving. I would like to give him accolades for
having done that.
We have a responsibility to the victims of impaired driving to
legislate this very important amendment to the criminal code.
This is an amendment that will give judges the means of imposing
a life sentence for impaired driving causing death, a very
serious crime.
1920
I support this bill and I am fairly certain that all of my
colleagues in the Alliance support it as well. We call on all
parliamentarians to support the legislation. We urge the
government and the Senate to pass it quickly. Let us not have
the same thing with this bill as we had with the consecutive
sentencing bill.
Because this bill has been such a long time coming and Canadians
can wait for it no longer, I would, therefore, like to move:
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will also speak on Bill C-18, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (impaired driving causing death and other matters).
Bill C-18 amends the criminal code by increasing the maximum
penalty for impaired driving causing death, which is presently of
14 years of imprisonment, to life imprisonment.
This bill will allow a justice to issue a warrant authorizing
the taking of a blood sample in order to establish the presence
of drugs in the blood of an individual involved in an accident
causing bodily harm to himself or to another person or the death
of the latter. Formerly, blood analysis was only authorized to
determine the presence of alcohol in the blood.
The Bloc Quebecois strenuously objects to increasing the maximum
penalty for impaired driving from 14 years to life imprisonment.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that this bill would deny the
characteristics of this offense and create a serious imbalance in
our criminal justice system.
I will now explain the reasons for our opposition to this bill.
The courts, which are presently the most competent to analyze
the characteristics of each offender, have not exhausted the
resources of the criminal code, which presently sets at 14 years
the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death.
As a matter of fact, so far the heaviest sentence handed down by
a court for impaired driving causing death was 10 years of
imprisonment. The percentage of individuals sentenced to
imprisonment for impaired driving dropped from 22% in 1994-95 to
19% in and 1997-98. Prison sentences given in those cases were
mainly less than two years.
Despite the rather serious nature of impaired driving causing
death, it is false to claim that we are presently facing a rash
of crimes of this type.
In 1998, 103 persons were charged with impaired driving causing
death, the lowest number of charges since 1989.
Canada has become a leader in incarceration. Its rates of
incarceration are right behind those of the United States.
1925
Canada imprisons twice as often as most European countries. In
this regard, Justices Cory and Iacobucci of the Supreme Court of
Canada recently criticized, in Gladue, the considerable ease
with which the federal legislator has recourse to imprisonment in
dealing with delinquency problems. Here is what they said:
Canada is a world leader in many fields, particularly in the
areas of progressive social policy and human rights.
Unfortunately, our country is also distinguished as being a world
leader in putting people in prison.
Although the United States has by far the highest rate of
incarceration among industrialized democracies, at over 600
inmates per 100,000 population, Canada's rate of approximately
130 inmates per 100,000 population places it second or third
highest. Moreover, the rate at which Canadian courts have been
imprisoning offenders has risen sharply in recent years, although
there has been a slight decline of late.
A careful reading of the criminal code reveals the legislator's
clear preference for imprisonment, because the sentences
indicated for most offences are maximum sentences.
Representatives of the community have noted that imprisonment is
not only extremely expensive but does not have the desired
dissuasive and rehabilitative effects.
The comments made by the Canadian Sentencing Commission are along
that line. In a report entitled “Sentencing Reform in Canada: A
Canadian Approach”, the commission says the following:
Canada does not imprison as high a portion of its population as
does the United States. However, we do imprison more people than
most other western democracies. The Criminal Code displays an
apparent bias toward the use of incarceration, since for most
offences the penalty indicated is expressed in terms of a maximum
term of imprisonment.
A number of difficulties arise if
imprisonment is perceived to be the preferred sanction for most
offences. Perhaps most significant is that although we regularly impose
this most onerous and expensive sanction, it accomplishes very
little apart from separating offenders from society for a period
of time.
In the past few decades, many groups and federally
appointed committees and commissions given the responsibility of
studying various aspects of the criminal justice system have
argued that imprisonment should be used only as a last resort
and(or) that it should be reserved for those convicted of only
the most serious offences.
However, although much has been said,
little has been done to move us in this direction.
Given these extremely convincing comments by qualified people,
one wonders what the minister hopes to achieve by increasing the
maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death from 14 years
to life imprisonment. We think this government is trying to
please voters it is afraid to lose to the Canadian Alliance.
In an article published on June 3, 1999 in La Presse,
editorial writer Pierre Gravel clearly explained what is
happening with the Liberals when it comes to criminal issues. Mr.
Gravel wrote:
But when the government, as it is currently the case, faces an
ultra-conservative and populist opposition such as the Reform
Party, which always advocates harsher sentences to ensure law and
order everywhere, there is inevitably the risk of having the most
radical solutions, which do not always reflect the reality and
whose greatest value is to calm down an exasperated population
whose desire for retaliation is constantly exacerbated by
demagogues.
When, in addition to that, the party in office feels the
imperious need to become more popular with a group of citizens
who applaud the uncompromising attitude of the opposition, we
find ourselves with an unacceptable bill such as the one that
triggered the out-and-out and, in this case, fully justified
opposition of the Bloc Quebecois.
By introducing Bill C-18, the Minister of Justice is showing her
inability to manage complex problems without resorting to
dangerously repressive measures. There is no justification for
this attitude, because crime has been on the decline in Canada
for many years. Furthermore, there are no studies showing the
effectiveness of such an approach.
1930
The Bloc Quebecois views impaired driving causing death as a
very serious offence. We believe that the gravity of this
offence is correctly reflected in the maximum sentence possible,
which right now is 14 years in prison.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that prison is the worst tool for
raising people's awareness, and that is why we are opposed to
Bill C-18, which unjustifiably increases the sentence for
impaired driving.
As members know, penitentiary is seen as the ideal school for
crime and a person who does not start out with the profile of a
hardened criminal could show severe behavioural problems after a
prolonged stay behind bars. Prison must be the last solution
for dealing with the problem of crime.
With this legislation, a drunk driver, whose negligence is not
in any doubt, could be given a heavier sentence than a hired
killer who, having deliberately set out to assassinate someone,
gets a reduced sentence for being an informer. Should someone
who has gone overboard on New Year's Day be treated in the same
way as a member of organized crime? Both individuals have
admittedly committed very reprehensible deeds. However, their
profiles are very different and Bill C-18 does not address this.
If Bill C-18 is passed, the penalty for dangerous driving causing
death will not be as heavy as for impaired driving causing
death. In the case of dangerous driving causing death, the
criminal code provides for 14 years in prison and, since 1995,
Canadian courts of appeal have handed out jail sentences
averaging 19 months for this type of offence.
How can the minister justify a shorter sentence for someone who
cold-bloodedly and in full possession of his faculties kills
someone while driving recklessly than for someone driving under
the influence of alcohol? Logic would call for a life sentence
for the offence of dangerous driving causing death.
Let me give more examples of serious crimes committed by people
who are fully aware of what they are doing, and who would be
less severely punished than drunk drivers if Bill C-18 were
passed.
Take murder, for example. Attempted murder would be less
severely punished than impaired driving causing death, which,
under section 463(a) of the criminal code, carries a sentence of
up to 14 years in prison.
My second example is that of an individual who is an accessory
after the fact by helping a murderer escape. Our justice system
would be more lenient with this individual than with one charged
with impaired driving causing death, for which the criminal code
provides a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.
Criminals involved in gang activities and organized crime are
subject to a maximum sentence of 14 years in a penal
institution. What utter nonsense. An individual who commits
aggravated assault, by wounding, maiming, disfiguring or
endangering the life of another person is liable to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding fourteen years, under section 268 of
the criminal code.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will staunchly oppose
Bill C-18. It is jeopardizing our justice system through a more
repressive attitude in sentencing. This is both useless and
futile, and the Bloc Quebecois is against this.
1935
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents and all those
people who are affected by impaired driving. Bill C-18 is an act
to amend the criminal code with regard to impaired driving
causing death and other matters.
The bill has been long overdue and this weak Liberal government
may not have introduced it if it were not up to hon. member for
Prince George—Bulkley Valley, the proud point man of the
Canadian Alliance.
Immediately after the election in 1997 I was contacted by one of
my constituents and friends who told me the story of a couple of
young men that had just graduated. They were having fun at a
party. They got together in a pub and may have had a couple of
beers. They decided not to drive home but to walk, which was the
right thing to do. Their home was about one kilometre away.
These youths were walking on the sidewalk on their way home when
some drunk driver came from behind and lost control of his car.
He ran over one of those kids and killed him on the spot. This
incident did not affect only the family but it affected the whole
community. It personally touched me.
Bill C-18 was brought to the House in a timely fashion by the
justice minister. I congratulate the hon. for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley for his efforts. The bill amends the
criminal code by increasing the maximum penalty for impaired
driving causing death to life imprisonment. It provides for the
taking of blood samples for the purpose of testing for the
presence of drugs and makes other amendments. I believe my
constituents and all other Canadians will feel relieved that the
bill has been introduced.
I will close by simply saying that I appreciate the efforts of
the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. I thank him
for his efforts. Because of him we see some improvements. His
efforts are paying off. I urge all hon. members to support the
bill so that it will become law as soon as possible.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy that members of all parties have worked
together to ensure that this very important bill gets passed
before summer. The summer season brings with it travel holidays
for a large number of families. It is imperative that we get the
bill through the House as soon as possible to keep impaired
drivers off busy roads.
I am glad the government and the other opposition parties have
finally come around with their support for the bill. It was the
PC Party that pushed for the reintroduction of a clause and we
were very happy to see the issue come before committee.
I thank MADD Canada for its consistent support and help on this
issue. I am glad the government priorized the legislation and
brought it to the justice committee. I thank the all party
committee for the enabling legislation to make it through
committee without delay or stalling tactics.
From day one the PC Party was the only party that agreed the
government's priority at this time should be the protection of
human life from needless tragedies and loss of life which we see
on Canadian roads every year.
Bill C-18 deals with the life imprisonment provision that was
originally part of Bill C-82, an act to amend the criminal code
respecting impaired driving which became law in the last
parliament.
Bill C-18 will allow a judge leeway to invoke a life sentence for
impaired driving causing death.
1940
[Translation]
I believe it is important to stop a moment and think about all
those who lost their life because someone chose to drink and
drive. It is a very serious crime.
Too many young people lose their life, too many parents lose
their children, and too many children lose their parents because
of alcohol. It is a very serious issue and I am very happy to
see that today the House is recognizing the havoc alcohol can
wreak on our families.
[English]
The PC Party supported Bill C-82 but wanted it to be improved
upon from current outdated legislation with tougher sanctions,
fines and suspensions. The bill did not give police enough power
to protect society from the hard core drinkers who are resistant
to change.
Tragically most people have experienced or have known a person
whose life has been affected due to the careless actions of a
drunk driver. Criminal offences involving drunk drivers have
declined 23% between 1994 and 1997, but how many do not get
caught?
High school proms and summer vacation time are upon us. MADD
statistics state that one in every eight deaths and injuries in
road crashes is a teenager. More teenagers die each year as a
result of road crashes than any other cause of death. Teen
statistics have declined in recent years but recent progress has
stalled. In 1997, according to the most recent statistics
available, 404 youths aged between age 15 and 19 were killed and
another 28,780 were injured in road crashes.
It is also troubling that 40% of the teenage drivers killed had
been drinking, three-quarters with alcohol levels in excess of
the legal limit of 80 mg per cent and 44% with levels in excess
of 150 mg per cent.
Dangerous habits that develop at an early age become the
problems of chronic impaired drivers in later life. Groups like
MADD are working hard to deal with this problem at an early age,
trying to raise the minimum age for drinking, the minimum age for
driving, and introducing SmartCard technology to verify the age
of an individual trying to buy alcohol. Yet MADD has not been
getting enough co-operation from the federal government.
It is hoped that the year long push of the PC Party for Bill
C-18 to be passed will benefit the MADD members for all their
hard work in stopping impaired driving among all ages of the
population.
Continuing with the get tough approach, the Nova Scotia Tory
government is considering whether it can charge room and board of
$100 or more per day to incarcerated drunk drivers. This idea is
only in its initial stages with many details which would need to
be ironed out. It along with the results of Operation Christmas
shows the positive tough steps the Nova Scotia Tory government is
taking to solve this problem.
We also have in New Brunswick what we call Operation Red Nose in
which volunteers drive people during the Christmas and New Year's
holidays. It certainly works. We also need to have our young
people involved in it so they learn that it is not right to drink
and drive. As parents we have a responsibility to show our
children that it is not right and to set the right example. Not
only teenagers drink and drive. We all know that a lot of adult
parents set the wrong example.
1945
It is time for the federal government to follow the lead of
other provinces. The most horrific side of impaired driving is
when we see and hear of the fatalities, the innocent victims who
are killed as a result of the thoughtless, selfish act of an
impaired person who decides to get behind the wheel.
Last summer I had the opportunity to go to a high school in my
riding, LJR, to see a play about a car accident which involved
alcohol. Everyone was there, including the ambulance, the RCMP
and the kids. According to the play, some kids had been killed
in the accident. It was interesting to see these high school
students acting out a very serious accident involving alcohol.
It is very important that events like that take place in high
schools so the teenagers see firsthand the impact of drinking and
driving, of not wearing seatbelts and so on.
The federal government has an opportunity to send the message
that drinking and driving will no longer be tolerated. Bill C-18
is a great step in the right direction, but we must continue. I
commend the all-party justice committee that is sending a clear
message through Bill C-18 that if a person drinks and drives and
kills an innocent victim, that person is no better than someone
who walks down the street with a loaded gun, chooses a victim at
random and shoots the person dead.
Increasing the time limit for breathalyser and ASD testing to
three hours and strictly enforcing the over .08% blood alcohol
concentration limit are all effective amendments to help police
in performing their duties.
Although I spoke earlier about the need to educate young
drivers, education will only prevent future impaired driving
fatalities. Currently the biggest problem is not with youth, but
with a generation that should know better. This generation has
to take a lot of responsibility for what is happening. A lot of
us may be showing the wrong example.
The Canadian Automobile Association has said that the message of
the danger of drunk driving is getting through to drivers aged 16
to 21, but impaired driving remains a startling problem for the
age group 35 to 45. Thus, hand in hand with Bill C-18 we need
more education. It is very important that our provincial
counterparts also realize that there is a role to play in our
school system and that they should make the time to speak to our
students to explain the dangers.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada has said that over a two year
period an impaired driving conviction costs at least $5,000 in
additional premiums to the consumer.
We certainly support this piece of legislation. It is long
overdue. We have to send a very strong message that drinking and
driving is not right. It kills and it will no longer be
tolerated in this country.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have a very brief question. In the course of her
speech the hon. member indicated that hers was the only party
that had the lives and the well-being of Canadians at heart.
Anybody in the House knows that is inaccurate. I would like to
give the member the opportunity to correct the record and to say
that she is one of many, in fact probably all MPs, who have that
interest.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, if I made that statement
I probably read my notes wrong. I am hoping that the Reform
Party also has a conscience and is aware of the problem of
drinking and driving. I have no doubt that those members support
this legislation. I believe I mentioned in my speech that there
was all-party support for the legislation.
1950
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Because of the
motion made earlier today there will be two parts to this. The
first will be the vote on the question that the question do now
be put. The second will be on the question itself.
If we are to have a recorded division on the first question,
that is, that the question do now be put, we would have two
divisions tomorrow. If we pass the first question, that the
question do now be put, we would then put the main motion and the
opportunity to have a recorded division would still exist.
The question is on the previous question. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried on division.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order
made earlier today, the division stands deferred until Thursday,
June 15, 2000, at the expiry of the time provided for Government
0rders.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of National Defence)
moved that Bill S-18, an act to amend the National Defence Act
(non-deployment of persons under the age of eighteen years to
theatres of hostilities), be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lend my
support to this important proposal to amend the National Defence
Act. This government is determined to send a strong message of
opposition to the use of child soldiers in conflict.
Our concern over the use of young children for purposes of
violence, exploitation and warfare stems directly from our
commitment to human security. In the Speech from the Throne, the
government pledged to give increased prominence to human security
in Canadian foreign policy.
This commitment is an important expression of the values held by
Canadians. Values that this government has pledged to promote and
protect.
We all recognize that the threats to human security are many. We
know that all too often, and in too many parts of the world
today, governments ignore basic human rights. In societies
wracked by civil conflict there are warring factions all too
ready to exploit, intimidate and threaten the most innocent, the
most vulnerable. Our television screens are filled with terrible
images of people who are so victimized.
1955
No one would argue that the international community has the
resources or the ability to bring an end to all of these terrible
deeds. But this does not justify inaction or indifference. We
must take action where we can.
This government believes that the shameful use of children in
conflict is as distasteful a practice as anyone can imagine. We
can show leadership on this issue. We must.
I am pleased to inform this House that Canada is showing
leadership and action. We will host a conference on child
soldiers in Winnipeg this September. It will focus on ways and
means to prevent such conflicts and to protect the children
caught in the middle of hostilities. It will also examine how to
reintegrate the children of war into the post-conflict
environment.
While this conference is an important contribution, we in Canada
and in the international community nevertheless have our work cut
out for us.
The statistics tell a chilling tale. The UN reported in 1996
that during the preceding decade, nearly 2 millions children were
killed and more than 4 million were disabled from violent
conflict. Another 1 million were orphaned. More than 10 million
were left psychologically scarred by the trauma of violence
committed against them and their families.
Today, an estimated 300,000 children are serving in regular
armies or as guerilla fighters. They are also pressed into
service as mine layers, spies, sexual slaves, cooks or porters.
While the problem of child soldiers is a global one, the worst
cases are in Africa and Asia. The Coalition to Stop the Use of
Child Soldiers estimates that, in Africa alone, 120,000 children
under the age of 18 are direct participants in armed conflicts.
These young people are being denied the kind of childhood that
we in Canada expect our children to have as a matter of course.
There can be no doubt that this is a problem that demands our
attention.
As appalling as the child soldier problem is, I am heartened by
the efforts of the international community. The UN has been
working diligently to focus attention on the problem.
In 1989, the UN developed a convention on the rights of the
child. This convention established the age of 15 as a minimum
standard for the voluntary and compulsory recruitment of children
into military forces and participation in hostilities.
In 1994, the UN Human Rights Commission established a working
group to prepare a protocol to the original convention in order
to raise this minimum age standard. This effort has met with
success, thanks to the efforts of Canada and other like-minded
nations.
On May 25 of this year, the UN General Assembly adopted the
optional protocol to raise the minimum age to 18 years of age for
compulsory recruitment into the armed forces of state parties.
In addition, state parties commit to taking every feasible
measure to ensure that any member of their armed forces under 18
years of age does not take part in hostilities.
The protocol also sets standards for 16 and 17 year olds who
join voluntarily. This form of recruitment is to take place only
with parental consent and reliable proof of age. And each recruit
is to be made aware of duties involved in military service.
2000
Finally, the protocol urges all state parties to co-operate in
ensuring that the victims of acts contrary to the protocol
receive appropriate physical and psychological assistance to deal
with their trauma.
Canada has worked hard towards agreement on this protocol and we
fully support it. And we have made our support clear by our
actions. I am pleased to inform the House that on June 6 Canada
became the first country to sign the optional protocol.
Our signature on the protocol will not result in any change to
current recruiting practices by the Canadian forces. Canada does
not practice conscription or any other form of compulsory
service.
However, the Canadian forces do recruit volunteers under the age
of 18. I want to assure all hon. members that our practices in
this area do not contravene the protocol in any way.
Let me first provide some background on our recruiting
activities for those under 18.
Each year, approximately 1,000 16 and 17 year olds join the
Canadian forces. The majority of these men and women serve in the
Reserve. Of those in the regular force, most are taking their
university education at the Royal Military College of Canada.
These young Canadians are given a valuable range of educational
experience in both military and non-military subjects. The
leadership training they undergo exposes them to concepts of
accountability and ethics. Their military training provides them
such valuable skills as fire fighting, basic medical training
and mechanics.
These kinds of employment opportunities are important for our
youth. In the Speech from the Throne, the government also
pledged to provide young Canadians with access to work
experience and learning opportunities.
Few people realize that the Canadian forces are, in fact, the
largest youth employer in Canada. For example, members of the
Canadian forces reserve parade daily on Parliament Hill during
the summer as part of the prestigious Ceremonial Guard.
And hundreds of 16 and 17 year old reservists—part of a primary
reserve of over 20,000—take part in military training from
coast to coast.
Recruiting these young Canadians for the regular force and the
reserve is vital to ensuring that the Canadian forces can
attract top quality high school and university graduates.
Their recruitment complies with the provision of the optional
protocol. They join voluntarily with the consent of their
parents. They are made aware of the responsibilities of military
service. And unless they have reached 18 years of age, they are
not considered for deployment to hostile theatres of operation.
These are long standing practices for the Canadian forces. They
clearly demonstrate Canada's already existing full compliance
with the terms of the optional protocol.
The government's proposed amendment to the National Defence Act
would strengthen the Canadian forces' policy of not deploying
anyone under the age of 18 to a hostile theatre by including it
in legislation.
Canada has never been part of the child soldier problem but we
believe that it is vital to take a strong stand on this issue.
2005
The government is intent on making it clear to the international
community that our refusal to send children into hostile
theatres is not merely our belief or our policy, it is against
our law.
I urge all members of this House to support this amendment. Such
support will send a strong unmistakable signal that Canada and
Canadians will never condone the use of child soldiers and the
victimization of children in conflict neither morally nor, with
this amendment, legally.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of
Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak to Bill S-18, an act to amend the
National Defence Act. Of course this follows the government
agenda as we have heard the parliamentary secretary speak about
soft power. In this debate I want to make sure that we also do
not lose sight of the fact that in order for soft power to work,
we have to make sure that we maintain our military and have hard
military assets available to use when needed.
Bill S-18 amends the National Defence Act by preventing the
Canadian armed forces from deploying a person under the age of 18
to a theatre of hostilities. This is a personal thing for me and
maybe for you too, Mr. Speaker. I joined the Canadian armed
forces when I was 17 years old. I was an ordinary seaman in the
Canadian navy. I think my hon. friend Mr. Speaker was an ordinary
seaman as well. I enjoyed that experience in the Canadian armed
forces and in particular in the navy.
Usually it takes about a year to train a 17 year old to a combat
capable standard. In my case I think it was at least a year. The
point I want to make is that my ship was deployed to Vietnam. In
1974 the HMCS Gatineau was on its way to oversee the
removal of American troops as part of that UN mission.
Unfortunately I was in Halifax on marine electrical training and
had two weeks left on course so I was not able to go. When I
came back to Esquimalt, from where my ship was being deployed, I
had to go on another ship that was in refit, the HMCS
Kootenay. I will never forget it.
It was a very depressing time in my life because in my eyes, at
just 18 years of age, I was ready to go. I wanted to serve my
country and be part of that. Therefore I have a special interest
in this bill.
I want to make the point that the Canadian Alliance does support
the spirit of the bill. We support the idea that it is
unthinkable, especially now that I am 44, that we would agree to
send a 17 year old into hostilities.
The intent of Bill S-18 is to strengthen Canada's position with
respect to the optional protocol to the convention on the rights
of children on the involvement of children in armed conflict
which was finalized by the United Nations working group in
January 2000. The optional protocol is intended to address issues
of child soldiers, those children in less developed countries who
are often sent into battle as soon as they are able to lift a
weapon. Although I support the concept and the spirit of the
bill, I wonder, and I think Canadians are probably asking
themselves, how do we enforce this and make it work?
In 1994 I had the opportunity to travel with the special joint
committee to Bosnia and Croatia. That was at the height of the
war. The experience there was that entire villages were being
attacked by militia groups and ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing
was going on. Oftentimes young men were taken out and they and
their families were killed. Or the other circumstances were that
the militia would come in, take the young men and tell them they
were now in the army.
That situation is one of fight or die. I just wonder if the
government has really thought this one through.
2010
It is interesting also that the government would introduce this
bill in the dying days of this session of parliament. The
designation S on the bill denotes that the bill is from the
Senate; it is not from the House of Commons. The Senate is the
place of sober second thought when it comes to looking at
legislation. Senators are not really there to write legislation
and introduce it for us to debate, but here we are tonight. I
simply make the observation that if the government had as its
number one priority only to allow people who were 18 years old
and over to go into an area of conflict, probably the Minister of
National Defence would have introduced the bill.
The parliamentary secretary also mentioned that approximately
1,000 16 and 17 year olds join the Canadian armed forces through
the reserve or the regular force. I know he cannot answer a
question, but I want him to think about this issue. If we have
limited resources in the Canadian armed forces, which everyone
knows we do, why would we put our efforts into training 16 and 17
year olds for combat missions?
The parliamentary secretary did point out that they are trained
in the medical fields, they are trained as mechanics and they are
trained in all kinds of support positions. The fact is those
support positions go into combat. Let us look at our history in
Croatia and Bosnia. During the battle of the Medak pocket in
Croatia, the worst firefight that Canadian soldiers have
witnessed since the Korean war, 50% of those people were
reservists.
We have limited resources. This bill has been introduced
through the back door, through the Senate. The government has a
history since 1993 of cutting defence expenditures and reducing
the number of personnel. I really wonder, and Canadians do too,
if this is really a priority of the federal Liberal government.
It is really motherhood and apple pie, is it not? Would we
rather see our 16 and 17 year old in schools or going off to
Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo or somewhere else? Of course every
member in this House is going to support this initiative. Sure
we are.
The hair stands up on the back of my neck when I see a
government that has a history since 1993 of not supporting our
Canadian armed forces. Now it is supporting a bill to ensure
that people cannot get into the armed forces if they have a
desire to. Enough said on that issue.
That we are talking about youth and the Canadian armed forces
gives me the wonderful opportunity to tell Canadians about one of
the most fantastic programs Canada has. It is the cadet program.
The aims of the Canadian cadet program are to develop in youth
the attributes of good citizenship and leadership, to promote
physical fitness and to stimulate the interest of Canadian youth
in the land, sea and air elements of the Canadian armed forces.
It is a unique program. No other country in the world has a
program like it. It is a partnership between the Department of
National Defence and civilian organizations, such as the Air
Cadet League of Canada, the Sea Cadet League of Canada, the Navy
League of Canada and the Army League of Canada.
As a matter of fact, for five years I had the distinct privilege
of being a commanding officer and I started a cadet program in my
hometown of Summerland, British Columbia. That organization was
an air cadet corps and had the privilege of being sponsored by
the Kiwanis Club of Summerland. Currently I am trying to start a
sea cadet corps in Penticton, another town in my riding. Another
civilian organization, the Army, Navy, Air Force Association of
Penticton has said it will financially support the sea cadets in
Penticton.
The cadet program is a fabulous way for Canadian youth to get
experience about the Canadian armed forces.
It is not a way to recruit young people into the armed forces. It
is very separate from that. It has a very distinct and different
approach to how it attracts young people between the ages of 12
and 19.
2015
These cadets participate in mandatory weekly training. There
are 1,140 sea, army and air cadet squadrons for coast to coast to
coast. This means that there are over 54,000 cadets in Canada.
Each squadron is led by a group of officers who are usually but
not always employed in other professions. I was in the
advertising profession, but for five years I worked part time as
a commanding officer of an air cadet squadron.
Here is another area where I think the government is failing
Canadians. This is a fabulous program. The government should be
putting more money and resources into cadet training. It should
also be looking very closely at the issue of these officers.
There are some 4,500 cadet instructors-cadre officers in Canada.
In fact the parliamentary secretary can check this, but I am sure
it will be found that out of the officer corps in the Canadian
armed forces there are more officers in this segment of the armed
forces than any other.
It is quite a responsibility to step up to the plate and be a
real supporter of youth projects in this way. They are
responsible for safety, supervision, administration and the
training of cadets.
I wanted to bring this issue forward because there are so very
few times that we have an opportunity to talk about the cadet
program and that wonderful interaction between the Canadian armed
forces and the youth of the country. It is very important.
I mentioned earlier that the Liberal government had failed the
Canadian armed forces since it took office in 1993. While Bill
S-18 protects our youth by not subjecting them to combat
situations, the Liberal government has failed to protect those
over 18 in the Canadian armed forces and reserves through its
shameful treatment and inadequate funding of the Canadian armed
forces.
The defence budget cuts is a prime example. We can look at that
over the last seven years. The Liberal government has pursued a
defence policy that has stripped the Canadian armed forces of
much of its combat capability. The Liberal government slashed
defence spending 24% to just over $9 billion, far below that
which was recommended by the special joint committee. Less
money, less personnel, less equipment, less training, and
ultimately less combat capability.
The government side will argue that there was an increase in
defence spending in the last budget, but the fact is all that
defence increase did was maintain the status quo. The people at
national defence headquarters were talking about putting some of
our brand new frigates alongside, shutting them down, taking the
crew off and sending them home. They were talking about reducing
the size of the army and reducing the size of the reserves. All
the increase in the last budget did for the Canadian armed forces
was to maintain the status quo.
The Canadian armed forces needs an injection of about $2 billion
to meet some of its current objectives. The Conference of
Defence Associations said that the Canadian army was only combat
capable at the company level, which is about 150 troops. That is
very serious.
Another problem we are facing is rust out of our equipment in
the Canadian armed forces. Last year the auditor general
determined that equipment requirements of the Canadian Armed
Forces exceeded the planned budget by $4.5 billion. We only have
to look at the situation with the replacement of the Sea King
helicopter.
In fact today in the House a report was tabled by the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. One of the
recommendations is that government finalize its procurement
strategy and proceed immediately to tender a contract for the
replacement of the Sea King helicopter.
I am proud of that report because it was a unanimous report. It
was agreed to by all members of the committee on which I sit as
vice-chair. It is very important, but let us look at the
government's record. Its white paper in 1994 promised and made
it policy in 1994 that the Sea King helicopter would be replaced
by the year 2000.
2020
From my recollection we are now six months into the year 2000
and to date not even the statement of requirements for the new
Sea King helicopter has been issued to the industry that needs to
look at it. It must compete for the tender. It probably has 12
to 18 months work just on the contract alone before it gets to
actually delivering a Sea King. It will take some three years
just to do that.
The government has revised its white paper commitment to the
Canadian people. It now says that it will be 2005 before it will
be able to meet its commitment to replace the Sea King. All the
while young Canadians are flying those machines. It is no joke
when we hear the people who train the Sea King helicopter pilots
say that the rule of thumb is only to fly them as high as one
wants to fall. That is not funny. That is a desperate situation
that has been created by the Liberal government.
By the year 2005 those machines will be over 40 years old. The
Sea Kings are just one example. The chief of defence staff
issued his annual report. There are three pages of priorities
for replacing equipment. It just goes on and on.
I know I only have 40 minutes tonight. I do not want to take up
the whole time because other members want to speak to the issue,
but it is an important enough issue that we must talk about it.
The Canadian armed forces is also faced with the new changing
world of technology and what is called the integrated battlefield
as we face the costs related to the revolution of military
affairs, the RMA. The Canadian armed forces must do it.
Otherwise it will be left behind.
We do not operate as a single force when we go into Kosovo or
other theatres of operation. We go in as part of an
international group usually through NATO or the UN. We must be
interoperable. We must make sure we can talk to the people. We
must make sure that we have the best equipment.
This is one of the points we heard reported on in Kosovo with
our CF-18 pilots. They did a great job. They did the best job
they could with the equipment they had, but let us face it. The
onboard computers in our CF-18s have been compared to a Commodore
64 computer. Did any member ever have a Commodore 64? It is old
stuff. The CF-18s did not have night vision.
We put our fine pilots in peril each and every time we send them
on a mission. Yes, they did a great job, but that is not the
point. If we are to send young people out on dangerous missions,
we had better give them the best possible equipment we can. We
in the House have an obligation to ensure that happens.
Another area is the national missile defence program. The
Liberals are waffling on this issue. It is vital for Canada to
support the establishment of an effective NMD system for North
America.
It is required for three reasons. The first is to maintain the
effectiveness of NORAD, one of our very important bilateral
defence agreements with our closest ally, the U.S.A. The second
is to counter ballistic missile threats from rogue states armed
with weapons of mass destruction. The international community
has recognized that ballistic missiles are now a threat to North
America. The third is to ensure that Canadian companies can
benefit from future contracts to develop and improve this system.
Some would argue that the missile defence system will break the
1972 ABM treaty. I would submit that ballistic missiles are as
much a threat to Russians as they are to Americans. The
Americans have said on several occasions that technology would be
shared. The cold war is over. There is no reason these type of
things cannot be shared. It is not star wars. The deployment of
such a system would not destabilize a strategic balance between
the United States and Russia. The Liberal government is failing
to protect Canada's vital interest in ensuring the continued
effectiveness of NORAD.
2025
Another reason it is very important is that 90% of all Canadians
live within 500 kilometres of the U.S. border. If the United
States says that ballistic missiles are a threat to U.S.
security, they are also, by extension, a threat to Canadians and
Canadian security. We must be a part of that agreement.
I know hon. members across the way are wanting to go home
tonight and I know that this is very important meaty stuff. I
have but a few more pages to relay to the government before we
close off and I know other members want to speak.
Let us talk about the reserves. In Service of the Nation:
Canada's Citizen Soldiers for the 21st Century is more
commonly known as the Fraser report just released last week.
Speaker Fraser used to sit in the House of Commons. He is a very
well respected person on military and environmental matters and
an honorary colonel of one of the units in British Columbia.
Mr. Fraser states that the militia is currently at less than 60%
of the strength that was directed by the Liberal government in
the 1994 white paper. It is less than 60% of the strength that
was promised by the Liberal government to Canadians in its 1994
defence white paper. The Liberals proposed 23,000 by 1999, of
which 18,500 were militia. The militia is the army reserves. Now
the numbers equal less than 14,500 in the militia, far lower than
what was promised by the government.
Of all Canada's allies, excluding Iceland and Luxembourg, Canada
has the smallest reserve force. Most of our allies maintain
reserve forces several times that of their regular forces. I
will give the House some examples. Belgium, with a population of
10 million, has a regular force of 41,000 and a reserve force of
152,000 people. Canada, with a population of 30 million, has a
regular force of 58,000 and a reserve force of 32,000. That
number includes the supplementary ready reserve list, people long
retired from military service who once a year go in for a medical
and make sure their uniforms still fit.
That is pretty pathetic, especially when we consider that if
Canada were ever forced into a situation where it would have to
mobilize its troops and respond to an international crisis with a
large number of trained combat capable soldiers, we would not be
able to do it. Canada has a four point mobilization plan, but it
could not get past point number two in the four point plan. No
concrete mobilization plan has been put together by the
government.
In conclusion, while Bill S-18 protects our youth by not
subjecting them to combat situations, from an international point
of view it is impossible to enforce. What is truly embarrassing
and a real shame is the fact that the Liberal government has
failed to protect those over 18 in the Canadian armed forces and
reserves through its treatment of inadequate funding of the
Canadian armed forces.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, very
young Canadians have no place in combat. I am sure every member
of the House would agree that one of the greatest tragedies of
human history is the death and injury of children due to
decisions of adults to go to war. No story, no accounting, no
photos, no listing of the savaging of our children by war could
ever begin to encompass this tragedy, for children who are killed
and injured in war are killed and injured by us as adults and
especially as federal legislators.
We are the ones in the country responsible for the actions not
only of Canada but to some degree of other countries, for it is
our actions and sometimes even more so our lack of action that
give silent credence to acts of war and aggression by other
countries. Children die as a result.
2030
We need to do more to protect all children in the world.
Therefore, we should be doing much more to strengthen the
capacity of UNICEF in particular and the UN in general to have
greater strength and influence in moving toward an end to both
the use of children in war—and surely this is the most
despicable form of the term “use”—and, in turn, the impact of
war on children.
On behalf of the federal New Democratic Party I stand in support
of this bill to prevent any person under 18 years of age from
becoming deployed by the Canadian forces to a theatre of
hostilities.
Graca Machel was appalled that Canada, of all countries, had not
raised the minimum military age to 18. In September 1998, when
visiting Canada with her husband, Nelson Mandela, she said “This
is one of the things that breaks my heart”.
While passing this bill is important, Canada should do much
more. We should play a much stronger role in working within the
United Nations to raise to 18 the minimum age of recruitment in
the convention on the rights of the child. This age is currently
set at the absolutely unacceptable age of 15 years.
Graca Machel, as part of her work on the global partnership for
children, stated:
We also know that world-wide, some 300,000 children world-wide
are involved in some phase of armed conflict. And that each year
between 8,000 and 10,000 children are maimed or killed by
anti-personnel mines.
On a technical point with regard to this bill, I would be
happier if the bill had said that a person who is under the age
of 18 may not be deployed by the Canadian forces to any hostility
or to a theatre of hostilities. I feel such wording may be more
encompassing and inclusive; however, I understand that the
wording used in this bill may in the last instance suffice.
This legislation should pass for two reasons: one, to protect
our own children and, two, to send a message to the international
community. Having said that, I fear that all too often this
parliament passes motions and bills about which we can feel proud
and good, but the work stops there. In this case, passing this
bill is simply not enough. We must do more. For all
the children who are suffering and who will suffer in war, we should
be doing much more as a country.
Canada has the opportunity to become a leading character on the
world stage on this issue. Failure to support this bill would be
abominable, but failure to take more action on the world stage
would be an atrocity.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
tonight on behalf of the people of Saint John, New Brunswick, and
the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to speak in support
of Bill S-18, an act to amend the National Defence Act with
respect to the non-deployment of persons under the age of 18
years to theatres of hostilities.
A few hours ago it was my pleasure to help present an all-party
unanimous report prepared by the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs. It is the view of our committee
and all of its members that where it concerns the Canadian forces
our politics must always be placed on the back burner.
Bill S-18 may not seem like a very controversial piece of
legislation, but it is extremely significant to our country, our
world and our young people.
I have seen firsthand the battlefields of the last century,
where our young Canadian soldiers gave their lives for our
country and our freedom. I had the honour of going to Vimy Ridge
in France to bring back the remains of the unknown soldier. While
I was there we went down into one of the trenches. What did we
see but a little YMCA mug, a mug where they had picked up all the
little pieces and put them together. Yes, one of our young
persons in the first world war, who was a member of the YMCA,
went overseas so that we could be here with our freedom today.
Too many of our sons and daughters have been taken from their
families by war long before their time. This legislation
trumpets the end of that old world when our country needed to
send every able-bodied person it could find, irrespective of age,
to the front lines of armed conflicts.
2035
Bill S-18 legislates the current policy and practice of the
Department of National Defence, where young people—and 18 year
olds are still children—are not asked to offer their young lives
to face the dangers and threats we now thankfully see in decline.
The world is still ripe with hostility and anger, but the type
of warfare and the types of enemies we now face are different.
Bill S-18 will also put Canada in compliance with the recently
negotiated optional protocol to the United Nations convention on
the rights of the child. The United Nations convention on the
rights of the child was adopted by the United Nations in 1989 and
has been ratified by 191 countries. I am proud that the former
Conservative government under the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney was
an important actor in these negotiations.
I have spoken in this House in the last two nights and I have
seen a House of Commons seized with issues of political concern
affecting a small percentage of our country's population. I am,
therefore, especially proud to stand here tonight to offer my
support and the support of the Progressive Conservative Party for
Bill S-18, as I know that we are doing a great measure of good
for our nation as a whole and for all of our young people.
Members of the House know very well that I had brothers who
fought in the second world war. I will never forget the day that
my five brothers came home. My mother was standing in the
kitchen and I was a tiny little girl of six years old. They said
“Mom, we all signed up today”. She looked at them, and I can
still see her little face when she said “Oh, but not Glenny”,
and they said “Yes, Mom, Glenny too”.
Glenny was my youngest brother. Glenny would have been one of
the ones who would have been protected under this act. He was in
the armed forces throughout all of the conflict in the second
world war, but God was kind to us and brought Glenny back home.
I am so pleased to see Bill S-18 in the House tonight. Bill
S-18 will not end war, but it will end war for our young people
under the age of 18. It will keep us from placing our youngest
into harm's way at a time of crisis when our judgment might not
be the very best.
As I said, we may not be doing more here tonight than confirming
the existing practice of our armed forces, but we may exit these
doors tonight knowing that what we have done is both noble and
right for all of our people.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House
went into committee thereon, Mr. McClelland in the chair)
The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. House in committee
of the whole on Bill S-18, an act to amend the National Defence
Act with respect to the non-deployment of persons under the age
of eighteen years to theatres of hostilities.
Shall clause 1 carry?
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Shall the title
carry?
(Title agreed to)
2040
(Bill reported)
[Translation]
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of National Defence) moved
that the bill be concurred in at report stage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of National Defence) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support
this important amendment to the National Defence Act. This
amendment will clearly show that the government is concerned
about the issue of child soldiers.
The recruitment of children for the purpose of sending them to
war is a problem which cannot be ignored. Statistics on that are
depressing, and the images regularly shown in the media
strikingly remind us that we are facing a serious problem with
regard to human security.
In the last throne speech, the government clearly indicated that
our foreign policy would put more emphasis on human security.
Our desire to play a leadership role in the international
campaign against child soldiers is part of a broader program to
promote human security.
As I mentioned earlier, our Canadian forces recruit young people
of 16 and 17 years of age, but that is done in a way which is
fully in line with the protocol. Some may say that we must put
an end to this kind of recruiting practice.
[English]
This is not necessary or wise. It is not necessary because, as
I stated a moment ago, recruitment of 16 and 17 year olds is
fully in line with the new protocol. It would not be wise
because of the benefits these young Canadians derive from their
attachment to the Canadian forces. They volunteer because they
want to serve their country. They are interested in a career in
the Canadian forces that will provide them with valuable skills
and which in some instances will pay for their post-secondary
education.
[Translation]
Members of this House can help the cause of child soldiers. They
can do it by supporting this amendment to the National Defence
Act, which will make the deployment of children to theatres of
hostilities illegal.
As I explained, this is not done in Canada. Nevertheless, in
entrenching this policy in law, we are sending a clear message
to the other members of the international community.
Therefore, I urge all members to help us by giving their full
support to this bill.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey
Central and on behalf of the Canadian Alliance to participate in
the debate on Bill S-18. The bill originated in the Senate and
that is why it is numbered S-18. Usually the bills we debate
originate in the House of Commons, but the weak, arrogant Liberal
government which lacks vision did not have the stamina to
introduce the bill in this House. The bill started in the other
house which normally gives sober second thought to what we debate
here and send there for senators to comment on.
The Liberal government proposes to amend the National Defence
Act by adding a section declaring that a person who is under the
age of 18 years may not be deployed by the Canadian forces to a
theatre of hostilities.
2045
The Canadian Alliance supports the intent of the bill. All
Canadians support protecting our children from harm. We do not
like to see children in contact with aggression. We see this all
the time in many parts of the world, particularly in the
developing countries.
As my eldest son will be 17 years old this year, I can
understand the state of health, the mental maturity and the views
of a 17 year old.
As a nation we feel helpless watching the images of sometimes
very young children trapped in combat situations. We have
watched on TV the young children used or abused in civil wars in
third world countries, such as in Africa, Liberia, Sierra Leone,
Rwanda and many other countries.
Some kids who are in the combat role cannot even lift the heavy
weapons they are using. A loaded AK-47 is too heavy for some of
the children who are shooting and killing people mercilessly.
This causes us to want to do something to protect our own
children in Canada and send a strong message to the rest of the
world, particularly to the countries I mentioned where the
children are used and abused in the civil wars.
The sentiment of the bill is understandable. We do not want
minors serving in combat. In that sense, the Alliance agrees
with the objective of the bill.
The Canadian forces has a policy that precludes members under
the age of 18 from participating in hostilities or from being
deployed to hostile theatres of operation. Bill S-18 proposes to
print this policy in the National Defence Act.
The Canadian Alliance believes that Bill S-18 should be amended
to say the following, “A person under the age of 18 years may
not be deployed in a combat unit which has been placed on active
service and deployed to a theatre of hostilities”.
Active service under the National Defence Act means service: (a)
by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada; or (b) in
consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United
Nations Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty or any other similar
instrument for collective defence that may be entered into by
Canada.
This ensures that minors will not be deployed in combat but
still allows for flexibility in employing soldiers in support of
active operations. As my hon. colleague from
Okanagan—Coquihalla has mentioned, soldiers are employed by
support units like engineering, signals or other support
activities in defence.
The genesis of Bill S-18 is an optional protocol that has been
proposed for adoption at the United Nations. By the end of this
year, once this optional protocol is adopted, the United Nations
will want member countries to sign on. Clearly, the deployment
and recruitment practices and policies of the Canadian armed
forces satisfy the provisions of the United Nations optional
protocol.
The terms of Bill S-18 are left completely undefined. What
constitutes a theatre of hostilities? It is not defined in the
bill.
To the Prime Minister, a theatre of hostilities may be a
Canadian Alliance townhall meeting.
2050
Are the Liberals going to prohibit the activation of underage
reservists within Canada in the event of some internal emergency?
Is it necessary to ban persons under the age of 18 from serving
in rear area duties in theatres where hostilities may be taking
place? Certain terms or definitions in this bill remain
undefined.
Yesterday I was debating another bill, Bill C-19. Many terms in
that bill, even the procedures and rules of evidence, were not
defined, but the government still rushed it through because it
did not want to wait. There will probably be an election so it
wanted to do something in a rush without properly monitoring and
taking care that the bill would serve its intended purpose. It
tried to put the horse before the cart.
We see that again here in this one line bill. There are no
details and no definitions. If we are going to expand the
reserves, we should not place artificial and ill-defined
restrictions on the use of personnel in theatres of operation.
We should try to convince the government to amend the bill to say
that a person under the age of 18 years may not be deployed in a
combat unit which has been placed on active service and deployed
to a theatre of hostilities. This would ensure that minors would
not be deployed in combat, but would still allow for flexibility
in employing soldiers in support of active operations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion for third reading of Bill S-18. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 8.52 p.m.,
the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 9 a.m., pursuant to
order made earlier today.
(The House adjourned at 8.52 p.m.)