36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 70
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 23, 2000
1005
| CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1010
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-459. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES) ACT
|
| Bill C-460. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-461. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1015
| Health Care Profession
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Divorce Act
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
|
| Bill C-13. Report stage
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1020
1025
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1030
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1035
1040
1045
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 9 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 12 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 13 deferred.
|
| Division on Motion No. 14 deferred.
|
| Division on Motion No. 20 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 48 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 49 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 50 deferred
|
1050
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Motion No. 2
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 3
|
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Motion No. 4
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Motion No. 8
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 10
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 15
|
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Motion No. 16
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motions Nos. 17, 19, 22, 25 and 26
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Motions Nos. 27, 28 and 29
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 30
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Motions Nos. 31, 32, 33 and 34
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 35
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Motion No. 36
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motions Nos. 37, 38, 41 and 42
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Motion No. 45
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motion No. 46
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Motions Nos. 47, 51, 52 and 55
|
1055
1100
1105
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1110
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1115
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1120
1125
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1130
1135
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1140
1145
1150
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Motion No. 56
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1155
1200
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1205
1210
| Amendment
|
1215
1220
1225
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1230
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1250
1255
1300
| Division on Motion No. 2 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 8 deferred.
|
| Division on Motion No. 10 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 15 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 16 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 19 deferred
|
1305
| Division on Motion No. 22 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 25 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 29 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 36 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 41 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 42 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 51 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 52 deferred
|
1310
| Division on Motion No. 55 deferred
|
| Divisions on motions deferred
|
| CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-16. Second reading
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1315
1320
1325
1330
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1400
| RACISM
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| ELIAN GONZALEZ
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| FAMILY SERVICES OF PEEL
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| VISUAL AND MEDIA ARTS
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| PATRICK KELLY
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1405
| SEMAINE D'ACTION CONTRE LE RACISME
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| KASHMIR
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| REVENUE CANADA
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1410
| GRANBY ZOO
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| MAPLE SYRUP SEASON
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| ATLANTIC FISHERIES
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1420
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1425
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1430
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1435
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1440
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. John Manley |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1445
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1450
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| NATIONAL PARKS
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1455
| TAXATION
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| IRAQ
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
1500
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| NATIONAL PARKS
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1505
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-16. Second reading
|
1510
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1515
1520
| Mr. David Price |
1525
1530
1535
1540
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1545
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1550
1555
1600
1605
1610
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1615
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1620
1625
1630
1635
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1640
1645
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1650
1655
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1700
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1705
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1710
1715
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1720
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1725
1730
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1735
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Motion
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
1740
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1745
| Amendment to the amendment
|
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1750
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1755
1800
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1805
1810
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1815
1820
1825
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1830
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
1835
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 70
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 23, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[Translation]
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the
table the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission
for 1999.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1010
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to three petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present pursuant to Standing Order
31, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the
OSCE, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe,
parliamentary assembly standing committee meeting in Vienna,
Austria, on January 13 and 14 of this year.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), I
have the honour to present the 22nd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning additional
issues raised during the committee's consideration of Bill C-2,
the Canada Elections Act.
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-459, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(withholding of tax by employers and others).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill
entitled an act to amend the Income Tax Act (withholding of tax
by employers and others).
The purpose of this enactment is to remove as from January 1,
2001, the requirement that employers and all others making
payments to a taxpayer that is subject to taxation must withhold
from the payment an amount estimated as the taxpayer's tax
obligation and remit it to the government.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES) ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-460, an act to amend the Marriage
(Prohibited Degrees) Act in order to protect the legal definition
of marriage by invoking section 33 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill
entitled an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act in
order to protect the legal definition of marriage by invoking
section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The purpose of this enactment is to legally define marriage as
being a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife
and will protect the legal definition of marriage from challenge
in the courts under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
in section 33.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-461, an act to amend the Statutory
Instruments Act (regulatory accountability).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, an act to amend the Statutory
Instruments Act (regulatory accountability), would increase
regulatory accountability by causing the government through the
designated minister to refer all delegated legislation to a
committee for consideration.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
petition asks that parliament take all necessary measures to
ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious
criminal offence.
1015
HEALTH CARE PROFESSION
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition today containing a total of
2,862 signatures.
The petitioners object to the violation of the rights of
religion and freedom of conscience by those in the health care
profession where they have been stripped of those rights. They
cite examples of hospitals where nurses are forced to assist in
abortion against their deeply held religious and moral
convictions and some have lost their jobs in this matter.
They call on parliament to enact legislation against such
violations of conscience rights by administrators in medical
facilities and educational institutions.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another petition with respect to the status of pornography
in certain provinces in our country.
Two hundred and twenty nine petitioners express their horror
that pornography depicting children is now legally allowed within
our country and is not regarded as criminal.
They ask for the enactment and enforcement of the criminal code
provisions to protect those most vulnerable in society from
sexual abuse. They ask that all measures be taken such that
possession of child pornography would remain a serious criminal
offence.
TAXATION
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
last petition is on the matter of taxes.
The petitioners are asking that something serious be done about
the high taxes that we have, which have grown over the course of
time. They call on parliament to give Canadian taxpayers a break
by instituting tax relief of at least 25% in federal taxes over
the next two years starting with the next federal budget.
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of presenting
a petition with regard to amending the Divorce Act to include a
provision, as supported in Bill C-367, with regard to the right
of grandparents to access or custody of children.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
The House resumed from February 24 consideration of Bill C-13,
an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research,
to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to
speak to Bill C-13. This bill will benefit the whole community in
terms of our quality of life.
What we are talking about this morning is the establishment of
health research institutes so that research is better coordinated
and better organized and that health research can benefit from
increased funding.
The purpose of these institutes of health research is to replace
the Medical Research Council and to provide additional funding
for health research to the tune of $500 million over three years.
The bill before us responds to recommendations made by a
temporary committee made up of 34 members from the scientific and
academic community.
I would like to remind hon. members of what the health research
institutes will be. They will replace the Medical Research
Council. They will have the very broad mandate of carrying out
research in order to make health research a cutting edge sector,
as was done with the communications sector in 1990.
What the Medical Research Council wanted, and what it called
for, was for medical research to be given a lead role so that
research could be carried out in response to the new market
realities.
We are very much in favour of the creation of the Institutes of
Health Research, let there be no ambiguity about that. The Bloc
Quebecois accepts the legitimate right of these institutes to be
created. Various points have been raised by various people,
leading to the bill we have before us today.
It is said that these research institutes will not be
centralized bricks-and-mortar facilities. They are virtual
institutes. This will make it possible for researchers,
academics, hospitals and various research centres in Canada to
exchange information.
1020
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with and supports the establishment of
these virtual research centres. We know that no decision has yet
been reached on the type of institutes to be created; the task
force has listed a number of themes, however. They are 150 in
all, and I will mention just a few of them: ageing, genome,
technology and clinical assessment, heart disease, stroke,
musculo-skeletal development. All of these sectors are of daily
concern to the public, for instance cancer and new diseases.
The stakes are very high.
We also know that people live longer. Consequently, we will have
to be able to deal with these problems and to ensure this system
is well implemented, allowing researchers to respond to the
demand. They will also be able to know what is being done in the
field of research elsewhere, in Canada and in other countries.
I do not want that there be any ambiguity in the willingness of
the Bloc Quebecois to support the different high technology
sectors in the research and development field.
We are in favour of this multidisciplinary approach. We know
very well how it could promote science. All researchers want
these virtual institutes to be implemented. The objective is to
create between 10 and 15 research institutes, and their funding
will be doubled over the next three years. There is a great
demand for funds.
I have attended the meetings of the Standing Committee on
Health. We know that researchers are all looking for funding so
that more advanced research can be done. Operations are supposed
to start on April 1, 2000. This is a deadline to which
researchers and the federal government are hanging on.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are very vigilant. We wish April 1,
2000 will be the deadline so that things can get under way.
However, we are very touchy about the wording of this bill, which
clearly infringes on provincial health jurisdictions.
With regard to the support of the budget increase, we commend
the effort the bill reflects. As for the communication of health
information, this is where there is a great difference in the
wording of Bill C-13. What bothers us is the words that are used.
We submitted several amendments to ensure that the institutes
would only communicate information on health and would not get
involved into the management side of the health sector, because
this would be going beyond the communication of information,
which is what Bill C-13 is all about.
In its current form, the bill squarely infringes on the
jurisdiction of the provinces in the health sector. The bill goes
beyond promoting research. It contains several references to
health related issues that come exclusively under the
jurisdiction of the provinces. The bill does not recognize
responsibilities of the provinces. It makes mere actors of them
and the organizations and people who are involved in health.
It gives national mandates to the institutes, without the
provinces' involvement. This is dangerous because it is the
provinces that have responsibility over health and its
management.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot support such a measure. I am aware of
the pressure to make the Bloc Quebecois look like a spoilsport,
like a troublemaker, but we must look at the long term
implications of such a bill. In its current wording, it would
support the federal government's intention to set national
standards, to apply a certain type of management and to
prioritize certain processes in health.
1025
We are well aware that research and development fall into the
federal government's residual powers. The Bloc Quebecois agrees
with that. It is the federal government's role to help the
provinces with research and development so that they can thrive.
However, we cannot accept that, through some tricks, the federal
government would use this legislation to centralize all the
decisions made in the health sector. Indeed, the bill provides
many opportunities for direct infringement on the provinces'
jurisdiction in health, this without any consultation.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois is proposing amendments.
If the federal government really wants to discuss seriously with
the provinces, if it agrees to respect the autonomy of the
provinces, then it will accept these amendments by the Bloc
Quebecois so that we can come to an understanding and move ahead
when the April 1 deadline arrives. Our constituents are lobbying
to have this bill adopted.
However, we also have to be careful because we know what the
government has done with the Canada social transfer, deep cuts to
transfers to the provinces. It had announced $48 billion worth of
cuts and $30 billion have been cut since 1993. Each time the
government hands out a paltry $2.4 billion, it tells us that it
is investing in health. It is not investing in health at all. The
only thing it is doing is reducing the cuts that were announced.
It is very important to look at this bill. The government should
be working with the Bloc Quebecois and all the other opposition
parties to give full jurisdiction to the provinces in matters of
health and confine itself to the flow of information and the
networking of virtual health and research institutes.
I know that this is a truly important social issue. The Bloc
Quebecois has said so on many occasions and I say so again this
morning. I hope that the government will act in good faith
because we are. We would not want our communities, our
researchers and our universities to be penalized. We would not
want to be considered as not wanting funds to go to health and
research. This is not at all what we want to achieve by our
amendments. We only want to further define the role of the
Canadian government in health.
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
not be taking my full 10 minutes but I will make a few comments
about the importance of this act.
I have been approached by many people in the medical community
in the Ottawa area who, before the government decided to proceed
with this initiative, have lobbied and written letters to the
Minister of Health, as well as to government officials and their
members of parliament, demanding that the government initiate and
introduce such an initiative.
I am delighted to see the government responding to the needs of
the community and establishing this particular institute. This
will set an example for other fields where we could bring
together institutions, people who are on the front lines,
different levels of government, agencies and the private sector
so they can collectively work in the best interests of the
public.
I was quite surprised that we did not have such an institute a
long time ago. Given the kind of confederation and the kind of
arrangement we have in Canada, one would think that this would
have been the most obvious thing that we would have done 15 or 20
years ago, where would would have an agency that would look at
best practices, that would exchange information and that would
disseminate information across the country, and an agency where
we would look at what others are doing in different fields around
North America and, for that matter, all around the world.
I would say that it is high time. Finally we have something
being put in place that will achieve what should have been done
many years ago.
To that extent I think the Minister of Health, as well as the
government, is to be commended for taking this bold initiative
and finally introducing what will be a step in the right
direction.
1030
I would say it is one of the finest initiatives in the area of
research and development at the national level, particularly in
the medical community. All we have to do is look at some of the
institutes and some of the organizations in our own backyard here
in the national capital region where we have some of the best
pioneers in the whole world.
The World Heart Corporation is a perfect example of co-operation
between the public and the private sector. We have the Heart
Institute. We have leading professionals working with the Heart
Institute in conjunction with the University of Ottawa and the
private sector. They put their brain power and their resources
together collectively and are now in the process of moving ahead
with some of the finest devices anywhere in the world that will
change the way we conduct ourselves and will save thousands of
lives all across the world.
Initiatives like these would not happen if we did not have the
kind of co-operation and the kind of cohesive exchanges of
information and partnership between the public and private
sectors.
The institute that the government is about to introduce and
enact will facilitate more things like that, will bring together
more people who have similar aspirations, similar views, similar
talent, similar hopes and similar objectives. It will put them
together so we can move forward and we can keep Canada on the
leading edge in those areas.
I would say that despite all of the deficiencies that we have in
our health care system, despite all of the problems that we
encounter, we still have one of the finest systems anywhere in
the world. I want to commend all those who are involved in
trying to revitalize the health care system by trying to inject
more blood into it, one might say. It is my hope that we do not
lose sight of the fact that we have something that is good. But
in thinking it out, what we need to do is bring our resources
together so we can keep it healthy, so we can move forward with a
system that continues to be the envy of the world.
It does not matter where we go, whether we go to Asia-Pacific,
whether we go to Europe, whether we go to Africa or whether we go
to the south side of the border, people always use the health
care system here in Canada as an example of a system that is good
and as an example of a system that responds to the needs of the
people.
Now that we are faced with a challenge, which is to keep the
health care system for the next 50, 100 and perhaps thousands of
years, if we want to keep the system responding to the needs of
Canadians we have to work collectively, but we have to work
objectively. We have to work in a positive way, not a negative
way. We have to find solutions that will respond to the needs of
the people, rather than moving away and creating a two-tier
system and start shooting at each other and undermining the
system.
To the extent that this debate is taking place, it is my hope
that it will be a positive one, that it will be a constructive
one and that it will be an objective one.
I commend my colleagues on the opposition side for standing to
support the government initiative on the Canadian Institutes of
Health Research Act. It is my hope that we will push it through
quite fast so it will become a reality as quickly as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise after the speech by the member for Québec and
speak to Bill C-13 on Canadian Institutes of Health Research at
report stage.
This bill presents us with a paradoxical situation and I think
that the member for Québec has expressed it very well. The Bloc
Quebecois agrees with the principle of the bill as drafted, but
will not be able to support it because it runs counter to certain
fundamental aspects of the Canadian constitution.
I was listening to the comments on the bill by the member from
the Ottawa area who spoke just before me.
1035
I would say that, purposely or otherwise, the government has had
an incomprehensible memory lapse when it comes to a document that
I think is fundamental and essential: the Canadian constitution.
It is the mother of all statutes, the ground rules under which we
operate.
The Liberal party is approaching the debate as though this basic
document governing our daily lives did not exist.
According to the Liberal government, there is one way of
thinking in this country, the Liberal party way, one way of doing
things, the Liberal party way, and one way of acting, the Liberal
party way.
As a background to Bill C-13 and with all due deference, I am
going to remind the House of the existence of the document
written and adopted in 1867, which was reworked and re-adopted
without Quebec's consent in 1982.
As the member for Quebec pointed out, and as the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve so eloquently explained, we are not
opposed to the principle of Bill C-13, but to its basic values.
The government is proposing to replace the Medical Research
Council with Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We noticed
that and it is fine with us. This consensus is based on
recommendations made by an interim committee composed of 34
members of the scientific and academic community.
I am sure neither our critic nor any Bloc Quebecois member would
ever want to suggest that we know the conditions that should
govern the Canadian institutes of health research better than the
34 leading experts who looked at the issue.
Our objections concern the legal and constitutional aspects of
the bill, not with terms, because these 34 people coming from the
scientific community and academia have done a tremendous job.
The Bloc Quebecois also cannot help but welcome, as my colleague
from Québec said, the budget increases for research and
development. We think that this bill is innovative in many
regards, particularly with regard to ethical discussions that
promote a multidisciplinary approach.
The governing council will have enough freedom to adapt easily
and quickly to the constant changes in the area of research,
which are occurring at an ever increasing pace, due to
innovation. The legislation required should not provide a very
rigid framework but some room for manoeuvre, and we should trust
the Canadian leading experts who did a tremendous job in that
regard.
At long last, the government is acting to increase its
investments in research and development, as the OCDE had been
asking since 1993. However, as I explained earlier, the Liberal
government is ignoring provincial jurisdictions; it wants to
intrude in these jurisdictions, not only in Quebec but also in
all the provinces of Canada. We are simply asking the government
to comply with section 92 of the Constitution of Canada, which
deals with power sharing.
As my colleagues from Québec and Hochelaga—Maisonneuve said
earlier, this bill has forgotten provinces by not recognizing
their authority in their own jurisdiction.
In 1867, it was easy to leave health to the provinces because it
was an expensive area which did not bring in any money. Today,
now that health has become a priority for the public, the federal
wants to come back. We are only asking that it comply with the
constitution.
With this bill, the role of the provinces is being reduced to
that of mere actors, like any other stakeholder. The
provinces—and I repeat it for the Liberals, who unfortunately
tend to forget it—have a specific jurisdiction in the area of
health, yet they are treated like any other health organization
or stakeholder.
The creation of health research institutes is not the problem.
The Bloc supports the increase in funding for research and the
establishment of health research institutes. However, Canada does
not invest enough in research and we ought to invest more if we
want to remain competitive and be leaders in research and
development.
1040
I wish to underline the excellent performance, both in medicine
and research, of the University of Sherbrooke, which made a
clean-sweep of all Canadian first awards in the medical area. It
must be recognized that, in medicine as well as in research,
Canada and Quebec are doing pretty well. But we must make sure
that the necessary financial resources are made available,
because the human resources necessary to carry on are already
available.
Again, the problem is the serious risk of direct encroachment on
provincial jurisdiction in the area of health services to the
population, without any consultation with the provinces.
With the establishment of the Canadian institutes of health
research, the federal government is clearly grabbing the power to
impose its priorities and views in health matters and is going
well beyond the area of research. It is imperative for the
government to respect the specific expertise and strengths of the
research scientists in each region, to allow them to use their
skills in their area of expertise and to be as successful as
possible.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois has moved a series of amendments
whose purpose is to reaffirm the primacy of the provincial
jurisdiction in health matters; it also stresses the importance
of respecting the jurisdictions. Many organizations in Quebec
applied for grants to the interim council of the Canadian
institutes of health research, and it is extremely important that
Quebec get its fair share of research and development funds.
We must be on the leading edge in these areas to move ahead into
the 21st century and to ensure the growth and economic
development of Quebec and Canada. The federal government must
address the problem of the inadequate funding of research, by
making more funds available to research scientists and academics
to allow them to complete their work.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, have said repeatedly that we support
the idea of new investments in research and development and we
want even more such investments. But there is one thing we cannot
accept, and that is the establishment of Canada-wide standards
and the infringement on provincial jurisdictions. If the federal
government wants to interfere in provincial matters, it is
imperative and necessary that the provinces be fully involved in
the selection and management of the institutes.
The government claims that it wants to promote the health of
Canadians, but one must not forget that, in the past, it cut
transfer payments to provinces for health, education and social
services, but mostly for health. We agree that investment in
research is important, but let us not forget that a lot of money
has been brutally and irresponsibly taken from the provinces.
That funding must be restored to them immediately.
The government says it is reinvesting in health services offered
by the provinces—I do not want to talk about the billions and
billions of dollars bandied about, because the public has
difficulty understanding the full scope of the cuts that were
made. I will put it this way: it is as if $100 worth of cuts were
made or will be made, but then we were told “We will give you
back $20 and we will cut only $80”. And we are supposed to be
happy because we got back $20 on the $100 that were cut without
our permission.
We cannot let the federal government invade provincial
jurisdictions again, and we cannot continue to ignore the cuts to
transfer payments that are causing very serious problems in the
area of health.
I hope that the House will pass the amendments moved by the Bloc
Quebecois so that our researchers and scholars will have access
to the funds they need so much and that, I repeat, in conclusion,
provincial jurisdictions will be not be invaded.
The Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that the Chair made
an error in recognizing the hon. member for Repentigny. He had
already spoken to this group of amendments. This is an error,
not a precedent.
[English]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. 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.
1045
[Translation]
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands
deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 5 to 7,
11, 18, 23, and 24.
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 9 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 12 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 13 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 14 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 20. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 20 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 48. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 48 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 49. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 49 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 50. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 50 stands
deferred.
1050
[English]
The House will now proceed with the motions in Group No. 2, the
first of which is Motion No. 2.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) moved:
That Bill C-13, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 15
on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-13, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines
15 and 16 on page 1 with the following:
Hon. Robert D. Nault (for the Minister of Health, Lib.)
moved:
That Bill C-13, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines
15 and 16 on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 3 on
page 3 with the following:
“2. In this Act, “Canadian medical research community” means
health practitioners, researchers and academics practising or
working in Canada, including voluntary agencies, the private
sector, the provinces and the federal granting councils;
“Minister” means the”
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 22 on
page 3 with the following:
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 14 and
15 on page 4.
Hon. Robert D. Nault (for the Minister of Health, Lib.)
moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 22
and 23 on page 4 with the following:
(iii) work in collaboration with the provinces to advance health
research and to promote the dissemination and application of new
research knowledge to improve health and health services; and
(iv) engage voluntary”
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 23 to
26 on page 4 with the following:
“(iii) have the provinces participate in the choice of
directions and decisions for research; and
(iv) engage the voluntary organizations, the private sector and
others, in or outside Canada, with complementary research
interests;”
That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 37 on
page 4 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 5, be amended
(a) by adding after line 24 on page 5 the following:
“(b.1) involve the provinces in the choice of directions and
decisions and form partnerships with them;”
(b) by replacing line 2 on page 6 with the following:
“ships with persons”
That Bill C-13, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 19 on
page 6 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 21 on
page 6 with the following:
“6. Subject to section 7.1, the President of the CIHR shall
be”
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 22 on
page 6 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 23
and 24 on page 6 with the following:
That Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 6 the
following new clause:
“6.1 (1) The Minister shall conduct an annual review of the
performance of the President of CIHR.
(2) The Minister shall advise the President of the upcoming
performance review within 30 days after the anniversary date of
the President's appointment.
(3) A copy of the performance review, signed by the Minister,
shall be forwarded to the President of the CIHR within 90 days of
the anniversary date of the President's appointment.”
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 30 on
page 6 with the following:
“(2) Subject to section 7.1, each initial member of the
Governing”
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 32 on
page 6 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing, in the
English version, line 38 on page 6 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 41 to
43 on page 6 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended
“(4) The Governor in Council shall appoint, based on advice
taken from the Canadian medical research community, as members of
the Governing Council women”
“(b) by replacing line 6 on page 7 with the following:
“nor in Council shall appoint, based on advice taken from the
Canadian medical research community”
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 6 on
page 7 with the following:
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) moved:
That Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 7 the
following new clause:
“7.1 (1) The President of the CIHR shall conduct an annual
review of the performance of each of the members of the Governing
Council.
(2) The President shall discuss the performance review with each
member of the Governing Council and shall provide a report to the
Minister within 30 days after the completion of the performance
reviews.”
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 7 the
following new clause:
“7.1 The Governor in Council shall appoint the President of
the CIHR and the initial and subsequent members of the Governing
Council from lists of names provided by the provinces.”
That Bill C-13, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 11 on
page 7 with the following:
“8. Notwithstanding subsection 7(2) and section 7.1, the”
That Bill C-13, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 39 on
page 8 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 10 on
page 9 with the following:
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 38 on
page 10 with the following:
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 41 on
page 10 with the following:
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) moved:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 42 on
page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 21, be amended
(b) by replacing line 15 on page 11 with the following:
“Research Institute or terminated and shall provide a report to
the Minister.”
(c) by adding after line 15 on page 11 the following:
“(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid
before the House of Commons on any of the first 15 days on which
that House is sitting after the Minister receives it.”
That Bill C-13, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing line 10 on
page 11 with the following:
That Bill C-13, in Clause 31, be amended
(b) by adding after line 4 on page 14 the following:
“(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid
before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on
which that House is sitting after the Minister receives it.”
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here,
even if it interferes with my presence at the Standing Committee
on Justice.
I basically want to remind the House of the gist of our
amendments in Group No. 2. The hon. parliamentary secretary and
member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies knows that what we want
first is that the provinces be closely involved in the
development and implementation of Canadian Institutes of Health
Research.
The Bloc Quebecois, a responsible opposition party intent on
continuing to be responsible, is aware that the research
community needs money, and significant amounts of money at that.
1055
We have no qualms about acknowledging the injection of an
additional $500 million, which will be available starting next
year, for the creation of the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research, which, as we know, will be virtual institutes. So, the
money will not be invested in buildings.
The problem is that the health minister underlines the
importance of having the researchers connect through a network,
like the OCDE said it should be, and we agree, but the bill
provides for an extreme centralization.
The minister talks about institutes of health research, plural,
but since there is only one governing council, we should speak
instead of a single Canadian institute of health research.
The bill is so centralizing that the president and the
chairperson of the governing council are one and the same. Just
imagine if, in Quebec, at the baseball division of the Régie des
installation olympiques—I take that example because of your
athletic dispositions and your love of baseball—there were a
president and a chairperson.
We asked the parliamentary secretary and the minister why it had
to be the same person. In large public organizations, centralized
or decentralized, the principle of checks and balances is
considered essential, which means that there is a director
general and a chairperson of the board who are not one and the
same.
We know that research is an area that evolves rapidly. We want
the scientists to be networked, to be linked together in
networks. But why not involve the provinces in the definition of
the health research institutes?
We are proposing an amendment to make this possible both at the
governing council level and in the various advisory committees.
We did the same thing when the Canada Labour Code was reviewed,
and we also have the preliminary version of the code.
My colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides, will deal with
the present bill. But a few years ago, when the government
chose to amend Part III of the Canada Labour Code, we also
tabled an amendment in order to enable the Canada Labour
Relations Board to take inspiration from lists proposed by the
provinces. We have done exactly the same thing here. We
brought in an amendment asking the minister “Why not take
inspiration from proposals made by the provinces?”
Jean Rochon, the minister of scientific development, who
everyone knows is a great friend of the hon. member for Québec,
is in the process of bringing in a science policy. This policy
establishes directions to be given developmental priority for
health research in Quebec.
What are these areas of priority? Genomics and heredity. The
hon. member for Jonquière, who can at the very least be described
as a woman of determination, is working hard to get an institute
facility in her region, because a pool of researchers, with their
expertise and knowledge, are concentrated there.
Not only must there be recognition of the strengths of Quebec as
far as genomics and heredity are concerned, but there is also
much expertise relating to cancer, and AIDS as well. Quebec is
home to some of the most highly reputed researchers in the fields
of AIDs and virology.
What we are saying to this government is “If it is your
objective to create linkages so that the various researchers can
interact in the spirit of complementarity and
multidisciplinarity, you stand to gain by consulting the
provinces”. That is the type of amendment we presented.
Many people came to us saying “Please ensure that the
$500 million to be made available is going to really go to
research”.
1100
The result of this bill will be to abolish the Medical Research
Council of Canada. I would have liked the parliamentary
secretary to be here listening—I am sure he will agree with me.
Once the Medical Research Council of Canada is abolished, we must
make sure that the administration costs that fall to the Canadian
institutes of health research under the new structure do not
exceed 5%.
We think it would be wrong for the administration costs to be
10%, 15% or 20%. We would not agree with that. I hope that this
amendment will meet with the approval of government members.
There is one problem. Perhaps the hon. member for Québec would
give us a little smile. There is one problem and it is as
follows. There are 13 references to the health care system in
the bill. We are prepared to admit that research is an area of
shared jurisdiction. The federal government has invested in the
research sector since the early 1990s; in fact, its involvement
goes back to something like 1910 or 1915 and, with a few notable
exceptions, there are very few parliamentarians who were around
back then.
The health care sector, however, does not come under federal
jurisdiction. We have some concerns that the bill as now worded,
with its references to the health care system, will be a way for
the federal government to get its foot in the door of
jurisdictions where it has no business.
This is why, very candidly and in a spirit of clarity, we moved
an amendment asking the government to specify that the health
care system does not come under its jurisdiction. The
government's determination borders on the obsessive and will make
it look rather narrow minded if it does not support our
amendment.
I still have hopes that the parliamentary secretary, who has a
huge influence within the government, will manage to convince the
Minister of Health, a future leadership contender, to support our
amendments.
This is a major bone of contention, so much so that the Quebec
Minister of Health, Mrs. Marois, and her colleague, Mr. Rochon,
took the time to write to the federal health minister to express
their concerns. I tabled a copy of that letter in committee. I
will be pleased to circulate it if some hon. members are
interested in reading it.
Since I have little time left, let me say that we support health
research. We believe it is important that researchers be part of
a network. We also believe that this bill cannot be part of a
nation building process. It must not be the excuse for the
federal government to try to get involved in health, particularly
in the health care system and in the procurement of equipment at
points of service, two areas which come under provincial
jurisdiction.
If the government—and I will conclude on this note—supports
our amendments, which are very reasonable and certainly not out
of line, we would be compelled to rise, at report stage and at
third reading, to support this bill, which has some merits, but
which appears to promote federal hegemony somewhat.
I invite hon. members to make sure that the government supports
the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. We worked hard in
committee, we showed up consistently, we heard witnesses and we
are very qualified to talk about Quebec's interests. We know that
researchers want this bill passed and we are prepared to support
it, as long as it respects Quebec's jurisdictions.
1105
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this bill at
report stage. Health care is not my area of expertise. However,
I have some concerns that I want to raise at this time. As
Reformers, we are basically supporting the measures that the
government is putting forward.
At the outset, let me state that the devil is in the details.
Health care research can have tremendous benefits. It can
alleviate a lot of suffering. We do not deny that and that makes
it absolutely essential that we explore the area of health care
research.
We can save a lot of money in health care spending by doing
research in the proper areas and, therefore, adjusting our health
care system accordingly. We need to use public money much more
efficiently. However, if there is not a balance in the way the
money is administered, the effectiveness of that money will be
diminished. That must be obvious to all of us.
I feel that there is a bias in Canada today in the medical
establishment and in health care research. We can have all of
the best intentions in the world, as are outlined in this bill,
and we can make all of the best amendments, as we have tried to
put forward, and we agree with a lot of them, but if a bias
exists in the administration of those funds we do a disservice to
Canadians. That is what I mean by the devil is in the details.
For example, we see in Canada a heavy emphasis on research into
the effectiveness of drugs and other very intrusive procedures in
the handling of health care problems when there is a lot of
evidence to indicate that there are very effective alternatives.
That is why I feel, when we look at this bill, that we have to
ensure that all of these concerns which Canadians have are
addressed. Research should not exclude the exploration of these
other areas. We need protection in this bill to ensure that
happens.
Our health minister made the statement that our health care
system needs more than just money to fix it. I could not agree
more. However, he then went on to condemn the provinces which
explore alternative means of doing just that.
One of the concerns I have is with the group of people who will
be administering these health care research funds. Who will be
on the selection committee? How will we ensure that there is a
balance, that we do not have just the so-called traditional
experts, that we have people who represent all parts of society
and all of the concerns which people have?
Although the intent of the CIHR is to foster scientific research
and promote Canadian initiatives, there has been little time to
consult various scientific communities and other communities
which have a great interest in this to receive input as to the
scope and area of research. For example, will the applicants
themselves direct the bulk of the research or will the nature of
research be directed by advisory boards and force applicants to
apply for funding in areas dictated by the central body? That is
what I mean by getting down to the details.
Although the CIHR will strive to ensure that only 4% to 5% of
the total budget will be spent on administrative costs, a new
institute will require a bureaucratic infrastructure to perform
necessary functions. Can the CIHR avoid the trend of having a
huge part of its budget administered for bureaucracy and not have
sufficient funds to administer the actual research which is
dictated under its mandate? Given the wide scope of its mandate,
and it is very broad, will the initial budgetary expenditures be
sufficient to carry out its entire mandate? If not, will
parliament be required to allocate additional funds for the
creation of the institute?
The president of the CIHR will make recommendations to the
governor in council as to who should be appointed to the advisory
council. The president will make recommendations based on public
selection processes. However, will the president follow the
advice of the public selection process or will he bypass these
recommendations and appoint members of individual choice?
1110
As I have said, there are many good parts to this bill. It
appears to be an excellent model of an institute which will
remain at arm's length from the federal government and conduct
research independent of the government.
The consultation process for appointments will draw on leading
experts from every conceivable field of expertise, and I hope
that remains the case. That should reduce the influence of high
ranking government officials. However, that sometimes is eroded
over time and we have to ensure that does not happen.
These and all of the above-mentioned details can be addressed
before the committee when the bill reaches that stage. There is
a strong need to consult all of the health care communities and
all of the people who have an interest in this research. We need
their input into this whole area.
We basically support the direction of the bill, but we would
hope that the government would take our concerns into account. I
could give examples of some of the areas in which we have made
huge mistakes by not looking at all areas of health care which
need to have research. Sometimes, because of political
correctness, we exclude some of those areas.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, for the record, we support the establishment of the
Canadian institutes of health research. Listening carefully to
the previous speakers, most parties support this bill, but not
without reservation. The reason for this is the cynical use of
politics which the Prime Minister has displayed in recent years
with regard to health care. It makes many of us nervous,
especially if we look at the budget which was recently brought
down.
When I read the budget and listened to the Minister of Finance
introduce it, the first thing that came to my mind was that it
was not an election budget. Why? Because health care was the
missing equation in the budget with the paltry $2.5 billion over
the next three years that was committed, which will be split
between health care and education. That will mean that most
provinces will get enough out of the new budget to run their
systems for an average of two or three days a year for the next
three years. The Liberals just simply paid lip service to health
care.
Getting back to the issue before us, I have some problems with
the establishment of the institutes. One of my problems is the
cynicism which we see in the Prime Minister's approach to health
care. He has created a problem and he knows full well that he
has the capacity to fix it. He probably will, just slightly
before the next election, probably on the eve of the next
election, which is rumoured today to be called for October 16.
We can expect some recurring announcements in the health care
field between now and the end of the summer. The Prime Minister
has created the crisis and now he is going to employ
Machiavellian politics to fix that very crisis to make himself
popular. I do not think it is going to work.
We have a problem with the construction of the institutes. For
starters, all of the appointments will be made by the Prime
Minister. At page 6 of the bill, line 21 states: “The
President of the CIHR shall be appointed by the Governor in
Council—”. What does the term governor in council imply? It
simply means that the Prime Minister, along with the cabinet,
will appoint the president.
What it boils down to is that I do not trust the Prime Minister
to make these appointments. I do not think any of the other
party members on this side of the House do either.
1115
The interesting thing is that the governing council, of which
there will be no more than 20 members, will again be appointed by
the Prime Minister of Canada.
Many of the amendments that we have put forth in this bill
address that very concern. We think these changes are necessary
to the bill and will result in the Prime Minister consulting the
health community before these very appointments are made. We
actually defined in my amendments what we mean by the health
community. I think we have to get away from one man determining
how this institute will be set up.
One of the things I mentioned in committee was that this is not
new in terms of what other countries in the rest of the world
have done with institutes like this in the past. In fact, this
is modelled after the U.S. example. The biggest difference in
the U.S. example is that the president of the United States does
not appoint the president of the institute, nor does he appoint
the members of the institute, that is the governing council. That
is a very important point and I am glad the member picked up on
that. The United States operates under a different system. What
it has effectively done is depoliticize the process.
I would like to see that done in this bill but the government
will probably just give short heed to the amendments on the floor
that would actually change the way this committee is structured
and the way it is set up.
The other thing is the fact that once this body is established,
we have no idea how many institutes there will be. We do know
there will be virtual institutes but we have no idea how many
there will be and what they will be. There is no indication in
the bill what the government is considering.
I think what the Canadian people are demanding today is
transparency in everything. What we would expect as opposition
members is to see some openness in the selection process so that
we in the House can have some input and that the medical
community can have some input. There is no evidence of that in
the bill. I would say that is the essential flaw in this piece
of legislation before us.
We do favour the replacement of the Medical Research Council
with this institute. However, if we are going to make a change,
let us make a change that will work to the benefit of the health
community. I believe the health community and the health care
system in this country have suffered greatly under this
administration, going back some seven years.
Mr. Speaker, you were sitting in that chair when the government
took the biggest cut ever from the health care budget at the
expense of every single person in Canada. Now we have a health
care system that is under siege because of the neglect by the
government. Now we will see the use of what I call Machiavellian
politics in the next short number of months to fix a system that
the government broke.
What it really boils down to is that I do not trust the Prime
Minister hand-picking who will sit on these institutes and then
exerting influence on what institutes will be established and how
the governing council will function.
I think this is open to some debate within the House. I would
love to hear some of the other members address those very
concerns over the next few minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, I
want to say that three words summarize today's debate:
encroachment, encroachment and encroachment.
And the government is encroaching in a particularly iniquitous
way because we all know the very serious problem cuts to transfer
payments have created for the provinces.
1120
This issue has been discussed at length in Quebec. Quebecers did
not realize that the problem is as acute in other provinces. We
have seen a whole series of absurdities. Believe it or not,
people from Saint-Jean have to go to Plattsburgh to get
treatment, and this costs Canadian taxpayers a bundle.
So much so that the hospital in Plattsburgh has just bought very
sophisticated equipment because of the large number of Quebecers
who are going for treatment to the United States. All this
because the government decided, a few years ago, to cut transfers
to provinces, including Quebec.
The shortfall for last year was $1.7 billion, a tidy sum.
Members can understand why the Government of Quebec found it so
hard to achieve zero deficit while, at the same time, managing a
health care system where demand is rising while funding is
dropping.
We have to see how the government is feathering its nest,
because that is just what it is doing. The Minister of Finance
talked about a potential surplus of $95 billion over five years,
but according to our estimation it will be more like $130 billion
over the same period.
This surplus was accumulated by means of the Canada health and
social transfer. The government has cut transfers to provinces,
including Quebec, and by doing so it has created a terrible
crisis for them. Waiting lists show how people are paying for
this now.
We should not forget that the government is feathering its nest
even more with the employment insurance fund.
It still has ultimate control over the unemployed, limiting
access to the employment insurance plan. Today, only four out of
ten workers have access to the plan; before the reform it used to
be seven out of ten. While the government is paying out less to
the unemployed, it is still taking in just as much from employees
and employers. Not only will it not upgrade the plan, it will not
adjust it so that benefits are equivalent to the period worked.
The government is still feathering its nest, putting more money
aside and, when it sees fit, it uses that money to encroach on
areas of provincial jurisdiction. I do not know whether the
premiers of the other provinces are listening to us today, but I
believe that with the signing of the social union such federal
encroachments on provincial jurisdiction are going to increase.
I remind the House that Quebec did not sign this agreement,
precisely to protect its jurisdiction over health care. Normally
in Canada, under the Constitution, everything social is a
provincial responsibility, but often things are called a
different name.
For instance, with regard to the bill before us today, the name
used is health research institutes; the government says it is not
necessarily about health, but really about virtual research, or
some other kind of research. There has been no consultation with
the provinces. In fact, the amendments proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois are aimed at remedying this. We want the provinces and
Quebec to be consulted.
What about the health research institutes? In 2001-2002, $500
million will be invested in these institutes.
When we look at how research and development are evolving in
Canada, we see that we have big problems. When it comes to
research and development in Canada, Quebec is at a disadvantage.
I often indicate that Quebecers represent 25% of the
government's tax base. In the Outaouais region, let us not talk
about institutes of health research but only about research
centres; they are 43 of them, 42 on the Ottawa side, one of the
Hull side. And yet, Quebecers foot 25% of the bill.
When it comes to research, we must also see all the economic
benefits of a research centre, of an institute of health
research. This is important. First, these are highly paid jobs;
second, these research centres award a lot of contracts and
subcontracts. A lot of people will be supplying the research
centre, and that creates jobs. This is the new economy.
1125
When we look at the way the money has been distributed for
several years, even several decades, Quebec is always on the
short end of the stick. I have the statistics with me. They prove
that as far as research and development is concerned, Quebec
receives only 14% of the money. We are paying 25%, but we are
receiving only 14%. Is the same thing going to happen with the
institutes of health research? Are we going to pay 25% of the
bill and let Ontario reap the benefits? That is more or less how
things stand, right now.
Is it Liberal ridings that are going to benefit from the
institutes of health research? We know about the scandal at Human
Resources Development Canada.
Is the Liberal government not inclined to say “We have done all
the necessary studies. First, it so happens that, in Quebec, you
will not get 25% of the institutes. Second, those you will get
will just happen to be in Liberal ridings”?
We might get two or three research institutes in
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies. Unfortunately, as usual, Saint-Jean
will end up empty-handed. These issues are a big concern to us.
Finally, the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois say
two things: yes to research, because we think it is important,
and no to interference in a provincial jurisdiction Quebec is
proud of. I say hats off to the Government of Quebec. Mr. Landry
just brought down an excellent budget. Finally, he is able to
reinject money in health, and this is also due to the economy. If
we had been in a recession, Mr. Landry would have had a hard time
reinjecting money in the health system.
The federal government did not do it. Mr. Landry just reinjected
in the health system 14 times more than the federal government;
in the field of education, Mr. Landry just gave 7 times more than
the federal government to education in Quebec.
It is important that Quebecers know these facts. Before the
Government of Quebec's budget was brought down, I had said that
the Minister of Finance's budget, here in Ottawa, came up short
and gave nothing to Quebec, and that Quebecers should now get
used to the idea that they have to rely on only one government as
far as health and education are concerned, and that is the
Government of Quebec.
The federal government has missed an opportunity to redress the
severe injustices I was talking about earlier.
All this boils down to one single thing: encroachment,
encroachment, encroachment. It is not too late to do the right
thing. They only have to support the amendments put forward by
the Bloc Quebecois and say “Yes to research, we think it is
important. However, we agree that this is under provincial
jurisdiction, so we will consult the provinces”.
This is roughly what the Bloc amendments are all about. We do
not oppose the research aspect of it, for all the reasons I have
just given. Within the federal system, we know that the
government is the one that has the money, it collects the money
from the taxpayers and never gives any of that money back. With
it, it pays part of the debt, and by going half and half in new
programs that encroach on provincial jurisdictions.
I do not think that this is the best way to manage money. We
have always been against duplication, overlapping and
encroachments. It would certainly be more cost effective to
respect jurisdictions, to stop assigning an army of public
servants to deal with matters that are already being dealt with
by the other, to stop treading on each other's toes.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of the amendments put
forward by the Bloc Quebecois. To sum up, as I said earlier, we
say yes to research, but no to encroachment.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great concern that I heard my colleague talk about the
distribution of funds in Canada. I would like to remind him of
two things: equality and fairness.
1130
It is very important to look at the way the government spends
Canadian tax dollars in our society. Those two elements both have
to be taken into account as a priority every time.
The issue of equality suggests that the Canadian government must
treat all Canadians in the same way. In the case of the research
institutes in the bill before the House, when the government
starts hiring people to work in these institutes, it should try
to find those people who have the most talent and who are best
able to serve these organizations and Canadian interests, no
matter where they live in the country.
It should not even be mentioned that one candidate is from Nova
Scotia, another from the Lac Saint-Jean area, another from the
Ottawa area or another from British Columbia. Each application
should be judged on its own merit, and the person who is best
qualified should be hired to do the job. All Canadians are equal
before the law and they must be treated equally.
Earlier, my colleague touched on the subject of fairness. Of
course, we have look at the regions of Canada where people need
help from the government. For example, in the case of HRDC
programs, people in certain ridings, such as mine,
do not benefit from these programs.
We did not ask the government for the riding of Ottawa Centre to
get more money from DHRC because assistance was provided to some
other riding in Quebec or British Columbia. I have no right to
ask for that as a member of parliament, because I have to take
into account the issue of equity.
In our region, the unemployment rate is under 10%. Therefore, we
do not qualify. However, if some of my colleagues' ridings need
these programs, it is the federal government's responsibility to
help these ridings and regions.
My colleague knows very well that most of the ridings in the
province of Quebec, for example, received much more money from
Human Resources Development Canada than others in Ontario,
because this government wants to ensure that every region that
needs help and qualifies for it receives it.
We must always look at things objectively, not only in a
subjective way. That is why I say that my colleague was wrong to
say that this is how things should always be done, with a
province that gives 25% of the taxes it collected to the federal
government getting 25% of benefits. Unfortunately, it does not
always work like that.
We would like it to work. We hope that, someday, in our society,
every Canadian will have equal opportunities and equal
responsibilities, which would mean having the same tax rates and
the same level of service.
The way our Confederation works, the government takes from those
who have and gives to those who have not. The federal government
has a responsibility to act like a reasonable mother or father.
When a region of Canada is in need, it is our responsibility to
provide assistance.
1135
I was a bit annoyed when my colleague said that here, in the
capital region, there will be a research institute on the
Ontario side and not on the Quebec side. I want to point out to
my colleague that there is no discrimination in this region.
There are often agencies located on either side of the river
where people go to work, and these people are Canadians from
Quebec or from Ontario.
It does not make any difference here, in this region. This
region is a model for the rest of the country. This is the
national capital region, where all people are equal before the
law, where all people know full well that we have a model
capital and a model centre, and that we are proud to be citizens
of this capital.
Regardless of where the research institute will be located,
whether on the other side or this side of the river—I would be
delighted if it were located in Aylmer or Gatineau—but wherever
it is located, what matters the most to us is to have such an
institute and that it does the work we hope and trust it will
do.
The other issue my colleague raised earlier is the jurisdiction
issue. I am proud to say that this government is meeting these
demands and needs to clarify the jurisdiction issue. I am told
that one of my colleagues will meet this need to really clarify
the jurisdiction issue. Later, we will dot the is and cross the
ts, confirming that the provinces will continue to assume their
jurisdictional responsibilities and the government should
continue to do what it has been doing.
I say that this government listens and responds. I look forward
to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to meet these needs.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to follow my colleague from the government party. The hon.
member said that it is not always possible to get back 25% of
the taxes contributed and he added that, in some cases, it can
be pretty difficult.
When we look at the research centres in the Outaouais region, we
see that the score is 43-0, that all the research centres are
located in Ontario, and not one in the Outaouais region, none—the
last one closed only three months ago. We get far less than 25%
of what we pay in taxes in different areas under the
jurisdiction of this government.
We should not digress too much from today's debate, which deals
with the virtual research centres that would be created with a
budget increase of $500 million over three years.
The Bloc Quebecois is all in favour of this $500 million
investment and it supports the efforts made by researchers to
develop a bill providing for the networking of universities,
researchers and individuals concerned with health care.
This social issue forces us to satisfy the much more acute needs
of an ageing population. For instance, because of new diseases,
research must be at the leading edge in this area.
That is not the problem. Today, the Bloc Quebecois proposed
amendments to bill that would give the federal government powers
over health matters. The federal government has a propensity to
centralize, and to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.
1140
The government has a tendency to reduce the Canada health and
social transfer to the provinces and to invest in health,
education and income security. This morning, we are dealing with
health. All the provinces, Quebec included, have been
short-changed.
For the Government of Quebec, the shortfall since 1993, when the
government took office, stands at $3.8 billion. This government
has a tendency to reduce the financial assistance to the
provinces, and this has put them in a bind in terms of the
services they provide to the population.
We know that we have excellent researchers and research centres
in Quebec and Canada.
We are not questioning that. We know we have an international
reputation. In Quebec, we have a reputation for cancer, mental
health and genetic research.
It is essential that the procedures for the designation of the
institutions take into consideration the strengths and expertise
in provinces. We represent Quebec. It is essential that the
provinces be there to assist their researchers and be involved
in the designation of these institutes.
The bill, as worded, leaves a minimal role for the provinces.
That are on the same standing as other stakeholders in the area
of health. We have brought forward amendments that I think are
reasonable and realistic.
If the government wants to work with us, if it recognizes the
jurisdiction of the provinces in that area and gives it
priority, then it should just say so in the bill to show its
willingness to recognize the provinces, but not with words like
the ones we find in the preamble to this bill, which reads as
follows:
We do not want the federal government to support the health care
system. This preamble should talk about support for research. If
we give the federal government responsibility for supporting the
health care system, we know what that means.
It means that it will interfere and play a centralizing role by
imposing nationwide standards that will not take provincial
priorities into account.
We know that some provinces have certain research and
development priorities. Quebec may want to be a leader in
certain types of research, and Ontario may want to favour other
types of research.
It is always dangerous to want to impose standards that would
cripple the ability of certain provinces to get grants. The
wording of certain paragraphs is too diluted and undermines the
importance of the provinces by putting them on an equal footing
with other stakeholders.
The government wants to consult with the provinces and with
persons and organizations, and not to consult in agreement with
the provinces.
This bill should fully involve the provinces in all the
decisions made by the universities and the researchers. We might
think today that we are doing a fine thing by passing Bill C-13,
but in the long run, it could very well turn out to be
detrimental to provincial jurisdiction over health.
The federal government is being called to order. Certain quotes
are really based on social union, establishing that only
provinces would be consulted. The government's will to recognize
provincial jurisdiction over health has to go further than that.
This is what the Bloc Quebecois really based its amendments on.
The Bloc Quebecois is not happy with the provinces' role in
social services. I am sure that there are other opposition
parties that are not happy with the wording of the bill either.
The preamble should have read as follows “Whereas Parliament
recognizes the full jurisdiction of the provinces over health
services” and not “recognizes the role of the provinces in
health care”. Their full jurisdiction has to be recognized and
this is the purpose of one of the amendments moved by the Bloc
Quebecois.
1145
If the federal government agrees with provincial jurisdictions,
all it has to do is say so in this bill. It can show that it is
willing to recognize provincial jurisdictions. We all know that
the federal government is trying to nibble away at them. This is
why we have seen the government withdraw huge amounts from the
employment insurance fund, for example, gaining considerable
financial leeway while reducing the provinces' financial leeway.
This is like treating the provinces like children. This will
prevent them from responding to the urgent needs of the
population in health, education and income security. These areas
are much too important to let the government have its way. If we
let the provinces be weakened, they will not have enough money
to allow their institutions to provide good service to the
population, the day the federal government decided to stop
supporting social measures and compassionate measures.
Quebec is often praised for its vision and for looking after all
social policies. The leeway the provinces now have is very
important for them. Our actions of today should not be viewed as
a refusal to support research institutes.
The stakes are crucial for the future.
We know that we are falling behind in health research and
development funding and we recognize that the federal government
has a role to play in that funding. We also recognize that the
federal government wants to establish institutes, to set up
networks between universities and scientists. However, we do not
support the management role the federal government wants for
itself. It is clear it wants to stick its nose in the provinces'
business.
The former President of the Treasury Board said “When Bouchard,
in Quebec City, has cut everywhere in social programs, health
and education, we, in the federal government, will show the
population how we care about the social security net. We will be
the leaders in those areas”.
What is happening is very harmful and, in the long run,
parliament would be well advised to recognize the expectations
contained in the amendments proposed by the Bloc.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
to ask for the consent of the House to move my report stage
Motion No. 56 with regard to Bill C-13. I regret that I was in
committee at the time when Group No. 2 was called.
There have been consultations with all the parties to explain my
mistake. There has also been consultations with regard to an
amendment to this motion, which I understand will be tabled by
the parliamentary secretary should the motion be put on the
table. It has to do with the words the House, the Senate or both
houses of parliament, et cetera. At this point I am simply
asking for consent of the House to move Motion No. 56.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Mississauga South has asked for unanimous consent of the House to
move a motion. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1150
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 14 the
following new clause:
“32.1 (1) The administration of this Act shall be reviewed
every five years by any committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament for
the purpose of subsection (1) shall undertake a comprehensive
review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall,
within a reasonable time after the review is completed, submit a
report to Parliament thereon including a statement of any changes
the committee would recommend.”
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to debate Bill C-13. I am from London
West. London is a city that has many medical research centres,
wonderful researchers and 22,000 people who work directly or
indirectly in the health community.
We have to go back to basics. This legislation is about Canada
in the 21st century, talking and learning about health. The
Prime Minister said that we are in a global race where national
vision is essential, where global thinking is a must. In a
changing world where new health challenges are emerging we have
to do more than just keeping pace. Canadians must lead in the
global knowledge economy, in the marketplace of ideas. This is
about ideas concerning health and the value for Canadians. Health
research is an area where Canada can not only do its work but can
excel at its work, provided the conditions are right to cultivate
the strengths in this area.
Historically Canadians have done very well. They are in the
forefront of health discoveries and advances throughout the
world. I remind the House that Canadian research generates more
scholarly citations per dollar spent than that of any other
country in the world. Canadian research ranks fourth in the
world in terms of academic publications per capita ahead of both
the United Kingdom and surprisingly the United States.
Canadians have broken new ground, creating the kind of knowledge
and understanding that has improved the health and well-being of
people the world over. In other words, there are no geographic
boundaries when we discover things and we share them with those
who need to have this understanding.
Groundbreaking work has been done by the likes of Nobel laureate
Dr. Michael Smith in the field of genetics, on the anti-cancer
drug of Dr. Charles Thomas Beer, and by the new generation of
geneticists and biotech pioneers. This is but a few of the
researchers who have put Canada on the health research map. They
are numerous in my riding. I would like to name them all but
that would be unfair because I would probably leave out some
young new researcher whom we are trying to attract and let
flourish in the country.
Canada stands in the forefront of the development of new
research approaches which examine areas of complex less obvious
factors that determine health. We are indebted to the pioneers
like doctors Evans, Hertzman and Stoddart for their work in
identifying why some populations have a lower incidence of
disease, regardless of their access to medical care.
Every day in Canada researchers are at work in our communities,
universities, hospitals and research labs taking on diverse
challenges. Every day we fight disease and help unlock the
mysteries of health. Every day we are working to help Canadians
keep healthy and ensuring that when they need care it is
delivered in the best possible way thanks to innovative
methodologies and approaches in health services and research that
improve our health care system. The government applauds this as
I am sure all opposition members do.
Through the creation of the CIHR and the substantial new
investments in health research we want to ensure that Canadian
research talent has the necessary tools to be among the top tier
in the world.
1155
It is impossible to speak about what the CIHR will do and how it
will do it without acknowledging the stellar work that has been
done by members of the interim governing council. In an
extremely short period of time they have brought together the
entire health research community across the country to put
forward the vision that is embodied in the CIHR.
In guiding and shaping this initiative they have ensured that
the CIHR is an organization in which all health researchers feel
they have a stake and in which all researchers feel that their
views have been taken into consideration. They applied and will
continue to apply the same standards of excellence to the
creation of the CIHR as they have toward their own research that
has always been peer reviewed. It is a considerable
accomplishment and one that deserves our appreciation.
The CIHR will literally change the way we fund and organize
health research in Canada. It has virtual institutes and CIHR
will focus on the critical health issues affecting Canadians.
CIHR institutes will identify specific research themes or areas
of focus, attracting the brightest research minds in Canada to
work together in various communities to address specific health
research priorities and gain new knowledge.
These virtual networks will link our researchers, our research
funders and research users with their colleagues in different
institutions, different disciplines and different areas of the
country. It is not a parochial vision. It is one on which we
are united across the country. Institutes will be the key
mechanism by which the CIHR engages some of the most creative
minds in Canada to address the specific health research
priorities of Canadians and to improve understanding and
knowledge. Each institute will have a separate advisory board,
giving people an opportunity to help shape the research agenda
and priorities.
Second, CIHR will unite the four themes of health research. I
would like to review these areas: biomedical research, clinical
research, research in health systems and services, and research
into the determinants of health which have for too long operated
in isolation in their separate spheres, depriving us of the
benefits that come from collaboration and the shared approach we
get with common problems and common initiatives.
Bringing all areas of health research together in this way will
result in a multi-disciplinary approach to health issues.
Researchers from each area will work with their colleagues from
other areas, sharing ideas and insights on a regular basis. The
very perspectives to which they are exposed will strengthen the
work of researchers in all disciplines.
CIHR will now break down the old barriers and open up new
opportunities. The result will be an accelerated discovery of
cures and treatments and a deeper understanding of the complex
factors which influence health. This integration will help
ensure that we are receiving the best possible value for health
care dollars. More research dollars spent more effectively is
the pledge of the government.
The third difference that the CIHR is about is the breadth of
its mandate. One of the objectives of the CIHR sets out
explicitly in its mandate not only to fund excellent research but
to ensure that the knowledge gained as a result of this research
is shared widely, adopted and applied. Research knowledge will
be translated more directly into better health care and better
health products with the ultimate achievement being improved
better health of Canadians. Who could argue with that?
CIHR will also help to ensure that the health and economic
benefits of Canadian research are realized right here in Canada.
In the past Canadian researchers have watched as the world class
knowledge and insight generated in this country with our brains
and talent have been taken up and developed into useful products
and services by companies elsewhere. When we take the research
process one step further the rewards will be clear: faster access
to new treatment and products for Canadians, more jobs, and
greater economic growth for Canada.
Achieving these goals requires significant and sustained
investment. This is happening. The government is nearly
doubling its contribution to health research over the next two
years for a total budget of nearly $500 million. In October the
Minister of Health announced $65 million for the first year of
CIHR programs. This response has been positive but the kind of
creative collaborative research proposals that are being put
forward, proposals that would not have been possible before CIHR,
demonstrate that the capacity exists to do much more.
1200
The fourth reason that CIHR will make such a large difference is
that it will be a catalyst for change, improving not only the
funding but also the management of the research process in this
country. In simple terms this means better co-ordination and a
more effective use of research resources.
Given our complexity today, the complexity of those who do the
research, those who fund it and those who use the results, this
move toward greater co-ordination and I must emphasize
co-operation, is fundamental. It is a major step forward. It
will facilitate new partnerships and provide greater opportunity
for the voluntary sector and other health partners to have a say
in identifying and meeting the health priorities of Canadians.
CIHR will build on our strength in the knowledge economy and
contribute to the overall goal of enabling Canadians to succeed
in the marketplace of ideas. It will provide a strong ethical
framework for health research in Canada. Ethics committees will
help develop the standards and procedures to ensure that the
interests of the most vulnerable are protected while funded
research will examine new and emerging ethical considerations and
issues. These are important to Canadians and cannot be
underestimated.
The next step is getting this legislation going including
getting through all these amendments. I know there are other
members who wish to comment on these amendments and perhaps
adjust them.
I believe that people in my riding and people across Canada will
benefit. We need the viewpoints of all stakeholders and members
of the public. We need all of their co-operation and hard work.
I want to thank all members of the House who have worked toward
this goal. We have all worked very hard to do this.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the
members of the House of Commons for their hard work on this
bill.
Including the time the standing committee spent reviewing this
very important bill, we have spent over 50 hours on it. During
this time we were able to improve the bill in several respects,
and through the work we are doing now, and the second group of
amendments, we will improve it even further.
I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the amendments
in the second group and, in particular, move two amendments, on
behalf of the government, which are in keeping with the concerns
expressed by several opposition members, including members from
the Bloc Quebecois.
The Bloc members have stressed that the provinces have primary
responsibility for health care and have insisted that it be made
clear in the bill. We believe it was already very clear, but
there are ways to improve on it as suggested.
Motion No.4, the amendment before us, will help reinforce the
bill in terms of respecting or taking into account provincial
responsibilities over health.
This motion will amend the preamble to the bill. By virtue of
being at the beginning of the bill, the amendment encompasses
the whole bill and we will not have to pass 25 further
amendments, since it will be made clear right from the
beginning.
With this amendment, we say explicitly that:
It could not be clearer. Moreover “that the Government of Canada
collaborates with provincial governments to support the health
care system and health research”. This explicitly and clearly
recognizes the role of the provinces in this area.
Not only are we moving this first amendment, but we are adding a
second one, to clause 4, which deals with the mission of the
institutes. This amendment, Motion No. 16, answers the concerns
of several members.
1205
We are saying that, to meet their objective of using research
results to improve health and health services, the institutes
will have to work in collaboration with the provincial
governments, which are responsible for the delivery of health
care to Canadians.
We are adding a new paragraph to make a clear distinction
between the responsibility of the provinces and the
collaboration that we will also have to get from voluntary
organizations and the private sector, since it was an issue of
concern for our colleagues opposite. They said that voluntary
organizations and the provinces were all on an equal footing.
We have rewritten that clause to make it very clear that the
jurisdiction of the provinces will be recognized, with all that
entails, and that there will also be some collaboration with the
private sector and voluntary groups.
It seems to me that these two amendments address the concerns we
heard from the other side of the House. I would also like to
make a few comments on certain amendments brought forward by the
opposition.
Before I get into that, since it is often said that the
provinces were not consulted, I would like to mention the fact
that the interim governing council that made the recommendations
that led to Bill C-13 included three high calibre provincial
representatives, namely Jeffrey Lozon, the Ontario deputy
minister of health, Dr. Matthew Spence, from the Alberta
Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, and, from Quebec, a
distinguished researcher who is at the forefront of everything
that has to do with health research, Dr. Michel Bureau,
executive director of the Fonds de la recherche en santé du
Québec. So the provinces' point of view was integrated into the
whole process.
I would like to talk about certain other amendments brought
forward by the opposition. Some of them tend to restrict the
scope of the research to be conducted by the institutes. Some
amendments say that it should be restricted to medical research.
For this bill, the government's view is that the institutes will
be involved in health research in general, in all aspects of
that field, and not be restricted to the medical aspects.
There are also amendments dealing with the appointment processes
for both the president and the members of the advisory boards.
These processes were explained many times. There was very broad
consultation and public notices were posted regarding the
appointments to be made, whether for the presidents or the
members of the advisory boards.
Amendments were proposed regarding the president's mandate. We
feel that a five year mandate is appropriate and we see no
reason to change that provision. We also think that the
president must be appointed at pleasure, which allows the
minister and the government to review the appointment.
This is standard procedure for governor in council appointments.
Other amendments had to do with accountability, either that of
the president or that of the advisory boards. We think the bill
is already clear enough regarding the relation between the CEO
and the department or the Minister of Health. Each year, the
Minister of Health and the Standing Committee on Health will
receive a report from the institute, through its president.
Committee members will be able to ask questions and to recommend
to the minister and, therefore, to the institute, any change
that may be important. Consequently, we do not need the proposed
amendments, because they do not add anything to the substance of
the bill.
I will conclude by proposing an amendment to the motion
tabled by the hon. member for Mississauga South.
Our colleague has just moved a motion calling for the act
establishing the institutes to be reviewed, to be re-examined by
parliament every five years. I would like to move that
parliament review the act once, after five years.
The intent of
my colleague's motion was for the review to take place every
five years, and the intent of the amendment is
for it to take place only once, at the end of the first five
year period.
1210
[English]
I move:
That Motion No. 56 be amended as follows:
By replacing all of the words after the word “reviewed” with
the following:
[Translation]
I believe that, with these amendments, the government is showing
that it is totally attuned to the key concerns of our colleagues
in the opposition, and to those of certain colleagues on the
government side as well.
We believe that it is appropriate to review this legislation at
least once, after five years, so that we may be really
comfortable with the way the research institutes will operate
subsequently.
We understand that it may take five years for learning and
working out the kinks, and that a review may be required.
Thereafter, there will be the annual reports, which may offer an
opportunity for discussions and exchanges of views with all
members of this House who are on the Standing Committee on
Health.
As for our first amendments, I believe they focus attention on a
very significant effort to honour the provincial governments, to
appreciate their contribution and collaboration and the research
efforts carried out in each province, but also to try to
properly preserve the general co-ordinating role assigned to the
institutes.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. So
that I have this clear, earlier we gave our unanimous consent to
allow a colleague who was not in the House to move a motion.
We were told that this motion essentially had to do with a
review that would done by the House of Commons.
As I understand his amendment, the parliamentary secretary wants
to include both the House of Commons and the Senate, because he
mentions parliament. Is that the government's intention—to have
the amendment moved by a member who was not present and to which
we gave our consent a few moments ago cover not just the House
of Commons but the Senate? Will the parliamentary secretary
tell me whether my understanding of his amendment is correct?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just so that
everybody is certain of what has taken place here, first the
parliamentary secretary has moved an amendment to the motion
before the House. As such it is not required to have the
unanimous consent of the House to move the amendment.
I will try to explain the effect of the amendment on Motion No.
56, as I understand it.
[Translation]
Motion No. 56 provides that Bill C-13 be amended by adding a new
clause whereby the act would be reviewed by a committee every
five years.
The amendment provides that parliament review
the act after five years.
1215
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. This is trickery of the worst kind. The member who moved
the original motion came into the House on bended knee asking for
our indulgence to allow him to move this amendment. Just hear me
out, Mr. Speaker. I think other members will agree with me.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No. The point of
point of order has to relate to the procedural relevance of what
we have done, not the content. We are not going to get into
debate on the content.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, you are going to get this
side of the House in an agitated state simply because the
procedure that they used was trickery of the worst kind, because
we consented to the motion not knowing that there was going to be
an amendment. They were not honest enough to tell us that they
were going to put an amendment to the motion. The members were
not here. They have to be present in the House. That is the
procedure. They were not here because the government has them
out scurrying around doing numerous tasks—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): What has transpired
has transpired. If the members did not want to provide the
opportunity earlier for that amendment to be put, the House had
the opportunity at that time to deny unanimous consent.
Once that has been done, it has been done. It is not for the
Chair to get involved now. What has been done has been done.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Without wishing to challenge your ruling, which are generally
very well reasoned, I simply wish to ensure that we have a clear
understanding of what is going on.
We gave our consent to an amendment moved by a colleague who was
not here—and we admit that this can happen, we all have many
obligations—and who wanted the act reviewed every five years by
the House of Commons, and I repeat by the House of Commons, the
House in which we are sitting.
We gave our consent on that understanding.
This is important, because the parliamentary secretary wants to
make an amendment—which he is entitled to do—but he wants to
change the content.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I understand, but it
is not the role of the Chair to get involved in these
negotiations. If there are to be subsequent negotiations, then
they need to be done by members behind the curtains. It is not
up to the Chair. All the Chair can do is present motions. It is
up to the House to accept them or not to accept them. The House
accepted them. What has been done has been done.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, if I might help to clarify
things, the only reason I seconded the motion was to get the
mechanism to get to the amendment put just now by the
government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All right. We will
not get into debate on this. I will hear one more point of order
from the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague from
New Brunswick did not mean to say what he said in the House
earlier. He used unparliamentary language, which he knows as an
experienced member of the House he should not have used. He used
the word—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: That is exactly what it was.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would invite
members to come—
1220
Mr. Lynn Myers: Throw him out.
Mr. Mac Harb: He used the word dishonest.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There will be one
person on their feet at one time, and that will be the Chair. I
invite the hon. member for Ottawa Centre to retake his seat. Any
members who wish to have further clarification, I invite them to
see the table officers for a detailed rundown on this particular
bill.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would suggest, because I believe that it was trickery
used by the government to get this matter—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have gone down
this road twice. We are not going down it again.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make sure that—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has already been on his feet to speak to
this group.
We will take one second to check to make sure that it is
acceptable for the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to
speak.
The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has already spoken to
this group. This amendment is part of that group and, therefore,
the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will not be on his
feet again for this particular group.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am
sure that the parliamentary secretary and hon. members will give
their unanimous consent to allow me to address this amendment.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has asked for the unanimous consent of the
House to speak again to this motion. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. That amendment was not in the group of amendments we were
speaking to. We did not have an opportunity to speak to it.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think your ruling in terms of a member
speaking twice to that grouping has to change, because that
amendment was not before us. I think if you asked the table
officers they would be in agreement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I thank the hon.
member very much for his intervention. I had the advice of the
table officers prior to making that particular ruling and I can
see that they are busy poring through the books once again. If
there is a revision, I will be happy to advise the House.
I do not need any more help from the hon. member for New
Brunswick Southwest. Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Then somebody needs
to stand to speak on debate.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we
recess for five minutes to sort this out, because we have to get
legal advice on where we stand on this issue. I think because
the government used some trickery to bring this motion we are
entitled to at least five minutes.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I have listened for some minutes now to what hon. members have
been saying, and it seems to me that you have made a ruling, and
it seems to me that we should stick by it. It also seems to me
that we should proceed. We have had enough talk from opposition
members about trickery and other things, and now it is time to
proceed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I really want to
thank all members for their interventions. Now we are on debate.
1225
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I had the
pleasure of addressing Bill C-13 before and my friend, the hon.
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, was quite pleased to see that
even though the riding of Chambly, which I represent here, does
not have research institutes as such, it may have some one day.
In Chambly, as elsewhere, we have skilled people. In particular,
we have pharmaceutical institutes and companies, and this, of
course, is of interest to our constituents.
I was listening to government and opposition members. Those who
care about scientific research are pleased, in a way, to see
that, at last, the federal government—
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An
event has just happened in the House so serious I dare not
describe it, but which I would like to bring to your attention.
Parliament works marvelously well when members, House leaders,
and politicians on all sides of the House come to an agreement
behind the curtain so that things run as smoothly as possible in
the House. This always involves giving our words as individuals
and parliamentarians.
Earlier today, the member for Mississauga South—after we refused
to give consent to table a motion—came to my office to discuss
the problem. I told him we could not give consent unless the
motion provided that only the House of Commons could be on the
reviewing committee.
He agreed, we struck a deal and he gave me his word he would
amend his motion so that it would be acceptable to us. We came
to the House and we gave our consent to a motion amended as per
the member's word.
Only minutes after we gave consent, the member amended his
motion back to the original motion. This, Mr. Speaker, is a very
serious breach of parliamentary usage. An agreement between two
members, two men, to obtain consent under false pretence is not
only contrary to the rules, it shows contempt.
It is extremely serious and I hope that, if the member does not
amend his motion, we can withdraw our consent. One should not
mislead a political party by asking for unanimous consent and
then amending the motion later.
This is just not done, it never was, and we cannot accept it. I
call on your judgement, and the government's fair play. The
House cannot operate that way.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This is a very
serious consideration. I will recognize the parliamentary
secretary in a moment.
1230
I have been advised by the table once again that there could be
a good deal of confusion in the problem we have. I would invite
members to approach the table for clarification. In the opinion
of the table, the members who are upset have no reason to be
upset because what they are upset about has not in fact happened.
I would invite members to double check with the table to ensure
that we are concerned about something that is real.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I want to apologize to the members of
the Bloc Quebecois. I have made a serious mistake this day.
As members know, backbenchers have an opportunity through report
stage motions to try to influence legislation. Motion No. 56 in
my name basically calls for a five year review of this
legislation so parliament could be involved. That is in fact the
original motion.
This morning when Group 2 was called, I was not in the House. I
was at finance committee and unfortunately I made the mistake of
not asking one of my colleagues to move my Motion No. 56 as it
was on the order paper. I was contacted and immediately came to
the House. I was told that to get my motion properly on the
floor, I would have to seek unanimous consent of all parties of
the House.
In an attempt to speak with all parties, I met with the House
leader of the Bloc Quebecois with my request. The party members
came back with a request that I would agree to amend Motion No.
56. I agreed to do this and I came back to the House. But I am
also advised that I cannot amend my own motion. All I can do is
table Motion No. 56 and the Bloc accept it in accordance with our
understanding that it would get unanimous consent to be put on
the table, subject to and as I said in my comments, amendments
that would be tabled by another member and be in order.
I discussed this and I made these arrangements and provided the
information to the parliamentary secretary to pose such
amendments which I could not make myself. I came to the House
and I made the motion. The Bloc and other members gave me their
consent to move Motion No. 56 as it is on the order paper. In
between this time what happened—and I have no control over
it—the government refused to support the amendment I had agreed
upon with the Bloc and I could not deliver.
The Bloc members who have spoken on this and the member from the
Conservative Party are quite correct. This is not the proper way
for business to be handled in the House. I apologize sincerely
for upsetting the House with this matter. I would ask now for
the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motion No. 56.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): What is before the
House is the amendment. There would first have to be a request
to remove the amendment before the motion could be removed.
1235
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I will read from Beauchesne's 6th edition, pages 177 to
178:
A member, having proposed an amendment, and subsequently desiring
to amend the same can do so only if the House allows the original
amendment to be withdrawn, at which time the member may then
propose a new amendment. It has been long accepted that
government motions may be moved by any member of the Ministry.
Preceding this, I want to get into Beauchesne's again
regarding the form and content of amendments and subamendments
because this does get pretty ticklish in terms of what the
government attempted to do. The subamendment is where I think
the government got derailed in terms of its abuse of the rules.
It says that a subamendment cannot be moved if it proposes to
leave out all the words of the proposed amendment.
That is up to the House, or the Chair, to decide. They are
referring to Journals March 8, 1937, page 208;
Journals November 29, 1944, page 934; Journals March
14, 1947, page 198.
Second, a subamendment must be relevant to the amendment it
purports to amend, and not to the main motion, referring to
Journals January 18, 1973, page 49.
Third, further on it points out that a subamendment which
proposes an alternative to the original amendment is in order
provided it is relevant to the question, which I believe this is
not, referring to Journals June 23 and 24, 1926, pages 465,
468.
Fourth, when the House has negatived a subamendment to strike
out certain other words in a proposed amendment, it is in order
to move another subamendment to insert other words than those
used in the original subamendment, referring to Debates
June 19, 1925, page 4554.
And on and on we go. I will now go back to page 178 in the 6th
edition of Beauchesne's, regarding withdrawal of motions
and amendments. I will go through this step by step, clause by
clause. I think we have a case for this one. Just bear with me.
We touched on that.
An amendment may be withdrawn with the unanimous consent of the
House, but neither a motion nor an amendment can be withdrawn
with the—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I realize that the
hon. member is in full flight but the Chair is privileged to have
the advice of the best parliamentary minds our country has to
offer.
Having made use of that advice, I am going to suggest that in
this particular case that Motion No. 56 was properly introduced,
properly presented and properly accepted.
An hon. member: In good faith.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am not talking
about anything other than the fact of whether it was done
properly procedurally.
The subsequent amendment was properly moved. If it is the
desire of the House that Motion No. 56 should be withdrawn, and
the amendment, then it would be in order for someone to make that
motion. It is not possible for the Chair to move it. It has to
come from the House itself.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am always willing to do the will of the House if that can be
discerned. If it is the will of the House, I would move in fact
that you seek unanimous consent that both the motion and the
amendment be withdrawn.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. the
parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has sought
the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motion No. 56 and
the subsequent amendment.
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion and amendment withdrawn)
1240
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Speaker, one can easily get lost in this
kind of debate. I do not know exactly where I was when you
interrupted me.
My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve tells me that I was
talking about the fact that there is pharmaceutical research
being done in Chambly. There is also the space centre in
Saint-Hubert, just a few kilometres from the beautiful riding of
Chambly. Some people who work there live in my riding. At this
time of year, with the Richelieu River thawing out and the
Canadian geese flying across the area, Chambly is probably the
most beautiful riding in Canada.
An hon. member: After Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: After the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles
represented by my colleague to my right, and maybe also after
the riding of my friend from Châteauguay. In any event, it is
one of the most beautiful ridings in Canada and I take this
opportunity to salute all those who live there.
Mr. Yvon Godin: There is also Acadie—Bathurst.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I hear the member for Acadie—Bathurst who
would like me to mention his riding, which I have visited and
which is indeed very beautiful.
We are talking about scientific research. We are talking about
clarity and about good faith among parliamentarians just after
an intervention where the leaders of all parties recognized that
keeping one's word is sacred, including in parliamentary law.
We know the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who never
stops talking about good faith, kindness, friendship and
compassion like the constitutional good guy that he is. On this
side, we cannot adhere totally and without reservation to what
is in the bill.
This bill is good for scientific research, but what worries the
opposition is that, once again, the very same thing that
happened with Atomic Energy of Canada, where development was
done in Ontario, could very well happen again. Atomic Energy of
Canada represents a $12 billion investment over the years. When
it was noticed that there was a small head office in Montreal,
it was quickly moved to Ontario a few years ago, because it was
no longer appropriate to leave it where it was. The head office
was in Montreal, but the activities of Atomic Energy of Canada
were conducted exclusively in Ontario.
This has happened time and time again. For instance, Ontario got
the lion's share of the automobile industry among others. We
understandably have concerns about Bill C-13.
Mr. Speaker, you are frowning at me. I hope there is nothing
unparliamentary in saying that we are concerned that once again
the spinoffs of the act will benefit Ontario.
An hon. member: He just said it makes sense.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for listening to
me with interest.
This is what worries parliamentarians. We know no modern country
can make progress without helping scientific research.
The member for Chicoutimi, whom I salute, is nodding in
agreement; he knows that, in his riding as in ours, there are
bright minds. But the private sector cannot always be there for
them, because it takes equipment, infrastructures and money. “No
money, no candy”, as our friends in Ontario say, and “no fun”.
We are welcoming this initiative to spread scientific research
across the country instead of building a huge structure at some
street corner, in Hamilton or Toronto, where scientific research
would be concentrated.
1245
Thanks to modern means of communication such as Internet,
scientific research in a given field could be done by someone in
Chicoutimi who would be connected to colleagues in Calgary,
Mississauga or, of course, Chambly. Scientists could work and
collaborate from their homes or their offices in the regions.
The strength of this bill, if it is implemented properly, is in
networking. But if everything is in Toronto, if all the lines
and wires are converging on Toronto, the bill will have a
negative impact on the other provinces.
Research is important. We can focus our economic development
according to our skills and expertise.
That is the problem for all regions, except Ontario. In Canada,
and this is a major mistake that was repeated thousands of
times, economic development is invariably based on technical
knowledge and expertise. If that expertise is concentrated in
one area, the resulting economic development will benefit that
specific area.
This is why, in the past, research on the seabed, marine species
or fishery resources was conducted in the maritime provinces.
Regional economy was based on the skills and knowledge that
existed in a given region. The same research could not have been
conducted in the central provinces, where agriculture is
predominant.
When research is not based on raw materials, but on technical
knowledge such as the breaking of the atom—
An hon. member: The breaking of the Liberals.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Or the breaking of the Liberals.
In that case, economic development can be promoted on the basis
of that research. This is what concerns me, and rightly so.
I learned a long time ago that, on the Liberal side, everything
that shines is not gold. For the Liberals, chairs do not always
have four identical legs. When they tell me about a chair, I
have learned to be suspicious, because it does not mean there is
an horizontal seat and a vertical back. In the Liberals' mind, a
chair is not at all what you are sitting on, Mr. Speaker, so be
careful. The Prime Minister has spent his life, his entire
career, playing with words, concepts, and principles.
Yes, we are pleased about Bill C-13. But, for heavens sake, do
not use it as an opportunity to once again fool about 80% of
Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today we are dealing with Bill C-13, an act to establish the
Canadian institutes of health research.
As a member of the health committee, I listened intently to the
witnesses and to their observations and recommendations. I am
pleased to report to the House that the overwhelming consensus
was in support of establishing the Canadian institutes of health
research.
There were many witnesses with regard to lobbying, as it were,
for hopefully consideration to become one of these institutes,
which is the responsibility of the executive body of the new
institute.
There were, however, other concerns raised. I know that all
members were aware that accountability was a very significant
issue with regard to the new Canadian institutes of health
research.
The Canadian Nurses Association and the Canadian Medical
Association suggested that parliament was establishing these
Canadian institutes for health research and not providing, within
the legislation, any mechanism for review other than a review of
the public accounts and the overall report of the auditor
general.
1250
The new Canadian institutes for health research will ultimately
involve the appropriation and spending of some $500 million each
and every year compared to about $250 million currently
appropriated to the Medical Research Council, which currently
discharges these responsibilities.
In my view, the representations made by the CMA, the CNA and
many other groups were that transparency and accountability were
issues that this place should take very seriously. Their
recommendations were that this legislation and, more importantly,
the administration of this new body called the Canadian
institutes for health research, should be subject to a five year
review by parliament.
I proposed report stage Motion No. 56. It was to reflect the
testimony of witnesses who were dealing with the issues of
accountability and transparency with regard to this piece of
legislation and particularly the administration of $500 million
of taxpayer money with regard to a most important area of health
research.
Through my own error, for which I have apologized to the House,
Motion No. 56 is no longer on the table. However, I believe that
the House would agree that the principles of transparency and
accountability are paramount for parliamentarians and that a five
year review, after the enactment of this particular bill, would
be appropriate so that we could see how we did in crafting a new
agency, a new organization and then to determine whether there
were any modifications necessary. With guidance from
parliamentarians, from the witnesses that we would call and with
input from Canadians, we would be able to determine whether it
was doing the job that we wanted it to do.
I want to propose an amendment to Group No. 2, Motion No. 55
which concerns clause 31 of the bill. The motion I propose is
that at the end of existing clause 31 of Bill C-13, the following
sentence be added: That parliament shall also conduct a review
of the administration of the act after five years and submit a
report to parliament thereon, including a statement of any
changes parliament would recommend.
1255
The Speaker: I would judge that the amendment put forward
by the member for Mississauga South to Motion No. 55, as stated
here, is not in order because it changes what this motion was set
up for. I reject the amendment. The member still has three
minutes for debate.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do understand
the ruling of the Chair but I will be seeking support from the
House to find a way in which we can incorporate into this bill a
review by parliament.
I believe the House concurs with the importance of transparency
and accountability. When the expenditure of $500 million of
funds is involved, it is important that parliament have an
opportunity, at least after the first five years, to see whether
or not the legislation and the institution we are establishing
are achieving the objectives that parliament intended. It is our
only opportunity to check and to influence whether or not a brand
new agency is doing what parliament had intended.
If we do not have this mechanism, parliament is seconding to
third parties, just like it did with the Medical Research
Council, the full authority to spend $500 million.
I would therefore ask for the unanimous consent of the House,
for the second time today, to move that my original report stage Motion
No. 56 which asks for a parliamentary review.
The Speaker: The hon. member is asking for unanimous
consent of the House. Does the hon. member have permission to
put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In relation to the member's request and in reading from
Beauchesne's, there will be an opportunity, based on the rules of
the House, to put an amendment at third reading. I hope the
member considers that. I guess I do not have to quote from
Beauchesne's in this regard, but I think on page 214 he will find the
solution to his problem.
The Speaker: No doubt the hon. member will thank the
member for New Brunswick Southwest if indeed the information is
helpful to him. At this point, I have not been asked to make any
ruling on that. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, we are still
in debate and we are still on Group No. 2. If there is no
further debate, is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1300
The Speaker: 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 Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 8 stands
deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos.
27, 31, 32, 34, 45 and 47.
The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 10 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 15 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 16. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 16 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 19. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 19 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 22.
1305
[Translation]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 22 stands
deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 25 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 29 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 36. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 36 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 41. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 41 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 42. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 42 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 51. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 51 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 52. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 52 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 55.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
1310
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 55 stands
deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. Call in the
members.
And the bells having rung:
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, would you please
defer the votes.
The Speaker: As requested, the votes are deferred until
Monday, March 27, at the end of Government Orders.
* * *
[Translation]
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed from February 18 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the last time I
rose in the House to speak to Bill C-16, it was a rather short
intervention. I barely had the time to outline the main elements
of my speech; I was supposed to have some 40 minutes but had a
mere two minutes.
It is with great pleasure that I take part today in this debate
on Bill C-16, the Citizenship of Canada Act, which all the
members have had the opportunity to look at. It is about 40
pages long and is designed to replace the existing Citizenship
Act.
Members will recall that the House studied this bill once
before, as it is a carbon copy, so to speak, of earlier Bill
C-63. That bill had been tabled in the House and had gone to
committee.
This morning, we had the opportunity to discuss that at the
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It was
mentioned that, when the earlier bill was considered, more than
thirty individuals, organizations and experts had testified
before the committee to express their concerns with regard to
the Citizenship Act.
That earlier bill having died on the order paper, the government
has now introduced a new bill, Bill C-16, to replace the existing
Citizenship Act. I will describe this bill as simply and as
succinctly as possible, giving a brief historical overview of
citizenship in Canada, and then moving to the changes proposed
in Bill C-16.
Later, I will explain the Bloc Quebecois vision with regard to
the concept of citizenship, which can be both legal and civic.
I will then talk about a number of amendments, one in particular
from my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who was the
citizenship and immigration critic at the time Bill C-63 was
being studied.
In my opinion, my colleague presented a constructive amendment
at report stage, which made it possible to improve Bill C-63 on
citizenship.
1315
Those amendments had the support of a number of individuals and
organizations. I will address the amendments made by my
colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve shortly. It is my intention
to do so because they are of interest and of considerable
importance to a number of different groups.
The concept of citizenship may have a connotation and a
definition that are purely legalistic. Naturally, the legal
concept of citizenship confers certain rights and
responsibilities. These responsibilities and rights are civic
in nature, but they are also political and to some extent
social.
There is also the aspect of responsibilities.
Bill C-16 replaces Bill C-63, which died on the order paper. It
has a lot of history attached to it. Hon. members must keep in
mind that, prior to 1947, not just anyone could become a
Canadian citizen. One had to be a British subject. That is
hard to imagine now, but I think that some of my colleagues who
will be taking part in this debate will address this aspect.
Before 1947, a person could be Canadian provided he were a
British subject. We had to wait until 1977 for the Citizenship
Act as we now know it to come into effect. The 1977 statute,
which still applies, was aimed at encouraging this citizenship,
at making it more accessible in a number of ways. There are
three or four elements characterizing the 1977 legislation.
The first one was that it reduced from five to three the number
of years of residency. This is an important element. It
eliminated the discrimination between men and women when
adopting a child born abroad.
The act introduced a new concept: dual citizenship. From then
on, people could have dual citizenship. The 1977 act was aimed
at making it easier to become a Canadian citizen.
The bill before us today—for all intents and purposes and as
surprising as it may seem—is the first review of the Citizenship
Act we, as parliamentarians, have the opportunity to vote on.
Since 1977, apart from a few statements from subsequent
ministers—in particular the member for Westmount, who, during her
previous mandate, made various statements—it is the first time
parliamentarians are called upon to vote on an in-depth review of
the Citizenship Act.
I would like to highlight a few of the changes to the existing
legislation. One clause of Bill C-16 deals with the issue of
birth in Canada. Technically, a child born in Canada is a
Canadian citizen.
1320
A few exceptions apply. If a parent of the child is a diplomat,
there are a number of exceptions. These exceptions are
maintained in the bill before us today.
Then there is the whole question of the physical presence with
regard to residency. It boils down to the fact that a person who
has been physically present in Canada for three years is a
Canadian citizen. On should remember that today's reality, both
in Canada and across the world, is that, with globalization and
other trends, an increasing number of citizens are travelling.
In recent years, we have seen the large number of foreign
immigrants and investors who invest in several countries and who
must take into consideration the provisions of the Citizenship
Act. This bill takes into account these two aspects, including
the globalization aspect, the fact that people, particularly
business people, have to travel more and more frequently to
other countries.
Another aspect of Bill C-16 is foreign adoption. I think all
parliamentarians know that, right now, a child adopted abroad
must go through the permanent residence process before being
granted Canadian citizenship.
Of course, under the existing Citizenship Act, medical
examinations are mandatory at the time when an application is
made. The whole process is often lengthy, and more than anything
else, it gets in the way.
The bill before us will speed up the process for granting
citizenship to children adopted abroad. As we often hear, it is
like motherhood and apple pie. It is certainly in our best
interest to facilitate the acquisition of citizenship for
adopted children. However, one thing must be clear. Everybody
knows it, but I think it is important to remind the hon.
members.
In Quebec, the whole issue of adoption comes under the Civil
Code. In this regard, I would say that the changes made pose a certain
number of problems for us with respect not to content but to
form of course. We firmly believe that, on this issue, it is
important to define the mechanisms of co-operation between the
provincial government and the federal government in order to
comply with the Civil Code of Quebec.
I remind members, and I will take the trouble to read the part
of the bill dealing with adoption, that:
8. The Minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to a
person who, after February 14, 1977, was adopted by a citizen
while the person was a minor child and whose adoption:
(a) was in the best interests of the child;
(b) created a genuine relationship of parent and child;—
(d) was not intended to circumvent the requirements under any
enactment for admission to Canada or citizenship.
As I pointed out, we are not against the underlying principle of
the bill, but we firmly believe that there should be mechanisms
for co-operation between the two governments in order to
facilitate its enforcement in compliance with the Civil Code of
Quebec.
What Quebec is asking for in this regard is that a bilateral
approach be taken to ensure consultation at all stages of the
process before the federal government grants citizenship.
1325
We believe that this work should be done in co-operation with the
provincial government. When Bill C-63, which has now become Bill
C-16, was reviewed, a number of stakeholders, including the
Fédération des parents du Québec, told us “We support the
principle, but we are asking the federal government to put in
place a mechanism that will respect Quebec's requests”.
Another issue is the oath of citizenship. I want to read the
oath of citizenship. The bill provides that:
A person acquires citizenship on being granted citizenship by
the Minister and taking the oath of citizenship.
The current oath reads as follows:
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs
and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of
Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
Bill C-16 provides that, from now on, newcomers will have to
express their loyalty to Canada. The oath will be replaced by
the following:
From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to
Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada...
I am convinced that the member for Bourassa has a deep respect
for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, because in his
numerous missions abroad he had the opportunity to meet her many
times.
Hon. Denis Coderre: Not yet.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: I continue reading the new oath of
citizenship:
We admit that there must be an oath of allegiance. However, in
our opinion, and the amendments by my colleague for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to Bill C-63 in connection with this oath of
allegiance, to the Queen of course, but also to Canada, provide
that a certain number of documents clearly setting out the
democratic values of Quebec ought to be provided. These
documents were adopted, often unanimously, by the Quebec
National Assembly.
What my colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve proposed was the
following: Would it be possible, at the time of the oath of
allegiance, to provide people with the Quebec elections act, in
order to provide Canadian citizens who are members of Quebec's
political community with the most accurate information possible
concerning the democratic reality of Quebec, so that they may
exercise their democratic duty in as transparent a manner as
possible.
We also wanted new citizens to be presented at the time of their
swearing in with the Government of Quebec's declaration on
interethnic and inter-racial relations.
This is a document that was adopted by the National Assembly on
December 10, 1986. I would remind hon. members that this was
not a declaration presented by a sovereignist Parti Quebecois
government. No. It was a legitimately elected Government of
Quebec, a Liberal government no less. It was passed by the
National Assembly. We believe all new Canadian citizens should
be made aware of this declaration, which is based on a statement
adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations in November 1983.
1330
The third element we would like to see communicated to new
Canadian citizens when they take the citizenship oath contained
in Bill C-16 is the charter of the French language, passed in
1977. This charter states that French is the language of common
use and the working language in Quebec.
Of course, through the years this charter has been slashed by
judgments of the supreme court, but we still see it as the
fundamental expression of the political community of Quebec and
a clear demonstration that business, work and teaching are done
in French in Quebec.
We believe that in Quebec and in particular in Montreal, where I
live, there is linguistic duality, but that Montreal is and
hopefully will remain a French language city in America. It is
our belief that the charter of the French language, if it were
given to new citizens when they take the oath of allegiance
contained in Bill C-16, could send a clear message to those new
Canadian citizens.
Another document we believe should be given to new Canadian
citizens is the Quebec charter of rights and freedoms.
Communication of these documents is not only the Bloc Quebecois'
idea. This idea did not come out of the blue. It also had the
support of numerous organisations in Quebec and among them, of
course, the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal.
I see the hon. member for Bourassa smiling and saying to himself
“Indeed, the sovereignist family sticks together more then
ever.”
However, contrary to what the hon. member may believe, the
Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste was not the only supporter of the
amendment proposed by the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. Mr. Dorsaint, of the Office of the
Haitian Christian Community of Montreal also gave his support to
the amendment. The member for Bourassa, who was smiling at what
I said a moment ago, probably knows Mr. Dorsaint pretty well
because he goes visits his riding on a regular basis and knows
that there is an sizeable Haitian community in his riding. The
president of the Haitian Christian Community supported the
amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. So did Mr. Corbo,
chancellor of the Université du Québec, and many others.
We believe these requests are certainly legitimate and would
help improve this bill.
This morning, I asked that there be at least one day of public
hearings on Bill C-16. I did it because we basically think, and I
personally think, that even though it is, for all intents and
purposes, a carbon copy of Bill C-63, the committee must study
this bill. We cannot consider a bill in committee and report it
without giving people a chance to be heard. That would be a
serious breach of democracy that penalizes a certain number of
groups that want to improve this bill.
1335
I am pleased that the committee finally yielded to my arguments.
I see my colleague from the Conservative Party, who did not
quite agree with what I was saying in committee this morning, as
well as the member from the NDP. However, the committee finally
yielded to my arguments. Why? Because the committee is the place
where we can do an in depth study of the bills before us, and we
must study this bill.
However, we must not take too long to study this bill. Why? Now
I am the one who is yielding to the arguments presented by my
colleagues this morning, because we are still waiting for the
complete reform of the Citizenship Act that the government has
been promising us for a long time.
Yesterday, the committee chair officially tabled the report of
the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on the
refugee status determination system. I think that this rather
eloquent report, the majority of whose recommendations the Bloc
Quebecois supports, shows that there was a problem with the
legislation, that it needed to be improved, that there was an
important problem in terms of resources. Although the Bloc
Quebecois agrees with the bulk of the recommendations, I would
remind members that, if they take the trouble to read the
standing committee's report, they will see that it includes an
opinion that is described as “dissenting” but that could more
properly be called “complementary”.
What I took out of this—I am the new citizenship and immigration
critic—is that there was an important problem in the study of the
process for determining refugee status.
This also pointed up the fact that a new act was required as
soon as possible.
In Quebec, for example, over 160,000 asylum seekers have been
taken in since the mid-80s. This is quite a number. These are
people who, for political reasons, feel that they have a right,
under the United Nations Refugee Convention—which was adopted in
1951—to apply as political refugees.
The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada's lax approach to
processing claims is cause for grave concern.
When it can take more than a year for the commission to rule on
the refugee status of an individual, we can imagine the human
tragedy these people have to go through. We can imagine the
tragedy their families have to go through? Why does this happen?
Because our system is vague, weak and inadequate.
I think that we have to be very careful because Bill C-16 on
citizenship and immigration has to be amended. We believe it
does. However, we also believe that we have to pay particular
attention to the refugee status determination process. Bill C-16
is an important bill. I have already said that the government
can count on our support on the principle of the bill. However,
we strongly wish for the support of the government regarding the
commitments and the amendments that will be put forward by the
Bloc Quebecois.
The Bloc Quebecois raised another point on the refugee status
determination process in its minority report.
1340
There is a whole section on detention in the committee report.
Surprisingly enough, it is considered in that section that up to
now, the federal government was justified in detaining a certain
number of individuals who had illegally crossed our borders in
boats or even in containers, as odd as that may seem.
I remind members of the immigration department's guidelines. We
can detain a person who does not have proper identification or a
person who represents a threat to the public security. I totally
agree with that.
However, we were hoping the committee report would deal with a
new reality, the illegal immigration of minors. Over the last
few months, particularly in the Port of Vancouver, we have seen
a number of individuals coming through our borders by boat, by
air and sometimes by container. We have seen children arriving
by boat, particularly young Chinese under 18.
We have seen Romanian children arriving by container in the Port
of Montreal. The federal government ordered that these minors be
incarcerated in Immigration Canada detention centres. That is
unacceptable. I think these minors, these children, should be
granted special status.
In my dissenting report, I based my argument on UNICEF's
Convention on the Rights of the Child, and I quote article 37 of
thet convention, which states:
No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or
arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child
shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a
measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period
of time.
I believe all the laws dealing with immigration in Canada should
exempt minors from detention. I think, for example, of the many
young Chinese who came into Canada, illegally perhaps, but who
were incarcerated in the Immigration Canada detention centre in
Laval. I think we have a basic human rights problem here.
Canada must act and change its laws in accordance with UNICEF's
Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am sure that the hon.
member for Bourassa is in total agreement on such a legislative
change, and I would like the minister to take it under
advisement.
Another major element is the position developed in the last
months, even in the last weeks, by three governments. The Quebec
government, of course, including those Quebecers I represent in
this House, but the governments of Ontario and British Columbia
also pointed out the laxapproach of the Immigration and Refugee
Board to processing claims. There is a 12 to 13 month waiting
period before refugee status is granted, while the target should
be six months.
Would it not be possible that the costs for services provided to
those people waiting for a federal decision be paid for by the
federal government instead of provincial governments? In some
respects, because of the federal government laxapproach, the
processing time of claims is unacceptable, which results in
increased service costs.
1345
I remind the hon. members that this represents $80 million each
year for Quebec. I think the federal government should accept
the view of the provinces.
Another major element is the issue of the board, but with regard
to Bill C-16, the issue is the oath commissioners.
I have some concerns about the definition of the
responsibilities and mandate given to these oath commissioners,
who will have increasingly a rather special role to play. When I
read the bill, I have a number of reserves and concerns about
the impartiality of these commissioners, who should play their
role as fairly as possible.
Probably because it is not specified in the bill, we fear that
the commissioners might play the role of propagandists. We
believe the wording of the bill might result in the commissioners
playing a very dangerous role and, to a certain extent, a
political role.
We might have the opportunity to come back to this later, but I
ask the government to take into consideration these concerns the
opposition parties have. We fear the commissioners might have to
promote the values that symbolize Canadian citizenship. We agree
with the values of civicism, respect for the law and
understanding among individuals. However, we fear that with the
measures being promoted by the Canada Information Office and the
Council for Canadian Unity, the government might try to use the
commissioners for political purposes. This is a concern.
The concept of citizenship has a meaning for us, and in keeping
with our plan to become sovereign, we are working on developing a
Quebec citizenship. Over the last few months, the Bloc Quebecois
has launched several projects.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: I see the member for Bourassa is reacting
once again. He travels abroad more and more frequently, and he is
catching up on what the opposition parties have to say.
I think our citizenship is evolving in such a way that it is now
part of Quebec political community. With all due respect to the
member for Bourassa, in Quebec, we share one language, one public
history and one public culture.
We believe Quebec is unique and this uniqueness is expressed
through a Quebec citizenship which is increasingly part of a
political community.
I now conclude this speech of close to 40 minutes and I
especially want to thank the member for Bourassa for listening to
me for these 40 minutes.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to be able to take part in the debate surrounding
Bill C-16.
Someone much wiser than I once said that there is no higher
honour that one can have than that of being a citizen in a
democracy. I firmly believe that and I believe that Canadians
are doubly blessed and feel even more strongly than some in that
regard.
1350
Canadians, first and foremost, do value their Canadian
citizenship and their right to belong to this great country.
Coming with that privilege also comes obligations and
responsibilities, both of which we also welcome and value as part
of our Canadian citizenship.
Obviously most Canadians hold this issue very dear and very
close to them by virtue of the fact that we had 37 groups and
organizations make representations to the committee as it studied
Bill C-63, which was the immediate predecessor of Bill C-16.
Thirty-seven groups from all across the country felt strongly
enough and genuinely motivated enough about this issue, which
really only amends the Citizenship Act in quite minor ways, to
give of their time to share their ideas with our committee. We
took their representations very seriously and I believe crafted
the better part of their recommendations into what we have before
us today as Bill C-16.
I am proud to say that our caucus too is fiercely proud of its
Canadian citizenship. We consider ourselves fiercely proud
Canadian nationalists. We consider ourselves champions of this
country. Our citizenship is the vehicle by which we are given
the licence to advocate on behalf of our country and speak loudly
and proudly about it wherever we can here and elsewhere.
I lament the fact that somehow being a fiercely proud Canadian
citizen has somehow fallen out of fashion. It is not nearly as
common or as typical in this place to hear even what was heard 20
or 30 years ago when members of the Liberal Party at that time
occupied themselves to a great degree on the issue of Canadian
nationalism, foreign ownership and concentration of foreign
ownership. There were people such as Walter Gordon in the old
days who would stand up in the House and speak passionately about
keeping Canada Canadian, not losing our economic sovereignty and
not selling out to foreign ownership. It is now creeping higher
and higher to the point where Canadians really have to question
who is running the show and if we really do have economic
sovereignty.
When we talk about citizenship we cannot help but think of those
things and that thrust we feel sometimes. It is time and maybe
this bill gives us the opportunity to review the whole subject of
taking back our country with our pride in our Canadian
citizenship.
Citizenship is not only how we define ourselves as part of the
nation-state, another threatened concept frankly in today's
globalized economy. The whole idea of the nation-state in its
very best light is at very grievous risk of surviving this new
globalization in the economy. It is also how we view ourselves
as a part of a community. As a citizen it makes us part of a
community and it is by virtue of that fact that we can build
community. We feel very strongly that this is also at risk in an
age where there is a growing importance attached to the
individual and not to the collective.
Being a citizen means that one is part of a broader community
that is greater than the sum of its parts and that is a very
healthy thing. It is one of the reasons why so many Canadians
were motivated to come out to share their ideas with us. They
feel passionately about this too and they also feel threatened by
these very things that I have raised.
The whole globalization of capital and global trade agreements,
such as the MAI, WTO or NAFTA, threaten three things which we
hold as very dear and precious to us. First, they do threaten
the whole concept of citizenship. Second, they threaten the
concept of democracy. Third, they certainly threaten the concept
of the nation-state as we know it today and as we view Canada in
such a proud way as a strong, healthy national government. I put
it to the House that all those things are at risk and that is why
we saw such a high level of interest in this bill, a
disproportionate level of interest given the fact that the bill
really only amends the citizenship practices in a very modest
way. It gives people a forum to raise this much larger picture.
We look at examples such as what happened in Seattle as growing
evidence that young people are very seized of this issue. Young
people are very concerned that globalization is in fact chipping
away at the concepts of citizenship, democracy and the
nation-state.
People asked me how I could make this quantum leap from talking
about citizenship to talking about the globalization of capital.
Frankly, it is self-evident that as we confer more and more
powers on unelected bodies, corporations, if you will, and grant
them nation-state status, they then have primacy over the freely
elected officials, such as the ones in this room, and our ability
to govern our own economic sovereignty.
1355
There are perfect examples, recent examples, that we could point
to where our own country is feeling this pinch. The Ethyl
Corporation lawsuit is a classic example where we, as
democratically elected officials who have chosen that we do not
want a certain product circulated in our system because we feel
it is a hazard to the common good, get our wrists slapped by this
senior power, this higher power, this corporate power that says
we cannot do that because we are interfering with its opportunity
to make a profit and it will sue us for lost opportunity. That
is a classic example of the threat to democracy, the threat to
the nation-state and the threat to citizenship as we know it.
When we take power away from the freely elected politicians and
give it to this other third party, another power, we are
gradually eroding our ability to conduct our own affairs and be
masters of our own domestic economy.
Canadians I know across this country want the bill dealt with
expeditiously. In fact most of us, certainly in our caucus,
would like to see it dealt with today and finished with in the
House so it can go back to committee, follow through the process
and ultimately become law for the simple reason that Canadians
want to talk about more important aspects of immigration and
refugee issues.
The actual citizenship bill, as I pointed out, makes quite minor
changes to the way that we deal with the citizenship issue. The
larger issue, the issue that Canadians are really seized with I
believe, is the bigger picture of immigration as a whole and what
immigration means in terms of growing our economy.
Canadians want basic questions dealt with. The first question
they want to deal with when it comes to immigration is how big
should Canada be. Has anybody ever really had that debate in the
House? How big should Canada be as a country? Until we have
that debate, how can we possibly make good rules regarding how
much immigration we should have and how many people we should let
in every year? We need to know what our goals are and then make
meaningful rules to help us achieve those goals.
We have the cart well before the horse in this case because here
we are dealing with issues regarding immigration without ever
having had that basic, fundamental debate. We can take guidance
as we enter that debate about how big Canada should be from our
predecessors in the House. Wilfrid Laurier stood up in this
place and said “By the year 2000 Canada should be a country of
100 million people”. That was the goal. Pierre Trudeau said
and the Economic Council of Canada in the late 1960s said “By
the year 2000 Canada should be a country of 50 million”. We are
still way off. We have failed to achieve those goals, even
although they are modified somewhat.
At the current rate of immigration and growth we are just about
right to remain stagnant, which means in 50 years we will still
be a country of whatever we are today, 30 million people.
The Speaker: Actually you are not out of time. You have
well over 11 minutes left, but it is almost 2 p.m. I think this
is a good point as you are coming into a new idea, so we will go
to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
HOMELESSNESS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I rise to speak about the Homeless Individuals and Families
Information System known as HIFIS.
This new information system is created under the research and
information transfer mandate of Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation. It is designed to assemble information which is
both reliable and comprehensive on homelessness in communities
across Canada.
For the first time shelters and cities will have an accurate
count of the number of homeless individuals and families using
shelters and to monitor the services used.
Developing a better understanding of homelessness through
initiatives such as HIFIS is only part of the solution to this
problem. On December 17, 1999 the Government of Canada committed
$753 million for initiatives designed to help reduce and prevent
homelessness in Canada.
The Government of Canada currently provides $1.9 billion
annually to support approximately 644,000 community based housing
units for seniors, people with disabilities and low income
families.
* * *
1400
RACISM
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
March 21 marked the international day for the elimination of
racism, but social engineers in Canada continue with their agenda
of discriminatory affirmative action programs.
By refusing to eliminate race based employment equity quotas the
Liberal government is contributing to the problem of racism.
State sanctioned discrimination condoned by the Liberal
government and promoted by the NDP is offensive to all Canadians
who value the principles of equality and merit.
To people in the target groups it conveys the message that they
are inferior and incapable of competing on a level playing field.
To those not in the target group it conveys the message that they
cannot apply because their skin colour disqualifies them from
being considered fairly, regardless of their ability.
My Reform colleagues and I call upon the government to eliminate
racial discrimination by scrapping state sanctioned, race based
employment equity quotas. If the evils of racism have taught us
anything, it is that we cannot discriminate in favour of someone
because of their race without unfairly discriminating against
someone else because of theirs.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans announced that Canada's exports of food and seafood
products reached a record high of $3.7 billion in 1999.
I want to congratulate the hardworking men and women in our
fishery industry.
* * *
ELIAN GONZALEZ
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, since November of last year a six year old Cuban boy,
Elian Gonzalez, has been held in the United States in gross
violation of humanitarian principles and international law. After
witnessing the tragic drowning of his mother, Elian has been
denied the right to return to the family he loves in Cuba, forced
to stay with a great uncle who has a history of child abuse and
drunk driving.
On Tuesday of this week a U.S. district court judge ruled that
Elian could no longer be kept in the United States against the
will of his father and grandparents. As Judge Moore said, “Each
passing day is another day lost between Juan Gonzalez and his
son”.
Elian Gonzalez has become the victim of what can only be called
appalling abuse at the hands of powerful Miami lobby groups such
as the Cuban American National Foundation.
The U.S. immigration authorities and U.S. Attorney General Janet
Reno have both called for the return of Elian to his father. My
New Democrat colleagues and I urge the foreign affairs minister
to end his silence on this outrage and to intervene in the case,
calling on the U.S. president to put an end to this tragic and
pathetic farce and allow Elian Gonzalez to immediately return
home to his family.
* * *
FAMILY SERVICES OF PEEL
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
“Working to Your Full Potential” is a new and unique program
sponsored by Family Services of Peel and funded by HRDC. The
mandate of this project is to provide one-on-one counselling,
support, referral and case management for persons who, in
addition to job loss or joblessness, deal with obstacles
interfering with job finding and job maintenance. This program
is offered free of charge to unemployed individuals in my riding
and throughout Peel Region.
Since its inception just six months ago the program has assisted
over 125 people and is continuing its work to address the health
and well-being issues of individuals and families in the
neighbourhoods of Peel.
“Working To Your Full Potential” is committed to helping
people recognize and strive toward their potential.
I congratulate and thank Family Services of Peel and HRDC for
offering this initiative and I encourage them to keep up the good
work.
* * *
VISUAL AND MEDIA ARTS
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my honour today to rise and congratulate the recipients of the
first ever Governor General's awards in visual and media arts.
While the Governor General has long awarded excellence in the
performing arts and literature, this is the first time that
achievements in the visual and media arts have been recognized.
This year's winners—John Scott, Ghitta Caiserman-Roth, Doris
Shadbolt, John Chalke, Jacques Giraldeau, and from my own riding
of St. Paul's, Michael Snow—have earned distinction for their
contributions to the world of painting, filmmaking, ceramics and
activism in the arts.
I commend them on their achievements and applaud the Governor
General for completing her trilogy of awards honouring the best
in Canadian arts and culture.
* * *
PATRICK KELLY
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Patrick Kelly has been in prison for 18 years for a crime he says
he did not commit. Kelly's conviction for the murder of his wife
was based on testimony by a key witness who now admits that she
lied.
The Ontario Court of Appeal examined this case and handed down a
divided decision, with one judge calling for a new trial. The
justice minister then had the opportunity to clear any question
of guilt or innocence by granting Patrick either a new trial or a
supreme court reference.
1405
The minister had nothing to lose by reopening the courts. Yet
last Friday the justice minister denied Patrick Kelly his right
to justice.
This issue is not about guilt or innocence; it is about a flawed
justice system that has denied Patrick Kelly a fair hearing
before the courts. Given the circumstances of this case, the
minister's decision is a grave miscarriage of justice.
* * *
[Translation]
SEMAINE D'ACTION CONTRE LE RACISME
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, March 20 to
26, 2000 will be la Semaine d'action contre le racisme.
The originality of this first Quebec week of action against
racism, lies in the fact that it brings together in concerted
action a number of different Quebec organizations, particularly
those dealing with racial discrimination, and some others, in
order to propose various activities around reflection,
consciousness raising, and creation as well, aimed at the general
public, youth in particular. Their underlying purpose is not so
much to make demands as to get people involved and to bring
people together.
The week of action against racism focuses on two components, one
of reflection and the other of cultural activities, coupled with
a wide range of activities and initiatives relating to tolerance,
equality and intercultural discovery.
I wish all Quebecers success as this week of action against
racism draws to a close.
* * *
[English]
KASHMIR
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my voice to the worldwide
cries of outrage and heartbreak over Monday night's cold-blooded
killing of 36 Sikhs in Chitt isinghpura, Kashmir.
The time has come for the global village to demand an end to the
violence against all minorities, wherever they may live, all
around the world. We strongly condemn attacks of violence
against minorities and civilians.
Finally, I would ask all members of the House to join me in
offering our deepest sympathies to the community, especially to
the families of the victims.
* * *
REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1988 Corporal Knibbs of the RCMP used his job
transfer allowance. Ordinarily, under the rules of the day, this
was considered an RCMP expense, not income to Corporal Knibbs.
Revenue Canada arbitrarily changed the rules and charged tax on
the allowance to Corporal Knibbs, who then promptly filed an
objection. Revenue Canada replied by saying that its final
decision would be based on an upcoming ruling, but in the
meantime his tax would be held in abeyance. Incredibly, 10 years
went by before Revenue Canada ruled against the corporal, who
promptly paid his tax bill.
The final insult was a further bill, 30 days later, for penalty
and interest for the 10 years of Revenue Canada foot dragging.
That is absolutely outrageous. When is the Liberal government
going to rein in its tax hungry, hard-hearted tax department and
stop victimizing hardworking Canadians like Corporal Knibbs?
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt about the economic vigour of Canada. Once
again yesterday, Statistics Canada announced that international
trade in Canadian products had reached an unprecedented high.
Its January level was $4.53 billion, compared to $2.74 billion in
December 1999. Statistics Canada pointed out that the last record
high was $4.47 billion in May 1996.
Since we have been in power, we have played a lead role,
implementing policies favourable to job creation and attracting
investments.
The people of Canada have worked in partnership with the Liberal
government. Today we are reaping the benefits of a good
government that has made the right decisions.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker:
So how are things, Jane? Fill me in.
way I see it, all is well
Although one item I should tell.
And hardly worthy of report,
HRDC a crisis faces,
Humongous, but apart from that,
Just fine, just great, so worry not.
So how are things, Paul? Fill me in.
The party is in crisis deep.
What say you, trait'rous minister?
Give me your version of events.
The way I see it, all is well
Although one item I should tell.
So small, so lacking in import
And hardly worthy of report,
The party lustre fades and dulls,
The Leader, clinging, carries on
Regardless, but apart from that,
Just fine, just great, so worry not.
So how are things, Jean? Fill me in.
One minister my job would have.
How so, oh very shaky one?
What is your version of events?
My star is fading out of sight
Because of grants not processed right,
One minister resign just might,
Police my riding seem to like,
Alliance members love our plight,
The Bloc is moving up all right—
Disaster, but apart from that,
Just fine, just great, so worry not.
* * *
1410
GRANBY ZOO
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud
to congratulate the whole staff at the Granby Zoo for the
prestigious award it just won, namely the provincial component of
the Attractions Canada 2000 contest.
The Granby Zoo will represent Quebec in Vancouver, on April 28,
at Attractions Canada's national gala. Thanks to the addition of
the Amazoo aquatic park, the Granby Zoo keeps winning awards.
The Granby Zoo is a profitable business that has been in
existence for over 40 years. It employs about 250 people during
peak periods and provides economic spinoffs of about $10 million
annually.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the founder of the
Granby Zoo, Pierre-Horace Boivin, a man who, inspired by his love
for animals and people, believed in his dream and fulfilled it by
giving the town of Granby a true zoological garden.
The zoo is a major tourist attraction in our riding and I am
pleased to invite you to come for a visit as early as May.
* * *
[English]
MAPLE SYRUP SEASON
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what is this liquid gold, this amber nectar, this
food of the gods that mesmerizes, tantalizes and inspires the
tongue?
In my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke this sweet
sensation, this heavenly harvest, is flowing from the hills of
Wilno to the valleys of Bagot, Blythfield and Brougham.
I am talking about the opening of maple syrup season.
It was my great honour to hammer the first spigot at Sexton
Farms at the opening of Renfrew County's maple syrup season.
Maple syrup season is a sure sign that spring has arrived and
that the slumber of winter has departed. Now we are all being
rewarded with this glorious golden treat.
I firmly believe it is only fitting that Canada's greatest
symbol, all that we hold dear, the maple leaf, comes from a tree
whose lifeblood brings such sweet passion to all Canadians.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
declaring “everyone loses”, Arthur Kroeger, a former HRDC
deputy minister and Mel Cappe's predecessor, today chastised
parliament for failing to provide guidance to officials on what
it would regard as a sensible balance between the oversight of
the expenditure of public funds and the flexibility of serving
clients.
What this former bureaucrat failed to mention is the
unprecedented amount of political interference by the governing
Liberals. This goes to the very heart of the problem. Grants
without applications are not the result of overworked officials
but the unwarranted intrusion of Liberal politicians.
As Canadians fill out their tax forms and sign over their hard
earned dollars to the government they have every right to expect
that the money will be used judiciously and not as a political
slush fund.
There is something rotten about the way the government has
manipulated the grants and contributions programs and until there
is a new government over there the biggest losers will continue
to be the Canadian taxpayers.
* * *
ATLANTIC FISHERIES
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is presently
buying back lobster fishing licences in New Brunswick.
Although it claims that this is totally a voluntary process,
fishers in Atlantic Canada feel forced into having to sell their
fishing gear, with fear that soon there will be no more fishing
industry left.
These fishers are worried because no progress has yet been made
on agreements with members of the native fishing communities,
while tensions between natives and non-natives appear to have
been increasing since the Marshall decision.
The federal government is once again turning its back on
Atlantic Canada by refusing to show leadership in this growing
crisis. DFO is responsible for the management of fish stocks and
it should have firm rules in place prior to the start of the
spring fishing season.
I call upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to
resolve this dispute before there is a collapse in the fishing
industry, which includes lobster, scallop, crab and shrimp, to
name a few.
The livelihood of too many Maritime families is at stake.
* * *
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
thanks to the efforts of all Canadians, our country has entered a
new era, an era of budget surpluses.
Canadians from all regions of the country will benefit from a
budget that will ensure them of a great future. Our education
system is unsurpassed, our social effort is continuing and our
taxes will drop over the next five years. In addition to that,
our researchers are innovating.
There are over 250 community futures development corporations in
our small towns and villages. These corporations promote local
economies. They also help small businesses.
Budget 2000 includes a $54 million envelope, over a three year
period, to provide increased funding to existing CFDCs and to
create new ones.
1415
The CFDCs take various initiatives to develop and diversify
local economies. They support small businesses by providing them
with financial assistance, to a maximum of $125,000. They draft
and implement strategic plans, in co-operation with other
stakeholders.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is amazing to watch the trade minister boast about
the work of the Export Development Corporation and completely
ignore its greatest defect.
Yesterday the trade minister said “in the last 50 years—the
Canadian government has only granted about $1 billion to the
EDC”, only a billion. What he failed to mention is that
taxpayers are on the hook for all of EDC's bad loans and that
total is now $2.8 billion. By ignoring this loss of taxpayer
dollars, why is the minister making exactly the same mistake he
made as minister of human resources?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should thank the Leader of the
Opposition for coming back to a good news story and bringing
attention to the good work of the EDC for Canadian exporters.
As for the debt, Canada and OECD partners participate in debt
rescheduling discussions at the Paris Club. These talks are
aimed at helping poorer countries by adjusting their debt
repayments. These decisions are made for humanitarian and
political reasons and they make a lot of sense.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is amazing what these Liberal ministers choose to
ignore, and it is always at the taxpayers' interest.
The human resources minister boasts about her department's
projects but ignores a billion dollar boondoggle. The trade
minister boasts about EDC but completely ignores $2.8 billion in
bad debts for which taxpayers are liable. How is the minister
holding EDC accountable for bad loans for which the taxpayers are
on the hook?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is a good player on the
international scene, is a member of the Paris Club, and with the
other OECD countries participates in debt reduction, debt
rescheduling and elimination for the poorer countries for
humanitarian reasons.
It is tough for the Reform Party to understand, but for
humanitarian considerations we moved all the lending countries
together on these things. This is a political decision. The
government compensates EDC for these sovereign debt reductions,
reductions it would not make otherwise.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, no one is objecting to legitimate export financing or
humanitarian activity. What taxpayers find offensive is EDC
lending money to huge corporations which are perfectly capable of
financing their own purchases, in order for those companies to
buy goods and services from Liberal connected companies in
Canada.
For example, Brazilian oil giant Petrobras got a $10 million
line of credit from EDC to buy products from Earth Canada. That
liberally connected corporation's board was graced with the Prime
Minister's pals, Gilles Champagne and René Fugère. Why should
taxpayers be assisting huge foreign firms to—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the two weeks that they have had the
opportunity to look into the particular case of Earth Canada, one
would have hoped that the leader's research staff would have had
the opportunity to explain to him that Earth Canada never used
the line of credit. It actually got other private sector credit
to do its transaction. It has not received any support from EDC
at this time.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
would be nice to have a look at the books but of course the
minister will not let us do that. Nor will he let anyone else
have a look at EDC's books. It would be nice also to think that
the hard earned money taxpayers send into the government is not
going to subsidize deals between oil giants and friends of the
Prime Minister.
Petrobras is worth more than $2 billion.
Yet for some reason René Fugère and Gilles Champagne, good
friends of the Prime Minister on the board of directors of Earth
Canada, somehow convinced the government it should establish a
$10 million line of credit for that company.
1420
Taxpayers are already on the hook for $2.8 billion in bad EDC
loans. Why should they risk any more for friends of the Prime
Minister?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject these allegations. They just do
not make any sense whatsoever. There are commercial
confidentialities. That is the reason, we understand, the EDC
needs to protect the information for its private sector clients.
Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in the last six years the
EDC has earned three times the auditor general's award for annual
reporting. The auditor general has access to the board of
directors minutes of meetings, transaction details and financial
records. Let me quote again the auditor general: “In my
opinion these transactions are—”
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
just so it is clear, let us go through it. Petrobras is worth
billions and is owned by the Brazilian government. It is kind of
hard to understand why it would be coming to the Canadian
government for cash. That is exactly what it did. It wanted a
line of credit. It came to the Canadian government even though
it is a Brazilian owned company.
Is it government policy to lend millions to foreign companies
that do not need the money, or does it just select certain
companies depending on who is on the board of directors?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has a very hard time to
accept a good news corporation that does good work and has made
more than $500 million in profits for Canadian companies and
exporters.
I believe honestly that this country is a trading country and
that this government will stand on the side of Canadian companies
that want to do well in foreign markets. This is what Canadians
expect from us.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Human Resources Development seems to consider it
normal that the National Bank had a secret deal to give Placeteco
$1 million in credit, when the company was under the protection
of the Bankruptcy Act.
Will the minister agree that only a formal guarantee from her
trustee that her department's grant would be forthcoming could
convince the National Bank to take such a risk? What other
explanation can there be for the sudden generosity of the
National Bank?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I will say is what I have been
saying in the House. We have received invoices of an appropriate
nature that accommodate the expenditures which were made in this
particular case.
When it comes to this particular company we now see that we have
170 men and women who are working who otherwise would not be. On
this side of the House we view that to be a good investment.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we will get back to the supposed invoices later.
Could the Minister of National Revenue tell us if one of his
assistants bothered checking with the HRDC trustee, Gilles
Champagne, whether the debt of $255,000 owing to his department
would be paid before the grant money was paid out?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to my
information, as far as Placeteco is concerned, we at the economic
development agency have never been involved with this company.
As for National Revenue, hon. members know very well that there
is a wall between the executive assistants and the political
staff, a separation to protect confidentiality. If a specific
question is asked on a specific issue, hon. members know very
well that I cannot comment on a specific file, because of that
confidentiality.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, with proof to back us up,
we showed that there was an agreement between the National Bank
and Placeteco to have $1 million from Human Resources Development
Canada paid directly to the National Bank.
When the minister allowed her trustee, lawyer Gilles Champagne,
to secure a loan with the grant, did she not realize that she was
shortchanging all the small creditors who were kept in the dark
about the grant's existence?
1425
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again it is not for me to make
determinations on how a private entity determines and uses its
cash flow.
What I can confirm for the House is that an administrative
review of this file was completed at the most senior levels in my
department back in November. While that review indicated that
there were administrative errors which had been made at the time,
it also indicated that there was no reason for establishing any
overpayment in this case.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister sit by, knowing
that her trustee in the Placeteco affair is also the legal
counsel for Claude Gauthier, the man who directed over $1 million
to the National Bank to the detriment of small creditors?
Does she not see this as a serious conflict between the two
roles of Gilles Champagne, her trustee?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again in this undertaking I want to make
it clear that it is not up to me to determine how a private
sector entity determines how to use its cash flow.
What I can confirm is that an administrative review was
undertaken and in this case there is no reason or evidence to
establish an overpayment.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the health minister. The last time the federal
government cosied up to Ralph Klein on health care it accepted
Alberta's plan for health privatization. Let us make no mistake
about it. This secret deal paves the way for full blown, two
tier health care.
When the Prime Minister meets with the Alberta premier in
Calgary will it be a greet and grip photo op, or will the Prime
Minister take the opportunity to state unequivocally that the
government will repeal the privatization bill?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the NDP talks about a secret deal, about privatization agreements
between us and the Klein government.
I am disappointed frankly, although I am not surprised, that the
NDP has bought the Tory spin job hook, line and sinker. It is
nonsense. Those 12 principles do not constitute an agreement
between governments and they will never stand in the way of the
Government of Canada enforcing the Canada Health Act.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as
usual the health minister avoids the question. As usual the
health minister lawyers the facts. Yet the internal memos show
clearly that Health Canada accepted Alberta's privatization
principles.
Yesterday the Prime Minister tried to suggest there was no
secret deal. My question is very simple. Will the Prime
Minister deliver the message to Ralph Klein today that Ottawa
rejects Klein's privatization principles?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the NDP would do better, rather than accepting the Tory's spin
job, to pay attention to what is happening in the country.
What is happening is that this government has made it clear that
private for profit hospitals are not the solution to the problems
we face in medicare and that we can find innovations to solve
those problems within the principles of the Canada Health Act.
Right now we have the draft bill. We have possible amendments,
no regulations. Let us wait to see what the final bill looks
like. The member can be assured that this government will be
there to stand for the principles of the Canada Health Act.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
today the auditor general informed the HRDC committee that the
internal audit resulted in many meetings of departmental staff.
Does the minister seriously believe that the deputy minister did
not inform her of these findings before the day that she said?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question on a number
of occasions. Let me say that I was very glad to hear what the
auditor general had to say to the standing committee. In fact
let me quote. He said “Exceptional circumstances demand
exceptional actions. The action plan is exceptional”.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
deputy minister chaired several meetings of the audit committee
at HRDC.
Is the minister telling the House that the deputy minister was
negligent for failing to inform her of her department's meddling?
1430
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, I am very proud of the
working relationship that I have with my deputy and the men and
women who are part of Human Resources Development Canada.
As a result of the internal audit and looking at the information
we have, we are now implementing a six point plan.
Let me go further and quote from the auditor general, who said
“I am supportive of the six point action plan, that it can solve
the immediate problems in the department and that it will monitor
how the implementation of the plan is going in the department”.
The auditor general is working with us and he says that we are on
track.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister wants it both ways. He wants a tax free crown
corporation that competes directly with the private sector and
follows private sector confidentiality practices. However, he
also wants to use the money not paid in taxes to provide export
financing for Canada's powerful and profitable corporations with
Liberal connections. This is a sweet deal at the expense of the
taxpayers.
Canadians are in the dark because this government refuses to
tell them how EDC spent its money. Why?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me quote from some private sector
individuals on what they think of the EDC. Let me quote the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce that said “Export credit agencies,
like the EDC, play a vital bridging role which lends the support
that companies need to break into foreign and high risk markets
and to make viable players. In no small measure, EDC has been a
vital partner helping Canadian companies perform these roles”.
Let me also quote from another client of EDC.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
me quote the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which said “EDC is
alone in that it still has almost all its resources tied up in
providing services that banks and insurers had been supplying for
many years in other countries”.
Why is the government forcing the taxpayers to assume the risk
that the private sector would be willing to take?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the EDC has made more than $500 million
profit over the last five years.
Let me quote a financial institution. The Royal Bank Financial
Group said that it values its EDC partnership because together
they can assist Canadian companies of all sizes pursue
opportunities in the global marketplace.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to justify her
refusal to give us the necessary explanations regarding
Placeteco, the minister keeps repeating that this is a private
matter.
Has the minister already forgotten that she herself is at the
core of the Placeteco issue since her agent, trustee Gilles
Champagne, was the main architect of this whole scheme, in
addition to being one of the creditors, like Messrs. Gauthier and
Giguère?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have taken this file
very seriously. As I mentioned earlier, an administrative review
of this file was completed at the senior levels in my department.
I say again, that review indicated that there were
administrative errors, but in no way did it indicate that there
was an overpayment that would be established in this case.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister told this House that all grants from Human Resources
Development Canada not used to create jobs would be repaid.
In the Placeteco affair, given that the job creation did not
match the size of the grant, will HRDC get its money back, even
though the main actors are all close friends of the Prime
Minister?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again let me note that the invoices we
received for expenditures in this particular case were
appropriate under the terms and conditions of the transitional
jobs fund program.
There was no overpayment that needed to be established in this
case.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1999 the Export Development Corporation's business volume was $40
billion. The minister keeps bragging about the $118 million that
EDC made in profit that year.
Can the minister tell us how much of that $118 million bottom
line actually comes directly from the taxpayers when the
Government of Canada wrote off EDC's bad loans to foreign
countries?
1435
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition has a very hard time
understanding that EDC is working out of two accounts. The
corporate account, which allows for 98% of its transactions, is
doing exactly the good news that the opposition member is
referring to, $118 million just last year.
Out of the Canada account, which explains 2% of the
transactions, we have, for humanitarian and political reasons,
eliminated and rescheduled a number of debts to countries such as
Poland. This is something for which Canadians can be proud.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
maybe we can gather from that there are two sets of books at EDC.
EDC's annual report for 1998 indicates that the crown
corporation is due to receive another $97 million from the
Government of Canada to bail it out for its bad loans. The
government takes taxpayer dollars out of one department to give
them to another and calls it a profit. That is Liberal economics
at its finest, I am afraid.
Why is the government using taxpayer dollars to prop up EDC's
bottom line?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is not using taxpayer
money to prop up EDC's accounts. I have explained this time and
again. EDC does a great job with its corporate account and it
helps thousands of Canadian companies on the markets.
However, when, for humanitarian and political reasons, we
actually eliminated debts for poorer countries, the government
compensated EDC for the political decisions it had made that it
would not have otherwise made. Canada is a member of the club of
Paris and we will move with all other lending countries in the
world.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Human Resources Development just said once again that
Placeteco's $1.2 million grant was put to good use since the
company's bills were paid. How can the minister say such a
whopper when an internal memo from her own department, dated
April 6, 1999, and obtained under the Access to Information Act,
states “The employer, following the bankruptcy, no longer feels
legally bound to justify the grant”?
Placeteco refuses to justify the grant, but all is well.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we do have the invoices
that justify the grants and that is what is important here.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not only does
Placeteco refuse to justify the grant, but on page 2 of a report
released just today, under the heading “The problem is serious”,
the auditor general wrote “Large amounts of public funds were
spent without the appropriate controls, making it difficult to
know whether the funds were used as intended, spent wisely and
produced desired results”.
Is it not time for the minister to tell us what happened to the
$1.2 million and to produce her invoices, if she has any?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House believe it
is important to invest in this particular region, the Mauricie in
Quebec. We know that the hon. member for Trois-Rivières also
feels it is important because he is receiving benefits from these
particular projects.
There is another minister who said this about the area.
[Translation]
[English]
Who was that minister? It was Bernard Landry.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in its first annual report released two
months ago, the Amtrak Reform Council reported that Amtrak has
not yet used a significant portion of the $2.2 billion subsidy
from American taxpayers.
Why should it? It is using its $1 billion subsidy from Canadian
taxpayers. I am not sure whether it is from the corporate
account or the humanitarian account.
1440
Can the government please explain to the Canadian people why the
single largest transportation investment that it has made has
gone to the American, government owned Amtrak?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear here that the loan
to Amtrak was not on humanitarian grounds. It is part of the
corporate account of EDC. I can confirm to the hon. member that
the loan to Amtrak was at the commercial interest rate against
purchasing some Canadian goods and it is being repaid on
schedule. I can also tell the House that the account is very
well managed, it is helping Canadian exporters and it is making a
profit.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Charlie Penson: They should borrow from the bank like
everybody else.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for South
Surrey—White Rock—Langley.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Amtrak has access to over $2 billion of
American taxpayer money to run its operations and make capital
purchases. It does not need additional capital.
Eighteen months ago, in response to a Canadian transportation
committee recommendation, the Minister of Transport refused to
restructure VIA Rail, denying it access to more capital.
Why is the priority of the government to improve the American
transportation system rather than the Canadian transportation
system?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat again that the EDC
is there to promote Canadian exports. It is not there for
transportation in this country. My colleague, the Minister of
Transport, does a very fine job doing that.
The EDC has said time and again that it is supporting a loan to
Amtrak at commercial interest rates in order to help Canadian
exporters in that field. I am surprised to see that the Reform
Party has now stopped liking profit.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, back in 1998,
some Liberal MPs looked into the issue of gasoline pricing.
Their report stated that prices would go up if their
recommendations were not followed. Yet the Minister of Industry
did nothing.
How can the minister today be proposing another task force, when
we would surely not be in the position of having to go back to
square one two years later, commissioning yet another study to
the tune of $600,000, if he had heeded the recommendations of
his own colleagues?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
preamble to the question is totally erroneous. First of all, I
reacted promptly to the committee report, with several precise
responses.
Second, we initiated a study as requested by the committee, as
soon as was feasible, using a highly credible organization. The
Bloc Quebecois claims to want the facts, but apparently does not
want to hear them.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we know that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
has been engaged in two days of intense negotiations with his
provincial counterparts, working to reach a final agreement on a
long term safety net program for all Canadian farmers.
Can the parliamentary secretary inform the House of any progress
being made toward the objective of a national, effective and
equitable safety net system that all farmers so desperately need?
1445
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is a
great day for federal-provincial co-operation. It is also a
great day for the agricultural producers of Canada.
After two years of negotiation, our agriculture minister plus
his 10 colleagues from across Canada have agreed to a three year
farm safety net agreement. The main components of this agreement
are $665 million per year over the next three years for basic
farm safety net funding plus $435 million per year over—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wanuskewin.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Human Resources Development talks about openness
and transparency yet she continues to stonewall on releasing
information.
The Reform Party currently has 30 important access to
information requests on which her department is up to a month
late. In other words they are 30 days beyond the point of
providing that material to us.
Why is the minister not respecting the access to information
requests?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the allegations that the
hon. member is making. After all, we have just released 10,000
pages of information to the House for the use of each and every
one of the members of parliament. We are working hard to be
transparent and open and we will continue to be. I would note
that since the beginning of the year, we have received well over
300 access to information requests. We will deliver to the best
of our ability. But I absolutely reject the allegation that we
are not open and transparent.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
these requests are not very complicated. They are simple audits
and these audits need only to be put on the face of a copier, no
white-out needed.
Has the minister not learned from her mistakes? Many of these
requests are for audits like financial integrity and assessing
the operational environment of HRDC. Treasury Board has ordered
that all departments release internal audits without requiring an
access request.
Why is the minister breaking Treasury Board guidelines in
addition to breaking the law?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian women have been suffering both economically and
socially from the policies of the government since 1993.
The government's own EI report tabled yesterday by the Minister
of Human Resources Development once again showed yet another
discriminating policy of the government. Only 30% of unemployed
Canadian women now qualify for EI.
My question for the minister is quite simple. Will the minister
stand up for Canadian women and stop these discriminating
policies and correct the devastating gender imbalance which her
government has created?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like all members on this side of the
House, we always stand up for Canadian women.
I am glad to report that as a result of the changes to the
employment insurance program, women are benefiting. They have
benefited from the change to an hours based system. They have
benefited from the small weeks program. They have benefited from
the family supplement. Most of all, they have benefited from the
fact that our economy is working. We see the unemployment levels
for adult women in this country at the lowest they have been in a
decade, at 5.8%.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it would
be a good thing if the minister read her own report.
The employment insurance report, according to the Minister of
Human Resources Development, says that people are adapting to the
1996 Liberal reform. Last weekend, the Prime Minister and the
Liberal caucus for the Atlantic provinces called for changes to
employment insurance because that is why they lost members in the
Atlantic region.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development agree that
there is a contradiction between herself and the Prime Minister
of Canada as well as the Atlantic Liberal caucus? It would seem
to be high time for changes to EI to be made once and for all.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no contradiction.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, DFO is
buying back licences which will then be given to aboriginal
fishers. Traditionally fishers have entered the industry by
purchasing their own licences and boats. Low interest loans
could be made available to first nations.
Will the minister commit today to selling licences and boats to
aboriginal fishers to make sure everyone enters the industry on
an equal footing?
1450
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we have done is we have
followed the consultations.
The hon. member and the fishing community have said that one of
the ways to bring new entrants into the fishery is through a
voluntary buyback of licences. Of course some of those include a
whole enterprise, not just the licences themselves. That is
exactly what we are doing. Through a voluntary retirement program
we are buying up licences to make sure that we follow the law and
follow the supreme court ruling which recognized the treaty that
the Mi'kmaq signed more than 240 years ago.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, buying
back fishing licences from non-natives has nothing to do with the
treaty that we signed 200 years ago.
The minister also knows that the fishing season will be opening
in only a few weeks. He also knows on top of that that there
must be organization and regulation in the fishery that will not
be sprung upon fishers at the last minute.
Can the minister tell us what existing regulations the federal
negotiator has given up in order to get agreements in place for
the new season?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce to the
House that we already have two signed agreements with the first
nations bands. Discussions are going on at this moment. I hope
that in the near future I will be able to announce more.
We said from day one that resolving this problem would be
through dialogue and through sitting around the table and
negotiating, unlike the Tories who said to use the
notwithstanding clause to take away the treaty rights won by the
supreme court. We rejected that position.
* * *
NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned that our beloved
national parks might lose their lustre and environmental
significance if usage and development are not properly controlled
in accordance with a sustainable long term plan.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage report on her plans for
action to ensure ecological integrity in our national parks?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to have that question today
when the students of Buchanan Park School of the city of Hamilton
are here, precisely because the ecological integrity panel today
tabled a report that will preserve our national parks not only
for our grandchildren but for their grandchildren.
They gave us the template. They gave us the blueprint. It is
our responsibility to follow this blueprint to make sure that
ecological integrity is the number one priority to save every
single park in Canada.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
majority of information that has landed the human resources
minister in hot water has been gathered through the Access to
Information Act. I can see now why she might want to stonewall,
but the law of Canada says that the minister must provide access
information within 30 days. We now have 30 requests past 30
days.
Does the minister realize that by stonewalling beyond 30 days
she is breaking the law of Canada?
The Speaker: Once we get into terms like
breaking the law, we are getting into criminal activity. I cut
one member off already today for using that term. Therefore I am
going to say that this question is out of order.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we now know that several millions of CINAR's money was
invested with Norshield International in the Bahamas.
This might well lead certain people to think that part of that
sum might have come from public funds. Norshield International
boasts of being a banking institution where, in its own words,
financial discretion is de rigueur and customers benefit from
immunity against foreign tax investigation.
Given the serious charges of tax fraud facing CINAR, does the
Minister of Revenue not think he ought to launch a proper
departmental investigation into this entire matter?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on numerous
occasions, first, my colleague at Heritage Canada has already
called for an investigation into the CINAR affair, and this is
currently under way.
Second, as far as questions on a specific case, hon. members are
aware, as are all Canadians, that there is a principle of
confidentiality that has to be respected. No comments can
therefore be made about the CINAR case.
It is also obvious that, when questions such as these are raised
about a given company, the customs and revenue agency does its
job.
* * *
1455
[English]
TAXATION
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Today is the one year anniversary of the House passing my
private member's bill calling on the government to enact in
concert with other countries a tax on currency speculation, the
so-called Tobin tax.
Will the minister tell us what he intends to do to further the
idea of the Tobin tax around the world? More specifically, if he
is still the Minister of Finance in the fall, will he put this at
the top of the agenda in terms of Canada's item at the G-20
summit that he is about to host?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the idea of the Tobin tax
passed by most members of the House and certainly by all members
on this side of the House has been raised on numerous occasions
at G-7 meetings and the IMF.
Unfortunately a number of the major financial markets do not
support the plan, albeit we will continue to work on it. That
being said, the G-20 is the ideal forum to deal with the many
ways of dealing with speculation and that is what we will be
doing at the meeting. I will be delighted to report to the hon.
member if he is still a member of parliament in the fall.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, spring has
arrived yet the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has failed in
his promise to negotiate a plan to regulate the Atlantic fishery.
Can the minister tell us how he intends to regulate a native
food fishery so that we do not encounter the same abuses we have
encountered in the past?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are regulating the fishery at
this time. If there is any unauthorized fishing, we will take
enforcement action as we have been taking it. It is the same
with the food fishery. We will ensure that we enforce the food
fishery and if there is a food fishery it will remain a food
fishery. We will ensure that we have appropriate enforcement to
ensure that there will be no unauthorized fishing. We will have
enforcement to back that up.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of the Environment is attending Globe 2000 in Vancouver this
week, one of the world's most prestigious business and
environment events.
Can the parliamentary secretary assure Canadians that the
Minister of the Environment will take advantage of the presence
of policymakers from around the world to encourage action abroad?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Globe 2000 provides a unique
opportunity for Canadian governments and businesses to showcase
their initiatives in the area of climate change particularly to
demonstrate that Canada is taking a lead role in meeting the
challenges with climate change technologies.
We have talented individuals who are meeting that challenge.
Canada is taking the lead to create solutions to meet the
diversity of challenges in achieving economic growth and the long
term environmental health of the whole world.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
while the minister speaks about transparency, we can see right
through her. The minister has HRDC audits sitting on her shelf,
yet she refuses to release them. She is ignoring ATI guidelines.
She is ignoring Treasury Board guidelines. This can hardly be
described as transparent. Why will she not simply release this
information immediately?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gives me the chance to
yet again remind the House of the 10,000 pages of information
that were provided in the interests of transparency and openness.
It is my department that made the internal audit public. It is
Reform researchers who talk about the Department of Human
Resources Development as being a model under the access to
information system.
I must say that we have had 300 requests for information since
the beginning of the year. My department is working very hard to
accommodate the interests of those and we will have the
information available as soon as we can.
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a Canadian
mission just back from Iraq has told us that the international
embargo and sanctions against this country are a source of
unnecessary suffering for the population and are allowing the
Iraqi regime to profit from a black market that has very quickly
sprung up.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Given these
facts, and given that Canada is slow to take a clear stand on
this issue, when is the government going to show some leadership
so that the security council will reconsider this embargo, which
is not attaining its objectives?
1500
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has taken a leadership role. We have
commissioned a major study of the broad application of sanctions
by the International Peace Academy.
We will be tabling that report at the United Nations in early
April. We have also reserved during the month of April, when we
are president of the council, that we will have a broad ranging
review of the application of sanctions by the security council.
* * *
NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the report from the panel on the ecological
integrity of Canada's national parks repeated what Canadians have
known for years, and that is that our parks are in jeopardy.
This summer Canadians want to be greeted by Parks Canada
personnel at the gates, to be educated by guides in the parks and
to know that there will be water in the showers.
Will this be the vacation memory shared by millions of Canadians
or will we see closed facilities and Liberal promises for yet
another year?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the recommendations of the report on
ecological integrity is that not only do we need interpreters to
explore with us the ecosystems of the parks but we also need to
return to the park a sense of the aboriginal presence which has
been in those lands for 4,000 years and which today is not
present in the park system.
I am very pleased with the recommendations of the report that
call for a stronger interconnection between aboriginal peoples,
interpretation of aboriginal history and also interpretation of
ecological integrity, which should be part of the shared parks
experience that people will get this summer when they go to our
parks.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of the hon. members to
the presence in our gallery of the seven recipients of the first
Governor General's awards in visual and media arts.
[Translation]
We offer our heartiest congratulations to these very talented
artists.
[English]
I invite members to join them at a reception in my Chambers at
the end of question period.
I introduce to you Jocelyne Alloucherie, Ghitta Caiserman-Roth,
John Chalke, Jacques Giraldeau, John Scott, Michael Snow and
Doris Shadbolt.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Today in question period, after two
questions, one by the member for Wanuskewin and the other one
from the member for Athabasca, you ruled that the questions were
out of order and moved on to other orders of the day.
However, I refer you to a decision made by James Jerome. I have
his book. He made a decision on February 20, 1975, when a member
of parliament felt that a law had been broken and tried to raise
it as a question of privilege.
1505
At that time the Speaker made this ruling:
Since there is a clear line of administerial responsibility, grievances
of this type are not points of privileges but should be brought before
the House and laid before the minister for the minister to answer
because this was in the best public interest and both members of
parliament and the public had the right to be informed of them.
It seems to me that there is a clear line of ministerial
responsibility when we feel that a law has been broken or
compromised that we bring it forward in a question before the
minister and have the minister answer that question in the House.
The Speaker: I agree that you should be able to bring
forth whatever issues you want. All colleagues will know that
many times in question period it is not only the words but it is
the tone of the voice, the reaction and the accusation. That is
what I have to base my decision on in the heat of battle.
Therefore, today I made this decision that stands for today. Mr.
Jerome made another decision in his time.
I have said many times in that there are no words which of
themselves are unparliamentary. I told you we can use the word
liar, for example, if you say “I was called a liar”. But there
is no need to explain it. I have to have a little room in order
to keep the question period so that we can hear the questions and
the answers and so that the question period moves along. Did I
make mistakes? Yes, like anyone else. Was I too quick?
Perhaps, but it is the decision I have made and I stay with it,
with respect.
* * *
[Translation]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, could the
government House leader tell us what is on the agenda for the
remainder of this week and for next week?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
excellent question. I might add that it is the best one I have
heard today.
I would like to inform the House that, this afternoon, we hope
to complete second reading of Bill C-16, the Canadian citizenship
bill. We do not intend to proceed with Bill C-19 this afternoon.
When we are done with Bill C-16, we will not call the next bill
listed on the projected order of business. We will not deal with
Bill C-19 this afternoon.
Tomorrow, we will consider Bill C-10, the municipal grants bill,
at third reading, as well as Bill C-12, the labour bill.
Regarding the latter, there have been discussions among the
parties earlier.
Next Monday will be the third day of the budget debate.
Tuesday, we will proceed with third reading of Bill C-13, the
institutes of health research bill, and second reading of Bill
C-22, the money laundering bill.
Wednesday will be the last day of the budget debate.
Next Thursday, we will consider the Senate amendments to Bill
C-6, the electronic commerce bill.
After negotiations among the parties, we may decide to switch
the order between Wednesday and Thursday. We may therefore be
dealing with Bill C-6 on Wednesday and completing the budget
debate on Thursday.
That is the agenda for next week.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-16, an
act respecting Canadian Citizenship, be now read a second time
and referred to a committee.
1510
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to begin by summarizing somewhat.
I did start my remarks with a statement that in my belief there
is no higher honour one can have than that of being a citizen in
a democracy. I mean that quite sincerely. I believe that all
Canadians value that in their lives as indicated by the fact that
we had an overwhelming outpouring of representations by Canadians
to the citizenship committee on this bill. Thirty-seven
presenters brought forward their points of view and many of those
points made it into the actual bill and now form what we know as
Bill C-16.
I did make the connection between the concept of citizenship and
the building of community. There are really three things: the
idea that a citizen is part of something larger, the sense of
community, and how we in the New Democratic Party view that sense
as being at risk somewhat in a day that champions the individual,
it seems, more than the collective. Operating as a collective is
much more a Canadian point of view. Canadians make that
connection and value citizenship.
The bill that we are looking at today started life as Bill C-63.
Most of Bill C-63 is still contained in Bill C-16. We brought
recommendations forward at the various stages of Bill C-63 hoping
to improve the bill because many of the groups that came to see
us on Bill C-63 were not entirely enamoured with the bill as it
stood. They had serious reservations about aspects of the bill
and as is proper, they brought those concerns to the committee.
We listened carefully. We tried to make meaningful amendments to
try to satisfy some of their concerns. As it stands, we believe
that Bill C-16 is an improved version of Bill C-63.
The real point that has been made today by other speakers as
well is that we would like to get on with this bill. We would
like to finish with debate on the bill and get it back to
committee. We would get through the final stages and put it to
bed because most Canadians are quite anxious to address other
immigration and refugee matters, issues other than Bill C-16.
Citizenship as such deals with people who have already landed in
the country, who have already made it to our shores and have
settled in for a number of years and are now at that final stage
of becoming a new Canadian and going through the act of getting
their citizenship papers.
The real concern that most Canadians are bringing to my
attention as the critic for the NDP is the much broader issue of
immigration to Canada. How do we attract the right new Canadians
to this country to help us grow the economy and help the country
grow? How do we seek out and find these people? How do we
convince them that Canada is the country they should come to?
There is growing competition around the world for the skilled
workers of the world and certainly we need to do more outreach
than we have done in the past in terms of reaching out to people
and offering what we have to offer in a very public way. We have
to advertise and promote ourselves if we are to attract more
people to these shores.
I made the point earlier that we in the New Democratic Party
believe that immigration is an engine of economic growth. We
would like to see more immigration to this country and we are
very critical of those in the country and some in the House of
Commons who would argue that we should close the doors now on
immigration. This is an attitude that has been largely driven by
fear or ignorance, I would say, and fear generated by some of the
recent events of this summer which saw migrant boat people
drifting up on our shore on the west coast.
If I could take one moment just to talk about that one subject.
It has been a source of great frustration to me as this whole
issue got blown so badly out of proportion. There were 500 or
600 desperate Chinese migrants who landed on our shores looking
for safe refuge, looking for sanctuary, looking for a better
life. The reaction of certain Canadians was “Oh my goodness,
our borders are a sieve, it is a threat to national security in
some way, we have to slam the door shut and lock these people up
and send them back”. In fact, the Reform Party had a public
press conference when the first boat landed and said that we
should send them back without even a hearing, that we should just
simply put them on another boat and send them back where they
came from without any knowledge of what their circumstances were
or if there could have been legitimate refugee claims.
1515
Thankfully, this country has better policies than that and our
policy is that everyone deserves the right to a full hearing, the
right to counsel and the right to have their case heard. Some
will be eligible and some will not.
We in the New Democratic Party went a bit further. We wanted to
understand a little bit more about this idea of the migration of
people throughout the world. It is getting to be very common for
people to seek better economic situations and to move around the
globe. We did a bit of research on the Fujian province, from
where these people originated. We learned that the Fujian
province is one of the first places in China that had what we
call free economic trade zones.
I spoke earlier in my speech about the globalization of capital
threatening the concepts of citizenship, the nation-state and
democracy. Here is a graphic illustration in these free economic
trade zones.
The ILO did some research to say that one should be making about
85 cents an hour in these trade zones to have a standard of
living comparable to a working class Chinese person in that area.
These trade zones, where all kinds of western goods, such as
clothing and toys, are manufactured, pay on the average 18 cents
an hour. Here are these people making western products for you
and I and our children to enjoy who are making one-fifth of what
it takes to have the standard of living of a Chinese peasant in a
fenced compound in China and having some knowledge of the western
world, that there is a better world out there.
Their motivation, I suppose, was to elevate their standard of
wages and working conditions by getting out of there, but there
was no legitimate way to get to some place like Canada, to get to
the west. There is only one place to go to get papers to apply
for a Canadian visa or a permit to come to Canada and that is in
Beijing. It is a heck of a long way from the Fujian province.
They cannot get here from there. There is no legitimate way for
them to apply to come to Canada and, under the current rules,
they probably would not qualify anyway.
When we know a little bit more about the people who wound up on
the shores of B.C., we are a little less threatened by them. The
fear and the ignorance will hopefully dissipate as the story
really gets out on who these people are and how we should really
be dealing with them. I wanted to speak to that a little bit as
we do get calls. Even as recently as today, we got faxes from
Canadians who are not as open-minded about this issue. I hope
the truth is finally getting out.
We have been dealing with the estimates, the spending of the
government and various aspects of government. I would hope that
as we get through the estimates regarding the immigration
department that more money is put toward the promotion of
immigration than it is toward the enforcement of immigration
rules, which are really designed to keep people out.
It has always been of great frustration to our caucus that much
of the energies and resources of the immigration officials and
bureaucracy are dedicated to keeping people out of the country
and not to welcoming them in. It sends absolutely the wrong
message. The more barriers, obstacles and roadblocks we put in
the way of people who are coming or who seek to make Canada their
home, the more the message spreads out around the world that it
is a difficult place to come to, that they will be frustrated and
that it will not be easy. They will then go someplace else.
If we are serious about building this country, we had better
change that perception. That means some resources will need to
be spent in specifically targeted parts of the world where we
know workers with the skills we need reside. We can invite and
attract them and promote this country so that they choose to come
here and make Canada their home.
With regard to the citizenship bill, in the last minute or two
that I have I will deal with some of the specifics and some of
the reservations we have about Bill C-16. We are eager to see it
go back to the committee so that we can deal with it in further
depth and we can hear a few more groups make representation to us
to see what they think about its current form as opposed to its
format under the former Bill C-63.
One of the things raised at length by the member of the Bloc
Quebecois was that there was some objection to having the Queen
referenced in the citizenship oath. Frankly, I think that is a
matter so minor and insignificant that it does not even warrant
comment in the House of Commons. Surely we have better things to
dwell on than an issue such as that, but we did hear quite a bit
of debate on that subject from other speakers.
1520
There was some really serious concern that the abolition of the
citizenship judges would be a step backward if they were replaced
with citizenship commissioners in terms of getting a fair
adjudication. This work would now be done by bureaucrats who may
not have the same abilities to weigh the variables in a
complicated citizenship case.
We also believe that the citizenship tests should be available
in either official language and, if translation is needed, it
should be available. I believe that has been addressed and we
are happy to see it.
I have one remaining point that I need to comment on. We
believe that the rules regarding the actual physical presence of
a person in this country are too stringent. Under the current
rules, one has to be physically present for three of the last six
years before citizenship papers are granted. We believe that
places an undue burden on those who may have interests outside
the country and who may often need to travel outside the country
to take care of their business interests elsewhere. We would
like to see that addressed at the committee stage and we will
soon have an opportunity to do so.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak today to Bill C-16, the citizenship act, and
my comments will be multifaceted.
I will speak first on some of my experiences in Africa a couple
of weeks ago, then address the timing of the bill and then
highlight a few of the many issues that the department has
ignored for far too long. I will also, of course, speak to the
bill itself.
Before I proceed on those topics, I want to affirm that my party
is a proponent of immigration and citizenship. We support
individuals receiving citizenship and enjoying the many
privileges of being Canadian. We have always valued and
cherished the contributions that newcomers make to our society.
Four hundred years ago Europeans joined aboriginals already
living here to begin building this country we call Canada today.
Since that time, persons from every corner of the globe have
moved to Canada and have enriched our society with their
knowledge, talents and culture.
We do believe in balancing the welcoming of refugees and
immigrants with ensuring a fair system. Related to that, I wish
to provide some clarifications.
Aboriginals aside, we were all immigrants or refugees. All
refugees are immigrants but not all immigrants are refugees. This
is not clearing things up very well is it? I will try to clarify
it a bit more.
The legal definition of refugee in Canada follows the convention
refugee of the United Nations, which states:
“Convention refugee” means any person who
(a) by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons
of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group or political opinion,
An immigrant is legally defined as a person who seeks landing.
In other words, an immigrant is someone who leaves his or her
country with the intention of living in Canada.
Now that I have furnished the House with these definitions, I
wish to provide some context for the definitions.
As I said, I was recently on a trip to Africa and I had a chance
to sit in on some interviews with potential Canadian citizens. I
will talk about one in particular, which was a rather
heart-rending story. It involves a young lady, around 18 years
old, who came from Sudan. She lived in a city where her father
was killed by rebels when she was 11 years old. She lived with
her mother and two brothers. The city was being bombed. Rebels
were on the outside. This family was told they had to leave the
city. In leaving the city, she was separated from her mother and
brothers and has never seen them since. She was able to find
someone at a church who put her up for a while and then found her
a foster home in Nairobi. At that home she was sexually abused.
She finally got away from that and laid claim for refugee status
at the United Nations.
That was how she came to the Canadian immigration office to make
application as a refugee.
1525
When she came into the office her dossier said that she spoke
English. However, in questioning her, we had a hard time getting
her to say anything. It was basically yeses and noes. At that
point, the immigration officer asked her to write down something.
She took a piece of paper and a pencil and easily wrote a
beautiful, one paragraph account. After that, the immigration
officer asked her to do a couple of math questions and she had no
problem at all. Then she started to open up a little bit and we
found that she did speak English very well. She spoke, read and
wrote English.
We then found out that she had only about five years of
schooling; about two and a half years in primary school and about
the same in secondary school. During that time her mother tongue
was Arabic. She spoke, wrote and read Arabic. We know she
spoke, wrote and read English. She also spoke two other
languages fluently, with only five years of education. As
members can see, this person, with the few opportunities she has
had in life, was able to develop. This is the type of person
would would probably be an excellent Canadian citizen.
While I was in Nairobi, I had the chance to visit the
orientation training school for the refugees who were coming to
Canada. I have to say that I was a little nervous with these
people because I felt most of them knew more about Canada than I
did. Refugees from that area who are trying to come Canada
usually spend from two to three months getting a little training
about what Canada is all about and what they can expect when they
get here. I have to say that from what I saw they were doing an
excellent job.
I also had a chance to sit in on an immigrant interview. This
was a young man and his wife learning a lesson about how
difficult it was to come to Canada as an immigrant. We do have
some major problems in that system.
This young gentleman was an aeronautics engineer with five years
of university but his profession was not recognized in Canada,
even though we have a need for aeronautics engineers in Canada
and our point system indicates they would get preference. In
order for this young gentleman to get in he was applying as an
aircraft mechanic. With our point system, there is not a large
need for aircraft mechanics and, unfortunately, this gentleman
will be refused. It is too bad because this is a young family
with good possibilities.
Our point system needs to be updated. We do not move fast
enough as the changes come about in the workforce to do what is
needed in Canada.
On a final point about the trip, I want to recognize that the
high commissioners and immigration staff face many mental and
physical challenges in foreign lands. They do the very best they
can in the conditions they work in. For that I applaud them.
I now wish to turn to the timing of this bill. The bill is
important but at this point in our history there are far more
serious problems to deal with in the Department of Citizenship
and Immigration.
Last summer 599 illegal immigrants arrived on the west coast by
boat. Six hundred arrivals at once places an enormous strain on
Canadian taxpayers who must support these migrants, provide legal
aid, shelter and health care. Such an arrival also infuriates
those who have tried to enter Canada the conventional way, such
as those I have just described.
They encounter far too many delays in the immigration process.
1530
Just last month the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British
Columbia called on the federal government to reduce the backlogs
in immigration inventories. Refugees and immigrants alike need
to wait unnecessarily long for their claims to be processed,
while it is the provinces which must pay for social assistance,
legal aid, health care and housing.
The minister's response to this common front was that Ontario
should reduce its taxes. Reducing taxes will not ease the
strains of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
During the month of January a container ship with stowaways
arrived in British Columbia. Almost every week in January
illegal immigrants were found somewhere in the province of
Ontario.
Another point I would like to speak to is our foreign students
and the missed opportunities because of the stringent rules on
those students. We look for students. We bring in roughly
30,000 a year to attend our different universities. These
students pay double the tuition that our students pay. They
learn the language when they are here, if they do not know it
before they arrive. They are immersed in our culture. Most of
them stay four years, some five, and then they are allowed to
work in the country for one year. They then have to leave if
they want to apply to get back into the country. We do not
actively go after them, and that is unfortunate, because the
Americans go after them and the Australians go after them. We
end up losing these people. Indirectly, we have a chance for a
brain gain, but we are suffering again from brain drain.
This winter has seen heartsick worry in cancer wards in Ontario.
The province has been suffering from a shortage of radiation
therapists. The provincial government has been recruiting
foreign therapists, but this initiative has become snagged in
immigration red tape. The processing times for these therapists
takes far too long. Waiting times for cancer patients are
dangerous. Delays allow this fatal illness to spread to other
parts of the body. These are just a few of the issues which CIC
has had before it over the last eight months.
Similarly, there are a few issues which CIC has ineffectively
dealt with. As a matter of fact, last year the minister and the
Prime Minister said that the winter months would discourage
migration from overseas countries. Of course, that was absurd
and cowardly, and it meant to defend the integrity of our
Canadian society.
Canadians, the provinces and this party want attention focused
on the serious issues. We are speaking of our borders, entities
which we have the responsibility, indeed the right, to defend.
We are a sovereign nation and we should be able to decide who is
admitted to Canada and how they are admitted.
A new citizenship bill would not solve our border problems,
would not speed up our processing time for radiation therapists
and could not provide us with a new way of dealing fairly with
non-status migrants arriving on our shores. A new citizenship
act would not provide additional resources for customs agents who
are required to safeguard our borders.
In my own riding I have seven border crossings. It is a problem
we deal with every day. We do not have enough immigration
officials. We understand that the first line at our borders is
our customs officers. Our customs officers are not equipped,
quite frankly. They have just been given a certain amount of
power. They have been given the right of arrest, but they have
no arms and no special training. They are taking some test
cases, but I think our criminals will quite easily find which
border crossings are covered and which are not, and we know what
will happen.
At this point the minister has advanced no solutions and, most
important, she has not tabled the new immigration bill to begin
the process of dealing with these problems and concerns. I
understand, due to departmental leaks, that a new bill is on its
way. I just do not understand why it is taking so long.
The former minister was all set to forge ahead with a new act
last year, but a cabinet shuffle seemed to postpone the
legislation, and I cannot grasp why.
I know it would take some time to study the bill, but in 1998-99
citizenship and immigration launched reviews and consultations
costing $1.76 million. These studies have been done. Why have
we not seen the results? Why has it taken the department so long
to release this new bill?
1535
I am disappointed that it has taken so much money and time for a
new piece of immigration legislation, but I will not press this
point further. There are parts of Bill C-16 which I wish to
address.
Bill C-16 demands that permanent residents spend three years out
of six in Canada. That is 1095 days. It assures that permanent
residents need to display and prove their legitimacy in becoming
Canadians, but how would this be enforced with any authority?
How would permanent residents prove with any credibility that
they have spent the required time in the country? How could
Canadians be sure that this clause of Bill C-16 was respected?
Exit controls do not exist in Canada for non-residents. However,
we do not know when non-residents are in our country.
A pilot project was launched in southern Ontario this winter,
whereby all refugee claimants were given identification cards.
The whole issue of these identification cards has been shrouded
in a veil of secrecy. Why did the minister not discuss this with
parliament? Perhaps it would be a good idea to use these cards
as exit controls for refugee claimants. Neither the standing
committee nor the House had any input in the present usage of
cards or any potential usage such as exit controls.
We praise the move that would make it easier for children
adopted from other countries to become citizens. At present they
must go through the immigration process and require permanent
residency. First and foremost, this modification would hopefully
have the effect of helping children abroad who are living in
poverty or unacceptable conditions. It would also hopefully free
up resources at CIC. Our only concern in this regard is that
adequate health checks would be completed on new arrivals.
I do not understand why it has taken the government so long to
allow these provisions for children abroad. The PC Party has
been demanding these changes to overseas adoption for a long
time. The minister should have acted much sooner.
The next topic I wish to cover in relation to Bill C-16 is its
coming into force. The bill would apply to every man, woman and
child in the queue for the citizenship ceremony. Bill C-16 is
not retroactive, with only one exception, for cases sent to the
citizenship judge. For the most part, when it comes into effect
all applicants will fall under the new law. Why is this? What
kind of overlap and additional paperwork would this cause? Would
the minister please explain the thinking behind this part of the
bill?
On a final point related to the Citizenship Act, I wish to
comment on the appointment process of proposed citizenship
commissioners who will replace citizenship judges. These
citizenship commissioners will be appointed by orders in council.
We wish to see this method of appointment changed to guarantee
that confident, experienced individuals are chosen for the
position of commissioner.
Various witnesses appearing before the standing committee
expressed concern about partisan appointments at CIC. Professor
François Crépeau and France Houle proposed four recommendations
for ensuring competent individuals to fill jobs at CIC. It is
worth my time to highlight some of these recommendations.
The first recommendation was that candidates should be hired for
eight years with a one year probation period. Candidates must
not be renewable and candidates must be staggered. This would
ensure constant new blood in a stressful field.
The second recommendation was that candidates must have a
knowledge of refugee law, a knowledge of the politics of the
country of origin and psychological capabilities to deal with
refugees and their situations.
The third recommendation was that a selection committee should
be put in place to ensure that competent employees would be hired
to the IRB. This committee would be composed of individuals from
the immigration, refugee and law fields.
The fourth recommendation was that candidatures must be open to
all and must be made public. The selection committee would have
to follow strict guidelines, such as being familiar with the
candidates' portfolios and a majority must agree on a candidate.
Our party has been calling for a more transparent hiring process
for a long time. One needs only to glance at our platform from
the 1997 election to see that.
Today, as I have in the House before, I call on the minister to
take the high road and ensure that competent and not necessarily
partisan individuals are appointed to positions within CIC.
1540
Professor Crépeau happens to be a professor in Montreal. The
government should look to the province of Quebec more often for
its immigration policies. I am speaking in particular about the
Quebec investor program. Quebec is the only province in Canada
to run its own program. The federal government administers
provisions for business immigrants for the rest of the country.
The federal program has failed miserably. Why does the minister
not look at Quebec's quasi-guarantees and financing options for
business immigrants? Quebec also has the lowest corporate taxes
in North America. Is it any wonder that the province's plan has
worked so well?
Citizenship is of prime importance. It identifies us as
belonging to a certain group of individuals, to a society, to a
country. Citizenship is perennial in providing a sense of
community. This is not a novel concept. Citizenship was a
prized entity among ancient Greeks and Romans. I do not often
agree with the minister, but she is correct in asserting that
citizenship is at the heart of what it means to be Canadian. Our
party only hopes that she protects the integrity and worth of our
citizenship.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have had the opportunity
to be in the House today to listen to my critic, the member for
Compton—Stanstead, as well as the member for Winnipeg Centre.
While I would say that I do not agree with everything they had
to say, and I know they are not surprised to hear that, I wanted
to take a moment to thank the member for Compton—Stanstead for
acknowledging the hard work of the high commission and
immigration officers.
I would also acknowledge the fact that I too had a chance to sit
in on interviews in our posts abroad and I know the dedication of
the staff. I think it was very important for that to be
acknowledged in the House.
The hon. member made one point that I would like to comment on,
and that is the fact that he has been waiting for a new
immigration and refugee protection bill. He said that the
Citizenship Act was not as important as the other and wondered
why he had not yet seen an immigration bill.
I point out to him that the government has said that a new
immigration act is a priority. A white paper was issued in
January 1999. More than that, as a member of the Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, he would know that the
committee tabled its report yesterday. I want to point out to
him that I have been anxiously awaiting that report, because the
committee's work in this area has been extremely important in
helping to define the policy.
I understand that the member opposite made important and
valuable contributions during the work of the committee on that
report, and I want to assure him and all members of the House
that I will be taking into consideration the recommendations of
the committee in the development of a new bill, which I hope to
see tabled in the House as soon as possible.
I agree that citizenship is at the heart of what it means to be
a Canadian, and Bill C-16 is a very important bill to Canadians
and to future Canadians.
I am pleased to comment on the members' speeches and to
acknowledge the expertise and interest which they have had in
this very important issue concerning citizenship and immigration
and refugee policy.
The member for Winnipeg Centre, the member for
Compton—Stanstead, the member for Rosemont and even my critic
from the Reform Party play a very important role on the
committee, as does my parliamentary secretary and the other
members. I appreciate their advice and I look forward to being
at committee to defend Bill C-16 in the very near future, as soon
as the House sees fit to send it to committee.
I have been listening very carefully to the debate. We will
take into consideration the representations made by all of those
who have taken the opportunity to speak to the bill and we will
look very carefully at the representations of others when we are
at committee. I expect the committee will hear witnesses.
1545
It has been a long road for Bill C-16 and its predecessor Bill
C-63. It is very important that this bill proceed. I am pleased
to stand in my place today to acknowledge the important work that
has been done on this bill. I hope to see it become a reality
soon.
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for
her comments. I guess I would have to say, though, that last
October the former minister promised us that a bill would be on
the table. Had the bill come forward at that time naturally it
would have gone into committee. Then we would have been able to
work on it and get some of the amendments in that we wanted.
As we have heard recently, the critic from the Reform Party had
a press conference and released a supposed draft bill. We have
seen what was in that bill, so it will be easy to compare now to
ensure the work we have done in committee gets into it.
I had a couple of interesting amendments which I was able to get
in, such as asking for photos and prints on first contact, for
which a lot of our witnesses had asked. Something that will come
back to the House is the fact that we have had in the immigration
law for quite a while now what we call a safe third country. Not
very much has been done in the negotiations with other countries
in this regard.
The amendment I put in asked that this be reported back to the
House on a yearly basis so we could see if there were advancement
in the file. To that point a lot of people did not even realize
it was in the law and not much was being done about it.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to encourage the
government to adopt amendments to Bill C-16, an act respecting
Canadian citizenship. The legislation proposes to make several
changes to the current act, with the intention of providing more
clearly defined guidelines, upgrading sections and replacing
current procedures with a new administrative structure.
There are some more clearly defined parts in the bill. I like
to give credit where credit is due, even if it is a little. The
bill reached report stage and third reading before the end of the
first session but it has yet to be passed. There are only four
changes to the bill, despite committee hearings and a debate in
the House.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration mentioned in her
speech on February 3 that during public consultations on
legislative review the main focus of the people with whom she met
was immigration. Why has the minister chosen to do nothing on
the present inefficient immigration legislation? Instead she has
chosen to fiddle with the citizenship act, which reminds us of
the typical Liberal way of doing things, merely tinkering with
the law.
She also mentioned in her speech on Bill C-63, the act
respecting Canadian citizenship, that the primary mission in her
department was to contribute to building a stronger Canada. I am
wondering if by bungling a billion dollars in HRDC the government
makes Canada stronger or weaker.
The arrogant Liberal government uses departments for slush funds
to give away grants and contributions like CIDA, CIDA Inc.,
western economic diversification, ACOA, Indian and northern
affairs, heritage and many others. I will not go into that but I
wanted to make the point. With its political interference, poor
accountability and mismanagement, this weak Liberal government is
weakening Canada and certainly not making it stronger.
1550
By increasing taxes to death, does the government make or break
families? By being given broad based tax relief families can be
strengthened. Strong families make strong communities and strong
communities make a strong nation. Having said that, I would like
to go into the nitty-gritty of the bill.
The four changes made in this legislation by the Liberals
between the first and second sessions of this parliament are as
follows. The first is physical presence. According to clause 6,
the time requirement for physical presence in Canada as
pertaining to applications for citizenship has been changed from
three years out of five to three years out of six. This is a
positive change. It will allow people who travel on business a
greater opportunity and incentive to make Canada their home, and
we appreciate that.
The second is presence in terms of spousal considerations in
subclause 19(2). This clause has been removed from Bill C-16. It
would have allowed spouses of those employed by the federal or
provincial governments outside Canada, for example the military,
diplomats, et cetera, to collect time toward citizenship. In
effect, when posted outside Canada they would be considered to be
residing in Canada if living with a spouse while he or she, as
the case may be, was working outside our country, maybe for the
government in this case.
This is a negative change because the clause presented an
equality problem. The spouses of those employed by private
businesses were not given the same opportunity. This is valid
only for government employees. What about those who are employed
by companies that have their head offices in Canada but have to
spend time outside the country?
The third is the definition of spouse. The clause allowing the
minister to determine the definition of a spouse has been removed
from Bill C-16. This is another positive change.
The fourth is a response to the Mennonites in clause 57. In
response to lobbying by the Mennonites clause 57 has been added
to Bill C-16. This clause will allow three generations of
descendants of a Canadian citizen who have never lived in Canada
to apply for citizenship for a period of three years from the
time the legislation is passed. Is this not amazing? It goes to
show that no one is treated equally by the government.
Those four items are the limit of the changes the Liberals have
made to the bill. The government is weak. The minister received
the recommendations of the government dominated Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in 1994. The government
has taken over five years to prepare this legislation which still
does not address the committee's key recommendations. The
Liberals do not listen to anyone. They do as they please and
still there are many problems with the bill. Let me go over some
of them.
Citizenship at birth is in subclauses 4(1) to 4(4). Bill C-16
states in effect that all children born in Canada, except of
course the children of foreign diplomats, will continue to
automatically acquire Canadian citizenship regardless of the
immigration or citizenship status in Canada of their parents.
This is contrary to what the standing committee heard. This is
contrary to what the departmental officials stated and this is
contrary to the position of the official opposition and many
other Canadians who support it.
1555
The official opposition supports an immigration and citizenship
policy that requires children born in Canada to take the
citizenship of their parents. Only children born in Canada to
landed immigrants would assume Canadian citizenship.
Another problem is the conditions for granting citizenship.
First, subclause 6(1)(b) deals with presence in Canada. Bill
C-16 defines the term permanent resident more concisely than does
the current act. The existing legislation may be loosely
interpreted. Some individuals have been found to be residing in
Canada because they had a bank account here or they owned
property in Canada without having actually resided on Canadian
soil.
How could someone be a resident when not residing in Canada?
Bill C-16 calls for 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada in
the six years preceding application for citizenship. Bill C-16
does not provide any mechanism for determining when applicants
arrive in Canada or when they leave. That is the root cause of
the problem when we do not know when and how someone left the
country or through what channels someone came to Canada.
The next one is penalties for bureaucratic delays in subclause
6(1)(b). The current act allows individuals whose claim for
refugee status is approved to count each full day of residency in
Canada from the date of application as a half day toward the
total needed for their citizenship application requirement. Bill
C-16 removes this provision so that applicants will now be
penalized for the system's bureaucratic delays even when the
delays are no fault of the applicant.
Another one is redefining the family in clause 43. Bill C-16
grants the minister the power for what constitutes a relationship
between parent and child. That is wrong. The next one is the
famous one, blatant patronage in clauses 31 and 32. Bill C-16
maintains the tradition of patronage appointments.
The Liberals are famous for patronage appointments. Probably
they have broken all records in history. Here again they do
that. All citizenship judges will have all their duties taken
over by departmental officials except for ceremonial duties.
There is room for appointing someone for doing some favour for
the Liberal Party, the governing party in this case.
Another one is language requirements to gain citizenship in
clause 6. This is a very important one. I have had many calls
on this point in my office because my constituency of Surrey
Central has more of an immigrant population than any other
constituency in Canada. It is the largest constituency in Canada
in terms of population.
Bill C-16 states that the applicant must have an adequate
knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada. No
provisions are included on how this is to be judged or by whom it
will be judged. Being a good citizen has nothing to do with
language skills or how many languages one can speak. Being a
citizen means one obeys the laws and makes a positive
contribution to society.
How about those who are unfortunate, who are mute, deaf or
blind? How will they pass that test? I understand it is
important that someone should be able to effectively communicate,
but I have seen examples of people in this country who could not
speak a word of English or French but are now fluent, excellent
in business and have made tremendous contributions to Canadian
society and to our communities.
Another one is the citizenship oath in clause 34 of the bill.
There was little public input on the content of the new oath in
Bill C-16. The minister prepared this oath on her own. She did
not consult anyone in Canada on what the wording of the oath
should be. She ignored listening to Canadians.
1600
The minister's first legislation should have been aimed at
fixing a failed immigration system rather than tinkering with the
citizenship act at this time. More than five years after the
Liberal controlled and dominated standing committee made its
recommendation on citizenship, the minister retabled the
legislation. It delivers little of what was recommended by the
committee. She chose not to listen to Canadians. She chose to
ignore the official opposition and other parties in the House.
With globalization and advancement in technology, transport and
telecommunications, in an ideal world the boundaries of countries
could disappear for the purpose of mobility of the people. There
should be peace, prosperity and harmony but this wonderful dream
has not yet been fulfilled. I believe it will be fulfilled
sometime down the road.
The biggest curse the world has is our inability to see humanity
in all of us. Among us are those who do not respect law and
order, those who know only their rights and not their
responsibilities. There are criminals and terrorists
unfortunately.
We have to take appropriate measures to protect our citizens and
secure their safety and future. We have to make Canada a better
place. It should not be a sieve where terrorists and criminals
pass through and jeopardize the safety and security of our
citizens and the future of this great country. Therefore our
legislation should be carefully crafted and drafted.
The new changes to the Immigration Act the government will
propose have been leaked to the official opposition immigration
critic. The Canadian public is already very concerned about how
badly the Liberals are going to fail in giving us what we want
which is to fix the flawed and broken immigration and refugee
system in this case.
I am sure members and all Canadians are concerned about refugees
coming here in boats but Ottawa is missing the boat on refugees.
The proposed changes to the Immigration Act will not do anything
to fix the many faults with Canada's refugee adjudication
process. The new rules will erode public support for real
refugees. Who will suffer? The genuine refugees.
Changes to the Immigration Act contemplated by the immigration
minister will not streamline the refugee adjudication process.
They will not do anything to fix that. They will not stop bogus
claimants from clogging the system. The pipeline is clogged.
Genuine refugees are already suffering. The cost of processing
applicants should be reduced but it will go up because more
people, bogus refugees, criminals and terrorists are involved. We
have to do more work to scrutinize them. They will not
discourage human smuggling. Erosion of public support for
genuine refugees is the likely outcome of Bill C-16.
The United Nations convention on refugees states that countries
should accept those who have “a valid founded fear of being
persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion”. The
Minister of Citizen and Immigration proposes to expand the
definition of refugees to include a new category five, “people
in need of protection”. This extended definition could lead to
more dubious refugee claims.
1605
A 1998 government report called for an end to patronage
appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board. It urged
Ottawa to appoint experienced bureaucrats to adjudicate refugee
hearings despite the fact that immigration department officials
could do a more effective job than inexperienced political
appointees. Again the minister chose to ignore this
recommendation.
Another level of appeal has been added that will clog the system
even more. According to the act, unsuccessful claimants will not
be removed from the country. Also no deterrent is in place for
human smugglers. Between 1995 and 1998 only 14 smuggling charges
were laid. The maximum fine was $4,000 and no one served a
single day in jail. That is surprising.
This legislation is supposed to define the criteria for
obtaining the world's most respected citizenship, Canadian
citizenship. Our citizenship is the very foundation of the
Canadian identity which unites us from coast to coast to coast.
To summarize, let me go over some of the points because they are
interesting.
Another level of appeal has been added to the system and it will
clog the system. The existing system along with its several
rounds of appeal has already created a backlog of 30,000 refugee
claimants. Rather than streamline the appeal process, this bill
adds another level of appeal. There are already many layers. It
is like an onion; we peel off one layer and there is another
layer. We have to stop this onion effect. We have to be focused
and have a clear-cut judicial process which should be keen on
helping genuine refugees and not bogus refugees.
Recently the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that Canada's
obligation to protect its citizens outweighs its obligation to
keep suspected foreign terrorists from torture. Under the new
legislation which we are debating, if there is a chance of
mismanagement upon their return, unsuccessful refugee claimants
will not be sent home. They will not be sent back to countries
which are deemed unacceptable by the minister. Migrant smugglers
are sure to exploit this loophole. We have to plug the loophole.
Under the current legislation, penalties for smuggling range
from $5,000 to $100,000 as well as prison terms from five to ten
years. The bill proposes to strengthen the penalty for smuggling
10 or more illegal immigrants to a maximum fine of $1 million or
life imprisonment. What about when there are batches of nine
illegal immigrants? Then the penalties are different and less.
In spite of protestations to the contrary, by drafting the bill
before the all-party committee on illegal immigration has made
its recommendations, and by planning to introduce the bill on
March 30, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is sending
a signal that it is a done deal.
That is the Liberal style.
1610
To safeguard genuine refugees and the public interest, the
minister should scrap the bill. She should hear what the
committee has to say and re-write this legislation.
I mentioned that Canadian citizenship is one of the most
respected citizenships in the world. We are proud of this fact.
We have to maintain respect for Canadian citizenship. Canadian
citizenship is based on equality. One criteria for Canadian
citizenship is understanding the equality of all Canadian
citizens, but that is not the case with the government.
For example, I tabled some petitions from concerned Canadians,
many of which were signed by my constituents but were also signed
by people from all across Canada. I received many petitions on
this issue. The petitioners, our respected senior citizens in
this case, asked the weak Liberal government to treat all seniors
equally in the allocation of old age security benefits.
I can understand that there is a difference between immigrants
and citizens. To some extent we can probably understand the
extent to which the difference exists. But for senior citizens
the allocation of old age security benefits depends on the
country of origin.
Once a person is a Canadian citizen what does where the person
came from or his or her race and ethnicity matter? Why are
citizens treated differently based on their country of origin and
placed under arbitrary restrictions? These are the questions the
petitioners asked of the government. Why does the government
treat some citizens as second class citizens? The government
through its programs has designated some citizens as hyphenated
Canadians based on their race, ethnicity and country of origin.
We are debating the amendments to the citizenship act and it is
not clear whether it is the government's intention to dilute
Canadian citizenship or create different tiers of Canadians. A
Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen. No Canadian citizen is
superior or inferior to another Canadian citizen. This is what
equality is all about. All Canadian citizens are Canadian
citizens, period.
Should we not integrate new citizens rather than segregate them?
The government sponsors the multiculturalism policy, the
immigration policy and many other policies. It is bent on
segregating Canadians rather than integrating them into Canadian
society.
It is appalling that the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism
says she is proud to call herself a Trinidad-Canadian. When will
a Canadian federal minister be proud to call herself or himself a
proud Canadian?
We are all proud of our religion, culture, race, ethnicity and
our country of origin. When we have adopted and embraced Canada
as our new home, we cannot get mail by writing part of the old
address on the envelope. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian
period, both in French and English and in any other language in
the world. A Canadian is a Canadian.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I commend my colleague from Surrey Central for his
even-handed speech. He mentioned not only those aspects of the
bill with which he disagrees but also those parts of the bill
which he feels strengthens the legislation.
One of the things I did not hear him mention is a problem that I
run into frequently in my duties as a member of parliament.
We have the so-called brain drain which has certainly affected
our country with large numbers of professionals, doctors, nurses,
teachers, engineers, chemists, having gone to greener pastures,
having left the difficulties created by this government and the
previous Tory government for them to practise their professions
in this country.
1615
I have dealt with a number of instances where doctors have
applied to come to Canada at the invitation of certain medical
facilities that are having a great deal of difficulty. In my
rural constituency, many hospitals and many communities have lost
doctors that they simply cannot replace and there are citizens
who do not have the medical service that they require.
What is frustrating is that a hospital or a medical clinic may
recruit a doctor from South Africa, England, Ireland or wherever,
eminently qualified to perform the services that are needed.
However, there is no give in Immigration Canada to provide a way
for these people to come without going through sometimes years of
application, reapplication and the cost involved with that. The
consequence is that doctors in my experience have thrown up their
hands and said “This application has gone on long enough”.
I want to ask my esteemed colleague if he and the committee have
given any thought in this legislation as to how Canada might seek
to improve itself by reversing the brain drain by modifying the
immigration policies to accommodate this.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
thoughtfulness of the question from my hon. colleague.
I agree with him that our health care system, which I call
sickness care system, is in a continuous declining state. There
are reasons, and of course the immigration policy could be one of
them, but there are other policies of this government as well.
The government is responsible for the deteriorating situation of
our health care system because it cut $35 billion from the health
care system, even though it tried to put some money back.
It is the cause for the deteriorating health care system. I am
sure this weak, arrogant Liberal government owes an apology to
Canadians. Not only is it the government's moral responsibility
to fix it but it owes an apology to Canadians.
When we look at the billion dollar boondoggle in HRDC and then
see in the new budget that more money has gone, $1.5 billion, to
HRDC rather than to health care, it reminds me that this
government is in the habit of not putting the money where its
mouth is, but putting the money where its back pocket is.
Coming back to immigration, yes, the government can do a lot.
The government can bring the respect of Canadian citizenship to
its highest level by being fair, by respecting the principles of
equality and by respecting the new immigrants, those who come to
this country, to help them get into the system, to make them
realize that this is their home, this is the future of their
children.
The doctors, engineers and professionals are leaving this
country because of high taxes, the boondoggles, the misuse of
taxpayers' money, the killing of taxpayers through high taxes and
the immigration policies which are not fair. All these factors
are compounding the situation.
When they are debating about who their leader is or that their
leader should go, I think this is not only the time for the
Leader of the Liberal Party to go, it is time for the Liberals to
go.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
when we talk about the citizenship act, we also talk about
immigration, and when we talk about immigration, we talk about
racism. I am particularly happy to rise today, because yesterday
was Anti-Racism Day.
1620
Bill C-16 contains many provisions which are identical or very
similar to the current ones. If I may, I will highlight some
nuances and differences.
I will start with a provision in this part of the bill, which is
quite interesting. Paragraph 2(2)(c) states that a person
resides in Canada if the person is physically present in Canada
and is not subject to a probation order, on parole or in jail.
More specifically on the issue of birth in Canada, the bill
would maintain the current rule that children born in Canada are
Canadian citizens, as stated in paragraph 4(1)(a).
The only exceptions, as is the case now, concern children of
foreign diplomats and their employees. That is paragraph 4(2).
With regard to derivative citizenship, any person born abroad of
Canadian parents is automatically a Canadian citizen. This is
often referred to as “citizenship by transmission”. Second and
subsequent generation children born abroad are also granted
citizenship automatically, but they lose on attaining 28 years
of age, unless they registered and have either resided in Canada
for a period of at least one year immediately before applying
for citizenship or established a substantial connection with
Canada.
The bill would restrict the automatic transmission of
citizenship to second generation children born abroad and
toughen the requirements for these second generation citizens
who want to retain citizenship after the age of 28.
Clause 14 provides that, to retain citizenship after the age of
28, a person would have to apply to the minister and would have
to have resided in Canada for at least 1,095 days during the six
years before so applying. As we will see later on, physical
presence in Canada would be required during a period of three
years. This is the same residency requirement that would have to
be met by all permanent residents seeking citizenship.
As for third and subsequent generations, they would not be able
to acquire Canadian citizenship unless they meet the usual
immigration and citizenship requirements, just like any other
individual who chooses Canada as his or her country of adoption.
To avoid the risk of statelessness for third generation children
born outside of Canada, clause 11 provides the granting of
citizenship, on application, to a person who is less than
28 years of age and who has never acquired, or had the right to
acquire, citizenship of any country, but has a birth parent who
is a Canadian citizen.
To qualify, this person must have resided in Canada for at least
three years during the six previous years, and must not have
been convicted of an offence against national security. The
nature of the offence is not stipulated, and this specific
category of offence is not stipulated in either the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service Act or the Criminal Code.
Bill C-16 modifies the requirements for acquiring citizenship
other than at birth. One of the major changes clarifies the
residence requirements.
This important change concerns the definition of residence as
physical presence in Canada, under subparagraph 2(2)(c). The
proposed objective requirement of residence, specifically to be
physically present for three years, or 1,095 days, during the
prescribed period, would do away with the huge uncertainties
caused by the present legislation.
1625
Even if the current legislation requires three years of
residence, the word residence is not defined. Consequently,
judicial decisions with radically opposed interpretations have
greatly complicated enforcement of the law.
The year following the coming into force, in 1977, of the
present legislation, the Federal Court held in a case that
physical presence in Canada was not necessary to meet the
requirements. The judge found that applicants had to demonstrate
that they had established a significant connection with Canada
throughout the period, whether or not they had been physically
present in Canada.
To demonstrate this connection, one might produce evidence of
maintenance of residence, even though this was not absolutely
necessary, of accounts in Canadian banks, investments,
membership in clubs, provincial driving permits, and so on. In
extreme cases, some applicants were granted citizenship even if
they had actually been present in Canada only a few months, and
even a few days.
However, other federal court judges strongly disagreed with this
approach and refused to excuse prolonged absences. So an
inconsistent jurisprudence evolved, which made the enforcement
of the legislation unforeseeable and uncertain; some say it even
compromised the residence requirement and therefore the value of
the whole granting of Canadian citizenship process.
In its 1994 report, the standing committee recommended that the
legal definition of residence call for a substantial period of
physical presence.
On the issue of language, Bill C-16 maintains the obligation to
show an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages.
Unfortunately, French is not the language chosen in most cases.
Also, the applicants are still required to demonstrate an
adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and
privileges of citizenship.
Some new provisions govern the granting of citizenship to
children adopted by Canadian citizens abroad. The present
legislation states that children adopted abroad must become
permanent residents before granting them citizenship can even be
considered, and there are loads of consequences to that.
First, children must undergo the same medical examination as any
other person who applies for landed resident status or else have
obtained a special exemption. Second, this means that children
adopted by Canadian parents who live abroad and want to stay
abroad cannot become landed residents and consequently Canadian
citizens.
The legislation provides that minor children adopted abroad in
accordance with the laws of the country of residence of the
children or parents may be granted citizenship on application.
The adoption must also meet the following criteria: the adoption
must be in the best interest of the child; it must have created
a genuine relationship of parent and child; and it must not have
been intended to circumvent the requirements under any enactment
for admission to Canada or citizenship.
Clause 10 of Bill C-16 is a new provision specifically enabling
the Minister “for the purposes of this Act”—that is to grant
citizenship—to deem a person who has resided in Canada for at
least 10 years to be or have become a permanent resident. This
clause is for persons who thought they were Canadian citizens
while they were not.
As for renunciation and revocation, Bill C-16, as the existing
legislation, sets out the circumstances where citizens may
renounce their Canadian citizenship. The criteria are very
similar.
1630
Under clause 16, the renunciation of citizenship may be revoked,
just like the citizenship itself and the restoration of
citizenship could be, if the minister is satisfied that there
has been false representations, fraud or concealment of material
circumstances.
The procedure being used now to challenge the revocation order
remains essentially unchanged. It is set out at clause 17. When
a person is notified that the minister intends to revoke his or
her citizenship, this person can request the minister to refer
the matter to the federal court trial division. A new element is
that the court will make its determination on a balance of
probabilities, under clause 17(1)(b).
This would solve the problem of certain decisions of the trial
division as to the criteria that should apply.
To sum up, Bill C-16 would, with a few exceptions, maintain the
present provisions on the revocation of citizenship. At present,
people who lose their citizenship must first be admitted for
permanent residence and may apply for citizenship after having
resided in Canada for one year immediately before applying.
The bill requires people in this situation to have resided in
Canada for at least 365 days during the two years immediately
before applying for citizenship. This is provided under clause
19. Here again, the important change is that the new definition
of residence would require actual presence in Canada.
Bill C-16 gives a new power to the Governor in Council, who, on
the recommendation of the minister, may deny citizenship if
“there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not in the
public interest for a person to become a citizen”. Not only is
this power new, it would also constitute a substantive change to
the current legislation according to which citizenship is a
right and not a privilege, provided that certain objective
criteria are met.
While there is no definition of public interest, the new clause
would, for example, make it possible not to grant citizenship to
a person who distributes hate literature but who otherwise meets
the criteria.
Bill C-16 would maintain, with some changes, existing procedures
relating to the denial of citizenship for reasons of national
security.
As it is the case now, the process would begin with a report by
the minister to the Security Intelligence Review Committee
saying that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
person has engaged or will engage in an activity that
constitutes a threat to the security of Canada or an activity
that is part of a pattern of criminal activity.
The bill states that, within ten days after the report is made,
the person who is the subject of a report shall be notified that
the report has been made and made aware of possible
consequences. The committee would then investigate using the
procedure set out in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Act and, as soon as practicable, send to the person who is the
subject of the report a statement summarizing the information
available to the review committee.
A new provision would have the review committee consider whether
the information may be disclosed without injury to national
security or to the safety of persons. That is covered in
paragraph 25(3). On completion of its investigation, the review
committee would report to the Governor in Council and provide
the report's conclusions to the person who is the subject of the
report, but not necessarily at the same time.
So, Bill C-16 adds somewhat to the list of things preventing an
individual from obtaining Canadian citizenship.
1635
Crimes committed in foreign countries would be taken into
account as well as those committed in Canada.
The bill prohibits granting citizenship to any person who is
under a removal order or subject to an inquiry under the
Immigration Act that may lead to removal from Canada or the loss
of permanent resident status.
The bill also brings important changes in the way citizenship
applications are processed. Citizenship judges, who are working
under the direction of a chief judge, would be replaced and
their basic duties fulfilled by officials acting under the
delegated authority of the minister. This is under section 44.
Ceremonial duties would be assigned to citizenship
commissioners, appointed by the governor in council to serve
full-time or part-time, during pleasure, for a term of not more
than five years. That is under section 31 of the bill. Each
commissioner would receive a remuneration. A chief commissioner
could be appointed to supervise and co-ordinate the work of the
commissioners.
I would like to focus on the role of the commissioners.
According to the bill:
31(6) To be eligible for appointment as, and to serve as, a
Citizenship Commissioner, a person must be a citizen, have
demonstrated an understanding of the values of good citizenship
and be recognized for their valuable civic contribution.
The duties of a citizenship commissioner would be the following:
to preside at citizenship ceremonies; to promote active
citizenship in the community; to provide, on the minister's
request, advise and recommendation about citizenship, the
exercise of the minister's discretion, appropriate methods to
evaluate citizenship applicants knowledge of Canada, the
responsibilities and rights of citizenship and official
languages. It is therefore of the utmost importance that
commissioners be chosen very carefully.
In conclusion, I would like to speak briefly about the
citizenship oath. Personally, and I am not speaking for my
party, there is something I do not like in this oath. It is an
allegiance oath, and I quote:
—to Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, and to her heirs
and successors.
I was raised as a Republican. Not an American style Republican,
but an anti-monarchist nonetheless. I do not agree with the fact
that Canada, an independent country, still has a foreigner as
its head of state. This is why I dislike the oath as it is
written.
When I had to take the oath as a member of parliament, I tried
to skip certain parts, because I do not believe that we in
Canada should swear allegiance to the Queen of England. I would
agree if Canada had a leader from this country as its head of
state. The governor general could bear the title of president,
something with which I would agree more.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-16, the
citizenship act. I will be sharing my time with the member for
Halifax West.
I am a relatively new member of parliament. I was elected in a
byelection last November. I am especially pleased to get up and,
for the first time, talk about a subject that is near and dear to
my heart.
I have very strong feelings about immigrants and refugees. Like
many people in the House, my grandparents were immigrants to this
country; on the one side from Germany and on the other from the
Ukraine. My family members were farmers and settlers. As I was
growing up, we did have a multicultural society for the time, a
patchwork quilt in Saskatchewan of a variety of people, mostly
from central Europe, in addition to the aboriginal people of
course who had lived here for thousands of years.
My wife's family were Mennonite farmers who similarly had a long
and interesting history of moving from place to place to place
and always making great contributions in whatever place they
lived.
1640
One of the strongest experiences I have had with immigrant and
refugee people was during the 1973 disaster in Chile when people
had to leave their country. Interestingly, many of them at that
time were branded as criminals by a regime that was actually
criminal. I will have more to say about criminality and
immigrants and refugees in a moment. It was clear and remains
clear what a great contribution the Chilean community made to
Canada. I am very pleased to say, in a personal sense, that some
of these Chileans, who I met in the mid-seventies, remain my
closest and dearest friends.
In 1979, 1980 and 1981 I worked with the Catholic Archdiocese of
Regina. One of the very busy but pleasant jobs that we had was
to welcome the Vietnamese boat people who were adrift in the
South China Sea and ended up, in some cases, in our country. We
co-operated with the immigration department in setting up
umbrella agreements so that communities could accept these
people.
I also want to mention that perhaps 10 to 15 years after these
people came here destitute, and, in some cases, not even the
clothes on their backs when they got off the ships, a significant
academic study was completed showing that the Vietnamese refugees
in Canada had made a very significant economic and social
contribution to our country.
Both my wife and I have been involved in refugee work from
almost the beginning of our marriage, which goes back many years.
We have, in successive times and places, welcomed Central
Americans, Iraqis, Iranians, eastern Europeans, Somalis,
Eritreans, Bosnians, Africans, particularly from Sudan, and the
most recent family we have worked with is an Afghani family who
had spent years in refugee camps in Pakistan.
I do believe I have some knowledge on which to speak, although
not as much as my wife, but I can tell the House that it is often
very worthwhile and interesting to work with people before making
pronouncements about what one fears may be their negative
contribution to our country. That has been far from our
experience.
In a more philosophical vein, I did spend a number of years
working for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops who often
had things to say about immigration policy and the whole question
of immigrants and refugees. I will only mention one point and it
is of a theological nature.
I learned, from things that the bishop said about the biblical
code of people in countries at the time of Christ and before, how
to welcome a stranger. When the stranger came, they opened their
tent; they killed the fatted calf; they literally rolled out the
carpet. One of the statements the bishops issued while I was
working with them on the immigration policy was called “Welcome
the Stranger”.
Before I get into more specifics of the bill, I want to mention
my political experience, brief as it may be. During the
byelection in November 1999, I was pleasantly surprised by the
number of immigrant peoples in the riding of
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, particularly on the west side of
Saskatoon where I was doing my door knocking. When I knocked on
the doors of Filipino people, Vietnamese people and people from
other countries, I was often welcomed in a way that I was
sometimes not at other doors. These people were extremely
pleased to be taking some part in the democratic process. I
remember various episodes where people told me that it was not
only their duty but their pleasure to vote and become involved.
I can remember a Filipino man in particular. When I went to his
house in the dark one evening, he invited me in and asked if I
was alone. When I said that I was alone, he said “Well, what a
wonderful country when you can campaign politically without
having to take your bodyguards along with you”. That was the
experience that he was bringing to this and that was his view of
our country and now his country.
I will summarize by saying that I have great respect, admiration
and compassion for immigrant and refugee peoples. This arises out
of my family background, my life experiences and my philosophical
orientation.
1645
I know that often there is a backlash toward immigrants and
refugees. For all the reasons I have mentioned, I certainly do
not share that. I try at every opportunity to talk to people
about it.
I want to say as well, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre said
earlier today, that there is an element of self-interest in our
welcoming immigrant and refugee people. He talked about how
Canada should think about and decide how many people it wants and
what sort of population it wants, and cast its policies in that
way. If we look at our past, and he mentioned the time of Sifton
when the great west was settled, there was a great openness for
people from other countries because we knew that we needed them.
I would say that we still need them today and will continue to
need them in the future.
If we have any doubt of that, there was an interesting story in
the newspaper within the past week about Japan and Korea and how
they will have to have fairly massive immigration. Otherwise
they will see a loss in population and a shortage of workers, and
I would say a shortage of prosperity. That is something which
Canada has to look at as well.
This does not mean that it should be completely open ended. We
have to have due process. We have to ensure that we do not have
queue jumping. We have to do checks to ensure that we are not
accepting people with a criminal past into our country.
If I may, I would like to make several specific references to
the bill. I have talked about due process. A good number of
groups appeared, on a previous incarnation of this bill, to talk
about things they thought important, and they made some very good
points. I will refer to a few of them.
There is a possibility, the way the legislation is structured,
of giving the minister new powers to annul citizenship and
broadening measures to revoke it. This means that citizens born
outside Canada could lose citizenship, even after many years
here, without due process, and in some cases without the right to
a hearing.
There are lengthened residency requirements for citizenship. We
are concerned about some of these.
There are increased language requirements, imposing more
rigorous requirements on applicants for citizenship. This would
penalize people who have difficulty learning a new language, and
elderly people, often women, survivors of torture.
I could tell the House of the experiences I have had since being
elected of immigrants who have come to me who have had great
problems one way or another with the language, which creates
great problems with the immigration officials.
There will be a certain loss of discretion in citizenship
making. Citizenship judges will no longer be the people who make
decisions. Frequently it will be civil servants working within
specific guidelines. This concerns our caucus as well. We
believe that cabinet powers to refuse citizenship are too broad.
We are concerned that business people may find the requirement
to live in Canada for three of six years such a difficulty that
many may not immigrate to Canada and may take their business
elsewhere as a result.
In summary, I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party feel
that it is time this bill be brought to bear and that we have new
regulations for immigration, but at the same time we have certain
concerns with the bill, some of which I have outlined very
briefly and others which my colleague from Winnipeg Centre talked
about in more detail earlier today.
We would hope to see in committee some changes which would
improve this bill and make it more possible for us, perhaps, to
support it.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak,
along with my colleagues from Winnipeg Centre and
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, to this very important topic of
citizenship.
It has been mentioned that citizenship is something which all
Canadians hold very dear to their hearts.
A number of problems come through my constituency office around
immigration issues and the difficulties people have in coming to
Canada. Quite often there are a lot of bureaucratic
entanglements before they can get here.
I think of one situation in particular of a young man who had
married a young lady from his home of Lebanon.
He had been separated from his bride for almost a year and was
still encountering difficulties in bringing her to Canada. I was
able to get involved in that case and help move it along to the
point where she eventually was admitted to Canada.
1650
Shortly after that, he and his wife and their family invited me
and my wife to a party they were having to celebrate this
occasion. It was a wonderful experience to be in the midst of
the party with so many relatives, young children and older
people, all having a wonderful time. They were enjoying the
hospitality and friendship of each other. My wife and I looked
at each other and thought it was a shame that people have to go
through such difficulty before they can come together to enjoy
each other.
That is why it is important that the whole issue of immigration
and citizenship be looked upon very seriously and dealt with in a
way that will show respect for our fellow human beings and enable
us to enjoy each other's company.
With respect to the bill, some of our concerns have already been
mentioned. I want to touch upon a couple of issues concerning
citizenship which I think are very important.
Clause 21 of Bill C-16 would introduce a new power to permit the
governor in council, upon a report from the minister, to deny a
person's citizenship “where there are reasonable grounds to
believe that it is not in the public interest for the person to
become a citizen”.
We have some concerns about that. That power would not only be
new, it would also represent somewhat of a conceptual change from
the present law. Under the present law citizenship is seen
pretty much as a right more so than a privilege. It is a right
which all people should have, provided that the objective criteria
have been fulfilled. The new provision would put the whole
question of citizenship into the area of a privilege which would
be conferred upon people. The question of the definition of
public interest is not really clarified in the legislation. We
do not know what is meant by public interest and what will be
used to deny citizenship to an individual.
In order to trigger this section of the bill the minister would
be required to provide the person concerned with a summary of the
contents of the proposed report to the governor in council. The
person would then have 30 days in which to respond, in writing,
to the minister. If the minister proceeded with the report and
the governor in council agreed, the latter would order
citizenship to be denied.
The decision of cabinet—and this is the part we want to look at
very carefully—would not be subject to appeal or review by any
court and would be valid for five years. This order would be
conclusive proof of the matters that were stated in the report.
We have a situation where cabinet could decide, for various
reasons which are not clearly amplified in the bill, that in the
public interest someone is not fit to be granted Canadian
citizenship and there would be no appeal. That gives a very big
power to refuse citizenship on the basis of a public interest
which could be defined in any way, shape or form. We have a lot
of concern about that.
We are also concerned about the citizenship commissioners. The
new bill would introduce a major change in the way citizenship
applications are dealt with. Many citizenship judges are doing
an excellent job and I commend them for their dedication to their
task.
I have had the opportunity to attend in my riding many of the
citizenship courts and to witness firsthand the excellent job
which these citizenship judges do in imparting to the new
citizens the joy, responsibilities and obligations involved in
being a Canadian citizen. I want to commend the many citizenship
judges throughout our country for the fine work they do.
1655
Under Bill C-16 we find that these judges would be replaced by
citizenship commissioners. Their duties would be full time or
part time and they would be appointed by the governor in council
during pleasure. Again, the words “during pleasure” cause us a
bit of concern. That is something which should be looked at very
closely. We really should not make change for the sake of making
change if there is no rationale behind changing the citizenship
judges and the fine job they do to a new system. I am not sure
we would be moving forward in a very positive way.
It is also not clear how the advisory side of the commissioner's
mandate would be accomplished under the bill, nor why the
commissioners would be particularly well suited to provide such
advice. Again, this is something that causes us concern and we
feel it should be looked at very closely.
There are a number of things upon which I could elaborate, but I
would conclude by emphasizing that from my experience the whole
process of a person coming to our country, having the right to
citizenship and going through the process which moves them into
that status is very, very important.
I have seen many new citizens who exude a sense of pride and a
sense of happiness when they are declared Canadian citizens. I
have been at the ceremonies where tears fall from the eyes of
many of these people as they are welcomed into Canadian society.
As we do that, we are certainly saying something about our
society, about the openness of our society, about how we feel
that people have an obligation to share one with the other and
about how we have an obligation to support these people. That is
an aspect I would want to emphasize as well.
When we look at citizenship we cannot just dwell on the
responsibility of those who are receiving citizenship, we must
dwell upon our own responsibility to provide the kind of support
mechanisms that are necessary to new Canadians.
When I come to Ottawa and I get in a taxi to drive to the House
of Commons, many times I am being chauffeured by someone who is a
new Canadian, someone from another country. When they tell me
about their background, their experience and their qualifications
in their home country, I ask myself why they are driving a taxi.
Why are they not working as an engineer, a lawyer or a doctor?
We have to look at that aspect of citizenship as well, as to how
we treat our new citizens.
The other day I had a young man, who was originally from Africa,
talk to me about the difficulty he is having getting a job in
Nova Scotia. As we talked it became very clear that this young
man had a university degree from one of our own institutions, yet
he was having difficulty getting a job.
We have to look at some of the barriers that we place in the way
of our new citizens who have obtained the desired status of
Canadian citizenship.
We all have an obligation and a responsibility to work on this
matter in the best interests of each and every one of the new
citizens and to do the best we can to make them truly welcome and
truly proud to be Canadian citizens.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there were a couple of incidents in my riding concerning
immigration which the hon. member might wish to comment on.
The first incident happened in the last two weeks. A medical
doctor was returning to Canada. He was not yet a citizen. The
immigration department, for some reason, was unable to quickly
process his entry visa to allow him to continue working. He had
been working in Canada for three years. As a result, the town
went for over a week without the services of that doctor. It
finally took the intervention of outside sources, including MPs
like myself, to move it along.
I would like to know if the hon. member has a comment with
respect to how the system is working when it comes to work visas.
The second thing is that in our riding we have quite a few dairy
farms. It is difficult to find people who will work all day,
from 5.30 in the morning, or who will work a broken shift. I
know of one big dairy farm which requires labourers. The owner
happens to know of people in Switzerland, persons experienced in
dairy, who would come to Manitoba to work.
1700
They are having many problems within the immigration department
to get him moved along to allow him to immigrate and work. There
does not seem to be anybody in our area to fill that particular
job. Does the member have any comments with regard to how the
immigration system is working?
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker,
I have found as well that there have been many bureaucratic
problems with respect to assisting people to come to Canada. The
example the member spoke of with the doctor is one example. I
could cite many others as well. Part of the problem seems to be
that we have a bit of a separation between the Canadian
authorities and the visa officers in the country of origin. Far
too often it is almost like never the two shall meet.
We allow a certain amount of independence to the party in the
country of origin to make his or her decision and sometimes the
accountability aspect of why the decision is made and how it is
made is not always there. It is like “We have no control over
that decision, that is made by this person here”. If that
person gets up on a bad day and does not like the look of the
person who is applying for the visa or whatever, the applicant
may never get here. Those are issues that we have to work on.
With respect to getting people here to work in various jobs, as
the member mentioned with regard to the farm industry, we have to
be mindful of the cultural differences as well because it may be
that a person coming from another country needs a cultural
adjustment before working in a given type of operation. As I
mentioned, quite often people coming from another country will
have training for a certain profession and ideally it would be
nice if work could be obtained in that profession. Those are
areas we have to work on.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me
commend my colleagues from Halifax West and
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. They both made very eloquent
presentations on the issue of what it means to be a Canadian
citizen.
I believe my friend from Halifax West identified a very
important point when he talked about people not being recognized
for the qualifications they have. In my community, the Waterloo
region, we have a doctor shortage, yet we have enough doctors who
were foreign trained who are not allowed to practice. One of the
problems is that licensing of physicians is a provincial
responsibility. As much as we talk about the brain drain in this
country, we also very much have what is known as the brain waste
in this country. It is very unfortunate. I agree, I have shared
many of the same experiences. In Canada we probably have the
most highly educated taxi drivers of any place in the world
because of the barriers that are put in place for people trying
to gain recognition for their training.
I ask the hon. member to maybe further expand on his experience
and give us his suggestions for what we must do, recognizing for
the most part this is under provincial jurisdiction. I ask the
hon. member to try to address this very tragic situation for the
people involved.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to
address that issue because it is a very real issue right across
the country.
What we have to do is not what was recommended by a statement
read earlier in the House by a member of the official opposition
who was decrying affirmative action programs and saying that we
ought not to have those kinds of programs. We do need programs
that will facilitate people being able to fulfil their potential
in a meaningful way and that sometimes means giving people a leg
up, removing the barriers and enabling people to move into the
system.
As long as we have a preconceived idea that being equal and
having equal opportunity means everybody has to be treated the
same, then we will never have people fulfilling their potential.
The situation is such that people do have to be treated
differently because of different backgrounds, different
experiences and different situations where they have not had
equal opportunity for advancement. We have to change our mindset
if we want to see this happen and that comes from within for each
individual.
As long as people in positions of power, people in positions of
authority do not have that change of mindset then we will never,
ever see the kind of thing happen that the member has indicated
should happen, and which I would agree should happen, so that we
would use the brain power that we have here. Canada is a
beautiful country. There are all kinds of opportunities and all
kinds of people to fulfil those opportunities.
1705
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time
with the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
I am here to tell the House today that I am a proud Canadian,
just like many other members of the House of Commons. I am a
proud Canadian because I have had the experience of being able to
travel throughout the world as early as when I was 17 years old
and joined the Canadian Armed Forces. I was able to travel
around the world and the Canadian flag was held with deep respect
everywhere I travelled.
Just a few years ago I was fortunate enough to travel on the
50th anniversary of the end of the second world war to Holland.
That was the most exciting time of my life, seeing the Canadian
flags up and down the streets of Holland in commemoration of
Canada's liberation of Holland in the second world war. It was
very moving. It was an experience that I do not think I will
ever forget. As I said, I am a very proud Canadian.
It is important in this debate today to realize that Canada's
most valuable asset is not our natural resources or many of the
other things people would think. It is actually the people of
Canada. It is the people who make this country what it is. It
is a democracy and we should be very proud of that fact.
I rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak
on Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian citizenship. The
purpose of Bill C-16 is to repeal and replace the current
Citizenship Act which many Canadians know is severely flawed.
While this is an important goal, I have two serious reservations
with this proposed legislation. First, specific clauses in the
bill need to be amended before Bill C-16 will function as
intended. Second, the timing of this bill is all wrong. Changes
to the Immigration Act need to be dealt with before this bill is
passed and no bill dealing with immigration has been tabled in
the House.
The Liberal government claims that Bill C-16 is the first major
reform with respect to citizenship in 20 years. The intent of
this bill is to provide more clearly defined guidelines, replace
current procedures with a new administrative structure and
increase the minister's power to deny citizenship. Unfortunately
what the Liberals intend and what the Liberals actually do are
two separate things. Bill C-16 is no exception. While the
Liberals claim that Bill C-16 is a major modern reform of the
Citizenship Act, those of us who look closely at the bill see a
number of areas that have been totally neglected and others that
have been actually impacted in a negative manner.
In 1994 the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
made a number of important recommendations with respect to
citizenship which the government has totally ignored. Given that
the government has had five years to develop this bill, it is
inexcusable that it is full of serious omissions.
Like most Canadians, I attach a great deal of importance to my
citizenship as a Canadian. Therefore, I would like to focus my
comments on the conditions for granting citizenship.
The current legislation governing citizenship is lax in this
regard. Currently individuals who are deemed to be permanent
residents of Canada have been found to have nothing more than a
bank account or property in Canada. It seems as though having a
physical presence is not important. Canadians believe it is.
Bill C-16 takes a half measure to deal with this issue. It
correctly defines a permanent resident as an individual who must
have a physical presence here in Canada for at least 1,095 days
during a six year period preceding their application for
citizenship.
While this makes good sense, Bill C-16 does not provide any
mechanism for determining when applicants arrive in Canada or
when they leave, nor does the Liberal government intend to
develop one.
This was a serious concern for the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration and the committee members recommended
that measures be introduced to monitor periods of time permanent
residents are out of the country. Without a viable means of
determining time spent in Canada, requiring that a permanent
resident spend 1,095 days in Canada is as meaningless as a judge
sentencing a convicted murderer to life in prison. We all know
the time will not be served.
1710
There are a number of other problems with this bill. The bill
specifies that an applicant must have an adequate knowledge of
one of the official languages in Canada but no specific
provisions are made for how this is to be judged or by whom.
Another serious problem is that the number one recommendation of
the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was that
the declaration of Canadian citizenship express the vision
Canadians share for their future and the importance they attach
to their citizenship. This should have been an opportunity for
all Canadians to express what they wanted to see in the Canadian
citizenship oath. It would have been a great opportunity for a
nation-wide patriotic debate. Instead, the minister hobbled
together an oath on her own. We can almost picture the minister
huddled together with her staff just before a question period
briefing and trying to put together a citizenship oath.
Of course with all things Liberal, there is an issue of
patronage. Despite the importance Canadians place on their
citizenship the Liberals have maintained the tradition, Mr.
Speaker, of patronage appointees. I know the Speaker is shocked
by that.
Citizenship judges have been renamed citizenship commissioners
in the proposed legislation but most of their duties will be
taken over by departmental officials. It is just one more plum
post for friends of the Prime Minister.
This legislation also discriminates against refugees. Current
refugees get to count each full day of residency in Canada from
the date of application as a half day toward the total needed for
their citizenship application, but Bill C-16 removes this
provision, penalizing applicants for all the bureaucratic delays
that are already in the system. This is blatantly unfair for true
refugees.
The real problem with Bill C-16 though is that the Liberals have
their priorities all wrong. Last year the people of British
Columbia watched as boatload after boatload of illegal immigrants
entered this country with no action from the government at all.
Our immigration system is in a desperate situation, pandering to
people traffickers and others who abuse our immigration system
and our compassion.
Canadians want to know why the Liberals have made citizenship a
priority when the immigration system is in such dire straits. It
is like putting new windows on a house when the roof is
collapsing. It appears as though the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration has no intention of fixing the multitude of problems
facing Canada's immigration system.
In an advanced copy of her new immigration and refugee
protection act, not yet tabled in the House, it is apparent that
the Liberals will not close the door to bogus asylum seekers and
people traffickers. Instead the Liberals are throwing the door
wide open.
The definition of refugee is slated to be expanded and
entrenched in the law with an entirely new category called
“people in need of protection”. This definition goes well
beyond that required by the United Nations' definition. The new
immigration and refugee protection act does outline increased
fines and penalties for the crime of people smuggling but these
mean nothing without credible sentencing. Sentencing in Canada
is anything but credible.
Recent statistics from the Canadian Centre for Justice
Statistics indicate that between 1995 and 1998 only 14 charges
have ever been made under section 94.1 of the Immigration Act.
Section 94.1 states:
—every person who knowingly organizes, includes, aids or
abets...the coming into Canada of a person without valid
documents required by the law is guilty of an offence and liable:
on conviction to a fine not over $100,000 or to imprisonment for
not more than five years, or both
and
on summary conviction, to a fine not over $10,000 or to
imprisonment of not more than one year.
During the last five years nobody charged under section 94.1 of
the Immigration Act for people smuggling has served one day in
jail.
According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, the
toughest penalty handed down for an individual convicted was a
$4,000 fine and one year probation. No wonder our immigration
system is the laughing stock of the world.
1715
Canada needs to be recruiting the world's best and brightest
while allowing legitimate refugees to enter Canada and acquire
citizenship in a timely and fair manner. While the citizenship
act is in need of review, our immigration system is in dire
straits and needs immediate attention. The government must focus
its attention on priority areas like immigration. Let us get our
immigration system up and running effectively. Then we can deal
with citizenship.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I compliment my colleague and friend on his speech. I
agree entirely that Canada should be seeking the best and the
brightest and opening its doors to those refugees genuinely in
need.
On that particular point I found this debate and some of the
questions coming out of it rather frustrating and disappointing.
We talked about the needs of Canadians. Canadian communities,
such as many of those in my own constituency, have a need for
doctors to replace those who have left because of the disastrous
effects of the government's intervention in the medicare system.
Replacing them with doctors who are qualified and willing to come
is difficult because of the bureaucratic logjam in Immigration
Canada and its unwillingness to do anything to move the process
along at anything more than the slowest speed possible.
I have also listened to people talk about justifying the
admission of illegal refugees on the basis that Canada does not
have enough offices to process them overseas. I find that
ridiculous. Legislation should once in a while be geared to the
needs of Canadians.
Does my colleague have any comments on how this legislation
might focus on the economic and social needs of Canadians and not
simply pander to the needs, legitimate and otherwise, of those
who are not Canadians and who only wish that they were?
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, Canadians in general as I said
earlier, do believe that Canada's most valuable asset is its
people. It is a legitimate requirement that Canada in its desire
to grow and become the most competitive nation in the world seek
out the brightest and best qualified people to come to Canada.
Having said that, there is a legitimate need to recognize that
some people do come to Canada as legitimate refugees. The UN has
a declaration on refugee status and it is very explicit. This
bill has gone one step further in stating that Canada would also
take in people who, I guess by some declaration, say that they
are people in need.
As I have been able to travel around the world, there are many
people in other countries who would love to live in Canada and
have the opportunities that we have here. The fact is that those
people are citizens of other countries and they cannot simply
come to Canada just to improve their own economic status. There
is a responsibility that goes along with being a Canadian citizen
and Canadians understand that. The legislation should focus on
dealing with the responsibility of being a Canadian, what it
means and include in it the aspirations that people want to have
down the road.
The first thing that should be done is we should deal with the
immigration system itself. We should address the problems that
we saw last year in British Columbia. We should deal with the
boatloads of people who are not legitimate refugees. They just
said, “Canada sounds like a nice place to go to, let us go to
Canada”.
They paid an exorbitant amount of money to come here. It was
through illegal means that they arrived in Canada. Those people
are still being held up by the process that this country has
developed.
1720
We have to deal with that. We have to deal with people
smuggling. We have to deal with the real problems that Canadians
are concerned about. We have to improve the immigration system.
Every single member in the House, no matter what political
viewpoint, are all proud Canadians. We have a responsibility to
the people of Canada to deal with the problems facing Canadians.
Immigration is a disaster and everyone in the House knows it.
That is what we should be focusing on.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yes, the long suffering Immigration Act and Citizenship Act.
Even though Bill C-16 is designated as the Citizenship Act and
amendments to it, it reflects quite frequently on the Immigration
Act itself. If we are intending on fixing the Citizenship Act,
the matter that precedes it is the Immigration Act and all of its
faults.
When Reform first came to the House in 1994, immigration was on
the plate. It was an issue that was debated at length by the
Reform Party. We dared to bring up this topic. We dared to
introduce some different ideas in spite of all the criticism that
was hurled our way. Much of that criticism was an attempt not
only by the government side but by special interests in the
community that had a direct ear to the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration at that time and still do—
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Immigration lawyers and consultants.
Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, the lawyers and consultants had a
vested interest in keeping the situation the way it was. It was
a moneymaker for so many. Unfortunately things have not improved
all that much. The consultants still exist and are making piles
of money from it. The lawyers are still making piles of money
from it. For what and to whose advantage? Is it for the
advantage of the Canadian people? No, it has never been to their
advantage.
The people in this country have never had input into any
discussion on the Immigration Act. They have never had any input
into any provision or amendment. Why? Because there has been a
vested interest on the part of the Liberal government since 1993,
the time that we have been in the House, to lean toward those who
have that very special consideration: the consultants, the
lawyers and anyone else who is part of that industry.
Things have not changed. The amendments in Bill C-16 do not
deal with that problem. The changes that are coming up in the
new Immigration Act do not deal with the problem of interference.
When I took office as a member of parliament in 1993 I was
somewhat shocked to find that 70% to 80% of my work related to
immigration matters. Immigration has become a political
football. If we oppose it, we are criticized severely and called
every name in the book. If we say there is something wrong with
the act, our opponents say we are criticizing immigrants or that
we are being discriminatory. That is the accusation made.
Unfortunately that is a smokescreen. It is an abuse of a position
to hurl those kinds of insults at someone who is just trying to
straighten out a problem that most people in the country know
exists but are not quite sure how it all comes together.
When dealing with issues on immigration, the quickest way to
come up with an act that is suitable for people is to include
them. New immigrants, those who have been here for 20 years and
those who were born here should be included.
The government would be very surprised in what it found out.
1725
One of the biggest complaints about the Immigration Act, even
relating to the Citizenship Act and certainly dealing with the
refugee system, is that many immigrants who do come here would
like to bring their relatives over to visit from time to time.
That is a fair request. They would like to bring their relatives
over but time and time again they have been denied that
privilege.
Why would they be denied bringing their relatives to visit them
here in Canada? It is because of an interpretation in one court
case by a supreme court justice which has never been challenged.
If a person comes here and claims refugee status, no one can send
him back. That is a fact. No one can send him back. Even though
he may have come on a visitors visa and decided to stay, he
cannot be turned back or refused if he says, “I am a refugee”.
Unfortunately that very specific court ruling has never been
challenged. It is high time that it was because the immigrants
in my riding, and I have many, would like their friends and
relatives to visit them even if it is in the case of sickness.
But because of that very foolish interpretation many of them are
denied that very special privilege.
When talking about a family, that is a provision that could
change to allow a stronger family and certainly a much better
position on strengthening the family.
What else is wrong which this act does not address? We could
cross-reference this act to the Immigration Act because they go
hand in glove.
It is high time that we changed the visitors visas and
introduced a system where cash bonds could be placed. Anyone who
refused to return would have to forfeit the bond. It would pay
for any court case that came along. This would address a major
concern in my riding at least and would make a lot of people much
more comfortable.
I am going to go back to the refugee system. I think it is the
most flawed area in immigration. There are so many queue jumpers
who use the refugee system to enter this country. The issue is
not being addressed in a very effective way.
This was a battle in 1993, in 1994, and in fact it has even
existed much longer than that. It was one that we took up when we
came into office in 1994. We fought diligently to have some
reasonable changes made to the Immigration Act to deal with the
refugee determination system.
Lo and behold very little has changed. Bill C-16 talks about
patronage appointments through the citizenship process. That
permeates the whole immigration system. Not only does it deal
with the citizenship process, the judges and those doing the
evaluations, but it also deals with the Immigration and Refugee
Board. Nothing has changed. I believe it has even gotten worse
and and has been pushed down out of sight because no one wants to
talk about it much any more. Needless to say, when we do not
talk about it on this side, the government refuses to clean up
any of the problems that exist.
Let us look at the immigration and refugee act. If that hole is
plugged, I believe that a lot of immigrants who are in the
process of trying to immigrate to this country through the normal
legal channels will feel a lot better about the process. They
look at others who have jumped the queue, who have come in
through the back door via the refugee system. They become very
irritated and as a result they too begin to look for other ways
of entering the country.
1730
I will now talk about the issue of sovereignty. We on the west
coast of this country have experienced boatloads of people
arriving on our shores. These people are not refugees but
illegals who have come in through this whole process of smuggling
people, which has severely tarnished the immigration process in
Canada.
People smugglers have not been dealt with in a severe manner in
any way, shape or form. They should be taught that this is not
acceptable. Unfortunately, the government of the day refuses to
tighten up the laws in this area. Enforcement and court action
are the keys to this problem. I can only call on the government
to examine those processes before it deals in any substantive way
with the citizenship issue.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In the spirit of co-operation, I have consulted with members of all
parties and wonder if there might be unanimous consent, if you were
to seek it, Mr. Speaker, that we would extend, by no more than five
minutes, to complete the question and comment period for the member for
Calgary Northeast. It is my understanding that we would then put the
question and the matter would be deferred.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed for
another five minutes, at the end of which we will put the
question on the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member for Calgary Northeast as he was talking
about the Chinese migrant boat people. I also dealt with that in
my remarks. As a member of the citizenship and immigration
committee, we certainly heard about it over and over again,
mostly from the members of the Reform Party.
It is true that when the first boatload of people landed on the
shores of the west coast, the Reform Party members had a press
conference demanding that the boat be turned around and sent back
in its present state. They did not even want to give them a new
boat. They just wanted to send them back where they came from,
obviously not recognizing the 1985 supreme court ruling that once
people have laid their feet on this soil they do have a right to
a hearing.
Obviously the Reform Party members wanted to be judge and jury
both. They wanted to take one look at these people and claim
they were not refugees because they did not deem them to be
refugees as they did not look like us and send them back to where
they came from without even a hearing. This is absolutely absurd
because everybody has a right to due process and a hearing, and
that is exactly what is going on right now.
I do not expect the member for Calgary Northeast, who has not
sat on that committee for a long time, to be fully up to speed on
what people are doing to deal with this issue. However, for the
member for Calgary Northeast to say that nothing is being done
about people smuggling and nothing is being done to deal with the
backlog of these desperate migrants who have washed up on the
west coast, is absolute baloney.
These people have been locked up and are awaiting hearings. They
are being dealt with one by one. In the hearings so far it has
been found that most of them do not fit the category of refugee
and they are being sent back to where they came from, to the
Fujian province. Five or six have been found to be genuine
refugees and they are being welcomed into our country.
For the hon. member to stand up and help fan the flames of
hatred in this country with misinformation like that is
inexcusable. I personally will not sit here and listen to it. I
hear it too much on the immigration committee as it is. These
members are the architects of the misinformation that is actually
turning into an anti-immigration movement in this country built
around 500 or 600 desperate people who are seeking a better life
on our shores.
I notice there is an organization now called the Canada First
Immigration Reform Committee. I am just wondering if there is
any connection with the Reform Party because these hate-mongers
are saying exactly the same thing as this political party, and
there is also the commonality with the names. I am just
wondering if they are not more constitutionally connected or
associated.
That will be my question. Is there a direct connection between
the Reform Party and the Canada First Immigration Reform
Committee, which is the purveyor of hate in this country when it
comes to anti-immigration?
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any
specific comment that I made during my presentation that involved
hate.
1735
I and members of my party do not belong to any organization, nor
do we have any ties to any other organization that espouses hate.
I am surprised at the member's comments. I feel ashamed for him
as a member of parliament trying to impugn that kind of response
to this party. None has been placed on his party over any other
issue such as this. I do not think it deserves the dignity of an
answer when he puts it in that form.
I will put it in a way that all in the House will recognize. The
Reform Party wants to see a good, honest, fair immigration
process. That is what we are asking for. We have never said
anything about not having a good, honest, fair immigration
process or a refugee process. We want to see refugees come from
those areas in the world where they are truly refugees as defined
by the U.N., not gate-crashers.
If that is what this member from the NDP party is trying to
portray, I say “absolutely not”. We have set ourselves apart.
Sure, we have dared to talk about the immigration policy in this
country because it needed to be talked about. It should involve
the people in this country and not just fan the flames of anger.
There is a party that just did.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments
has now expired. I understand the disposition of the House is to
proceed with the question on this bill. Is the House ready for
the question.
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have received
notice from the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington that he is
unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Friday,
March 24.
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in
the order of precedence. Accordingly, I am directing the table
officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order
of precedence.
Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and the House will
continue with the business before it prior to private members'
hour.
It being 5.38 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
The House resumed from December 15, 1999, consideration of the
motion and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The last time the motion was debated
an amendment to the amendment was moved by the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. The
Deputy Speaker had reservations about whether it was in order
and took the matter under advisement.
Since then, the Chair was able to look into the matter and is
now ready to make a ruling on the amendment to the amendment.
First, I wish to remind the members of the House of the wording
of the amendment to the amendment.
Amendments to amendments must flow strictly from the amendment
and try to amend it, they must not flow from the original
question. They cannot go beyond the amendment, introduce new
issues having nothing to do with it, or differ substantially
from the amendment.
Since this amendment to the amendment does not meet these
criteria, I declare that it is out of order.
1740
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the amendment to
the motion proposed by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst with
respect to workers in seasonal industries.
The nature of this amendment, which seeks to substitute the
immediate action component of Motion No. 222, helps all of us
understand exactly what the government is trying to do. It is
trying to delay further and this delay is dangerous. This
amendment to review employment insurance benefits for seasonal
workers is yet another cheap stalling tactic by the Liberal
government.
The motion proposes immediate action. We have been asking for
that for a very long time as have seasonal workers. Even the
delegates to the Liberal convention know it is right. They
introduced a resolution calling on the government to remove
intensity provisions which claw back benefits for seasonal
workers who repeatedly draw employment insurance.
The board of referees of employment insurance in Sydney also
know it, especially when they are forced to deny appeals by
workers even though they “feel the claimant and many more like
her are being penalized by section 15 of the EI Act and would
like the powers that be to have a serious look at the act and
some kind of restructuring in the near future”.
It is pretty clear to me and everybody except the government to
understand that many seasonal workers are seasonal workers not by
choice but because the very nature of their work is seasonal. In
other words, the cycle which causes seasonal workers to apply
numerous times for EI benefits is not the choice of the workers.
It is a part of their working conditions.
Seasonal workers, their families and their children cannot wait
for the government to figure out that it is only their work that
is seasonal. Their needs for housing, food and clothing is not
seasonal. The need to get by, day by day, with dignity is not
seasonal. It is a basic right.
In my part of the country, looking at the most recent stats
available from Statistics Canada, we can see that seasonal
employment causes huge changes in the monthly unemployment rate
where it has been as high as 20.6% in January 1999 down to 14.1%
in August. By December 1999 the unemployment rate in Cape Breton
had climbed back to over 20%. In our region where many workers
depend on seasonal industries, even our lowest monthly
unemployment rate is still much higher than the national average.
By cutting benefits to seasonal workers, the government is
directly reducing the quality of life for the hundreds of
thousands of people who are employed in seasonal industries in
this country.
In my riding of Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, there are many people
who depend on seasonal employment. Any Liberal who crosses the
Canso tells anybody who will listen that it will be tourism that
will save the economy of the island, that it will be tourism that
will provide employment for all. Tourism is a seasonal industry.
It is my colleagues and I in the NDP who recognize that although
tourism might provide a much needed push to the economy, if EI
benefits for seasonal workers are not restored immediately the
net gain will not be as big as the Liberals would like Cape
Bretoners to believe. On one hand, it pushes for an industry
that will provide seasonal work, but with the other it takes away
the dignity that those workers deserve. The government should be
ashamed of its attempts to sneak out the back door of its
responsibility to encourage and promote economic development in
Cape Breton.
Seasonal workers are not some marginal part of the workforce.
They are an integral part of the workforce and they deserve to be
treated with dignity. Most of the seasonal workers who have been
affected by the cuts live in rural regions of the country. It is
the rural regions that have really been suffering under the
Liberal government's slash and burn tactics over the last few
years and they are certainly not the beneficiaries of last
month's budget tax cuts.
We must stop the marginalization of seasonal workers and we must
stop it now. We should not need a lengthy review before benefits
are restored to seasonal workers. I know I do not need that. We
need to restore those benefits now.
Do we need to have a debate about the problems that seasonal
workers face? Yes. Do we need to examine these problems indepth
and create long term plans to reduce the recurring cycle of
unemployment that seasonal workers face? Yes. Do we need to
delay restoring Employment Insurance benefits by reviewing
benefits? No. We need to restore benefits now.
We need to commit ourselves to an extended debate here in the
House and across the country in communities where people depend
on seasonal employment. I would not disagree with the principle
that the amendment in Motion No. 222 proposes, that is that we
need to review EI benefits to seasonal workers, but first we need
to restore benefits.
1745
Seasonal workers will not be fooled by any attempts the
government makes to increase its popularity in time for an
election. The Liberal government's record shows that it deserted
seasonal workers. The Liberals should be more concerned with
rectifying an unjust and discriminatory policy than improving
their lot at the polls.
It is through support of Motion No. 222 without the amendment,
so that benefits to seasonal workers are restored immediately.
The Liberals have a chance to improve their record. Who knows
what it will do for them in the polls? Frankly, who cares?
The important thing is ensuring year round quality of life for
all Canadians. Therefore I move:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following words after
the word “review”, “in country wide-public hearings”.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair finds the proposed
amendment to the amendment in order.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you
for the opportunity to speak on this motion, the amendment and
the subamendment which calls on the government to restore
employment insurance benefits to seasonal workers.
I should say from the outset that while I do not agree with the
motion as it is currently worded, I would support it should it be
amended as proposed by the member for Miramichi.
I also cannot support the subamendment just proposed because I
can think of nothing that would slow down more the kinds of
changes that the mover of the original motion is looking for than
the requirement for cross-country hearings. All that testimony
would have to be collected, all that testimony would have to be
analyzed. It would cost the government a lot of money and the
main thing is it would cost parliament a lot of time.
I share the concern of the member for Acadie—Bathurst for the
well-being of Canadian seasonal workers. I must disagree with
the phrasing of his motion as it now reads. The fact is that
seasonal workers in Canada do have access to employment insurance
benefits. Why then should we adopt a motion calling on such
benefits to be restored?
I would like to take a few minutes to share some ideas and
insights on how EI might do an even better job of helping
unemployed workers, including seasonal workers, to improve their
employability, to return to work and to prepare for the
challenges of our new economy. As members know, these have been
key priorities for the government since our very first day in
office.
For example, we have worked hard to spur economic growth and to
promote job creation. Canada's strong economic and job growth
statistics suggest that we have made considerable progress in
this area. Last year alone 400,000 jobs were created, 85% of
which were full time. Moreover, the national unemployment rate
has dropped to 6.8%.
During 1998 jobs for young workers increased 5.3%, the strongest
showing on record, while jobs for women increased over 3.2%, the
biggest rise in a decade. We are also focusing our efforts on
helping those workers who are out of work. In some cases this
has meant setting up new programs. In other cases it has meant
making sure existing programs really help unemployed workers.
1750
When we looked at the old unemployment system, we realized
something had to be done since the rising cost was not
sustainable over time. It was not keeping pace with the new
labour market and its demands. It sometimes discouraged people
from working and encouraged them to become dependent on benefits,
and it treated some workers unfairly, like part time and seasonal
workers.
As a result we introduced the new employment insurance system
which is designed to do five things. First, to be sustainable.
Second, to be fairer by opening up access to many workers,
including seasonal and part time workers who were not previously
protected. Third, to encourage work and discourage reliance on
benefits. Fourth, to target those most in need and, fifth, to
help workers get back to work faster and stay employed longer.
While EI seeks to help all unemployed workers, we also recognize
that some groups such as seasonal workers have special
circumstances that must be addressed. EI therefore contains
features that particularly benefit seasonal workers. For
example, the hours based system takes into account the special
nature of seasonal work which often involves long hours of work
per week. As a result many seasonal workers find it easier to
qualify, receive higher benefits, and collect benefits longer.
Our small weeks pilot projects make it possible for many
seasonal workers to take all the work that is available and
provide them with higher weekly benefits.
Family supplements help low income families with children, many
of whom depend on seasonal work or the fishery. By topping up
benefits and exempting them from the intensity rule, over 200,000
Canadian families benefited from this supplement last year.
Reflecting its importance, our expenditures in this area
increased from about $105 million to nearly $150 million. In
addition, EI's active employment measures help many seasonal
workers upgrade their skills so they can get back to work
quickly, or go into another line of work. This was underlined by
the recently released third annual EI monitoring and assessment
report which found that frequent users, of which seasonal workers
form a significant share, have in fact benefited from features
introduced since 1996.
Frequent claimants received about 43% of all regular and fishing
benefits, up from 41% the year before. Benefits paid to
unemployed workers in most seasonal industries increased
substantially with the highest increases taking place in fishing
and trapping. Those benefits were up 70%, and in mining, oil and
gas they were up 52%.
Weekly benefits for frequent claimants, which were already
higher than the average, increased again from $303 to $305, in
contrast to the declines in weekly benefits seen in the two
previous years. While the entitlement of frequent and seasonal
claimants declined from 33.4 weeks to 32.8 weeks, this was still
three weeks more than in 1995-96, thus indicating the positive
impact of the switch to an hours based system. In addition, our
eligibility system is reducing the impact of the intensity rule
for many workers. They are finding the extra hours of work
needed to qualify for EI and are receiving higher benefits than
before, 8% higher than the average for regular benefits.
I urge all members to work with us to ensure that EI does the
best possible job of helping unemployed workers return to work
quickly, including seasonal benefits.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
listening to the parliamentary secretary, one would think that
the government did not have any money when it comes down to the
high rate that is charged to businesses and workers for these
much reduced benefits. The government is pleading poverty where
it need not. It could use some of that extra money it is taking
to study the thing.
I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on this important
issue. Although we may not agree on the solution to ensuring
that seasonal workers have incomes adequate to meet their needs
and aspirations, I do appreciate the concerns that motivated my
colleague for Acadie—Bathurst to make this motion.
1755
The hon. member stated in his speech that his motion was meant
to achieve two objectives. The first is to reform employment
insurance and the second is to stimulate proposals to diversify
Canada's seasonal economy. Both objectives are laudable in and
of themselves, but the text of his motion calls for the immediate
restoration of employment insurance benefits to seasonal workers.
I believe that the effect of his motion, if adopted, would be to
stifle any efforts to find solutions to the structural problems
currently forcing many workers into the seasonal economy.
Neither workers nor the companies that have benefited from easy
access to EI would have the will to make any effort to search for
constructive solutions to the problem. There would be neither
any pressure nor any incentive to make the changes he wants to
see.
The hon. member rightly points out that most seasonal workers
are not in favour of the seasonal nature of their jobs.
Nevertheless saying it does not address the problem. There are
businesses that by their very nature are seasonal. The obvious
ones are in forestry, agriculture, tourism, fishing and
construction. Some of these sectors pay their workers very well
and those who choose to work in them are able to bridge the gaps
in their employment. I have personally spoken to some people in
that category. Other sectors are not able to pay enough to
enable workers to make ends meet when there is a break in their
employment and I have also spoken to many people in that
category. The problem is not simple, but in fact extremely
complex.
There are many factors that contribute to the seasonal economy.
An abundance of seasonal jobs could be an indicator of a sector
of the economy in decline or it could equally indicate an
emerging sector of the economy. Take for instance just two
examples.
A local economic development authority may decide it wants to
focus on tourism which is actually an emerging sector in my
hometown. At first the emphasis was on the things it knew. Sport
fishing, for instance, is a summer activity that the community
has built on over a number of years and guided hunting is a fall
activity in the same way. These were sufficient to maintain a
small hospitality sector that was subject to seasonal employment
variations. In recent years, through the development of
cross-country skiing and snowmobile trails, the sector has
expanded its infrastructure and extended the seasons in which
work is available. This has had a positive effect on the local
economy and of course the employment picture. These innovations,
while possible, would not have been driven by business or
employment considerations in an environment that failed to reward
creative solutions to the problems facing businesses in the
region.
Returning employment insurance to its previous function in the
seasonal economy would act as a reverse incentive to the search
for ways to build and diversify local economies.
There are many factors that are considered by businesses when
they decide where to locate or when to expand. Among them are
location, transportation, amenities, infrastructure, educational
and cultural opportunities, recreation and housing.
The other factors businesses consider are the incentives such as
government subsidies and grants. Employment insurance for many
years has been a tool of government to subsidize businesses,
allowing them to reduce their workforces in times of reduced
economic activities and to recall them when prospects improve.
This has enabled businesses to avoid making long term commitments
to their workers and encouraged workers to stay in depressed
areas of Canada and in uneconomic sectors of the economy that are
dependent on government for their survival.
In my previous life I was a businessman and I have firsthand
knowledge of these matters. A part time worker of mine who was,
by the way, one of the best workers I ever had, finally left to
take full time employment in another part of Canada and in a
different sector of the economy. He is happy with the change
even though it meant major changes in his life. He is one of
those people who wanted full time work but could not get it where
he was geographically located, nor in a sector in which he wanted
to work.
One of the reasons this loyal employee and friend left was due
to changes in the EI program. One of these changes relates to
the rule that differentiates between frequent and infrequent
recipients of benefits under the EI program. Sometimes this
works, but frequently it fails to produce the intended results.
As HRDC's 1998 EI Monitoring and Assessment Report stated:
Communities with high levels of seasonal employment were more
likely to have industries that showed declining benefits levels.
1800
This report was published three years after implementation of
the changes. The data used in its production would have been
collected well before that. Before considering any other changes
to the program it would be wise for the government to initiate
further studies to see if there have been significant shifts in
behaviour and attitude since then. It is a well known fact that
there is always considerable resistance to change and that
consistent monitoring and explanation of programs is vital to the
success of any initiative.
However, with respect to what I have just said, a 1999
assessment of the program tabled in the House yesterday has
confirmed that EI clients in Atlantic Canada and other parts of
Canada are continuing to use EI benefits to supplement their
incomes on a regular basis.
Other than what I just stated, there are other good reasons for
not making the changes proposed by the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst. The most dramatic, and I would argue the most
unwarranted, change would be to make EI into a wage subsidy
program again rather than maintaining it as an insurance program.
Employment insurance should have as its primary goal protection
against involuntary temporary job loss. Any other purpose
militates against the program acting in accordance with insurance
principles.
My colleague, the hon. member from Wanuskewin, has identified
many of the problems and has suggested some solutions to the
problems facing workers and government in implementing changes to
the system. I want to restate and emphasize one of them.
Some industries have a pattern of laying off workers at the same
time each year. This takes advantage of EI as surely as a worker
who manages his work time in order to take maximum advantage of
the program. He suggests that differential premiums imposed on
such companies would be one method of motivating companies to
change their work patterns.
To lay the entire burden of the changes solely on the workforce
is to address only half of the problem. I do not know whether
such a scheme would be advisable or if it would work, but it
certainly deserves a look.
One other change the government could and should make is to
reduce the unconscionably high rates of employment insurance
premiums charged that really bear no relation to the benefits to
either workers or businesses. This tax on business chokes off
the entrepreneurial spirit that creates the good jobs which will
withstand seasonal variations and have a strong demand throughout
the year.
I believe that the evidence points to the need to do a thorough
review of aspects of employment insurance, with particular
emphasis on the intensity rule.
I will be supporting the motion as amended, although it would
have been far preferable to have the matter referred to the
appropriate standing committee for study and recommendation.
I would rather have seen included in the NDP amendment a call
for immediate action so that it would not depend on the leisure
time that the minister might decide to devote to it at some point
in the future.
It needs to be dealt with, and I thank the House for the
opportunity to address this very important issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion brought
forward by my friend, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
It is a very serious and very important issue, particularly for
maritime communities, such as the Gaspé Peninsula, where I come
from. The Gaspé Peninsula is a resource region where forestry
and fishing are important sectors. These two resources alone
indicate that we very much have to follow the seasons. It is not
our fault. We are trying to diversify our economy.
I would like to have what it takes to diversify our economy, but
even if 5,000 or 10,000 jobs were created tomorrow in the Gaspé
Peninsula—and I am talking about manna from heaven that would
give us 10,000 permanent jobs, 52 weeks a year—that would not
change the fact that it is not easy to fish for lobster when the
ice is three feet thick on the bay in front of my home. There
are differences that people must understand.
I read the speeches of those who spoke previously. They talked
about dignity. When we are reduced to asking the members
opposite to recognize there is dignity in doing what the people
we represent do as an occupation, something is very wrong.
1805
Every normal person should understand that fishing and logging
have their place. Fishing is about feeding people. Logging is
about providing people with building materials. So, by
definition, these are noble trades.
I do not understand why it is these seasonal trades that have
suffered the most from this reform. I can understand that it is
frustrating for certain people who have the opportunity of
working all year round and who, on top of that, live in a
province that is a little richer, Ontario, not to mention any
names.
I will try to illustrate my point briefly because time flies.
Let us take the same technique used for fishermen, for example,
and apply it to the members of the House. Let us say that the
government decides, in Cabinet, to pay us weekly wages instead
of monthly or annual salaries as it does now.
As long as parliament is sitting, there is no problem, we would
get paid. But if, after passing such legislation—because there
are many stages in amending the Employment Insurance Act—the
government decided to reduce the number of months during which
we are now working—10 months at present—by two months the first
year, and by two other months every year thereafter, until we
ended up working no more than two months a year—I know this is an
exaggeration, but it is exactly what happened to the fishermen;
their pay was cut—what would the members opposite say if their
salary was taken from them in that way?
They would say that it is unfair. They would say “We have been
elected as members of parliament. We cannot accept another job.
It is illegal. All we have left is the two months the government
lets us sit”. When I left the House of Commons, I would not be
allowed to sell my services to help the fishers or the other
persons in my community; it would be illegal because I am a
member of parliament. So I have an occupational impediment.
Can people understand that when one is, let us say, a lobster
fisher, one must follow the rules set by the government
according to biological data. It is said that the lobster
fishing cycle cannot exceed 10 weeks and that is a verifiable
fact. But the government sets the rules.
I hear members saying “let them go catch something else”. That
is impossible, because the same government imposed a moratorium
on groundfish. “Well, then, let them catch something else,
herring”. Fine, but for that, one has to have the right
license. So, the government that creates impediments is the one
telling us to go do something else. Unfortunately, that is
impossible.
Are we prepared to outlaw eating lobster in Canada and to say
that from now on there will be no more lobster fishery? Are
Canadians prepared to do that?
Some will say that I am exaggerating, but I am not, really. When
we look at the fishing industry, of course, it takes a fisher
and his helper in a boat. That is one thing.
People will say “They are going to work for 10 weeks”. But the
fisher who leaves at 3 a.m. and comes back in the afternoon is
looking forward to taking his boots off, as we say back home. He
needs a rest. So, somebody else handles and unloads his lobster.
Somebody else will process the lobsters in the plant before it
ends up on your plate, in your favourite restaurant or in your
nice comfortable home.
If these people move to the city in search of work, who will
process the lobsters for your consumption?
There is a chance workers might not get the number of hours
needed to qualify for employment insurance.
1810
What I just showed is that the ten week rule is too restrictive.
In some fisheries, people manage to get by. I will name another
fishery, the crab fishery, which is even more dicey in terms of
the moulting cycle of the species.
Some years, the fishing season does not even last six weeks.
When the fishermen go out to sea in the spring, how are they do
know whether mother nature will cause the waters to warm up fast
and the great white to moult sooner. Therefore, in areas with an
unemployment rate over 13%, plant workers need 420 hours if they
have already qualified.
It can be difficult to work 420 hours in six weeks. If one works
40 hours a week, that is a total of 240 hours. That is not
enough to meet the 420 hour requirement.
When she gave an explanation a few moments ago, the
parliamentary secretary said that the number of hours can be a
good thing. Let us not forget that it always depends on the
unemployment rate in a particular region. If the unemployment
rate in my region exceeds 13%, I will have to work 420 hours; if
it is 12%, I will have to work 455 hours, and so on.
Let us take the example of someone working as a crab fisher near
an urban centre like Rimouski. Members will say that that person
has an occupation and should get the same thing as the others.
But no.
If the unemployment rate in the Rimouski area is around 10%, it
may take 680 hours for that person to become eligible.
That means that we could see certain categories of occupations
disappear in certain regions. That is why I made that proposal,
to give people food for thought. If we no longer want this to be
covered by the employment insurance program, why not define what
a seasonal occupation is and then try to find an appropriate
program? Otherwise, we will have to say that we are willing to
see those occupations disappear.
I will make another proposal. While we determine which jobs are
seasonal ones, we should consider which tools we can offer to
these fishers who will have to learn to live on six weeks of
work with no employment insurance if they no longer qualify.
Would the government consider prohibiting any imports of
crustaceans or of goods now produced in Canada? No one would be
allowed to import these products and Canadians would have to pay
big money to get these products from our fishers, because we
have not supported them. This is conceivable. Is the government
prepared to do that? But it says “No, this is free trade, this
is globalization”.
Is the Canadian government saying that, because of
globalization, fishers in the Gaspe Peninsula will be paid the
same as Filipino fishermen, who live in a warm, sunny country
and who can get by on little food because they do not have to
contend with a northern climate? They are paid $15 a week. Do
members know how much it costs to shop for groceries now? A
litre of milk costs the same in Hull as it does in Gaspé. In
that sense, why would people in the Gaspe not be entitled to the
same amount?
In short, I urge the House to take a serious look at the hon.
member's proposal, and I invite members opposite, particularly
those from Ontario, to accept to share the wealth with those who
helped build this country, at least as long as we are still part
of it.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, I too am
pleased to take part in the debate on a motion by a colleague
from New Brunswick who represents a riding with a very high rate
of unemployment. We all know which former MP and former minister
used to represent that riding. I think that everyone remembers
him when the subject of employment insurance reform comes up. He
is none other than Doug Young.
1815
During the last election campaign, Doug Young found out what
people in the very high unemployment areas thought about his
reform. We have seen the impact of that reform on individuals
and families in those areas. I would like to congratulate my
colleague for Acadie—Bathurst for his motion.
When I first came to this House in 1997, as one of the MPs from
my party on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, I
presented a motion at its first meeting. I asked the committee
to carry out an immediate assessment of employment insurance
reform. My colleague over the way, the parliamentary secretary,
was also on that committee. She surely remembers that motion by
a newly arrived young MP.
Unfortunately, the motion was defeated. Today, here we are
still at the study and assessment stage, when we could have made
real changes.
[English]
Years have gone by since this reform, and I have to say that
people have lost their homes. People have seen their families
divided. In many cases it was because of the stresses that were
brought on them. Monetary stress and lack of employment
certainly were contributors. In these regions the government is
responsible for this because the reform has hurt Canadians and
has hurt seasonal workers.
There are regions of Canada that have economies that are
different from the others. My region of New Brunswick has many
seasonal workers. There are people who work in the forest
industry. We have difficult winters. These are realities. There
are not all types of industries popping up every day. When the
government brought in the reform it did not pay attention to
these very seasonal workers.
My colleague from South Shore, Nova Scotia is here. He has
brought to my attention many, many files of people who are
looking for work, people who are running out of employment
insurance, people who have nowhere else to go and have no choice
but to go on income assistance and wait until that industry
re-opens.
It is pretty sad when the surplus in employment insurance is
pegged at about $25 billion. Last year and recently too, the
Minister of Finance bragged in the House about the balanced
budget. That budget without the $25 billion employment insurance
account would not be balanced at all. Certainly there is an
imbalance.
I read the report that was tabled in the House yesterday by the
minister. It is frustrating to read these things. One of the
civil servants who worked on the reform to employment insurance
was in my office at the very beginning. He told me that people
from Atlantic Canada should get a job like he did, just to give
hon. members the idea.
There is a minister over there from P.E.I. We all know who he
is.
He has in his own riding people who are suffering from this
reform and he has the gall to stand here and laugh at what we are
saying. It is unbelievable. He should be standing and defending
those very people.
1820
I read a report which said that many people may be faking
illness when they quit their jobs. Imagine. It is typical
though. I am not surprised. They are faking their illness.
Nurses across the country have been cut back, slashed and have to
do the work that two nurses used to do. They are burnt out and
yes, some must call in sick. However the report says people are
faking.
[Translation]
In the employment insurance assessment report, the statement is
made that “overall, we can say that there are indications that
some elements of the reform are working relatively well”.
I must tell you that, when I see people in my riding office,
people who have lost their homes, families that have been split
up, and when I look at the comments in the evaluation, I wonder
if these are the government's indications that the reform is
working well. It is absolutely incredible.
The report also says “That is why the Government of Canada made
a legislative commitment to monitor and assess the impacts of
the reform for five years”. It says “monitor and assess”. What
the member for Acadie—Bathurst is asking for is this:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
immediate action to restore Employment Insurance benefits to
seasonal workers.
The motion says immediate.
Here is a typical amendment by a member of the government that
introduced the reform. Note the difference. It goes like this:
That the government should...review the issue of employment
insurance benefits for seasonal workers.
Here, we have the word review.
With people suffering since the reform, the government still
wants to “review” what happened. I can tell the House that we
have been hearing what the Liberal government wants to do with
an election in the offing; it wants to review the matter.
I can also tell the House that Canadians have not forgotten what
happened. The government thinks that the Atlantic provinces
have forgotten as well, but it is mistaken. The people of these
provinces have not forgotten Doug Young; they have not forgotten
EI reform.
As a member, I will make it my business to see that they
remember what the government did to them. That is my intention.
We must protect Canadians throughout this country. There must
be a balance.
Balance seems to be lacking in this reform. We have a great
country. We are trying to build a strong country. We are
trying to keep the country together. There are many
differences, various cultures, and different regions with
differing resources.
If we want to succeed as a country, we must focus on balance.
What the government has done is unacceptable, and I once again
congratulate the member for Acadie—Bathurst on his motion.
1825
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
1996 Liberal government changes to UIC did three things. They
made it harder to qualify for benefits, they reduced benefits so
there was less money per week, and they shortened the period of
time that benefits could be collected. The predictable result of
all this is now the EI fund shows a surplus of $600 million a
month, not per year, per month. Some $7.2 billion per year is
being taken out of the employment insurance fund and being denied
as benefits to the people who need it most, the most vulnerable,
to be used for whatever the Liberal government likes.
What does that mean in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, the third
poorest riding in the country? It takes $20.8 million a year out
of my riding. It is sucked right out of there down to Ottawa.
Money that used to be transferred to Winnipeg for the use of
income maintenance for desperately unemployed and poor people no
longer comes to my riding. Imagine the impact that has on a
relatively small community like my riding. Imagine what we would
do if we could attract a business that had a payroll of $20.8
million. We could pave the streets with gold to attract them to
our riding. The inverse is also true. The impact is the same in
reverse when it gets pulled out. And that is just Winnipeg
Centre.
In St. John's, Newfoundland, $75 million a year is pulled out
just by the 1996 changes. I wish my colleague from Montreal were
still here. There is $512 million a year less in income
maintenance for the unemployed in the city of Montreal alone.
This was by design of the Liberal government so that it could use
the employment insurance fund as a cash cow, as a revenue
generator, so that it could use the money for whatever it wanted
to and certainly for anything but income maintenance for
unemployed people.
These changes have left some staggering statistics. Less than
40% of unemployed workers now qualify for any EI benefits. What
kind of insurance fund is that if people have a less than 40%
chance of ever collecting? Less than 25% of women, as verified
in a recent report, qualify for any benefits. Less than 11% of
young women qualify for any benefits. What kind of a program
could possibly survive such a failure to achieve its mandate for
what it was set out to do? Less than 15% of youth qualify for
any benefits.
The point I am trying to make is this system is broken. It is
busted. The wheels have fallen off it and Canadians know that.
Therefore the motion of the member for Acadie—Bathurst is
absolutely appropriate, timely, practical and necessary. Every
member in the House should enthusiastically support it so we can
all take a look at the employment insurance system and see what
is wrong with it and hopefully put it back on track.
As I have said in the past, if money is taken off a person's
paycheque for a specific purpose and then is used for something
completely different, at best it is a breach of trust. In the
worst case scenario it is out and out fraud to tell workers that
money will be deducted from their cheques so that if they happen
to become unemployed they will qualify for a benefit and when
that worst case scenario happens and they find themselves
unemployed, we say “Sorry, the rules have changed. There is no
money, no income maintenance. Your family does without”. I
believe it is a breach of trust.
To add insult to injury, to take that money off workers'
paycheques, deny the benefits to the unemployed and then use the
money out of general revenues to give the wealthy a tax cut is
some perverted form of Robin Hood that robs from the poor and
gives to the rich. It is fundamentally wrong and Canadians will
not tolerate it.
Here are the changes we would like to see when the review comes
forward. At least 70% of all unemployed workers should be
receiving EI, at least 70%. Then we would know the program works
somewhat. Weekly benefits should be maintained at 60% of a
claimant's weekly pay. That is a basic. The divisor rule, the
intensity rule and the benefit clawbacks all have to be
eliminated. Those are the changes that were made which suck the
level of benefits down to such a ridiculously low level.
The EI fund must be separated from general revenues. It should
be its own independent, stand alone fund that is there for a
specific and dedicated purpose, which is to provide income
maintenance and possibly training for unemployed workers to help
get them back into the workforce.
1830
EI must not be used as a federal debt reduction instrument. It
must not be used for tax cuts. It must not be used for spending
on government programs. It is a dedicated insurance fund, nothing
more, nothing less. To use it for anything else is fraudulent
and a breach of trust.
The employment insurance system is in an emergency situation
right now. It does not work. It is broken and the wheels have
fallen off. Canadian workers know this. This is the second and
third year now that seasonal workers have had to deal with this
inadequate system. This is the second or third year in a row
that they have had to deal with reduced benefits.
I used to run the carpenters union and I know the people in that
union very well. There are examples of guys who entered the
system this year who are getting $120 a week as their benefit,
whereas two or three years ago they were receiving $425 a week.
That is the difference the intensity rule, the divisor rule and
the clawback rule make to seasonal construction workers who pay
into the fund.
I remember when I was a carpenter we would be paying $45 or $50
from every paycheque into the fund which was matched by our
employer so we would receive benefits when we happened to find
ourselves seasonally unemployed. That does not happen anymore.
Perhaps the most cynical thing the government did when it came
to the building trades was to no longer fund the apprenticeship
programs through EI. The government used to buy blocks of seats
at the community college so the apprentices could go to school
without having to pay tuition because they and their employers
were already paying every hour that they worked in the industry.
The government stopped that.
Today a first year carpenter's apprentice has to pay a $600 to
$800 tuition fee. He does not get his first two week waiting
period paid for anymore. There are no allowances for travel or
child care. All those have been eliminated. The government now
says that we need a national training strategy. Well it just
gutted a damn good national apprenticeship training strategy by
pulling the rug out from under it when it made these changes to
UIC in 1996.
All of these things combined add up to gross failure and all the
more reason why this motion is entirely appropriate, timely and
necessary.
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me
begin by saying that I am confident that members of all parties
will support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for
Miramichi which asks that the government take immediate action to
review the employment insurance benefits for seasonal workers.
Canada's economy is such that we have always had and always will
have seasonal industries. These industries are vital to our
economic well-being. However, these industries by definition
employ people for only part of the year. We must always remain
watchful to ensure that our economic and social programs do not
exclude those workers from the rewards and benefits of living and
working in Canada.
Let me remind the House that the Government of Canada introduced
employment insurance after long consultation and much
deliberation. Even then, we built in a monitoring and review
process that would report back each year for five years.
The new employment insurance package was aimed precisely at
ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all Canadian workers,
whether their work was seasonal, year round, part time or full
time.
Let us not forget the very good reasons why an extensive
redesign of the EI program was carried out. The old unemployment
insurance system was questioned for its sustainability. It was
not responsive to the new labour market that prevails in Canada.
It tended to discourage attachment to the labour force.
What is most pertinent to Motion No. 222 is the fact that the
system was unfair in its treatment of some workers, most notably
part time and seasonal workers.
The resulting employment insurance system is designed
specifically to be sustainable and fair, while encouraging work
and ensuring benefits are provided for those in the greatest
need. Of course the ultimate goal is to help workers get back to
work faster and stay employed longer.
EI also recognizes the reality of Canada's labour market where
seasonal workers are prevalent in certain industries. Seasonal
workers have particular needs and the program does indeed have
special features built in to assist seasonal workers. Is it
enough? Possibly not.
The hours based system takes into account the fact that seasonal
work often involves long hours of work per week. As a result,
many seasonal workers therefore find it easier to qualify and
receive higher benefits for longer periods.
1835
Another example is the introduction of small weeks pilot
projects. These would allow seasonal workers to take all work
that is available, even a few hours a week, without it resulting
in a lower benefit rate at their next claim.
Also, the family supplement targets low income families with
children by topping up their benefits each year. Those families
are also exempt from the application of the intensity rule which
normally reduces benefits for claimants who make repeated use of
employment insurance.
Then there are the active employment measures under the EI
program which are helping many seasonal workers upgrade their
skills, enabling them to get back into the workforce more
quickly.
The effects of the EI program are being monitored continuously.
There is a requirement for monitoring and assessment reports for
the five years following its introduction. Yesterday the
Minister of Human Resources Development tabled in the House the
third annual report, which showed that EI has affected frequent
claimants less than claimants overall and that benefits paid to
unemployed workers in most seasonal industries have increased
substantially. While the entitlement of frequent and seasonal
claimants declined from 33 weeks to 32 weeks, this was still
three weeks more than in 1995 when the EI regime was introduced.
In short, frequent and seasonal claimants appear to benefit from
the switch to an hours based eligibility system, even though
frequent and seasonal claimants often have fewer insured hours
during the year than other claimants.
I believe that the EI regime provides better coverage for
seasonal workers compared to the system it replaced. Is it
perfect? No, it is not. Is there room for improvement and
change? I hope so. As for providing for the well-being of all
Canadians, without doubt the government can stand on its record.
More than 427,000 were created last year alone and 85% of them
were full time jobs.
We need to make changes in the employment program, especially
for seasonal workers and those men and women in Atlantic Canada
who work in the fisheries. We need to find some improvements. I
look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that
happens.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When the bill next
comes to the House, the hon. member will have, if she desires,
about six minutes remaining in debate.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 6.38 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.)